2. Some athiests acknowledge that there's some limited proof of a God, but think that any such entity doesn't deserve to be worshipped anyway.
Atheists acknowledging a limited proof of a god? No Idea where you got that impression from.
3. (Mono)Theists believe in a God because there's no disproof of a God.
Those theists that do not claim that there is a proof for god believe because of faith; because they
want to believe.
As for the omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence issue:
1. My opinion is still that these terms are ill-defined and thus reasoning about them is not sensible. Furthermore, a being with anything resembling these characteristics would be beyond our understanding.
2. The latter also seems to be the position of the catholic church, as they posit not only an omnipotent/-scient/-benevolent god, but also one that is "immeasurable" and "incomprehensible" (as quoted earlier), thus rendering pointless any attempt at rationally understanding god, or at exploring the nature of god scientifically.
Of course, that might put the church in trouble, because if god is incomprehensible, how are we supposed to know what he wants from us? Well, the answer of the church would probably be that while god might be incomprehensible, that doesn't mean that god's word, i.e. the bible, is incomprehensible. But then the authority of Christian theology relies on the bible actually being or at least sufficiently conveying god's word. Unfortunately, as seen in this thread, even many Christians nowadays think that the bible is a human made and flawed document....
3. If I for the sake of argument am to take the omni-x characteristics seriously, then I tend to agree with Neruz: It seems difficult to reconcile the nature of the world we live in with a god that is all three of omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
For example, yes suffering in the world would be compatible with omnibenevolence per se, because in god's bigger plan, which we do not know, suffering might be a necessary means to a better end. But then, if god is also omnipotent, surely he could come up with a better means that does not necessitate suffering? For example:
It is not impossible for an omnibenevolent deity to allow suffering. They would presumably have their own moral code, after all, assuming they thought in such patterns. Perhaps it is benevolent, for whatever reason, for there to be suffering, so that we appreciate our happy moments more? This is just one theory, there could be all sorts of reasons.
So yes, these would be one of the reasons that would make suffering compatible with omnibenevolence, but if god also was omnipotent and omniscient, surely he could come with a better way? Or simply make everyone infinitely happy right away, being omnipotent and all?
So again, as far as I can see right now the only way to save all three of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience is to also posit that god's ways are mysterious and incomprehensible, breing us back to point 2. ...
Neruz: Oh, I feel bad for always ending up disagreeing with you, but:
Logic dictates that unless something can be proved to exist, it does not.
You mean cannot be proven in principle, or cannot be proven in practice? But in either case, I'm inclined to disagree.
A logical stance directly contradicts the existence of a deity, ergo in order to believe in a deity you must either abandon logic or misinterpret how logic works. I'm not insulting Theists by saying that they do not have a logical stance, they said it themselves when they said they have faith in god.
Are you saying that the existence of god - in any form - is directly illogical? I can't see how you could say that.