I think the thread just went down the rabbit hole . . .
I had an NDE in which I saw Cat. Purple and billowy. Not male or female, not animal or vegetable. A concept, a goal, to be sought and attained, strived for. Cat is like nothing you’ve ever experienced or been exposed to in Earthly science or religion. Cat is totally different, requiring a new approach to life. The concept of Cat is not explainable in the pitiful English words I have at my disposal.
What’s that? You’re saying that “cat” is a word that, in English, refers to a corporeal feline commonly kept by humans as pets? Nonsense, a word is a symbol, nothing more. It can stand for anything or everything. And I say that “Cat” stands for what I saw in my NDE. Remember, purple and billowy. How much more “Cat” can it get? A concept, a goal . . .
Ok, wait. I suppose I could refer to what I saw in my NDE as, oh, say, “The purple billowy NDE concept”. That could, maybe, be somewhat less confusing for those who are constrained to only English words, and didn’t actually receive the benefit of contact with Cat, er sorry, “The purple billowy NDE concept”. But it really was Cat . . .
There was an amazing truly God-touched moment in my twenties when I traveled to India on a spiritual quest and as I slipped into a transcendent state his soothing voice told me to picture a container of woven reeds, holding snakes that represented all the problems of my life and to charm them, and as I approached the moment when my inner eye opened and all was made clear, he jokingly tapped me on the forehead and my concentration, and the insight, was lost.
I shall never forget that day: a yogi stole my epiphanic basket.
IIRC, tbe yogi was near naked, so
a yogi, bare, stole my epiphanic basket.
He didn’t mean to. It was a boo boo. 
I never made it to India but I did study with an American named Louis who had been there for years and established an ashram in southern Maine. There were large beautiful gardens and we would meditate while working in them. One day when several chores needed doing and we were deciding who would do which chore I remember a blissful smile on his face when I turned and said
“I’ll do the thinnin’ around here Baba Louie”
okay Bryan’s was much better but I had to play
Back to the OP’s; “It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against God”. It may not prove or dis- prove a God, but it does show He is not an all knowing ,loving father,nor does it show he knows more than a human father.
If a human father treated his children in the same way, he would be locked up for child abuse. As an example: If I know my child is going to use a gun and kill him or her self, or harm another and I do not stop it, then I would be to blame.
A good father doesn’t make his children beg for their daily bread. If a human father would know it’s child’s needs and could read their minds he would not allow a child to do anything that would bring it harm, nor hold back anything that was for the child’s good.
Once again, you forgot to add “So there!”
This is normally where a theist would play the “free will” card, but consider free will from the father analogy.
A parent will tend to limit a child’s free will, because the parent knows that some options will cause the child harm. As the child gets to an age of understanding the consequences of their actions, they are progressively allowed to act more freely.
God (aka father of the year), on the other hand, will happily watch his children drink drain cleaner. Both metaphorically and literally (since there have obviously been real events of children drinking drain cleaner).
IMO this whole line of reasoning is flawed. It seems illogical to take a supposed eternal being of a spiritual nature and use earthly standards of suffering to judge such a being.
If we are spirits who live beyond our earthly bodies then physical death shouldn’t even be part of the equation. I think that’s the kind of thing the OP is alluding to.
Is it not the earthly father’s job to put the drain cleaner up where Junior can’t get it. People blame God and then say they don’t believe in God and that’s supposed to make sense.
Why blame God if you are a materialist. Doesn’t make any sense at all. Then there is the large picture of reality that materialists miss, or don’t know about, or don’t want to know about. If you want to solve problems you need to get logical and sensible.
So if physical death isn’t part of the equation, then why is murder wrong?
If, in the grand scheme of things, death is just the transition of an eternal spirit from one mode of being to another, why should we punish someone who killed someone else?
I don’t “blame God” any more than I blame Lex Luthor. I just find it astounding that anyone would use either fictional character as an example to look up to and emulate.
Supposedly because we have no choice as to when we get to “transition from this world to the next”. God gets to give innocent children cancer, destroy life-sustaining crops with droughts, and kill almost every creature on this earth(not just all those sinful men, women and children, but the animals too) in a flood. We are his toys, those are his rules, and you damn well better be joyful about it.
And yet theists have no problem describing god in human terms and anthropomorphising “him” whenever it suits them.
When something good happens against all the odds, it’s god demonstrating his love for his children. But when confronted with the POE, “don’t judge spiritual beings by earthly standards”.
I didn’t mention death. I was simply talking about suffering and giving an argument for why I don’t think the “free will defence” holds any muster.
I was following the analogy of god the father through.
By analogy to a real parent leaving his child alone with an open bottle of drain cleaner, god has left us alone, say, with the malaria parasite, and didn’t even bother to leave any instructions about how to protect against or cure the disease. This is not a loving parent.
Erm, I was of course arguing from absurdity.
Evidently you read what I wrote, found nothing absurd about a loving parent watching as their child drinks drain cleaner, and then completely missed the point I was making.
I’m not a materialist, though I am an atheist.
I find it ironic that we’re often depicted as being closed-minded. Many of the atheists on this board bend over backwards to follow theists’ arguments through and be well-versed in scripture and such.
I suspect if theists took as much time to understand the atheist position, there wouldn’t be any theists. Not omnimax theists anyway.
In the need to make god the awesome creature religions need for a fearing mass of worshipers, they say he is omniscient and omnipotent. If he knows all things and can do all things, he is also omni-responsible. Human suffering must be a sport . He has the power to stop it and chooses not to. What would you do if you had those powers? This is a sick and demented god if he creates children with illnesses and does not stop wars.
But what if He isn’t all-knowing, all-seeing, etc., what then?
Then he is not a god. He does not exist. I am glad we can agree there is no god.
As has been pointed out again and again, wrong. Suffering is suffering regardless of what happens after. And an omnipotent omniscient who doesn’t prevent ALL suffering, before and after death isn’t omnibenevolent, as has again been repeatedly pointed out.
True, which is part of what makes religion so evil and destructive, since most believe in an afterlife. Anyone who actually takes his or her religion seriously is going to be a danger to themselves and everyone around them for just this reason. Anyone who takes this principle seriously will kill limitless numbers of people for the most trivial of reasons, because in his or her eyes their lives just don’t matter. “Kill them all, God will sort them out.”
Then he isn’t the God this thread is about.
Why *we * punish someone is not the thread subject is it? If your question is “Why does God command us to not murder?” I’d say it’s because that judgement is not ours to make , just like we wouldn’t likely appoint a 4 year old to be a judge.