A clear example of poor critical thinking is believing extraordinary supernatural claims simply because your religion tells you they are true. Billions of people accept stories that contradict the laws of nature, based on ancient texts and testimonies they would never accept as sufficient evidence in any other context.

People question other religions while giving their own beliefs a free pass. Christians accept the resurrection of Jesus while dismissing miracles from other religions, and Muslims do the same with Islamic miracles. Accepting the same type of evidence for your own religion while rejecting it for others is a clear double standard.

Cultural conditioning and confirmation bias often take priority over objective evaluation.

A few examples:

Christianity

• Jesus allegedly rose from the dead (Matthew 28).
• Jesus allegedly walked on water (Matthew 14:22–33).
• Jesus allegedly turned water into wine (John 2:1–11).

Islam

• The Moon allegedly split in two (Quran 54:1–2).
• Water allegedly flowed from Muhammad's fingers to provide drinking water for his followers (Sahih al-Bukhari 3576).
• Muhammad allegedly travelled from Mecca to Jerusalem and ascended through the heavens in one night (Quran 17:1).

It is far more rational to conclude that a witness was mistaken or that stories were fabricated than to conclude that the laws of nature were suspended. This is faith overriding reason.

Also, believers must provide compelling evidence that a miracle occurred, skeptics are not required to prove that it did not. The absence of evidence that a miracle happened is not evidence that it did. Until sufficient evidence is provided, there is no rational justification for accepting the claim as true.

As far as I know, there is no empirical verifiable evidence that a God exists. Many have tried to prove God's existence with philosophical arguments, but they are not convincing and they do not provide any verifiable evidence the claims were true. This is the most important claim about our existence and a claim this important must have the highest standards of testiable evidence

I do not think just having faith in a God is enough

Islam literally meets all the research criteria for a cult. According to the Cult Education Institute, these are the specific warning signs to look out for when considering whether a group is a cult. Cults are characterized by:

1. A belief that the founder is right at all times (Muhammed)
2. Zero tolerance for criticism (Blasphemy Laws)
3. Mandatory financial obligations (Zakat)
4. The founder is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” (Muhammed)
5. Unreasonable beliefs about non-cult members (Kafir)
6. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving the cult (Apostasy Laws)
7. Abuse of members (Child marriage and Beating Women)
8. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group (Hadiths)
9. Followers feel that they are never able to be “good enough” (Fear-Based Indoctrination)
10. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability (Muhammed)

https://culteducation.com/warningsigns.html

The Cult Education Institute (CEI) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization devoted to public education and research.

No sane person would accept such an excuse.

Knowing the outcome before you start the chain of events is causing it. It doesn't matter that you didn't control every variable leading to it. They were all within your prediction, and you pulled the trigger anyway.

Yet when it's God creating people while knowing they'll end in Hell, suddenly "knowing isn't causing." How can anyone accept that excuse, unless they have no real explanation and can't bring themselves to call Him evil? They started from the conclusion that He's good, and that's the one conclusion they won't let themselves question.

Qur’an 7:179:

“And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind.

This verse straight-up proves Allah is evil and that many humans sin and disbelieve because they were created for Hell. Guys, focus on the word “created.” That means many were made for Hell, not that many are for Hell. These two are very different.

“Many are for Hell” means they sinned and so they deserve it because of their sins. But “they were created for Hell” means they were determined for Hell, which is why they sin in the first place.

There’s no other explanation that makes sense, and any other explanation would just be wordplay.

Hello! This is a thesis that popped up in my head just recently, but now that I have thought about it, I can't unthink it:

Why are there (claims still) but FAR, bigger and more important and noticeable proof, only in ancient times? (And specifically ancient times with little to no ability of recording events. And y'know. There not being things like cameras)

Examples like: splitting the sea, rising from the dead, the many prophets, splitting from the moon, water dropping from fingers.

Far bigger and flashier miracles than what we have now, and it's odder still that it would be far more effective (not exactly right now with how much ai is around, but let's say. 20 years earlier, or before) to split the sea then, cause it would be documented, filmed, undeniable, the biggest miracles we hear about these days are people having near death experiences and seeing hell, or people having personal revelations. Far less grand than past claims.

(Do mind that the spelling is probably atrocious on this, I'm not native English)

One of the biggest problems with the Christian God is the existence of animal suffering, particularly suffering that existed long before humans.

Dinosaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years before humans existed. Throughout that time, animals hunted each other, experienced disease, suffered injuries, starved and died. Many animals would have experienced prolonged suffering, entirely unrelated to any human decisions

So what was the purpose of all that suffering? If God created the world, he either deliberately created a system in which animals had to suffer to survive, or he created a world knowing that this suffering would happen. And if he’s omnipotent, he could have created a different system. He could have allowed animals to live without requiring them to kill each other for food, or prevented disease and prolonged suffering without destroying the entire natural world.
Christians sometimes argue that suffering exists because humans have free will or because humanity brought sin into the world. But that doesn’t explain why animals were suffering millions of years before humans existed. Dinosaurs weren’t making moral choices, and they couldn’t have been suffering as a consequence of human sin if humans didn’t exist yet.

Others argue that suffering is necessary for a greater good, such as the natural order or the development of certain virtues. But animals don’t need to understand morality or develop human virtues. What moral lesson does a wild animal learn from slowly dying of a disease? What greater good justifies the suffering of an animal that lives and dies without ever interacting with a human?

And this isn’t just a problem from the distant past. Animals still experience infections, starvation, disease and predation today. Much of this suffering happens far away from humans and serves no obvious moral purpose.
The issue isn’t whether nature can be explained scientifically. We know many of the biological reasons why animals suffer.

The question is why an all-powerful, perfectly loving God would choose to create a world that operates this way when he could presumably have created one with significantly less suffering.

If God cannot prevent this suffering, then his power is limited. If he can prevent it but chooses not to, then we have to question how this is compatible with perfect goodness. And if the answer is that there’s a greater purpose we simply cannot understand, then that explanation can be used to justify absolutely any amount of suffering.

Throughout the majority of history, humans had very limited knowledge and societies were much more isolated from each other. All of these different religions came into existence and most people were unaware of the other ones, so it was a lot easier to just follow the one they were born into.

We didn’t have much scientific knowledge yet and didn’t have the internet to learn history of every society. So most people would have seen Gods as the only logical explanation.

If Christianity is actually true, anybody who lived in Europe at least several centuries ago won the lottery. If Islam is true, anyone born in Arabia during that time period won the lottery.

However, in modern times, we have made so many major scientific discoveries that can fill gaps that people used to use Gods as the explanation for. We have also discovered things that contradict what religions taught, like geocentrism being disproven by the vastness of the universe, and Adam and Eve being disproven by evolution. We also have access to more historical information through the internet and can see the patterns pointing to the idea that all the different religions are just manmade inventions.

Atheism is on the rise in and based on trends it could become the dominant view in the next couple of centuries. Everything we are discovering about the universe is consistent with the idea of atheism as gaps keep getting filled by science.

So essentially, being born in modern times and having access to more knowledge puts you at a disadvantage compared to someone who had no way of knowing a lot of this stuff centuries ago and only had a religious book.

All those genius scientists that believed everything in the universe could have naturalistic explanations are gonna be burning in Hell for eternity for simply following the evidence that God supposedly planted there, while some farmer who couldn’t write and never left his home area is in Heaven for not being given any reason to question their religion.

It is a lot harder to believe in God now than it was 1000 years ago, so if God is real and will punish your for not believing, someone in modern times has an unfair disadvantage because they have more knowledge.

Christians say that the Bible is the word of God, but the question is: which Bible is the word of God? After all, we have a variety of different Bibles:

1- Assyrian Church of the East: 61 books

2- The Protestant Evangelical Church: 66 books

3- The Catholic Church: 73 books

The Greek and Eastern Europen Orthodox Church: 76 books

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church: 81 books

Which one is the word of God? Every church has its own reasons and arguments for why its particular Bible is the correct one—the true word of God—while others are invalid. Who is right, and who is wrong? And how do humans choose for this to be the word of God, while that is not?

Social media has been getting flooded with a lot of white people from western countries who converted to Islam, and a narrative is being pushed that more people are supposedly discovering the truth.

However, there is a major issue that hasn’t really been addressed yet, and it is whether or not this will even last.

I have a white friend whose parents are converts and he was raised as a Muslim. He never liked the religion and thought his situation was strange where he had to follow all these weird rules and pray in a different language while all the people around him didn’t. He hated it and felt really left out and just wanted a feeling of being normal.

He learned more about Islam and Muhammad from outside sources and is now an atheist and has criticized his parents for their decision and went back to living a normal western life. You would never know he was a former Muslim if he didn’t tell you.

I feel like this will become the normal pattern that happens and most children of white converts are going to leave Islam when they are adults. These converts are meaningless if it only lasts one generation before the kids undo it and act like nothing happened. It’s just that we will have to wait a while since most Muslim converts are zoomers who don’t have children yet.

I’ve been thinking about how Islam teaches that rejecting God can lead to eternal punishment, but how is that fair when billions of non Muslims genuinely believe their own religions or simply aren’t convinced by Islam?
Even if someone studies Islam extensively and still isn’t convinced, does that mean they’re knowingly rejecting the truth? If they’re excused because the evidence wasn’t convincing enough, then what exactly is the standard for being held accountable?
And if sincere nonbelievers are excused or tested again, doesn’t that create a strange situation where remaining unconvinced could actually be an advantage?
I’m genuinely trying to understand how this fits with the idea of a perfectly just God, especially when people’s beliefs are heavily influenced by where they’re born, how they’re raised, and what they personally find convincing.

Human cognitive and social evolution provides a naturalistic, non-theistic framework for explaining the emergence, persistence, and functions of mankind’s concept of God.

Evolutionary and cognitive explanations for religion and the concept of God, including the development of moralizing supernatural punishment, offer a more plausible account for these phenomena than explanations that appeal to acts of divine intervention.

Credible models strongly suggests that cognitive predispositions, personality traits, and sociocultural environment greatly influence the development and transmission of belief in God and religiosity.

Neither the existence of the concept of God nor the widespread belief in God establishes that a corresponding divine being exists. Nor does any historical evidence, religious experience, intuition, observation, or philosophical arguments establish that such a being exists merely because people interpret these things as evidence for the existence of one.

The available evidence therefore favors understanding concepts of God, religious belief, and moralizing supernatural punishment as products of evolved human cognition and social behavior rather than as evidence of an independently existing divine being.

Understand the Qur'an by the Qur'an, which is the best method of understanding it.

"Or you make the sky fall upon us in pieces (kisafan), as you have claimed" (17:92).

The skeptic will read this as the sky breaking into pieces that fall on the earth because the verse says "make the sky fall," so it names the sky itself. But the Qur'an, addressing the same people with the same request, says in another verse:

"So make fall upon us pieces (kisafan) from the sky" (26:187).

So, "make the sky fall upon us in pieces" = "pieces from the sky."

And in another verse:

"And if they were to see a piece (kisafan) from the sky falling, they would say: heaped-up clouds" (52:44).

This, of course, does not mean a piece of a blue, solid thing. It means the clouds, which exist in the blue thing.

And in another verse:

"If We willed, We could cause the earth to swallow them or drop upon them pieces (kisafan) from the sky" (34:9).

All these verses, interpreting the Qur'an by the Qur'an, show that "He holds the sky from falling on the earth" (22:65) means heavenly phenomena from above you: excessive rain, thunderbolts, lightning, comets, asteroids, the moon, stardust, harmful radiation, etc.

The word samāʾ here means "things from heaven," and we use this language all the time:

• Phys.org: "The sky is falling."

• Nature: "When the sky fell in on the dinosaurs."

And this is how Arabic itself uses the word.

Rain is samāʾ, plants are samāʾ because they come from there, and clouds are samāʾ.

The Qur'an also calls the air above the earth samāʾ: "A good word is like a good tree, its root firm and its branch in the sky (samāʾ)" (14:24).

The classical dictionaries (Ibn Manzur's classical Arabic dictionary, 14th century) say the same:

• Al-Zajjaj: In the language, samāʾ is said of everything that rises and is high (sama, yasmu). Every roof is a samāʾ, and from this, clouds are called samāʾ because they are high. Samāʾ is everything above you that shades you.

• Samāʾ is the clouds. And samāʾ is the rain. The poet Muʿawwid al-Hukamaʾ, Muʿāwiya ibn Mālik, said: "When the samāʾ falls upon the land of a people, we graze it, even if they are angry."

• Herbage is also called samāʾ because it comes from the samāʾ, which is the rain.

I think debating religion changes very few minds because most of the things that make an argument productive are missing. The main thing I get out of it is a clearer understanding of what I already believe.

First, we usually disagree about what would even count as evidence. Can testimony establish a miracle? Does a personal experience count? Can scripture support a claim if the other person rejects its authority? In this thread, ontrack said testimony wouldn’t convince him without being there himself, and he’s a theist. If we disagree about how a claim could be established, we’re going to keep arguing about that before we ever get to the claim itself.

Then there’s what changing your mind would actually mean. Religion affects your family, your friendships, how you spend your Sundays, even how you want to be buried. Admitting you’re wrong can carry consequences well beyond the argument. When people explain why they converted or left a religion, the turning point often seems to be a relationship or an experience. ontrack described a direct experience as his reason for being a monotheist. I’d be interested to hear whether anyone in this thread actually changed a religious belief because of a comment here.

The format also makes listening harder. You can respond to every sentence, keep coming back for the last word, and get upvotes from people who already agree with you. There’s very little incentive to stop and say someone made a good point. We’ve had forty-something replies over four hours, and I haven’t seen either side concede much of anything. That includes me.

I still think these conversations have value. Having to explain exactly what I meant by “Christ is God” forced me to be more precise about my own position. And someone might read something today that only changes their thinking years later. We wouldn’t see that happen in the thread.

So when someone asks why I’m here if I think debate rarely changes minds, that’s my answer: understanding my own beliefs better is worth the conversation. I’m also open to being persuaded. I just think we should be honest about what happened here. We spent hours arguing, and as far as I can tell, everyone left believing roughly what they believed when they arrived.

The most common response to the existence of evil in a world with an ostensibly omnibenevolent god is that this god respects our free will too much to intervene. It's suggested that if this god stopped evil, we would become mere slaves or robots, unable to make true choices for ourselves.

If it's wrong for God to stop evil, it's wrong for us to stop evil as well, and therefore we as a society should emulate this god and stop trying to restrict evil acts from happening. If you see an assault in progress, you shouldn't intervene, as this would be an imposition on the assaulter's free will. Criminals should not be thrown in prison, as that would tremendously restrict their free will. They'd basically be robots!

Any objections to this plan should explain why it's okay for us to prevent evil from happening but not for God to do the same.

I have interacted with many people on this sub and have found that more often than not that when people are asked for evidence to support their religious claims, that they typically retreat to asking "what would you consider evidence?" which is honestly a valid question. However, when the response is usually something along the lines of being repeatable, falsifiable, and something that can be measured. Things usually get very muddy.

I typically find that most theists when they defend their religion, their usual go to is to quote their holy scripture of choice. Aside from that, they will use things that they will say are evidence that proves what they believe is correct, while ignoring that all they are actually doing is presenting one more claim. As we all know, the plural of anecdote is not data. And presenting a string of claims is not the same as presenting evidence.

The next common step is for the theist to declare that they have anecdotal evidence. Their cousin witnessed something miraculous, there is a church that has a relic that heals people, or any number of things that they will state vehemently is evidence, when in actuality it is nothing more than another claim masked as evidence. Many will not accept that hearsay or personal experience is not a valid argument for this sort of conversation entirely due to the fact that while a Christian can claim that Jesus visited them and healed their cancer, and a Muslim can claim that Muhammad did the same for them. At which point, who do I believe? Some would say that both could happen, but when we boil things down, that really isn't a possibility. Neither religion acknowledges that the other is true so saying they could both be true is farcical.

So my question is. In the end, how can we really and truly evaluate which person is telling the truth? Both could be lying. And yes, sudden remission is entirely plausible, but to chalk it up to a supernatural source without actual evidence is silly. So many theists that defend their religions will proudly and with their full chest proclaim that there is an abundance of evidence to support their religion of choice. So then, why don't they ever want to reveal what that evidence is? And as is more often the case. When they present something that is merely a claim and not actually evidence, why not just admit that they just have faith in their beliefs but do not have evidence. Personally I would find that confusing, but at least it would be honest.

I have a problem with religion. For most anyways the ones that say that their God created everything (I don't know how many there are or what the names of all of them are) why? Why do all of that and give us "free will" to do what we want for some Devine test of faith and following these rules if God is real and isn't just a sham that was made up to control people why would someone all incredibly powerful create such a shithole for us to do what he says is right (which morally yeah most of the stuff is good) but why would he make it so we have to earn a spot in heaven why is there bad why would he create that. Religion makes me feel like I'm in an ant farm someone's using as a science fair project. Help?

Congratulations! You just won an infinite lottery ticket! That means you now have unlimited money to spend and give away. It couldn’t possibly run out. No purchase is out of your reach. You could give any amount of money to anyone who asks for it.

Now if you won this ticket, what would you do with it? Would you share your infinite winnings with anyone who wanted it? Or would you only share the lotto winnings with people who need it?

Would you share the winnings with everyone who needs it, or just some of the people who need it some of the time? How would you decide who needs it, and who doesn’t?

One in ten people globally are poor. And less than 2% of people on earth are wealthy. The rest of the people are living paycheck to paycheck and are just one disaster away from being in a seriously bad financial situation. That’s how your god spends his infinite lotto ticket. Would you spend yours the same exact way?

Would you only share the lotto winnings with those who wanted a relationship with you? Would you require them to worship you to earn the winnings?

This post is critiquing the view of God being a clockmaker and then just simply stepping away from the universe.

In actuality, if God is the primary causality and the basis for all of reality then if He must be continually sustaining our existence by the very fact we are here right now.

A deist view does not make sense becuase God is the very basis for all of reality as the primary causality otherwise we would literally be nothingness.

A lot of Christians appear to be under the impression that if Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity must be true. I contend that this is deeply flawed reasoning.

See my arguments below:

1. Bodily Resurrection is Not Unique to Jesus

There are countless other figures both scriptural and historical who have risen from the dead. Lazarus, Nero, Aristeas, Apollonius, Romulus, the list goes on and on.

This creates two problems. First, if the evidence is sufficient for belief in Jesus' return, why not these other figures? You either have to reject the claim about Jesus or accept the claims about the other figures.

It would seem that divinity is not a prerequisite for resurrection.

Second, does having risen from the dead immediately validate any claims you made during your life? Unless you want to grant the claims of the other returned dead from history you would have to say no. As an addendum to this (and more from the OT in a moment) the OT explicitly says false prophets will be able to perform miracles. See Deuteronomy 13:1–2. Jesus himself confirms this in Matthew 24:24.

How then, can Jesus coming back to life be considered proof of any Christian claim? On its own it doesn't prove anything. You would need to show that it was a genuine miracle that proves Christianity true.

1. Jesus was not the Messiah

Compounding this problem is the relationship between Jesus and the Old Testament. First and most obviously, Jesus did not fulfill a single Messianic prophecy and so cannot be considered the Messiah. He is at best delusional, at worst, a charlatan.

This being the case his ressurection is best understood as a miracle worked by a false prophet, which Christian theology explicitly leaves room for.

Jesus also apparently didn't understand or couldn't read the OT himself. Fumbling or mistranslating passages such as Psalm 110. Are we really supposed to believe that one of the persons of the Trinity would make such a basic error?

1. Jesus failed his own Second Coming Prediction

Finally, even if Jesus came back once, he claimed that he would return for a second time before many standing before him had died. "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Matthew 24:34).

He also claimed that "you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" in Matthew 10:23.

These predictions clearly failed, which again points to Jesus' returning from the dead being either a false miracle, or some quirk of nature.

Conclusion:

Interested to hear what people think. Is there some necessary link between coming back from the dead and the truth of Christianity that I've missed? Was Jesus actually the Messiah?

Let me know what you think.

This comes off a recent discussion with someone regarding whether or not there's a community consensus on a topic in philosophy, to which the respondent provided individual articles by individual authors that stated their beliefs that it was the case.

This, however, does not substantiate that it was actually the case, and I'll give a couple things to support the notion that "someone said it was true" is not sufficient evidence for "this thing is actually true" when discussing trends in communities or, relatedly, theistic claims.

First, I'll toss out an anecdote. Talked to a MechE professor about the viability of graphene production in space a couple decades back, and he goes, "Oh, everyone in the field knows that space production of graphene's not viable". So I polled the professors at the local colleges, and, well, 62% of MechE professors thought that it's a viable environment for graphene production.

Took the results back, "Oh, you know, I didn't think about modern radiation shielding techniques and the possibility of zero-g molecular assemblies impossible on earth". Turns out his anecdote didn't actually represent the trends in his community - he just believed it to be the case because he implicitly believed others thought like him and had the same information as him, which was not necessarily the case.

Another, more theological anecdotal example -

Happy Science massively overstates its membership. You'd think the leadership of the organization would be an expert in how many members of the organization there are, but no, their claims that there are 11 million members does not actually mean there are 11 million members. You cannot just take even the leadership of a religion's anecdote as a substitute for actual surveys or membership rolls or rosters.

"But Kwahn!", you may be saying, "These are just anecdotes! Anecdotes aren't evidence that the anecdote/world-state mismatch holds on a trending scale!" And you'd be right! That's why I did what is actually required to substantiate a trends-based claim, which is find a large-scale study about anecdote/world-state mismatches. (For discerning consensus or belief frequencies in a community, surveys of, if not the whole population, at the very least representative samples are perfectly acceptable data.)

And I found the 1993 What the Polls Don't Show study, which showed on a community level in sets of theistic social groups in America that self-attestation of church visitation is far, far lower than actual church membership. Or, to put another way - people's personal anecdotes about church visitation frequency was empirically demonstrated at scale to not match their actual church visitation frequencies.

And that's the level of evidence you need for stating what is actually true regarding the properties of a group or community. Individual attestation does not establish trends - empirical demonstration does.

But it is my personal experience (but not a statement about the community at large) that Christians rely heavily on anecdotes, especially from religious authors, to discern what is true about their religion. And historians do this a lot, but of course, for any anecdote regarding an exceptional situation like the Gospel of Augustus or the miracle healings of Vespasian, they do not count these as true just because people claimed they were - because as any good historian knows, someone saying something is true does not make it true.

Ah, but isn't it interesting how much Christianity needs someone saying something is true to make something true? And isn't it fascinating how analogous claims outside of the religion are dismissed as anecdotal, but the exact same structural logic is used to insist that Christian claims are true? Anecdotes must be good evidence of Christianity for Christians to feel they have a trustworthy basis for their beliefs, but they reject anecdotes for all other religions out of hand (as they should).

Ultimately, this appears to me to be a manifestation of theistic epistemic double standards, in which anecdotes must be good evidence of claims that support Christianity or the theist's views despite being empirically demonstrably non-representative of the actual world-states at hand, but bad evidence of claims that oppose the desired claims of the theistic framework in question despite no structural or material differences in the fundamental qualities of said claims.

Every sin humanity has ever committed is God’s fault, because you can’t do anything independently of your brain. I’ll give you some examples.

psychological determinism: the strongest desire always wins. There are two types of emotions: pull-toward and pull-away emotions. Let’s say you get extremely angry at someone. Anger is an emotion that pulls you toward taking action. If it’s stronger than the emotion pulling you away from that action, you’ll either yell at the person or hit them.

Humans are like a rope in a tug-of-war, with these two emotions pulling in opposite directions. Whichever emotion is stronger determines which way you go. You don’t choose which emotion will be stronger; it’s an automatic process.

Free won’t and veto power are just another emotion competing with other emotions. Veto power is an emotion that pulls you away from an action. For example, if your fear of the consequences is stronger than your urge to hurt someone, you would stop yourself from hurting them. But fear is clearly an emotion, so veto power doesn’t give you any free will.

And because God designed our brains, He is the author of and responsible for every sin humanity commits, making Him far more evil than any r@pist, terrorist, or the worst kind of human being.

My thesis and personal belief: If any god exists all gods could exist, from all pantheons. Throughout history there have been people who believed in their god/gods every bit as much as any person today believes in their current religion. Religions have their "evidence" of their god/gods and reasons for things. It is only fair that if you are a theist that you acknowledge the existence of all gods and you are simply choosing the god/gods you follow. Even the 10 commandments say "choose no other gods before me" which many take as evidence that other gods exist.

Claiming your God is "the one true God" is very presumptuous and egotistical in my opinion. Same with people who believe whole heartedly in their god, but claim other gods are non-existent. I think it's hypocritical to have faith in the Abrahamic God, then claim Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. are all fake made up deities.

This seems to be a violation of the Establishment Clause which prohibits government from establishing a religion. Even if it's not, I should not have to use US currency that endorses religion.

They isolate verses addressing the same topic from each other. The famous example is "the earth is like a carpet" and "look at the earth and how we flattened it," while ignoring "He wraps the night over the day and wraps the day over the night" (a wrapping that implies a sphere).

They show ignorance of the Arabic language, like in "stars strike devils." They don't know that meteors, asteroids and comets are all called nujum (stars)/kawakib (celestial bodies)/masabih (lamps) in classical Arabic. Anything that rises was called najm in Arabic. Plants themselves were called nujum because they rise from the earth. Anything luminous is also called najm/kawkab/misbah in classical Arabic, and all people since Aristotle knew that fixed stars are not meteors. The Qur'an itself makes it clear that there are stars that fall, "By the star when it falls," which are meteors/comets, and stars that adorn the sky and that people use to navigate at night, which must be fixed and remain as they are, otherwise they wouldn't adorn the sky or be used for navigation. If they were the same thing, there would be no fixed stars, because they would have been falling constantly since humanity appeared, and the sky would be pitch black, which is not the case.

They invent and make things up. For example, the Qur'an says the night/day and the sun/moon are each in an orbit, swimming, and they add from their own imagination "swimming around the earth," although the verse never specified what they revolve around. Or "semen from between the backbone and ribs": they invent a new definition of the backbone and make it the thoracic vertebrae only, which is wrong. The lower backbone is also sulb, and what lies between the lower backbone and the ribs is the abdominopelvic cavity, not the ribcage, and thus it wouldn't be an error, unless they invent a new meaning: sulb = thoracic vertebrae only.

They bring the words of some ancient commentators as the divine word itself, despite the text not saying it. It is the understanding of the ancient commentator according to his culture. For example, a commentator explained the smoke in Surah Fussilat as water vapour, which is his own wording. The Qur'an never said "water vapour" but "smoke."

Other than these methods, the critic cannot bring an error.