Okay. Lets see if I'm thinking straight.
There are thousands of different religions in existence, all of which are supported by broadly equivalent proofs.* This means that if one of them is correct, then it would only be the accident of your birth or some other chance circumstance that would allow you access to this truth.
If there isn't any way of recognising god's truth, then I find it really hard to imagine that, if we are beholden to a god, the god to whom we are beholden is in any recognisable human sense benevolent.
I tend to believe that, considering the seemingly parochial or arbitrary nature of belief, you can most likely rule out any god that proports to be benevolent and simultaniously threatens punishment for unbelief.
Obviously, that doesn't rule out a deistic deity, or even a malevolent one. Nor does it rule out an Abramic god who is benevolent but in a way that appears to mere humans to be malevolent. However, I think it makes the existence of an Abramic god, who is benevolent in a sense meaningful to humans, at least seem a bit questionable. It does for me, anyway.
Does that make sense? It really wouldn't suprise me if it didn't.
*This has nothing to do with this post really (I'm going off my own topic!), but one of my favourite proofs for a deity's existence is a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy that is sometimes used to support the truth of Islam. Basically, it runs that the Koran is obviously divinely inspired because no human could ever write a book like one of the divinely inspired books of the Koran. Of course, many have tried, but none have succeeded, even though the shortest book of the Koran is only a few lines long. Impressive, huh?