Regarding the argument from evil:

1. I'm still not sure that your idea is true even in when it is limited to "everyone who doesn't belong to such a religion." It might be true about LWers but they are not a representative sample. Americans seem to be pretty consistently more likely to identify as agnostic as atheist, for example. Now of course that might be because American doesn't like atheists and they want to avoid the social consequences. And it might be different (as far as I know) in other countries, since I just checked the statistics for the US according to various polls. But prima facie, it suggests that "most people who don't believe in any god at all are not extremely convinced by any argument against the existence of a god." I am not asserting that this is definitely the case, but it is plausible to me, and supported at least by this fact. It's possible you could establish your claim with better data, but so far I'm not convinced.

2. There is still the problem that if you limit it to people who "don't belong to such a religion," then you appear to be saying "everyone who thinks that God doesn't exist thinks that there is a convincing argument against the existence of God," and even if that were one particular argument, it would be similar to saying, "everyone who accepts the error theory of morality finds such and such an argument convincing." Even if there is one such argument in the case of error theory (which might not actually be the case), that hardly establishes that it is easy to prove that error theory is true, or that it is true at all, for that matter.

3. I personally think the argument from evil (and various similar arguments) is evidence against the existence of a personal God, but I don't find it extremely convincing. A large part of the reason for that is when I did believe in Christianity, I had an answer to that argument which I found reasonable, and which still seems reasonable to me, not in the sense of "this is the case", but in the sense of a reasonable possibility. Now you could say that this is an "artifact of religious commitments" in a historical sense, but I don't think this is actually the case, given the fact that there are plenty of other issues where I never thought I had a good response in the first place. There is also Scott Alexander's "Answer to Job." Now I think that if you consider such responses carefully (my previous personal answer which I haven't gone into here, or Scott's answer, or almost any other reasonable response) they actually fit better with an impersonal principle than with a personal God, but they are not inconsistent with a personal one. So that prevents me from considering the argument extremely persuasive.

"Evidence that each person's unconvincedness is an artefact of their own religious commitments." You can certainly provide such evidence for many or most people. But theists can also provide evidence that atheistic convictions are often the result of non-evidential commitments as well. And in any case this is not going to apply to every single individual, and especially the case of converts to religion like Leah Libresco or Edward Feser. That doesn't mean that all sorts of non-rational influences aren't present in the case of converts. But it isn't true that e.g. "they aren't convinced by the argument from evil because they accept religion," given the fact that the argument from evil did not prevent them from going from not accepting religion to accepting religion in the first place.

Of course, if I disagree with someone's conclusion, I am almost certainly going to end up explaining how he went wrong. This isn't Bulverism in a bad sense, given that I don't assume he is wrong in the first place, but argue for it. And if I am right, it does mean there are better and more reasonable arguments for my position than for their position. But that isn't the same as calling my conclusion something easily seen to be true.

I also would not say that just because some people disagree who are generally reasonable people, it follows that the matter cannot be an easy one. So for example I would say that young earth creationism is easily seen to be false, even though there are some people who both think it is true, and are generally reasonable people. But note that there are relatively few people like this, compared to the number of generally reasonable people who admit that evolution is true but still think some kind of religion is true.

One difference is this: it does not require anything like philosophical argument to establish that evolution is true. It just requires looking at actually existing plants, animals, and rocks and discussing how they could have got that way. In contrast, philosophy is actually hard for human beings. And I think you cannot prove or disprove something like theism without philosophical argument. This suggests that it is not easy to do so.