Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Clueless Morgan]

it's been well observed and documented in other places as a significant determinant of health.

But perhaps the biggest problem is that the weight of literature shows there is an effect

Provide the evidence then. You said in your OP:

There are three types of arguments I see getting used against Christians.

1. Informed arguments - these are the ones an atheist or sceptic can back-up with evidence.
2. Uninformed arguments - these are the ones that atheists or sceptics think are good arguments, but are not backed up with evidence.
3. Valid points that are more-or-less meaningless. This is where an atheist or sceptic comes up with a valid point, but doesn't realise that the point doesn't threaten most Christian's beliefs or understanding about the Bible and their God.

It is the uninformed arguments that I hate the most.

So far, in this thread, you are making an uniformed argument by not providing evidence for the assertions you are making - you are merely asserting that there's all this good evidence out there. Okay, provide it!

But there's not a complete lack of evidence for the good of Christianity.

Which falls under your category (3) of arguments: "Valid points that are more-or-less meaningless." The "good" of Christianity doesn't necessitate that the religion is true or it god existent. This is why a lot of atheists claim that the evidence that theists often claim is really bad evidence, or ultimately not evidence in support of their claim at all.

Sorry Athrock but are you suggesting that true atheism=strong atheism?

It's the no-true-atheist fallacy: you're not an atheist unless you positively assert that no gods exist.