Is God so full of himself that he decided to create mankind and abject suffering?

1. I'm glad we're on the same page - except for item g].

2. The reason I included  item g] is not because of the flawed thinking that 'greatness in numbers represents might and might is right', but

i. it represents overcoming the peer review hurdle

ii. man is not an island unto himself, he is a social animal, he needs community based systems

iii. it's a natural progression in acceptability to pass from the drawing board to the laboratory to small scale trials to the confidence of large scale release

3. In relation to the first two questions in your last paragraph let me say this: Once you're happy with your list of criteria for the best coat, you then survey the coats available and buy the one which ticks most of the boxes on your list. If we do that with almost all major purchases in our life then why shouldn't we do so when choosing the all important foundation to lay one’s core principles on? That's how I arrived at my choice.

4. If we have drawn our criteria with great care, and have not overlooked anything and we manage to find something that matches our criteria exactly or as close as one can get then we naturally get a great sense of satisfaction and an eagerness to put that something to full use, not just casual disinterested use.

While your reasoning is well-considered, I detect a difference in our influences. There is certainly a social need to our nature, and for me, this is one of the areas that religions prey upon, with tremendous success. An innate “need to belong”, with the group, peopled by many who simply “need to believe” in something. Hope. Fellowship. Powerful influences. 
For my part, these are less influential to my thinking than supporting information. I’ve seen firsthand for too long the misapprehensions, the misuse of teaching, and the outright insanity brought about from the practices of religion, from those who understood just enough of their faith to “check their boxes”. No doubt you have,
too. 
This is why there are so many variations and sects of faith, yet each declares theirs “true” This, like much of the dogma, simply defies possibility. All cannot be “true”, given their differences and contradictions. But all can be false, and what creator, desirous of praise and worship, allows —in fact encourages-- his minions to follow so much outright falsehood about him? 
Then we plunge into the larger conflict between freewill and divine omniscience, interpretation of word, and veracity of claims. 
Herein lies the genesis (if you will) of my separation from the company of theism. Based on even rudimentary research, it wasn’t at all difficult for me to conclude the entire religious enterprise is and always has been the product of the minds of men. I would suggest to you that most thinking people, at some level, privately suspect this is so.
Despite decades of my interest in this area, I have as yet found no cause to challenge this position. I do remain receptive to new data, though none seems forthcoming. This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 3:23 AM MDT

1. Your latest post starts off with points we’ve already covered.

2. It then moves to peer pressure and bigotry. I agree that they are very powerful influences and we have to be wary that they do not lead us to transgress against individual freedoms. However, I don’t think it is rational to reject what is right just because others are misrepresenting it.

3. You then turn your critical attention to God. However, using that as an excuse is like a person refusing to judge between different coats because he has issues with the personal characteristics of the designers of those coats. Again, that does not sound very rational. Anyway, there are different ways of looking at and reconciling the various characteristics attributed to God. Where is the evidence that a person’s freewill has been compromised by divine omniscience? Can anyone truthfully claim that they would have done A but because of God’s omniscience they were forced to do B? What is devastatingly wrong with having different “interpretation of word” and what’s to stop us from ranking “veracity of claims” and choosing accordingly?

4. I am inclined to reject both extremes; the extremism of those who claim that they have absolute certainty that there is no God of any description anywhere and therefore “conclude the entire religious enterprise is and always has been the product of the minds of men.” as well as the extremism of those who insist that the “creator, desirous of praise and worship, allows —in fact encourages-- his minions to follow so much outright falsehood about him”

5. The real conflict now is probably between the pull of the comfort zone you’re in and the obligation to act that comes with your acceptance of the criteria I posted earlier for choosing the right “Foundation to lay one’s core principles on”. If the former wins you’ll remain saying, “Despite decades of my interest in this area, I have as yet found no cause to challenge this position.” If the latter wins then your being “receptive to nee [new] data” might take you to a foundation that is more true to your accepted criteria, and it would be interesting to see what that is.

While I’m not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, I wonder what it is you mean by “what is right”. “Right” in your opinion or “right” by way of corroboration?
Of the latter, you present none, yet attest to God as a reality beyond all dispute. It/He simply is not. That faith is necessary says enough. 

What is “devastatingly wrong with having different ‘interpretations of word‘“ and choosing and ranking what one considers veracity of claims, ...are you serious? ISIS, Boko Haram, Westboro Baptists, Sharia Law -a few of the more prominent evil outgrowths of what you apparently don’t see as a problem. Excuse my astonishment, and disappointment. Look, claims can either be proven or they can’t. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we see in the examples of evil I mentioned are what extraordinary ignorance fills the gaps of proof with. Residuals of the Parties of God.  

Accordingly, it’s become apparent that my base of understanding on this subject reaches into concepts far outside your purview, I believe this discussion can no longer proceed constructively, given both the limitations of this forum and the amount of discourse necessary to qualitatively express what lies in the gulf between our positions.

The other point I will raise is: to what end? I have little hope of influencing one who is so convinced that man’s plagiarized, regressive (the subjugation of women, for example, particularly in Islam) and contradictory scriptures are not only rational, but issued from the lips of the very God they cannot substantiate. Furthermore, you have as yet presented nothing that supports your own conclusions, Quid pro quo, which is what I was led to think was a focus of this discussion.

May you fare well with your beliefs. This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 6, 2018 3:24 AM MDT

1. A good learned discussion should not have condescending remarks like “my base of understanding on this subject reaches into concepts far outside your purview” neither should it be unbalanced or fail to apply the same rules to all participants. If a participant using the word “right” is asked “what it is you mean by “what is right”. “Right” in your opinion or “right” by way of corroboration?” then a participant saying “What we see in the examples of evil I mentioned …” should also be asked similar questions in respect of the word “evil”


2. Anyway, if we look at the context of the discussion we’ll see that “right” there is all that which is included in the all-important foundation a group has chosen to lay their core principles on [that is, a religion or philosophy defining the best belief and conduct to have in our limited life here] The idea that was being suggested there is that once one has identified the best religion/philosophy one should go for it, and not be put off by those misusing or misrepresenting that religion/philosophy, be they “ISIS, Boko Haram, Westboro Baptists” Stalin, Burmese Buddhists or any other.


3. The allegation “yet [you] attest to God as a reality beyond all dispute.” is an unnecessary lie or misrepresentation that has no place in a good open minded discussion. From, and including, the point where I suggested a set of criteria [a to h] for choosing a good philosophy/religion I have NOT included or made ANY reference to God.


4. “The other point I will raise is: to what end [is this discussion]?” ----------- Anyone who subscribes to a religion/philosophy is likely to be a good source of information to tap regarding that religion/philosophy. One good end result of an open, respectful and well conducted discussion between such people from different religions/philosophies is that the participants in the discussion, and all those who follow it, will be much better informed in those religions/philosophies. Another one is that the gaps between open minded people will become shorter as their religions/philosophies are subjected to challenges that they are based on “man’s plagiarized, regressive and contradictory scriptures [and/or ideas]” that they are not rational, that they promote “the subjugation of women” and that they cannot be “issued from the lips of the very God they cannot substantiate.”

May we all through open minded discussion converge on whatever is the best all-important foundation on which to lay our core principles.

like your "And whatever we as individuals decide, God's existence or non-existence is not affected one bit by either side's decisions."