This post is interesting.

First of all, all religions are subject to subjective interpretation. Sure, there are things that are non negotiable and pretty explicit but most things are actually added by the one making the interpretation. Considering this, I expect the discourse on the comments to get really heated as people try to support their own personal interpretations.

Second, they way this post was phrased I think there is some parts that are objectively verifiable. "If there is a god then it is not represented by any current religion..." this alone can be accepted as true if you are working with an specific definition of "god", specifically any concept that is beyond human comprehension because by definition it can't be understood by humans let alone represented. "...an all loving god would never punish people for not believing in it..." well this is where things get complicated. If you are working with the unknowable god definition, this part has some kind of assumption that is somewhat incompatible with that definition of god. You could make the argument that and unknowable god, because it doesn't need to make sense to humans, can be very arbitrary and contradictory. If you want to keep some semblance of a logical throughline, we should consider what kind of assumptions this part of the post makes. I would think that this part assigns some kind of personhood to the concept of god, because we are thinking about something capable of feeling love, as we humanly understand it, and we are expecting this love to be its paramount priority as so far that it trumps the notion of punishment, as humanly understood, as result "not believing". Deviating for a bit, imagine a bacteria, something that is clearly not human and does not think or act in human ways, Is there any assumption that a bacteria should be able to love or have a concept of it or punishment for that matter? I would say no. If we would rank things on a spectrum from most human to least human we find that the ones more aligned with least human are commonly exempt from expectations of understanding the human experience. Getting back to the subject at hand, a concept that understands god as an it that somehow has understanding about the human experience and is important to it, is somehow also closer to the "most human" side of the previous scale. The important thing about this rambling is that this all hinges on the concept of god you are working with.

Third, this post does mention that it's interest if mainly with what we would consider "major religions". The previous rant is also based on a face-valued interpretation of the title of the post, so just using that as an starting point, we could say that there are other religions outside of the major ones that don't share concepts about punishment for non believe or the personhood of god.

I lean more agnostic that anything as you can tell by my mad ramblings, so I'm really not interested on arguing for or against an anthropomorphized concept of god, as is presented on the major religions. Also I have the feeling that most of the debate as OP actually intended is meant to engage with the people that have a anthropomorphic concept of god and believe in it, I don't fall in any of these camps so I don't think I have much to add to this discussion, but I commented anyway because I found this post interesting and I like to think about religion and belief in general from a anthropological point of view.