I'm active on a few sites and there seems to be a few truths. One is that many atheists were at one time religionists. The ones that were once religionists seem to think that they have a monopoly on escaping religion. Their path out is the only way to escape religion. It's not unlike AA members. You must follow these 12 steps and keeping coming back because it works. Much like AA isn't THE way (or statistically, a way) there are many paths out of religion.
I make arguments against religion in all sorts of ways. One of my most recent ones here was an appeal to science and reason over the magical claims. Some of the responses were effectively, "No, no... Jesus is magic so that argument won't work." Oh, so we shouldn't ever talk about science because God is magic and he wins? Everyone pack up your evolution arguments, goddidit and is just confusing you. We can't debate the flood anymore.
Bart Erhman has a new book out called Forged. In discussing it, someone said, (para) "This is nothing new. We all know that Matthew wasn't written by the Apostle Matthew. Even my pastor taught us that." So I respond with a textual criticism of John 3:3 that Erhman makes about the usage of a word "Onothan" (phonetic sp.) and how it doesn't translate to Aramaic to show that Erhman goes further than your honest pastor. Another atheist responds that basically errors are the way to lead people out of religion because clearly the book wasn't written by God, and that's what led him out.
Others might make the argument that morality arguments of the Bible are the way to lead people out. Who will stand for slavery, rape, the subjugation of women, dashing the little ones against the stones, etc? The excuses abound and my experience is that while this may work, you don't see the "Ah-Ha!" moments from these arguments. That's not to say that these arguments shouldn't be made.
The reality is that we have all come to atheism from different paths. There are hundreds, or thousands, of arguments that could be made to free someone's mind. I like to think that I approach it from many angles. This largest phallic contest that occurs of "my argument is the only way" that goes on in many places on the web is counter-productive. Maybe the argument that speaks to one atheist won't speak to you. OK. Does that mean that we shouldn't make the argument? Does that mean that it won't speak to one of the millions of other hits here or billions of people on the web? Criticize the material where it needs to be criticized. Don't criticize the argument because it doesn't speak to you. We are effectively broadcasting. Each argument can't be tailored to fit each person's sensibilities of what led them out of religion. Just accept that what spoke to you to lead you out of religion, isn't likely to be the same as what speaks to, or spoke to, the next person. We needn't be monolithic in our approach like your pastor was with religion.