Or why the argumant that an omnibenevolent diety wouldn't allow tsunamis, terrorists, and other Bad Things is wrong.

Atheists have long put forward the notion that an ominpotent, omnibenevolent being would not cause so much death and suffering as the Christian god apparently does. But this analysis can only be right if benevolence is taken from materialist assumptions. One would be wise to consider that Christian death is not the same as materialist death. To the Christian, death is just a transition from earth to heaven (or hell). An early transistion is not necessarily bad.

The Christian apology for bad things happening on earth are as follows:

Premises:

1. Death is the transition from life on earth to life in heaven
2. Being seperated from the deity is less good than being with the deity
3. Life on earth means being seperated from the deity
4. Life in heaven is being with the deity

Theorems:

1. Life on earth is less good than life in heaven
2. Death is good.*

Whoa! Why then would an omnibenevolent being have a life on earth then? Rather than a nice little sequence of logic statements, let us look instead at an analogy. When training for an athletic event, the training involves some pain and suffering, yet the athlete considers this as minor to the end good of participating and (hopefully) winning the event. Likewise, the Christian may view life as a sort of preperation, a learning phase where suffering and pain are building and improving the eternal soul.

So, the atheist makes two mistakes in arguing against a deity being omnibenevolent: first is the materialist premises, the second is the false dichotomy of good or bad rather than the continous spectrum of bad to good.

With so many *good* arguments against Christianity, and religions in general, why do atheists continue using this bad argument?

* Yes this is sick. There are also nuances and caveats that I do not go into here, and do not affect this argument, but may apply elsewhere.