Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .
As Brandon has pointed out, it's easy to take a rhetorically superior (and false) position by simply defining your intended interlocutor's position in untenable terms. That's what known as a straw man fallacy. Why would you assume that atheists have heard of believers in "spatial omnipotence?" I've never heard of any such thing, until i read this hilarious OP. By the way, since your options seem to be very limited, it might interest you to know that many, many cultures have imagined gods which are not omnipotent, and which did not create the cosmos. You've got me in stitches!
Nah, mate nah. You know what I mean. I mean God, you know, living in space. Atheists don't like the idea - Gods. Living in space. In fact, I can't think of anyone who does believe in it. Gods living in space I mean. And not a weird space. Just ordinary space, like space that's about a few billion miles away, sort of outer space. Get me?
IOW, you were trying to muddle [to what purpose?] these concept-holders' recognition of their own general idea by pulling out an oddball, specific example of what is subsumed under it -- or an eccentric, single instance of its application? "People who don't believe in Santa Claus do not like the idea of a Santa Claus that lives on Mars." As if their disbelief doesn't already entail SC being universally absent from any planet / location; or as if their disbelief isn't by default devoid of any special conditions that could make SC's existence more tenable or palatable to them.
And all to covertly quip: "Why is it that your own arse or head or elbow seems alien or foreign when presented from this particular angle or perspective?" [Or again, to what purpose?
, if the motivation was otherwise / a more noble intent?]