Post Praetorian said:
In what way might evidence for the non-existence of god be considered absurd?
Well, I as an atheist do not make claims of the non existence of god, my conclusion of the non-existence of god comes from the lack of evidence from the believers when they assert that there is a god. We can't take the existence of god as the default ''true'' that must be debunked. If a theist claims that there is a all-powerful supreme being then it must present the evidence of that claim and the evidence must be reviewed to see if it is true or not, if the evidence presented does not fit with the reality and knowledge of the world where we live then is false.
I don't assert that there is no god at all anywhere, I assert that all the evidence of all the gods in the human history points out to mythological tales and not the actual existence of a god. If there is a god and in the future the evidence is presented to support the claim then I'll become a believer, and if there is a god I'm certain is not one of all the ones presented in the past and present religions of the humankind.
In your view, is free will possible while a measure of information might yet remain absent?
I'm not sure that I understood the question... there is things we can't change because they are outside of or control but that does not mean that there is a destiny or divine plan of some sort.
Has it been your experience that these groups tend to care less or more for those yet on the outside (i.e. the theoretically damned)?
They may care but in a very not caring way, like the people who help homeless people because they want to enter the paradise and not exactly because they really care, I'm not saying that every one has the same motivation but there is a lot of hypocrites as well.
If no such proof were forthcoming, but members of said religion were in general loving, steadfast, generous, honest, and kind would proof of the existence of that which might motivate them still be paramount? What if the alternative might be a society of certain degeneration whose source might be clearly known?
To clarify, if it might be known that by instructing individuals falsely one might achieve a societal norm of unprecedented peace and harmony; but by informing them of reality one might never achieve same, which might be the preferred option?
Achieve a ''good'' society by brain washing and lies is not actually good, specially when the lies are absurd like you are going to hell for being gay or thing that actually make society worse. A true civilization should be civilized and fear, oppression, lies, punishment, segregation and etc are not civilized at all. There are many societies today that are mostly atheist and/or secular and they have outstanding social indexes. One of the many misconceptions is that if there is no god or a believe in god then everything will be chaos and immorality, societies learned how to coexists and evolve as a community long before modern religions and the gods teaching morality.