Does your computer face mecca? If not that already was offensive...

I was once a Christian minister, so you are the one who should check your assumptions. I deliberately do not capitalise 'god', as I find the concept to be... English hasn't the words for the depravity.

With every passing hour, we know more and more about the universe we live in. With each new discovery, the Christian paradigm has less place as anything but a reference for morality. And a rather poor one, since it openly advocates the death of billions.
Training in formal logic allows you a wider understanding of the world, not a limiting one. Without a framework to ask the requisite questions, one has to make assumptions based solely on emotion or unquantifiable data, which will always lead to error. It allows you to not assume, for instance, that the person you are debating has no knowledge of your axioms. A good example is this very discussion. You are proceeding from the axiom that god exists, and is active in the lives of believers. I hold no such belief, and therefore am challenging that axiom. In order for a man such as yourself to have any effect on my way of thinking, you must FIRST establish an axiom that we can agree on. Failing in this, further statements cannot be considered axiomatic.

I do not believe in any gods. You believe in three, most likely. (not all of Christendom is trinitarian). If you're not a trinitarian, you believe in still one more god than I do. The words of bronze age zealots without corroboration or evidence fail utterly to sway me, and probably any person who has a grasp of logic and is NOT raised as a theist. Those, like me, who were raised to believe and then spent a decade trying to make it fit reality, we will be almost impossible to sway to mythical thinking. You'd have to PROVE a thing that, by your axioms, is unprovable and should not be questioned. I, on the other hand, operate from the very basic axiom that a thing that cannot withstand scrutiny is false, and it's derivative corollary that a thing that cannot be proven, while worthy of discussion, should be given little weight.

In my pursuit of religion (initially with the goal of proving it true) I have found almost no difference in the basal paradigms of all of them. That these basal paradigms are also the pillars of civil society is undeniable, and could be construed as a plausible asset to religious thinking. Unfortunately, the VERY basic paradigm of all theistic religions is that a particular god or gods exist, and want to be worshipped. Since they all disagree horribly on the nature of that god, and it's name, characteristics, origins and motives, there is no possibility of all of them being true. The reverse, however is quite likely: That none of them are. Since all such religions call for the death of the unbeliever, or, worse, eternal condemnation to endless torture for the sin of using the brain that supposedly was given by the gods, one has to examine the motives of the authors. That's a mixed bag, but the basal paradigm in all of them was that the leaders of the religions be given ultimate authority over the populace because "god said so" and that is not to be questioned. This meme has been outlandishly successful, allowing kings and other brigands to lead thousands to their deaths on the field of battle. It has been said that more men have died in the name of god than from any other cause. It's not true, but it's not far from it. At root, all wars are economic, but without some emotional cause to rally the masses, they won't occur. That religion is such an easy one to push into our (still primitive) emotional mind is a very serious argument AGAINST the utility of extant relgions if the goal is to make better human beings. Another of those oft repeated but false memes is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Again, it's untrue, but the people saying it are universally religious, and just as universally, are not thinking. If saying that being a paid killer requires relgion is considered to be an asset, then do you really think someone seeking peaceable coexistence would consider your religion meritorious?

I could go on for hours on this. But I simply have better things to do. It was all-consuming for more than ten years of my life. As I approach my 47th birthday, I find that while it still has the power to piss me off, I simply cannot devote the time and resources to bashing the idiocy of religion that I once could. In my own life, suffice it to say that becoming an atheist, while difficult due to the systematic brainwashing inherent in being raised religious, has been among the very best decisions I ever made. It has allowed me to pursue things that have actually benefitted me, it has allowed me to understand that being who I am is not egregious in itself, that violent thoughts are not immoral, only violent actions, and really a large number of other assets. Turning my back on religion has quantifiably improved my life in ways that I cannot enumerate without taking up reams of paper or pages of forum space. I no longer wake up feeling I'm cursed because I'm different from those around me. I no longer envy the lives of the clergy, as I got everything I have honestly. If I ever do drive a luxury automobile or live in a grand house, I will have earned it, not guilted a bunch of poor bastards into giving me what they earned for no return. Unlike when I was a Christian, I can face the man in the mirror without him condemning me, unless I've actually done something wrong. I also no longer have to wonder why it's considered ok for people to do horrible things as long as an innocent is punished (another pillar of your religion). I now understand it fully. It's a trick. It always was. When you give your autonomy to another, you give up much MUCH more than you can imagine. While I do not believe in an immortal soul, the concept is useful metaphorically. Mine is not for sale, and the rent is very high. You, and others who believe these things, have given yours away for free, and the only return you will ever get from it if you TRULY believe, is a warm fuzzy feeling as your Clergy, who are atheist to the core, sell you down the river.

I have, by the way, employed several deliberate logical fallacies in the above. For the most part, it conforms to logic. If you can identify them, you will be far more enlightened in your limited view than you were an hour ago. Regardless of your faith.

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Does not the very existence of the concept "quantum uncertainty" imply that whatever process (temperature for example) increasing the frequency of QU events per unit mass implies history loss.

Note "information" is different, and it is used in a very specific sense in these discussions.  "History" is a time based phenomena, and time is utterly fucked inside a black hole. 

Each and every time I have examined one of your links and applied high school level science to it, the claims were demonstrated to be false.

Your links can't even get a passing grade in high school.

Let's get real here.

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

I strongly disagree. In those nations where religion holds less sway, we see LESS of the above. See Sweden for a good example. Of course the argument could be made that socialism is itself a formal religion, but you are specifically referring to Christianity and to a lesser extent, other theistic religions.
On the contrary, in a rational world bad people do bad things and good people do good things. (I'll get into "good" and "evil" in a moment). With the backing of religion, good people do bad things, and often with a clear conscience. For a number of good examples from within your book, just read the book of Exodus. Granted, most of it is false, like zero evidence that the Hebrews were ever slaves in egypt for instance, but it openly condones putting entire populations to the sword in the name of "The LORD of HOSTS" if you like the KJV, or more correctly translated The God of Armies or Jehovah (medieval latin) or Yahwey as most modern scholars believe the name to be properly pronounced. One of the things commanded by your god was the dashing of babies against the rocks. And do not give me the "sins of the father" argument, because there is NO moral or ethical way to justify it. Which is pretty bad for your religion, because it's the crux of your beliefs. (see what I did there? Crux is short for Crucifix).
This is a tamer version of what Christians often say to atheists. It scares the shit out of me. Because what you're really saying is that without some religion going on, then people IN GENERAL are going to run rampant, murdering, raping, stealing, and generally being assholes. This tells us a LOT about the religious mindset. Luckily, we have all of history to prove it untrue. If humans were inherently evil, using the term the way religious people do, then no such books would be written, and given that none of the thousands of gods does a fucking thing, even if they were no one would care. Our species would not have survived. For the most part, we do not need to be told that it's wrong to attack and kill our fellow men and women. Crime is actually a pretty low percentage of human activity, once you take away statutory crime. (that's a discussion for another time). And as one would expect without the religious mindset, the worst crimes are the least common. A guy might not think twice about grabbing a loaf of bread, but will think a lot harder about assault or murder, even if he's deviant.

The truth, clearly observable if you have ANY grasp of reality and the ability to think, is that people are generally pretty neutral. We're a social species, so we work out ways to interact with each other. We also are pack animals, so we tend to make codes, such as religion, that make the "outsider" somehow less than human. That is just as egregious as theism, but it's at least something we can recognize and mitigate IN THE ABSENCE of religion. Within the framework of religion, the "other" will always be subhuman. It is not an accident that secularization of the world led to the largest population of humans ever. Civilized men rarely kill because of "god" anymore, with a few glaring exceptions. Unfortunately, those glaring exceptions are good at getting themselves into positions of power (which is a big part of why I'm an anarchist as well as an atheist).

Religion stands firmly in the way of mitigating death by providing the obvious fairy tale you present below. There is just about zero evidence that anything "survives" death except energy, which is never destroyed. There is a whole lot of evidence that we could extend life indefinitely via technologies that Christians oppose on "principle" because it's "playing god". Well, I for one ain't playing. At base, god means creator, and we are the most creative species we are aware of. In fact, even when I was religious, that bothered me. If we're made in god's image, as Christians and Jews presuppose, then why do Christians stand so heavily AGAINST being creative? (again, this is something of a deviation from the discussion, but something you ought to think about)

The pursuit of immortality predates Christianity by a rather large number of millenia. The ability to pursue it by technical means is just now falling into place, but a lot of that research has been very vocally opposed by Christians. For examples of the works, I suggest you google the methuselah mouse prize, SENS, and Dr. Aubrey DeGrey. It's beyond the scope of this discussion. I've been heavily involved in it for several decades now.

Utterly false. Every religion that I am aware of deals with "what happens after death" and they all disagree.

Now let me provide a little conundrum for you. Take away all the other contradictions and hypocrisy surrounding all religion and ask yourself this:

Based on the ideation that all theistic religions claim two things:

1. There is an all powerful god that has made or set in motion the entirety of our universe and
2. This god wishes to be worshipped.

The question is, if the above were true, how many religions would exist?

Let's see....The generally accepted 911 story does in fact pass high school Math, Chemistry and Physics tests.

Please come back and repost with alternatives that do pass these simple tests.