I don't know why, but I have a pattern of arguing with theists in youtube comments...and then wondering why they don't understand what I am saying. Recently when a theists asked me if I thought the universe just magically popped into existence, I tried to point out that they believe their god magically popped into existence and/or always existed in some way so that "popping into existence from absolutely nothing" isn't even something THEY accept, much less what any atheist/scientist/skeptic has suggested. But the subtlety of the point is completely lost. It reminds me when Matt Dillahunty had a caller once who said she judged her god to be good. Matt tried to point out that in order to judge god to be "good", there had to be a standard of "goodness" outside of god in order to make that judgment, and hence god is not the standard of goodness (and cannot be). But the woman completely missed the point and got angry, saying her experience with god over years guarantees god is good (making Matt's point for him without understanding it or even trying to). That's what frustrates me the most.

I find doing anything like that on line is near impossible unless it is prearranged and the person you're talking to is prepared for it. Even then, it is far too easy to hide behind BS and there is no sense of commitment. When you talk to people in person and they agree to talk with you, they feel committed because they said they would. On line, they can simply click a button and be on with their cat videos, never giving that silly person asking those personal questions another thought. People are also far less likely to lie to a persons face (in general). The beauty of the interwebz is that people can be whomever they'd like to be. That being said, you risk getting the responses from a made up personality vs an honest thought process.

If digital epistemology is your focus, I wish you the best and would like to follow you to see how it goes. I'd also love to hear more in the future about what you've learned through the process. I would also love to hear comparisons between your digital experience and any real world talks you might have.

The only thing I have to offer in the way of tips is that the theoretical, esoteric arguments probably are of little value unless you are speaking to the already converted, or de-converted, as the case may be. But I just wanted to commend you on your efforts. Though it's one's prerogative to be of the mindset of keeping ones beliefs to yourself unless religious beliefs intrude on yours, I feel that with that attitude, the change which most all of us would like to see in society's embracing of a more secular perspective will be even more deathly slow in occurring than it already is.

Never expect to change the mind of the person you are talking to. The purpose of an online discussion is for others reading it to first learn something, and then maybe change their minds. I'm always open to changing my mind as well. (For these reasons, never have an "online discussion" privately through email, etc. That's pointless...and I've done it myself many, many times before I figured out the principle that you need an audience for the discussion.)
...
Christopher Hitchens used to use this principle masterfully. He would never be derailed by his opponent's non sequiturs, or even things that might have been relevant but disrupted the entire flow of his argument. If he was making a complex point, and kept being interrupted, he would ignore the interruptions and continue. Moreover, he also did this by addressing the audience continuously. THAT is who he was talking to, and he always valued time for questions from the audience. And (one last point) Hitchens also would bring the audience in when the theist would completely misrepresent Hitch's position after he explained several times. He would ask something like, "Now I must appeal to the audience. Did I say anything remotely like x, y, and z?" Without fail, a dozen or more people would honestly say "no". Similarly he might also say something like "I have to appeal to the audience. Have I not already answered that question several times? Now I wonder if I'm boring anyone."