So talk about what you like about Eberron's lore, not about what you don't like about FR or any other setting. I try to avoid objectively telling others that things they like are bad. I know I'm not perfect, but I don't know why I'm getting pushback on the idea of not yucking someone else's yum.
In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad. Eberron's take on religion is good because that of the Forgotten Realms and similar settings is overly simplistic and bad. It's not enough for Eberron to just exist as its own thing when it shows that the typical approach is bad and could use improvement. I wouldn't be surprised in the Dawn War Pantheon being more nuanced and interesting than the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance's takes on religion was a consequence of the designers looking at how Eberron used religion and trying to apply that to a setting where the gods definitely exist.
In order to say "this is what I like about a setting", and to show why it is good, you have to show something else that is worse and why an improvement is necessary/good for the setting. I know that it feels like "yucking your yum", but what it feels like to me as someone that started out with the Forgotten Realms, quickly grew frustrated because there was just too much of it (and most of it was bad/unnecessary), and then discovered the genius of Eberron, it's not "this thing that people like is bad", it's "this new thing shows why the previous thing was messing up, and how to make improvements".
Progress is important. It can sometimes feel condescending, but analyzing what parts of the game and its settings are good and bad is important to making the game better. And I do think that making the game better is important. Every setting in D&D, even Eberron, has problems and could be improved in some way. Eberron is definitely not perfect, and there are valid reasons to prefer other settings. However, I do think that a lot of what it does is objectively an improvement on the things that some other settings have tried to do.
Which, to bring this around to the OneD&D playtest "analyzing what parts of the game are bad and could use improvement" is the point of making changes. The documents have changed parts of the edition that a lot of people have been complaining about for years. "Keep what's good, replace the bad stuff" is the key to progress, and is the central goal of most these changes. Accepting that the game isn't perfect, could use improvements, and then making steps to change the bad things is a good thing.
www.dndbeyond.com
