I think you've been making a number of assumptions in this thread.
Actually I've been hoping you'll state your position on whether you see a belief in God is good or bad for folks. If your're really neutral then I don't understand what your debate is about.
Rejecting an argument does not necessarily mean rejecting the argument's conclusion. I can reject the claim "the sky is blue because pixies paint it that way" without rejecting "the sky is blue."
You're providing examples, this isn't saying anything about your position regarding the belief in God.
When I encounter a bad argument for a god, all I can say in response is "if this god exists, it isn't for the reasons that this guy is claiming." I can only out-and-out reject a god when there's reason to think that a god can't exist... e.g. when a god-concept is internally contradictory or implies that things in the world would be a particular way when they're demonstrably not.
If you don't understand a claim, what grounds would you have to reject it? What mistake in logic in an argument can you point to if you don't know what logic it purports to use?
It's perfectly valid not to accept an argument that hasn't been expressed in a way you don't understand. It isn't valid to reject it.
Yes a person can do any number of random things you might imagine. What people actually do is much more interesting.
Don't try to speak for me.
I'm actually hoping at some point you'll speak for yourself instead of providing example of what folks might do.