Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[RoadRunner79]

.No one is saying that this shows evidence for a specific god,

In that case why are you lot so insistent in this thread that fine tuning proves yhwh?

Leaving aside the fact that you lot haven't come even remotely close to demonstrating that the universe is fine tuned; you can't have it both ways and claim two contradictory things about it rr.

I think you misunderstand; and perhaps the statement is a little unclear, as I look at it (hard to tell, without going back and looking at the context).

But, what I mean, is that the evidence gives us certain information about the cause (causal sufficiency).  God as understood from the Christian tradition fit's this evidence, so it is evidence towards the argument that the Christian understanding of God is the cause.  However, this evidence doesn't exclusively single out the Christian view of God as the cause.  The description could also fit other suspects or could be one that is unknown.  Normally, for myself, I am even careful to say intelligent agent or something similar,  because that is what this reasoning calls for.  Something capable of choice and with the ability to enact the results.  With this topic, I don't think that it is unreasonable, to call the inferred cause a god, but I don't think it is as precise, concerning the argument.

As an analogy, I'm thinking of a TV show or movie.   The evidence shows, that a biological weapon was genetically engineered for a particular purpose.  Another person comes in, and states that there is less than a couple dozen people in the world, with the expertise and equipment to produce such a weapon.  Now various other reasons are given, which narrow the field down further, or even to a single suspect as the cause.  Even though the nature of the weapon, and evidence towards a sufficient cause do not point directly towards this suspect exclusively, it is still evidence along with the other reasons towards the conclusion.  It doesn't point to specifically to the individual, but points towards them, as part of a circumstantial case, and an overall conclusion.  It may also eliminate Bob down the street as a suspect, even though there could be other reasons to think it was him. 

I hope this clears things up, and alleviates any concern of being contradictory.