Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Mudhammam]

It doesn't really matter what sophism Delicate or any other theist can cobble together in defense of their omnipotent, omnibenevolent monarch. Such a creature is simply incompatible with observation of the world.
1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.
2. There is unnecessary and excessive in the world.
3. God does not exist.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must follow. The logical deduction of God's attributes guarantees the first premise, and the only justifiable inference one is entitled to make - given the information we possess - obliges one to grant premise two. Therefore, the nonexistence of such a deity is established.

I would disagree with premise one.  Scripture says early on, that this is not the case, and the suffering is the result of the fall and sin (separation from God).  Excessive is somewhat of a subjective and ambiguous term; but even granting this, I'm assuming that you are overly focusing on one particular attribute of God, apart from the others.  I don't think it is a contradiction in regards to God's attributes, that He allows suffering. 

I also do not think that you can enter into the Christian worldview just enough to critique and then back out before the answers.  Much of our suffering is self-inflicted (with the fall you might say all of it is). The suffering that you do see is temporary.  However, there is an answer to this, that the separation and suffering do not to become everlasting.   I don't think that your problem is with unnecessary suffering, just that you want it immediately.  Many choose unnecessary suffering over God.

Premise one is true of logical necessity. The attributes of God - omnipotent, omnibenevolent - by definition could not permit the existence of excessive and unnecessary suffering. Also, what difference does it make to say that a person's suffering is finite and doesn't last forever? How does that matter? You also seem to be suggesting something like the "free will defense" in shifting the focus towards The Garden of Eden myth (you know that's just a story, right?). That doesn't work. Imagine that a person saw their child pick up a hammer to bash the skull of another child. Should the parent prevent his child’s action, though it will eliminate his child’s free will in that instant? Rather, we should think that preventing the first child’s free will, in order to save the second, would not only be morally permissible but obligatory. Who would let the parent off the hook if he said that he did nothing to prevent the incident because he didn't wish to violate his child's freedom? Why does the moral imperative change in the case that the parent is God and we the are children?