Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Rhondazvous]

I do understand the difficulty in the problem of evil and specifically of suffering that we cannot explain.  It is especially difficult if we or someone we love is the one suffering.  The issue I believe with this argument is that it focus's on and put's above everything else, only one or a few of the qualities of God.  

It is setting up a false dichotomy.  It wants to say that benevolence must do X to the exclusion of everything else.  That benevolence  would not allow suffering in any circumstance if it could be prevented.  I don't believe this to be true, and don't believe that the definition of benevolence requires this.  An honest judge may sentence someone, and cause suffering, but this does not mean that he is not benevolent or caring.  However, caring for the person does not mean that the judge needs to exclude other responsibilities.

The problem with your argument is that we’re talking here about a god who set the original man up. Keeping from him the knowledge of good and evil. Putting that knowledge in the fruit of a tree then telling the man not to eat the fruit. Adam had no way to know that disobeying god was wrong. Yet god punished him. Then when god saw that the people were getting along working together to build the Tower of Babel, he became so intimidated by what they might accomplish that he confused their language, causing strife and misunderstanding where there had been none. He allows innocent babies and children to suffer needlessly. In the Bible, he actually becomes angry when the Israelites had mercy on the people he told them to kill.

You have now given yourself the task of convincing us that these are the actions of an honest judge.

Good luck.