Atheists, do you understand why God must allow birth defects to exist?
As an atheist I have to say that I don't understand. That might have alot to do with the fact that I, as an atheist, DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR "GOD" IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Why do you think, even for a moment, that any atheist would even accept, much less agree, with your baseless assertion that your supposedly "all powerful", "all knowing", and "all loving" deity "must" not only allow, but by virtue of his position as omnipotent creator of all things, he must therefore be the cause of all birth defects.
God made the world without anything bad
If that were the case then sin would not even be possible.
WE messed it up and God cannot mess with free will.
Then why are there so very, very many examples of him doing just that in the bible? Was it not your "god" who is credited with "hardening Pharoh's heart"?
God DID create the world perfect. He DID make perfect DNA
First off, can you prove your claims? Secondly, Just what is it that is "imperfect" about DNA and why?
but when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit,
Your "god" brought about evil by placing the forbidden fruit in the garden where it could be eaten by Adam & Eve in the first place. If your "god" was incapable of foreseeing the whole "eating of the forbidden fruit" incident then he/she/it isn't worthy of being thought of as a god in the first place.
God had no choice but to allow there to be consequences.
"God had no choice".... Why? If your "god" is truly the creator of the universe and the author of all that is within it then what could bind your "god"? What could take away the will to choose from an omnipotent and omniscient "god"? If your "god" had no choice, in any matter, then he/she/it is not a "god".
God is love but he is also justice.
So what is your "god" when those two concepts conflict to an extent that cannot be resolved? And what "justice" is served in punishing people for an act that your "god" made possible in the first place?
Plus, isn't it kind of a cheap shot to attack God for allowing birth defects?
How so? After all, your "god" is, by it's own admission, the author of all things both good and evil, both sacred and profane. Besides, it's not a "cheap shot" because no one's attacking your precious "god", they are attacking your attempts to justify an inherently immoral belief.
Isn't this exploiting a terrible thing in order to win an argument? Isn't that tacky?
It's not exploitation, it's pointing out the flaws in your argument. What's tacky is you outright ignoring the fact that your argument has been roundly refuted and instead attacking the character of the person you are arguing with by attributing your own flawed reasoning to them. Sadly, it's the kind of dishonesty and misdirection that I've come to expect from apologists.