What's the strongest argument for atheism?

I'd like to hear any strong arguments you might have for atheism.

Man makes gods.

My only argument would be that without evidence, there is no reason to believe in theism.

But that means your position on the claim "God exists" is that it's neither more plausibly true nor more plausibly false.

Yes, I suppose it does mean that.

My position in regard to the claim "gods exist" is that the claim has no evidentiary support and is therefore false,  gods don't exist.

So even the slightest bit of information favoring the existence of God would make you a believer?

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

Obviously. But proving not favouring.

Yes if you propose without any evidence that something outside of reality interacts with reality, but that something doesn't leave the evidence that such an interaction would reasonably be expected to leave.

Basing a conclusion on lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance 

Basing a conclusion as to the veracity of a claim is all about evidence, if there is no evidence supporting the claim then the claim is false and must be dismissed, in effect nullifying said claim ergo said claim does no longer exist in reality, it is a nonsense.

Well, how can you you be sure there's no elephant in your fridge?

Elephants don't present the same metaphysical problems that belief in the divine would.

The default position is skepticism.

I know little of metaphysics.   I was addressing "Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?".

The answer is often assumed to be no, but just ain't so!  Very often it is.

When taking into account my background knowledge that elephants live on a different continent, the dimensions of an elephant, the cubic feet of my fridge, and my daily observations in and around my fridge, all indicates that there is not an elephant in my fridge. If someone were to ask me if I was sure that there was no elephant in my fridge I would say yes. I have much more information indicating that the claim is false rather than true. 

Skepticism isn't a worldview though.

It depends on how you define the word "evidence."

When we imagine a situation where we observe the absence of something, like the absence of an elephant in my fridge, I'd consider this evidence of absence - not absence of evidence. I am basing my conclusion that there is not an elephant in my fridge on information that indicates the truth of the claim (evidence).

I refer you to my reply to coal. (#16).

I think with minor adustments what you posted in #17 would make a fair argument why god [probably] does not exist.

Neither is atheism.

If the posited defintion of God includes physical characteristics then sure, you could run an inductive argument against God using the same logic I used with the elephant in my fridge. 

But that means your position on the claim "God exists" is that it's neither more plausibly true nor more plausibly false.

Even the slightest bit of information favoring the existence of God would make you a believer?

It would take sufficient evidence. Beliefs are not a choice. One cannot simply choose to believe something that one considers false.

Is there sufficient evidence when there's more information indicating that the claim is true rather than false?

There is no sufficient evidence of any god(s). One cannot say that no god(s) could exist (that is a black swan fallacy) but many god claims can be dismissed as logically contradictory.

I'm asking you what the threshold of "sufficient evidence" is. Is it when there's more information indicating the claim is true rather than untrue? 

I don't have the power to define words.

Despite the cliche, absence of evidence very often is evidence of absence.   The proverb should be more like 'absence of evidence isn't proof of absence', but sometimes absence of evidence gets very close to the level of proof.

i suppose the moral is 'don't rely on cliches'.   'You can't prove a negative' is another false proverb!

Evidence varies in ways such as veracity, weight, relevance, etc. The evidence would need to be evaluated on its merits. The slightest bit of circumstantial evidence probably would not sway me especially with a subject as weighty as this. Evidence would need to be such that it can't be explained away by another phenomenon.

But when you refer to "absence of evidence" I presume you're envisioning a situation where we observe the absence of something and determine a likelihood of it existing. That is evidence of absence, not absence of evidence. Evidence refers to information about a claim.