Spectre557, I've noticed a few of your arguments that I feel I can try to answer. Bear in mind through this that I've only been a Christian for about a year, so I would not be surprised to find myself being wrong on the finer points of theology. I would also like to say right at the start that I think both belief and non-belief in Christianity are intellectually defensible positions. I am not trying to convert you to Christianity (although I would of course be overjoyed if you did convert), I am simply trying to clear up a few things that I find illogical or factually wrong in the specific arguments you have presented here.
First, your questions about God.
Who experiences strikingly human emotions?
It would stand to reason, if God created us, and if He gave us emotions, that those emotions would be similar in form to His own emotions. It isn't that God experiences strikingly human emotions, it is instead that we experience strikingly God-like emotions.
Not the apparent impossibility of an omnipotent and omniscient God that allows evil?
Allowing evil is a part of allowing free will. God did not want us to be mindless robots doing his every bidding, and so He gave us free will. A natural outcome of our ability to do what we want is our ability to do things that aren't good.
Who kills people, but then says killing is wrong?
"Thou shalt not kill", one of the ten commandments. I'm not sure why it is phrased like that in English, because it would be more proper to phrase it as "Thou shalt not murder". There is a difference between killing and murder. Murder is always killing, but killing is not always murder. A soldier killing another soldier in battle is not commiting murder. A man defending himself from someone who intends murder is not himself commiting murder. In my personal opinion all killing is regrettable, but it is most certainly not murder.
Who loves everyone, but punishes them?
I assume you're meaning Hell when you speak of punishment. It is true, Hell is a horrible punishment, a place of great pain and terrible sorrow. It is also true (despite the views of some in this thread), that Hell is eternal for everyone who goes there. But it is not true that God sends you there. You send you there, with your free will. This is a subject I've given some thought to, as I've had friends bring this up before.
Imagine yourself on a ship, in stormy seas. God is the captain of this ship (assume He exists for the sake of this argument). You are thrown overboard, and are now being tossed in the wind and the waves. God sees what has happened, and he immediately throws you a floatation device so you can keep your head above water. You ignore this flotation device and yell at God that He is cruel for drowning you.
He sees that you have ignored the flotation device, and so He throws you a rope so that He can pull you back on board. Like the flotation device, you ignore the rope, and again you yell at Him that He is cruel for drowning you.
Seeing this, He jumps onto a small boat and rows His way out to you and offers you His hand, to pull you out of the raging waters. You push away his hand and yet again you yell at Him that He is Cruel for drowning you.
We are, all of us, on the path to Hell. God is offering us His help to get off of that path at every opportunity, but it is up to us to accept His help. I find it as indefensible to blame Him if you choose not to accept His help as it is indefensible to blame a firefighter if you die in a fire because you wouldn't let him take you outside.
I stands to reason that if God is all-powerful he must control everything. Therefore, there can be no free will as long as God exists, unless he chooses to exercise his power not to act.
This is where my knowledge is hazy. I'm given to understand, from what I've read on the subject, that where the Bible says "almighty" and such, it does not mean literally "all powerful, capable of doing literally anything". I will say this: God cannot sin, and God cannot cease to be God. Since He cannot do these things, he cannot do "literally anything". From what I understand, God can do whatever He needs to do in order to fulfill His purposes. Since a part of His purposes is to create beings with free will (us), then it seems reasonable to suppose that He can create creatures which He does not directly control, but which instead must obey Him of their own free will.
There is no reason to pray because God already knows exactly what you're thinking, doing, and saying, without the need for it.
The IRS knows I need a tax-form to file my taxes, but they don't give me one unless I come over to their office and ask for one. In the same way, God knows whatever it is you're asking of Him before you ask it, but it is the act of asking that is important. This is somewhat related to our free will. Prayer is a way of showing that we have chosen to follow Him (although that is not all of what prayer is, just like going and asking for a tax form isn't just showing that you acknowledge that you have to pay taxes).
"Athiest church" is an oxymoron.
Yes, it is. But you'd be surprised at the number of atheists (and agnostics) that I've met who hold to their world view with the kind of zeal that they constantly accuse Christians of holding to Christianity with.
One of my best friends is agnostic, and he refuses to give thought to any evidence against the standard model of evolution (and this includes evidence that requires only revising the theory, not throwing it out) because he can't think of any alternative to evolution other than belief in God. I've discussed evolution with him, and the entire extent of his knowledge comes from a single powerpoint presentation from an introductory biology class, and upon discussing it with him I found that he doesn't even understand all of that powerpoint presentation.
This is the sort of thing that I find intellectually indefensible. People who hold to a view without even understanding that view. Atheism and agnosticism and religion can all be defended intellectually without being self-contradictory, but in each group you find people like my friend who don't understand some of the concepts that they view as the most important to their world view.
I'd just like to end this post by saying, once again, that I don't expect you to suddenly see the light after reading what I've written. Actually, I rather expect you to argue against most of my points, and I expect you may even show me I'm wrong on a couple of them, because I touched on areas that I don't actually have much knowledge of, yet. My goal with this post was to try to clear up some things I saw in your post that seemed to be illogical or factually wrong to me.