Atheism

[SteveII]

I think the list I made seeks to identify four tests that, if a religion were to fail them, they have a big gaping hole that would be hard to overcome--from a rational-belief perspective. Perhaps #3 is weaker than the others.

Beyond the point noted, the first three of your criteria detail what men do in response to knowledge of the gods.  How exactly that is a question of the truth claims of a religious experience, or even of the religion, is something I don't fully understand.  The gods may be real and yet men may react to them differently.  The difference in cultures and theological assumptions explain the latter without impugning the former.  So the first three criteria aren't really questions about the truth claims, but rather about how men have responded to revelations, with the clear implication that a Western, analytical tradition is superior.  Coming from a Hindu background myself, I recognize that the differences between the theology of the west and that of India are largely products of cultural differences.  That's a clear bias, as noted before.  Religion in India was fundamentally pluralistic, whereas religion in the Christian tradition was viciously exclusive.  Even if the Western analytical tradition was in some sense superior, that would not indicate that the revelations underlying those traditions were more likely true as a result.  As to your fourth criteria, I find that both Christianity and Hinduism likely fail that test.

So, as criteria for the truth of revelation, you've posited three criteria which are specifically friendly to Christianity, yet generally irrelevant to the revelations themselves, and a fourth which doesn't really distinguish the two.   It may be true that you've pointed out weaknesses in the religion as a religion, but we're not interested in the virtues of the religion as a religion but rather the likely truth or falsity of the underlying truth claims.  With the possible exception of #4, which Christianity also does poorly on, none of your criteria are appropriately aimed.

For reference:

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

I think some of your points are correct. Here is a more generic list that I think avoids your charges:

Assumption: For any religion x, any interpretations of revelations and inferences made from those revelations is an attempt to derive a true belief.
1. Can the revelations and inferences of religion x be systematized into a framework that is internally consistent? In other words, do the revelations fit together so as not to contradict each other? Contradictory or ad hoc beliefs suggests an internal problem that needs to be resolved to increase likelihood of deriving a true belief.
2. Does the revelations and inferences of religion x square with science, cause/effect, our observations of our reality, and our intuitions? Contradictions need to be reconciled or they undercut the likelihood of a set of true beliefs.
3. Every religion has a narrative. Whether the narrative is pre-history or historical, is it metaphysically possible: cause/effect, logically possible, and tells us something about the nature of existence and objects and their properties? Is it actually possible: is their historical evidence or contradictions that need to be considered? The less these questions are addressed, the less likely that the narrative is a true belief. 
Conclusion: For any religion x, you can establish criteria aimed at ascertaining whether the religion is more or less likely to consist of true beliefs. Such criteria is also relevant in comparing religions against each other.