>

The sins are forgiven, but you have to ask for them to be. The atonement is the remorse you show about committing the sins.
Not a Christian, but I don't think that's an accurate understanding of the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Most often the argument seems to be that evil is a consequence of God creating beings with free will. Your understanding would imply that Christians believe our reality is the best possible reality, which they obviously do not. >

How could they not? How could an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity not create the best of all possible worlds.  
If it could have created a better would and didn't, it's not omnibenevolent. 
If a better world exists, and it can't create it, it's not omnipotent. >

You're just restating the problem of evil here in different terms. I already explained what I think is the most common Christian answer to the problem of evil in the comment above. >

Yeah but that would imply that free will is somehow worth the suffering it brings, also there are studies to show most people have a lot less free will than they think just by changing environmental factors, so in my opinion it's possible free will is an illusion >

Christians do think free will is worth the suffering it brings. They think that a world where everyone was forced to be good and worship God would be less meaningful and therefore less worthwhile compared to a world where everyone willingly chose to be good and worship God despite having the ability not to.
I'm not sure it matters what science implies about free will. Your view specifically addressed Christians and you are thus presumably looking for the Christian perspective on this issue. Christians almost universally believe free will exists. If you want to argue that they're wrong about that, be my guest, but that's a separate conversation from the view of yours we're trying to change in this thread. >

But then the question is shifted, why doesn't god just make a world where everyone is good that's just as meaningful as this one? If he can, but doesn't, he's not omnibenevolent, if he can't, he's not omnipotent. >


make a world where everyone is good that's just as meaningful as this one

Are you proposing that an omnipotent being should be able to change the moral value of something? I guess that gets into the Euthyphro dilemma where we have to ask if what's valuable is determined by God or is valuable independently of him. But I think usually Christians would say that it's the latter. Just like God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3 because that just doesn't logically make sense, he also can't make it meaningful to have a world without free will. That's not inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence. >


Just like God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3 because that just doesn't logically make sense

Pretty sure he could. A lot of miracles straight up defy known laws of reality, and also doesn't Genesis imply that God also made the natural laws? If Jesus can turn water into wine just by touching it, or God could ignite a bush without a lighter, why couldn't he make it so that 1 + 1 = 3? The whole thing with Jesus multiplying fish and loaves of bread already messes with the laws of division. >

There’s a difference between physically impossible and logically impossible. Things like food magically replicating as it changes hands through a crowd, a bush igniting for no reason, water turning into wine, and so on are all physically impossible, but not logically impossible. Things like these cannot happen under ordinary circumstances, but they still make sense to talk about—they’re logically coherent ideas. Making it true that 1 + 1 = 3 is actually logically impossible, in the same vein as making water that isn’t wet, or making a boulder too heavy for an omnipotent entity to lift. >

You are a consequentialist, if you believe that any action can be good because the ultimate outcome it contributes to is good.
Christians, and by implication their God, are not consequentialists.  They believe that some things are Sins and everything else isn't.  
Sins are morally wrong in and of themselves, completely independently of any causes or consequences they may have.
There is no reason to think that a world run by an omnibenevolent being would contain no sins. It may be that without the opportunity to sin, being moral actually is meaningless, and everyone is better off if the system allows for sin.  It may be that all the sinless universes exist, but it is still good that this universe exist also.  Or it may be some other ineffable thing that human's can't guess or understand. >

Yes I was following a consequentialist line to it's logical conclusion because I've heard it used by christians and want to attempt to debunk it if I can or find out why I can't if I can't >

For God to prevent evil things to happen, it means he's intervening/controlling. If he's controlling, then that means we're not in control. If we're not in control, then that means we're robots.
Take Hitler for example. Suppose he wanted to start WW2, but God decided to tell him and not do it. But Hitler doesn't want to listen to God and tries to do it anw. So then God starts controlling Hitler to not do it. At what point should God let go of his control over Hitler for Hitler to not do anything evil.
Also. Your standard of evil is different from everyone. You may think abortion is right, but others think it's wrong (or vice versa).
For you to claim that there is good and evil, it means there's a moral standard. If there's an objective moral standard, then it means there's a creator/ruler/judge to made it. If there is no moral standard, it means it's subjective. So if it's subjective, don't claim that "God allows evil" when your definition of evil is different from others. >

And what is morally justifiable about giving us free will? Like isn't it more moral to create robots that follow morality than this world of suffering? Also god has free will and is said to be all good, so why couldn't we have been made to be the same, all good and with free will?
I feel the argument about objective/subjective morality is a seperate discussion, but I'm happy to have it if you want. Over here I'm simply saying god allows things that go against gods own system of morality, and we can infer principles in gods morality and apply the same principles to gods actions. >

God has free will and chooses to be good. He can still commit acts of evil, but chooses not to. Just in the same way that if you can commit an act of evil without anyone ever knowing or you ever getting caught, you wouldn't do it (I would hope you wouldn't).
Free will and being robots are not relatable. You either have free will or you don't. 
The beauty in free will is that it includes love. It means when we love someone, it's of our own choosing and we're not some preprogrammed robots that's forced to love someone. Restricting free will is the same thing as a robot IMO, cause if you restrict them it opens up whole issue like the Trolley Dilemma. >

Is knowing that your love is real worth the suffering in the world? Isn't moral robots not as bad? >

why would that be the only other option, also, there's a reason we file Brave New World with the dystopias or, for an ancient example (albeit one pre-Christianity) why those reading The Odyssey aren't supposed to envy the Lotus-Eaters >

The point of Christianity and otherr religions is to impact the way we behave on earth. Moral and good people will go to heaven and bad will not. 
You don’t have to believe >

So if I don't mind going to hell I can do whatever the hell I want? Morality is just a guide book to get to heaven? I thought christians believe however sinful you are if you believe and ask forgiveness you go to heaven, then what's the point of morality? >

If you don’t believe in hell and have no fear of it, then do whatever the fuck you want. I agree with you there. It is mainly just Catholics that can just confess their sins and be forgiven >

I grew up around various non denominational protestants and they all said if you believe and ask forgiveness you go to heaven >

I don’t know much about it so I believe you >

Before  answer, I am an atheist. In every religion, their God(s) have clearly underlined what humans can and can't do. If someone breaks those boundaries, then their action is not justified. They will then either have to make up for their sin or suffer. >

Also atheist, at least agnostic-atheist, and my understanding of modern christianity is that sins are forgiven not atoned for