Frankly, there's fallacious arguments on all sides. The degree of fallaciousness often depends on which side you are on rather than any intrinsic properties.

I was struck recently by the fallaciousness of the argument of no less a person than Christopher Hitchens. He makes a damned good argument against a 'good' God by citing the sheer evil in the world. Fine, but its strange how that sheer evil magically disappears and becomes just the indifferent laws of nature when he then proposes the atheist answer. This is classic having one's cake and eating it. The 'evil' exists for refuting God.......but then mysteriously vanishes the moment God has been refuted. Clearly, if you believe that it's all just the indifferent laws of nature and good and evil are meaningless on a cosmic scale.........you cannot then rationally cite 'evil' as a reason why God doesn't exist !

Personally I think the deeper one gets into such arguments, the more fallaciousness arises on all sides. That is why I think that the best arguments against God are the simplest, such as there being absolutely no evidence that he exists. Why discuss a being in detail, when there's not the slightest evidence he exists at all ?