Also I'd say the problem of evil isn't an effective argument. It doesn't address the core issue of lack of evidence for gods, and it is still equally likely for there to be any type of god, heavily conflicted or not. Sure the problem of evil means that if there is a god he's certainly a dick, but its certainly not a proof against god.
It is not merely evidence but proof against the Christian conception of God as all-powerful and all-good.
Again, since there is no way of perceiving God then there is no reason for assuming the existence of a god over nothingness.
Against the Christian god, then its more effective, but you still leave yourself open to bullshit arguments that distract from the important stuff.
take "all-powerful", for example, theres the idea of god only being powerful as logically possible, so therefore it can't do impossible things (like make a rock so heavy he can't move it), even though thats the definition of a miricale.
Also bullshit excuses about "free will" and relativistic concepts of good. (i.e if god didn't let people suffer it would be worse overall)
Trying to "disprove" the existence of gods, no matter how compelling the arguments, is a sure way to piss off religious types and make them not listen. There is already so much bullshit about "arrogant" atheists.
You can't disprove there aren't thousands of other universes apart from this one, neither can you prove it. So the default position should be non-belief, not belief or dis-belief, although obviously dis-belief is more reasonable.
The problem with religion is that it involves beliefs that don't meet rational standards of evidence, this is why so many religions negate science, or say
religion exists outside the "realm of science" (as if such a thing is possible), and its key to bring the argument back to that point rather than get distracted by the fallacies and innacuracies in the particular god theories different people have.