What gives a religion the right to claim their fantasy is correct and the rest false?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there that much difference between thinking 69,999 Christ based religions are false instead of 70,000 ?

^This.

As an atheist, you think 1,000,000 religions are wrong. As a Catholic I think 999,999 religions are wrong. At the end of the day, we both think WE are right and everyone else who thinks differently is wrong. Which is kind of the whole point of having an objective opinion.

As others have told you, thinking that the religious folks of this world are wrong does not mean that someone approaches the same subject from their pov and considers themselves to be right.  Many atheists here will tell you, plainly and simply, in response to any question you and yours answer with "because my god" -that they don't know.  It's difficult to be right -or- wrong about something you claim no knowledge of, lol.

Personally, I think that all of the religions of the world are "right", I just don't think I'm having the same conversation as religious people when considering their mythologies. I could discuss, for example, how Agni is and was the very real practice of hearth-fire burning consequent to a massive south easterly land clearing project engaged in by the people who would one day deify that same fire for all of their actual and practical reasons. Then, some religiousite will pop up and say "you're wrong"...and I'm left asking myself..."about what?". Similarly, I can very accurately describe the ideological metaphor driving the narrative devices in the story of christ and the fishes and loaves....and then some religiousite will pop up and say "you're wrong!".....and I'm left asking myself....."about -what-?". It's not even an issue of right or wrong, to me, and it's very clear that religiousites consistently conflate belief with knowledge. Only the latter can be right or wrong, sensibly...the former simply is what it is. When I'm told that I'm wrong, or someone insists that I think I'm right, they're simply referring to differences in our status of belief. This is entirely uninteresting, to me. Though it obviously means the world to many of them.

Long story short, when an agnostic atheist tells you that "you're wrong"...they're not referring to your belief, but the means by which you've arrived -at- it. If you respond by saying "you think you're right" you're only approaching that in the sense of belief, and there is no requirement of accuracy for beliefs, nor is there, likely, a valid point of disagreement with regards to the counteraccusation swung. You aren't talking about the same things. To you, what they think they're right about is some sort of "no god" statement, but that's not what an agnostic is claiming knowledge in regards to at all. Beyond that, addressing the issue of how we arrive at our beliefs, it;s not a matter of whether or not someone -thinks- they're right. Either the justification offered meets a standard or it doesn't. Even if or when it doesn't, people can and do still believe.

A slavish devotion to some sort of "you too" response isn't going to do anything to help you understand -any- of this. All it does is mask the fact that you probably aren't having the same conversation, and in and of itself this sort of respnse is entirely uninformative. Imagine, for a moment, that we're -all- doing it...whatever it is. Does that answer the question of what gives any of us the right? Is it -because- we're all doing it? I'm sure you can hear your mother asking you about a hypothetical bridge right about now, lol.