Wrong, sir, wrong!  One is benevolent if one does good things, but it is possible to be neither.  I see it as God creating this whole system and then standing back and watching what we make of it.  He rewards those who pass, and those who don't get all the chances they like.  So I consider him to be benevolent, and because he is not the one perpetrating all (or indeed, any) of the suffering people go through, I do not consider him malevolent.  And don't go saying that he's malevolent because he doesn't interfere.  That argument won't work.  If you don't stop a crime that you witness happening, that doesn't make you malevolent; don't imply that it does.

Where did that first sentence come from?  Did I imply that one could go through life without being tested?  Of course not!  Everyone is tested.  We are not all tested in the same way, nor did I imply as much. 

The point, as I said above is to, well, I guess you could say "graduate" this world.  You would eventually move on to the next, where different lessons are taught.  The whole thing continues until you end up having learned every lesson, and are more or less perfect (true perfection being impossible as I see it).  One then goes to heaven/acheives nirvana/whatever you want to call it.  If you don't call that a purpose and still don't see the point of it, I would tell you to go back to first grade.

Just so you know Roadkill, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine where Deist, not Atheist.  So you just quoted "stupid" people.

I'm very aware of what a Deist is.  I can't say about Paine, but I know Jefferson was a Deist for sure.  I've read enough of his writing to know he wasn't an Atheist faking it.  The reason I mentioned it is because I had gotten the impression that you thought that any belief in God was foolish or ignorant, not just religion itself.  So do you think Deism is plausable or do you think Atheism is the only correct way to think?

Here is something to ponder.  You state that since there are, and have been a multitude of religions in existance, each contradicting each other and claiming to be the "one", that proves that they are all wrong.  However could it be that they are all right?  In the fact there is a Supreme Architect of the universe.  Be it one or many beings and/or facets of the same being.  Since religions are a human creation, they are thus inherantly flawed.  Feeble attempts to explain what we don't understand  Arguing that since religions are imperfect means that there is no Supreme Architect, is like arguing that since the Aristotelian theory of gravity was wrong, that proves that gravity doesn't exist and there must be some other force at work that isn't "gravity".  Just because humans haven't come up with a perfect explanation to explain the Supreme Architect, doesn't prove its nonexistance.  Is it possible that after laying the foundation for the Laws of the Universe, this Supreme Architect sat back to watch his creation work?  Since humans have free will, all good and evil in the world is of our own doing.

The reason I believe that there must be some form of Supreme Architect is the universe itself.  Humans are the smartest thing on planet Earth, well at least we think we are.  However no human brain can fully comprehend or explain an infinite Universe or a "time" before time began.  Be it Mother Nature, a ball of energy, Karma, Zeus, God, or whatever the Supreme Architect really is, something had to get the process going.  Trying to comprehend with my little brain the "beginning of time" is what makes me believe in a Supreme Architect.  There has to be a beginning of time because if it was infinitely far back, we would have never gotten to this point in time because it would take an infinite amount of time to get here.  However if there is a beginning, what happened before it and how did we get to it if time didn't exist.

This would seem just as much an absolutist idea as you claim religions to hold.  To say that all religions are bad because some do bad is rediculous.  It's the equivalant to evangelicals who say all abortions are bad, regardless of the circumstances or if I were to say all organizations are bad because of the KKK. 

I don't get where you get the "My dad can beat your dad" bit.  Your statements just seem to have a lack of any reality of what most religious people are like.  You seem to view religious people as sub-aethiest (if that's a word ).

Indeed I have.  I've spent years studying my own (including the seemingly negative aspects) for instince as well as others.  When I say, look into a religion, I do not mean read about it in a book or a classroom.  Go there, meet the people, see what they are like.  A religion is just as much about the people who follow it as the doctrine.

Well I didn't say they wouldn't.  You said, nothing good has ever come from religion and I was giving examples of good that has come from religion.  Some others include Handel's messiah, The Chronicles of Narnia, etc. 

Was Martin Luther a deist or aethiest?  The reformation (hardly a step backward)was brought about by religious folks, even if they were skeptical of the status quo.  Yes Chrisianity has changed since it's inception but the morals generally have not.  The church at the time was integrated into the Roman Empire which was not good for the church.  Once people were able to actually read the christian texts and had the ability to think for themselves, change began and true christianity began to re-emerge from it's dark period.  This was due to people who forced the religion to be the state, not because of the teachings of christanity (ei. the Bible).  You could say that christianity fell away from true christianity but what we have today is similar to early christianity (pre-roman that is) in that it tries to follow what the texts origionally said. 

I spent a while trying to find statistics on the Tsunami but couldn't find anything.  Perhaps if I have time, I'll look into it more.  What I did find from various sources was that while people (in the U.S.) get richer, they donate less but those who are more religious break this trend and give more than the general population.  Not sure if this is true of the tsunami but generally speaking, this is the case.  Who's trying to play "My dad can beat your dad" now? 

Hmm, not sure I agree but I don't have a good counter to that (nationalism perhaps?).  However, they may have no moral justification to do evil but they will also have no moral mandate to do good since good is not defined except through religious bases (even if this is adopted). 

Well that all sounds nice.  You seem to have a high view of humanity.  I see humanity as neither good nor evil but selfish.  Good religion teaches one to think of others before himself.  It also teaches humillity, love thy neighbor, and other aspects that are not built in to our genes.  Whether wise men looked to the past and realised these things needed to be changed or a God in heaven passed morals down to them, religion has been a way for values to be passed on to the population.  If everyone was like you perhaps religion would not serve a purpose but not everyone is like you .

I do not think of you as living in a cold, dry world.  As such, I expect you to not think of me (and others like me) as living in a blind, homogenized  world.  My comment was meant to mean that while you may have experiences that are your own, there have been experiences that I don't think I would have had if not for my religion.  Having faith in something does make one stronger.  Whether someone can do that on his own or not, the fact that it does make one stronger should be seen as a good thing.  If it is all false, what's wrong with living a fuller life than you may have led if you didn't believe in anything.

addit:  I think I may eat my words like Psweet