Theists, some questions

[Walking Void]

I'm back, bitches. I was losing sanity whilst floating around this forum so I took a break for a few weeks.

None of it holds up to actual scrutiny.

If you don't want to believe it then it won't enough convince you but it is enough to make it reasonable to believe in it providing you're not assuming materialism. If you are assuming materialism then you would instantly have to reject it out of hand as a tall tale as there is nothing else it could be. So the argument first is to explain why materialism isn't necessarily going yo be particularly true as you assume and then explain why you would want to believe this particular event happened. So a two pronged approach there. You can't go from your current frame of mind/world view and straight to the gospels as you're just going to take one look at it say "bollocks!" and sling it over your shoulder.

Faith is not the path to truth.

Atheism doesn't even have a path, there would be literally nowhere to go. Either there is a "truth" or purpose to existence or there isn't.

You are arguing from ignorance, black and whites, and glittering generalities. First of all, what do You know about each individual atheist and their purposes, if any? A belief in god does not translate into personal duties. The buddhists have no god, yet they have a purpose in enlightenment. Atheists are not limited by a lack of god, the same way other religions without gods have aim. Look up buddhism, confucianism, scientology, and humanism. Secondly, how do You know that a purpose to existence even can? How does a metaphysical goal get sealed into life, like in a video game? Spirits are more folktale than anything: all they ever do is get talked about. Nothing spiritual even takes place: it is only perceived as thought. More so, why are there only 2 options? Lastly, please, icing your arguments with conceived "goodness" like "truth" and "purpose" is only doing You yourself any benefit. It is "your" (and the church's) good, after all.

And you just pointed out the flaw with using faith, every religion has faith in mutually exclusive claims.

They make similar claims as well it's not like one religion has to be 100% true and all the others 100% false.

Red herring. None of the "other" religions need to be 100%, We need not focus on the plights of others, but each must argue their religion to be 100% true. Why devote to something fallible? This is also scientific practice, which has been committed to poorly in religions... but an attempt nonetheless. But anyhow, as a christian, You DO take christianity as the true and infallible religion... right?

And there is no way to discern the difference between the ones you believe are true and the ones Muslims, Zoroasrians, Hindus, etc believe are true.

Each religion would have it's own specific arguments/apologetic to support it. Christianity is distinguished by being the only religion that offers 100% guaranteed salvation from God himself through grace. Everything else is based on good works and/or karma so you essentially have to save yourself from God.

Composition discrimination. Try to avoid lumping what You perceive as all other religions into the "good works" and "karma" department. African tribes, Mayan empires, among others, heed to ritualistic exchange. As such, some shamans perform the rain dance, and some Mayan priests sacrifice people or animals in blood to their deities.

There is zero reason to invoke a god in order to explain morality. Natural and cultural explanations work fine.

Only if you want to deny freewill and reduce us all to machines though I wouldn't. You can if you like, it doesn't mean you know though it's just what you want to believe for some reason. I wouldn't recommend convincing everyone in the world that they are machines without purpose/freedom and there is no morality/justice beyond that which man himself can provide however, it's been tried before.

Appealing to the authorities. If man has no veracity on the grounds of freewill, or other moral dilemmas, then how does a specific religious dogma? If We take for example, christianity's bible and god as the authority on freewill, how do We prove it? We look to the bible. The bible, the "word of god", I can give You that, but that same word was designed at the hands of physical humans on physical ink on physical paper. And yet the almighty perfect "word of god" as seen on "that book" that "that guy" wrote is the infallible truth. Pff.

You still haven't answered whether you'd kill someone if God ordered you to.

When did Jesus go around telling anyone to kill anyone? Whatever God you have in mind I don't believe in that one I believe in Christ.

Luke 19:27, New International Version: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

What a merciful lord, is He not? Instead of taking the time to rehabilitate the non-believers who do not currently accept christ but still can (aka asking forgiveness and being forgiven), the loving son of god in all his great kindness and power... ends the non-believers... sending them to hell. Perfectly. Capable. Humans. Jesus, does not have time for that.

If you received a command that you knew came from God to kill someone, that as far as you could tell, is a good person, would you do it?

If it's something evil/vile then it wouldn't be a true vision of Jesus or whatever I was having if that answers the question?

Special pleading. Dismissing something that indeed CAN come from the god is indeed forcing oneself to be oblivious of the omnipotence. The god is all powerful, right? He can foresee any command, and killing is not off limits in christianity.

If your faith is as strong as you claim, you should have no more problems carrying this command than you would if you received a command to help the needy.

I'd know the real God/Christ from a demon/Satan in disguise or a psychotic episode I was having.

How do You distinguish from sane and insane until You observe yourself after the fact? By then it would be too late. If You were psychotic, You would be too impaired to properly determine that You are indeed, acting under psychosis. Or are You relating your faith to differing mental states?

Why are you avoiding the question? It seems simple enough.

Because I don't believe in whatever you have in mind for a God and if a God like that did exist I would have no interest in it.