So in the perfect place, they lack the perfect good-from-evil detection mechanism?

The OP pointed out a particular example of natural suffering. Maybe you can try to make the case that this particular suffering existed in order to gauge human responses to it, thus separating good from evil.

But what about all the natural suffering that goes unrecorded and unnoticed? Like a fawn burning to death in a forest fire?

Maybe you can make the case that such unnoticed suffering is a further test of faith, for the humans who are appalled by it vs. the humans who somehow rationalize it.

But then why would this unnoticed suffering be so excessive? It's not just one unnoticed fawn. It's millions and millions of years of dinosaurs suffering and dying with not enough brains to ever rationalize it.

Maybe you can make the case that excessive unnoticed suffering is a further test of faith. But doesn't it seem that there's not merely excessive unnoticed suffering, but EXCESSIVE excessive unnoticed suffering? That is, if God wanted to test our faith with excessive unnoticed suffering, he could have done so merely with millions of years of it. But tens of millions of years of it seems excessive, even from the perspective of an excessive unnoticed suffering being a necessary test of faith.

If you think that excessive excessive unnoticed suffering is likewise a test of faith, I'd ask: Doesn't it seem simpler or make more sense to explain this apparently arbitrary amount of suffering, according to an evolutionary worldview, rather than to bend backwards trying to justify the unjustifiable to make the case for God?

Sure, we can say maaaaaybe, all that suffering, plus God, for some unfathomable reason. But we can also say, maybe no God, and just evolution. But what I want to emphasize is that these "maybes" are not on par. They are not 50 50 likely. One readily makes sense and is consistent in the proposed worldview. The other is deeply troubling and provides a profound problem in the proposed worldview.

So now that I think I've reasonably made the case that atheism is much, much more sensible than theism, I ask you: Why remain agnostic rather than being atheist? It seems to me that you're clinging to the unlikeliest of possibilities.

If we were discussing a lottery ticket, do not pretend that there is a 50 50 chance of it being a winner. If asked whether you believe it is a winner, why answer with, "It might be!" rather than the more down-to-earth "No"? It's one think to contort yourself intellectually into admitting there's a possibility; it's another thing to live your life according to the uncertainty of this possibility rather than living your life according to the near-certainty that the ticket is not a winner. Do not preface all of your life plans and big financial decisions with, "Well, if that ticket is a winner..." Rather, live your life as if you know it's not. If someone asks you to reconsider buying that Hawaiian vacation, or that mountain of cocaine, on the remote possibility that your ticket is a winner, isn't it the right attitude to reply with, "Get the fuck out of here with that excessively hopeful bullshit. Don't even waste my time and thought-cycles on asking me to always consider what is almost surely false, before every action I take"?

I simply can not understand this preference for agnosticism over atheism. Be brave enough to make the leap. Clearly the excessive excessive unnoticed suffering implies God's nonexistence. Stop making excuses for maaaaaaybe the possibility of Heaven. There is no Heaven. There is no God. Our reality is unbearably cruel. It's time to admit facts, if intellectual honesty is a virtue you wish to possess.

@jewsbadnews @eagleshigh @bojangles