I still have FAITH you're a real person.

Your faith is of no consequence to my being a person. Just so you know. 

alein is god and they wrote the bible

Fine, not Bible. But there are plenty of divine religious books with messages from the supposed true lord and they cannot all be true. Thus people, not God, have obviously written them. 

Who is benefits from this? The people who want to change society.

I'm not sure whether you're talking about Christianity or a belief in God in general but there is a huge discrepancy between reality and your example.

with the belief in god it is we have some proof, but it isn't enough for other people.

Then there are those that deny that God exists, have no proof that he exists, but don't have any proff that he DOESN'T exist.  When there is no proof either way then people are free to believe in what they want. 

"Named them"? What do you mean? In Genesis 1, he created light on the first day. He created the sources of light - the "lights in the sky" - on the third day. But here's some more fun - it says that evening and morning occurred, and then it was the third day... and only then did lights get created in the sky. So how does evening and morning exist without a sun?

From Genesis 1: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."" - so man was made to rule over the creatures that move along the ground. This says that animals were already there, and god specifically made man to rule over them.

From Genesis 2: "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.' So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." - so man was made first, and then given animals after that. Note that sometimes the excuse is inserted that the correct phrasing is "God HAD formed every animal", making it past-tense... but it doesn't explain why man was alone first. But even if it wasn't true that animals were made later, it doesn't explain the inconsistency with regards to purpose. In Genesis 1, man is made with the specific purpose of ruling over animals. In Genesis 2, man is made separately, and then god decides that animals should help him. Whether you consider the creation order to be an issue or not, there's still an issue with god's purpose.

Jesus is not called Emmanuel or God With Us once in the bible. He is only ever called Jesus. Note that the prophecy wasn't that "He will be Emmanuel", but that "He will be called Emmanuel". Nobody called him that. Not once. By the way, "Immanuel" is a bad romanisation (actually, so is Jesus - Yeshua is a much more accurate way to write his name).

When I refer to Jesus's last words, I'm referring to the literal last words. Two accounts are given of the moment of his death. In both accounts, he dies immediately after saying the last words, so it wasn't just "who was there for each of the things he said". Luke and John both provide accounts. Have a look.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke all say that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross. John, on the other hand, says that Jesus himself carried his cross. They can't both be true.

Do you claim to be Christian? If you do, how can you not know your holy book, cover to cover? Now, I'm not a christian, and can't claim to know perfectly, but my understanding is that Josiah was a king of Assyria, killed by Pharoah Neco of Egypt. Two accounts are given - in 2 Kings, he was killed at Megiddo and his dead body was carried back to Jerusalem. In 2 Chronicles, he was merely mortally wounded at Megiddo, and commanded his servants to take him back to Jerusalem - he died in Jerusalem.

God didn't say "your only legitimate son Isaac", he said "your only son Isaac". I doubt that god is really so careless with his words that he would say something that is wrong, irrespective of whether he considers the other son "legitimate".

"Named them"? What do you mean? In Genesis 1, he created light on the first day. He created the sources of light - the "lights in the sky" - on the third day. But here's some more fun - it says that evening and morning occurred, and then it was the third day... and only then did lights get created in the sky. So how does evening and morning exist without a sun? First off God can do whatever he wants, because he is God. With that said, God named them so that we could understand what he meant by light, and in the same way so we could understand what a day is, and so we could understand how time passes, etc. But that’s only for our benefit; for God did not have to later call the light Sun or Moon or make the distinction, but it was in his plan to do so. So that’s why a day is not measured in two, three or even half day, because God said what a day is and humans adopted it. Same reason why your week only has 7 days, because God said it does. Genesis is there to put things into context and not to scientifically or holistically explain any and every element of creation.

From Genesis 1: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."" - so man was made to rule over the creatures that move along the ground. This says that animals were already there, and god specifically made man to rule over them.

From Genesis 2: "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.' So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." - so man was made first, and then given animals after that. Note that sometimes the excuse is inserted that the correct phrasing is "God HAD formed every animal", making it past-tense... but it doesn't explain why man was alone first. But even if it wasn't true that animals were made later, it doesn't explain the inconsistency with regards to purpose. In Genesis 1, man is made with the specific purpose of ruling over animals. In Genesis 2, man is made separately, and then god decides that animals should help him. Whether you consider the creation order to be an issue or not, there's still an issue with god's purpose. Genesis 1 details Creation, while Genesis 2 details The Fall of Man, they then have some Overlap. There is no contradiction. If you want to know when Man, the Animals, the Rocks, etc were CREATED, then check Genesis 1, but if you want to know how the fall of man happened check Genesis 2. You are essentially asking Genesis 2 to explain Creation, which is like asking John 1 to explain the same. Yes John 1 talks about “In the beginning…” but it does not seek to explain Creation, and thus whatever it says is simply a short SUMMARY or RETELLING of Creation not an EXPLANATION!  John 1 also theorises that Jesus was there in the BEGINNING, but you have no record of this in Genesis 1, because Jesus is not a Creation.

Jesus is not called Emmanuel or God With Us once in the bible. He is only ever called Jesus. Note that the prophecy wasn't that "He will be Emmanuel", but that "He will be called Emmanuel". Nobody called him that. Not once. By the way, "Immanuel" is a bad romanisation (actually, so is Jesus - Yeshua is a much more accurate way to write his name). I think you’re getting hung up on something insignificant. The name Emmanuel (or whatever) meant something, and the Jews we not looking for someone with a particular name but for someone who was actually God in human form. I am sure there were lots of people called Emmanuel in those days, much in the same way there were many people called Jesus. The name meant nothing, essentially, but who he really was, i.e. God in human form, is what is important. So when the prophet said he will be called Emmanuel it meant that they/the Jews should be looking for someone who was God in human form dwelling among them, not some dude named Emmanuel.

When I refer to Jesus's last words, I'm referring to the literal last words. Two accounts are given of the moment of his death. In both accounts, he dies immediately after saying the last words, so it wasn't just "who was there for each of the things he said". Luke and John both provide accounts. Have a look. First off, Luke was not at the Cross when Jesus died, and I’m almost sure John wasn’t there either. They got there information from people like Jesus’ mother who witnessed the events of Jesus’ life and death.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke all say that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross. John, on the other hand, says that Jesus himself carried his cross. They can't both be true. As I said before, John was probably not there at the Crucifixion, rather I think it is the case that some parts of John’s account of the Bible were heard from Jesus’ Mother. That is why you can find the story of Jesus’ FIRST miracle of turning water into wine in John’s gospel and no other, because Jesus and his Mother were invited to the event early on before Jesus had selected all his disciples. We also know Jesus was closer to John more than any of the other disciple, so naturally he would have been close to Jesus’ Mother as well. So again, there were many people that witnessed the life and death of Jesus and would give you different, but not necessarily contradictory accounts of things that happened. So for example (1) Jesus was crucified, and (2) Jesus was crucified with two others, are different but not contradictory accounts.

Do you claim to be Christian? If you do, how can you not know your holy book, cover to cover? Now, I'm not a christian, and can't claim to know perfectly, but my understanding is that Josiah was a king of Assyria, killed by Pharoah Neco of Egypt. Two accounts are given - in 2 Kings, he was killed at Megiddo and his dead body was carried back to Jerusalem. In 2 Chronicles, he was merely mortally wounded at Megiddo, and commanded his servants to take him back to Jerusalem - he died in Jerusalem.  Yes, I’m a Christian and the most fun part about the Bible I find is knowing that there is an infinite amount of things I still don’t know about the Bible and what is written therein. For how can a book written so long ago be so relevant today? Anyways, I don’t think I have every really ready the book of Chronicles, so I really can’t provide any input.

God didn't say "your only legitimate son Isaac", he said "your only son Isaac". I doubt that god is really so careless with his words that he would say something that is wrong, irrespective of whether he considers the other son "legitimate". Well you seem to know the story, so I guess so far as God is concerned he/God only gave Abraham one Son/Isaac, so Abraham only had one son, for God’s ultimate purpose. I believe however that the story goes on to say that God told Abraham not worry about Ishmael and his Mother as they would be cared for – no?

Not christianity, but belief in a god in general. And no, we do not have 'some proof'. Some people like to think so, but if such 'proof' is in any way disputable
by science, or logic, then it's not proof. Obviously people are free to believe whatever they want. But that's all it is, belief. It's called that precisely -because- we do not have proof. Faith is called faith because there's no proof, people simply choose to believe something's true.

Who said it is disputable by logic or science?  Just because Christianity can be disproven by Logic or science doesn't mean the other religions can.

Firstly, Science is not replacing Religion.   Science still can't answer every question.  For example long ago some people believed that the Sun was God and it moved to and fro through the skies.   Now Science has deducted that it's the planets orbiting that causes Night and Day.   It still doesn't answer why it does that.  All it does is determine the mechanics of how it does it.  Sure we know that the seeds of plants, combined with sunlight, water and other organisms are what causes them to grow, but we still will never know why it does it.  In fact, someone can take most every scientific "fact" and make a never ending string of "why" questions.  Granted, the same could be done with Religion, that being said, I've stated that to show how laughable the Science vs Religion debate stands with me and many others.  If someone said, "Hey, I don't think there's a God", I could understand that, but trying to debate it with these external science "facts" and that we're now ignorant to believe in God because we now know how the World works a little better.   It's just a couple of squirrels shy of a  nut house, if you ask me.
I'm not the kind of Muslim to attack Christianity, nor have I ever debated Islam vs Christianity.  And I respect the choice of all Christian, other Religions as I do non-believers.   And the contradictions/difficulties contained in the Bible are considered by later Muslims to be a misrepresented version of the Quran.  And that the Bible is the beta version of The Quran.  I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just saying,  Muslims shouldn't attack Christianity..As it's stated in one passage that God was with Jesus as was many others.
Because no matter what we believe in, everyone was born with a "moral compass" (So to speak), and It's how well we choose to follow it and the hardships we endure that determines what we are.
In the Quran, it's said that our life is a test of how well we follow this compass, (Represented as The God's Will we are all born with.) and the better we do, the less trouble we will have in the afterlife.  So like a game were your score is rallied at the end.  Like it's said, "No matter how well a man should avoid humans punishment in his life, he will never escape God's in the here after."   This could successfully be proven,  given the fact that most everyone has the same moral codes of what's wrong and right.  This is something that Science will never truely be able to understand.  Why can't we all be like animals with disregard for no one but our selfs?  And how come most ever culture has the same basis as to what is right and what is wrong?  
Surely we do know more about our surrondings than before, but we still can't determine where our minds go after we die, and if we are truely being reborned into other vessels or we just stay in limbo, or go to Heaven or Hell.  Also, no matter how hard we try to clone something, we can never create life out of nothing.  Man doesn't have control over life.  And that Big Bang Theory...If we existed by chance,  and there was no God, then how come the realization of God came to us before that theory? That just sounds like a mad (albiet, intellegent) man trying to make humans play God to me. 
 And if we truely feared death to a point of yielding to an unknown force,  why is it that Ancient Egytians, believed in both God and reincarnation?  In fact, lots of Ancients believed in reincarnation, like the Mayans.  So my analogy is this, believing in God has no correlation with the fear of death.  
And also, God didn't take his time to get his message across, he sent thousands of messenagers, and Muhammad was just the last.   Also, God exists in all humans according to Islam.  Even people society would deem dispicable like Hitler.
I wasn't brought up believing this, my parents are Muslim, but they weren't very religious.(We hardly ever prayed )there was a time when I was in highschool and I seriously doubted the existence of God.  And that having to pray 5 times a day, avoid Worldly influences like Liqour, drugs, and violence was just a way to control people into living by their values.  (And 911 also made me think that no good could come from this path )Then one day, I decided to read the book for the first time and everything in it, made perfect sense to me.   And if everyone followed this book, the way they should, I think the World would be a way more peaceful place.  (Look at Indonesia, a country that wasn't orginally involved in the Islam Revolution, but now it's primarily Islam in it's beliefs and is considered one of the most peaceful nations)   And before you decide to say, "the middle east is in a terrible state and it's primary religion is Islam" let me first say that most Saudi's live by "Hadifs", pre-interputed Islam that is more akin to ancient Arab culture than it is to the actual Quran.  Not to mention external instegations by the west, like the conception of Israel.  (Though, that's another debate for another time.)
And honestly, why would they make a fake Religion to control people, when it's specifically stated that "All Muslims must find their own interpretation of the Quran", and in another Surah, "Thou shall not force Islam upon his children, nor shall he do (the) same to his followers and friends."
And as for your list,  I honestly don't have time to prove these all false, as they're mostly filled with half-truths, rhetorical statements and pickings at the very foundation of it's Ancient heritage.  And if we are to view this with an opened mind, we would first have to read ALL of the book, as these are just snipets that really don't help their case.  Seeing as this article was made by a Christian or Religious person.   I'm not too surprised.
The internal ones appear to be the ones most accurate.  I'm just gonna pick off the first few, as I've already seen quite a few counter lists for these, as most are just misinterputations and translations that are not the same as when you read it in it's native Arabic.  As in 20, it states that a Muslim only has one mom, however, it states that the one who nursed him is his mother, the person who MOTHERED him.  Not his birth mother.  (Many Adj, Adv, pronouns are not as clear in english, actually English is about as far away from Arabic as you can get.  Not to mention, some words can have dual/multiple meanings.  And the closest thing you can get to it in English is a word that can create flaws in it's grammar.  And leave it open for an attack.) 
Also, the following is only from the first few...

(1)  Who suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong? Sura 34:50 commands Muhammad to say, "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss," which is a severe factual error in the Qur'an as well as contradicting the teaching of the Qur'an in a number of other verses.

^ Muhammad (bpuh) says, If I am astray, I only stray to the loss Of my own soul: but if I receieve guidance, it is Because of the inspiration Of my Lord to me: It is He Who hears All things, and is (ever) near.   The article cuts off the rest of the sentance to better help there case.  Again, this is the first one and it's a load of dung.   They should have  at least put the most convincing one up first.

(4) Can Allah be seen and did Muhammad see his Lord? Yes [S. 53:1-18, 81:15-29], No [6:102-103, 42:51].

The Quran never states that Muhammad has seen Allah.  It says "Mohammad (The Prophet) has seen signs of his Lord, in his dreams." 

(5)  Allah had supposedly sent warners to every people [10:47, 16:35-36, 35:24], Abraham and Ishmael are specifically claimed to have visited Mecca and built the Kaaba [2:125-129]. Yet, Muhammad supposedly is sent to a people who never had a messenger before [28:46, 32:3, 34:44, 36:2-6]. This article also raises other issues: What about Hud and Salih who supposedly were sent to the Arabs? What about the Book that was supposedly given to Ishmael? Etc.

^Neither Abraham and Ishmael were born of the same land of Mohammad.  This could mean a number of things, like the specific land Muhammad was born, the people of this time period and so on.  so if one interpretation of it can be viewed as correct.  It is, by it's own virtue, a gospel truth.

(6) What will be the food for the people in Hell? The food for the people in Hell will be only "Dhari" [Sura 88:6], or only foul pus from the washing of wounds [S. 69:36], or will they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum [S. 37:66]? Together, these verses constitute three contradictions.

It's never stated that the Dhari will be the ONLY food in Hell.  It said "No food will be there for them (The certain people that were mentioned earlier in the passage.) but a bitter Dhari."  It's clear that there are more than one layer of Hell as with Heaven.   The second, (The pus) could easily be viewed as a metaphor, as the whole passage string says:
 "And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire.  Further, make him march in a chain, whereof The length is eventy cubits!   This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High.  And would not encourage The feeding of the indigent! So, no friend hath he here this Day.  Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds."  
^This can view as the sinnners will be so burnt, all they could do is for consumption is eat from the infection of there wounds.  Also, again, there are more layers of Hell.  There could also be no food in this part for the most harshest of sinners.

(7) Can Angels Cause the Death of People? The Qur'an attacks those who worship anyone besides God (e.g. angels or prophets) because those can neither create, nor give life, nor cause anyone to die. Yet, the Qur'an explicitly states that one angel or several angels are causing certain people to die [Sura 4:97, 16:28, 32, 32:11].

^Wrong, wrong and wrong.  Allah causes them to die, the angel that each person has assigned to them has the responsibility of taking their soul to Allah.   This is actually the worst one I've seen.  It completely skips over the fact that humans can also kill humans, but by Allah's Will.

(11) Is completely false.
 The Qur'an forbids believers to marry idolatrous women [Sura 2:221], and calls Christians idolaters and unbelievers [9:28-33], but still allows Muslims to marry Christian women [5:5]

^Nope again. It says, do NOT marry her until she is a believer.   Christians aren't believers of Allah, so you can't marry her untill she is one. 

(13 )Will Allah reward the good deeds of Unbelievers? S. 9:17 and 9:69 clearly say no. However, S. 99:7 implies yes. Moreover, S. 2:62 promises Christians reward for their good deeds. But S. 9:28-33; 5:17, 72-73 calls Christians idolaters, and S. 9:17 is very clear that idolaters will have no reward.

^ Actually, It's a long story and I've already typed so much...Just google that yourself.  "The Islamic Fate of those who don't believe but have achieved Islamic values and virtues."

And I didn't do all the first ones, because they don't have citations on anything.  And I wouldn't know where to look at it in my Quran.
 Honestly, if you're gonna rely on this site for the basis of your arguement you should at least buy a Quran, and look at the surronding passages to get a better understanding of the topic(s).  Of course if you copy two parts of serperate sentences and put them together to counter-act one another of course it's gonna look like a contradiction. And as for Religion could leave us all together...I HIGHLY doubt it.  Islam is growing far faster than Atheism and many analists believe that there will be more Muslims than any other Religion in the next 50-100 years. 
And for the people talking about that movie that came out a few months back..Wow, just wow.  It's not even historically accurate.  I mean I thought you guys would come up with something better than that.  Even Jews know that's fake.  :S

Lastly, I'm only 17.  And I'm not exactly a scholar or anything.   If you want to see someone who really knows Islam.  Look for Sheik Fiasial.