Atheists and Agnostics frequently make statements to the effect of:

• "There are thousands of religions that you don't believe in, I just go one God further"
• "There are thousands of religions that all claim they are right. What makes you think you're right and they're wrong?"

This article will examine this claim, which is often made in attempt to dissuade someone from having any convictions about the truthfulness of Christianity.

Statistics

This is the breakdown of what the world believes, according to a 2015 study published by Pew Research:

• Christianity - 2.3 Billion people (31.2%)
• Islam - 1.8 Billion people (24.1%)
• Atheist/Agnostic - 1.2 Billion people (16%)
• Hinduism - 1.1 Billion people (15.1%)
• Buddhism - 500 Million people (6.9%)

Adding these up reveals that approximately 93.3% of the people on earth believe in either no religion, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity.

Going further, Buddhism was started by a former Hindu, who kept the fundamental doctrines of Karma and reincarnation from Hinduism. And, Islam claims to be a successor to Christianity, which affirms the God of the Bible. So, there are basically two groups - Dharmic religions that believe in Karma and the cycle of reincarnation, and Abrahamic religions that affirm the God of the Bible.

Beyond these two major groups, there are other religions, of course. However, very few of them have so much as a scripture, or an organized, and identifiable set of beliefs, or a history extending back more than 500 years, or even a dedicated following who singularly follow it alone, rather than engaging in a high degree of syncretism. And, often the number of adherents is vanishingly small, relative to the world's population, and isolated to a single people group or geography.

I study comparative religion as a hobby, and I have spent quite a bit of time investigating whether there is any little-known religion that is actually extremely compelling, historical, and robust. There is not. Feel free to do your own research. I believe you will quickly come to the same conclusion.

In Christianity, we have Scripture which contains prophecy, and we have the resurrection of Jesus Christ. No other religion has anything close to those two proofs when it comes to making a case to someone who is seeking the true religion from the God whom all human beings know made us and our planet (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1).

But What About All of the Denominations Within Christianity?

Similarly, there aren't that many denominations within Christianity. Just as above, a person can categorize into broad groups, and use prayerful, reasoned study to come to a conclusion.

Both of these critiques - there are too many religions, and too many denominations - engage in the same logical fallacy - that because the truth is contested, it cannot be known. That's not true, of course. Everyone knows it's not true. This is just an alibi appealed to by those who are not genuine about seeking absolute truth with all their heart (Hebrews 11:6).

Conclusion

The idea that the God of the Bible is "one of many", or that there are a host of competing religions that all seem equally compelling to a sincere, intelligent enquirer, is false. Such a thing can only be stated by someone who has never actually bothered to study comparative religion, or what these "thousands" of religions teach, claim, and consist of.

Just because the truth is contested does not mean that it is unknowable. A person can find the truth, and pray for God to guide them in that search - and He will (Matthew 7:7-8).

Appendix I - Concise Reasons For Why I Reject Some Other Religions

• Atheism - An intelligent first cause who created the material universe makes infinitely more sense as an explanation for reality than unintelligent things simply existing eternally without a beginning (why would that be the case?), and creation bears the hallmarks of intentionally being designed by an intelligent agent to accommodate the existence of intelligent life
• Agnosticism - It does not make sense for God to create the universe, and then be totally disinterested in it. It does not make sense for God to go to such lengths in fine-tuning the universe for intelligent life, and then never interact with that intelligent life at all. It does not make sense that God would create a situation in which beings like humans exist, allow injustice to proliferate for thousands of years, and never rectify any of it, nor provide an ultimate purpose for their existence. God's perfection implies that He will be perfectly just, and rectify the injustices committed in His creation. Therefore, it makes more sense to live with the expectation that God has interacted with mankind, and the assumption that there will be an afterlife
• Classical Deism - Nature and reason alone cannot functionally provide a robust moral framework by which mankind will live, given that some moral problems (even very important ones) can be intelligently argued by multiple sides, based on their differing starting assumptions. Without God ever revealing His moral will, mankind is doomed to intractable arguments over even relatively simple moral questions. It does not make sense that God would have moral expectations for mankind, and yet absolutely refuse to ever plainly tell any of them what they are at any point (even when they ask to know them), especially when doing so would prevent so much confusion and suffering, and facilitate His creation doing His will
• Islam - Muhammad did not affirm the religious tradition that he claimed to be the pinnacle of at all. The religion that he invented relies on all of his processors' writings being utterly corrupted, and his hometown of Mecca being the religious center of mankind since the time of Abraham, both of which are historically and Biblically nonsensical
• Hinduism - The Samhitas do not spell out a robust worldview, and the Non-Dualism taught in the Upanishads is fundamentally incoherent. It is known that a large portion of the Brahmanas, which are considered Shruti, are now lost, and the same is true of various Shakhas of the Vedas, many individual Upanishads, and so on. After the Vedas, the number of sacred texts in this religion explodes, and perhaps the most influential genre, the Puranas, contain abhorrent things like encouraging widow burning, and various accounts of the Gods (Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma) engaging in sexual predation. Both the Upanishads and Puranas de facto blame crippled and disadvantaged people for their own ailments, based on the doctrine of Reincarnation
• Buddhism - This religion rests entirely on the authority of one man, Siddhartha Gautama, who was an ex-Hindu, and who admittedly had no idea how to accomplish his goal when he began his religious life. He did not provide compelling evidence that reincarnation - the main problem that he was ostensibly attempting to solve - even takes place, or that the method that he came up with to stop the process actually works. Like Hinduism, the Pali Canon de facto blames crippled and disadvantaged people for their own ailments
• Judaism - Does not follow the Old Testament. No prophets or High Priest for 2,000 years, beginning just after rejecting Jesus, who I believe is the Messiah. No prophet in their view warned them of an upcoming 2,000 year captivity, yet they were extensively warned and supported by prophets during a roughly 70 year captivity in the Old Testament times

In closing, note that everyone rejects whatever religions that they do not actively follow. Those who think that they do not are probably blissfully unaware that every major world religion makes exclusive truth claims, where if you do not agree with them, they believe that you are wrong, deceived, potentially responsible for deceiving others, and often, that you are sinning against the Creator of the universe, by commission and/or omission.

This site, with its polemical articles, is not on a mission to "attack" everyone else because I simply like to argue (I don't), but rather, to explain why I reject these religions, and believe that they are false. Everyone who is not a member of your religion believes that it is false. The fact that they may fail to ever provide a reason why does not somehow make them more "tolerant". At best, they are ambivalent, because they don't care. If I disagree with you, I respect you enough to investigate your beliefs, and then tell you why I reject them. I strongly believe that this is worth doing, because false beliefs almost always cause the person holding them and others harm. I believe that they lead people to Hell, and are the cause of lots of suffering in the world. So, this site may be polemical, but it is sincere in its intentions, which is to attempt to arrive at religious truth.