1. That fact people who claim that faith leads to knowledge of the unseen and spiritual enlightenment can't agree what it is and every religion has divisions, is a major turn off.
2. The fact miracles were once part of the historical past according to most religions but are completely absent in today's time requires an explanation.
3. That interpretations of holy books are so vast that it seems a kid can write more clearly and decisively then God by the results.
4. The problem of suffering of humans, put's a moral nature to atheism. They don't like suffering, can we hate them for that?
5. The brutal conditions many animals go through - God could have created Pokemon but instead we get.... poor Bamby eaten.
6. Moral argument and value argument maybe strong if we all united on the light of morality and value, but since we have not, and fight one another, are they too be blamed for believing it's all subjective?
7. They got theories like evolution, big bang, etc, so God has become less of a scientific conclusion.
8. Some of are pretty cool can we blame them for us judging them harshly and telling them lack spiritual sense/faith and look down upon them, when a lot of them are just too cool to hate?
9. What's the point of seeking the truth when all seekers of it apparently disagree on it?
10. Atheists are humans, they just have drawn different conclusions about this whole spaghetti code of religion we got going. Blame ourselves before blaming them IMHO.
Kind of you to try to understand atheists. Too often, we see things like, "They reject God out of arrogance" and we're going to hell for it.
This sounds like the case for atheism, although you seem to present it as the case for understanding and tolerating atheists. The case for atheism is the belief that nothing should be believed without sufficient evidentiary support (skepticism), and that the available evidence doesn't point more to the existence of a god than it does to naturalistic explanations for origin, evolution, and daily operations of the universe. The critical thinker is forced to be agnostic about gods, since he can neither rule in or out either any naturalistic or supernaturalistic logical possibility. Agnosticism about gods leads to atheism for the critical thinker, since he cannot believe in gods without sufficient evidence.
But some of your points embody that lack of evidence. For [1], yes, it's a problem that people claiming to have spiritual truth believe different and often mutually exclusive things, or else can't explain what those truths are. That's not truth to me (see [9] also). The periodic table of the elements is the truth about an aspect of reality. It's derived from evidence, which tethers it to reality. That's why there is only one. [2] is another lack of evidence issue. And [5].
You include many of the atheist's arguments of the form that if there were a good, loving, omniscient, omnipotent god, there are certain things that we should expect to see that we don't. So we don't merely lack sufficient evidence, we're missing evidence that ought to be there if such a god is ruling our universe. Theists object to that kind of thinking, often considering it arrogant and impudent to have expectations of God if he exists, but there's a basic difference between the way the two camps process information.
I use that absence of expected evidence as a part of my argument that this benevolent, interventionalist god doesn't exist (conclusion follows evidence considered impartially and dispassionately, whatever that conclusion). The theist begins with the idea that a God does exist, and then evaluates evidence from that perspective, accepting whatever seems to support the faith-based belief and ignoring or dismissing that which contradicts it. Obviously, these two radically different approaches to deciding what is true about the world lead to mutually exclusive belief sets.
So, that's why I say that your OP reads like an argument for unbelief, but only if one processes information from evidence to inevitable conclusion rather than the other way around. The comments you listed are in large part what makes the critical thinker (skeptical, empirical) an atheist, but if one wants to begin with the assumption that such a god exists, none of those points will have have meaning. They'll be in the pile of things that the theist couldn't use in defense of his faith-based premise. None of that can possibly be seen as evidence against the existence of an benevolent, interventionalist deity since it couldn't possibly be if one begins with a sense of certitude that it does exist.
This is analogous to looking at the acts of a deity in a holy book, and one kind of thinker concluding that what is described cannot be a good god if it does these things, whereas the person who begins by assuming that such a deity does exist cannot see those same acts as immoral if he assumes that they cannot be.
Anyway, that's how we think and why we believe what we do. Again, thank you for being tolerant rather than accusing atheists of being arrogant and worthy of eternal punishment for thinking this way and coming to their own inevitable conclusions and trusting in reason rather than trusting in faith.
One more point about how reason affects the skeptic's behavior. I've mentioned how it affects his beliefs. Most of us are agnostic atheists, and like me, don't claim that gods can't or don't exist, just certain types of gods that have been described in logically impossible terms. So why do we live as atheists rather than theists?
The answer is that although there are three beliefs possible - God exists, no gods exist, and nobody knows - there are only two behaviors possible - live as a theist and maybe choose a god, religion, and holy book, or not. The choices seem imposed on the first two to either accept or reject a religious life, but why is the agnostic living like the guy who says gods don't exist rather than as a theist?
The answer is apparent in an analogy using trust. There are three positions possible regarding trusting another person: he's demonstrated that he's trustworthy, he's shown that he cannot be trusted, and we just met and thus can say neither, but only two behaviors possible - trust the guy with your $50,000 (or whatever the issue is), or not. Again, we know what the first two guys will do - one will trust, and one will distrust. But what about the agnostic? He has to pick one of those as well, and he's going to do what the person who knows that the guy is dishonest will do - reserve his trust until he has evidence that such trust is justified. That's why the agnostic skeptic lives like an atheist outside of supernatural belief systems.