Hinduism. Because somehow they managed to make Jesus, Mohammad and Mahavira avatars of Visnu. And they contradict themselves constantly but don't care.

In video games, most mythologies turn out to be at least partially true.  I think Grandia 2 got it right, because they eventually learned that their "good" god has been dead for a long time, and then they killed the "evil" one.

How do you prove any worldview is the right one? How do you prove that liberalism is the right frame of mind to view the world than conservatism? How do you prove that humanism is the right worldview more so than Christianity? 

I consider Christianity to be the "right one" because for me it paints the most accurate depiction of the human condition, as one of despair and hope, of love and depravity. And it stands as a worldview that murders every other sort of human illusion, in the tragedy at the heart of it, and yet picks itself out of the rubbles and envisions hope, and I find this to be empowering. 

When i hear the privileged atheist mouth off about his worldview to me it ends up being a peddling of cotton candy fantasies, detached from the realities of life, it gives you Ted Turner, and life in Denmark to make sense of, Christianity gives us a murdered innocent, who for the sake of love died humiliatingly, a haunting image of man at it's bleakest, to make sense of, there's no cozy humanism here, just murdered illusions, and the last remnants of hope. 

I'm sure Paris Hilton doesn't condone violence either. I might as well say those hippies, the children of the anthem "all we need is love", hold the "right worldview" a true and accurate worldview. 

Humanism is a worldview that attempts to define itself like McCain did in the previous election, by diatribes of what their opponent (a religious worldview) is not, when it attempts to define itself it's plagued with meaninglessness, it becomes a term well off people use to label themselves as nice guys. 

Humanism is a delusional worldview, in that it believes the case for being moral is won by rational arguments, that if we teach our children to "love our neighbors" as we do biology, or mathematics , they actually will love as such. Little do they know of our 9th grade class, called "conflict resolution" was plagued with physical altercations, that the teacher was incapable of educating us from preventing. 

Little does the humanist know that moral acts are not committed out of rational arguments for doing so, but out of conviction, something that a rational argument doesn't produce. I can't say "love your neighbor" is a good view to hold, and will myself to hold it. 

Humanist thought is like Ted Turner, who believes he's never robbed a man at gun point, because he's a humanist, and the project dwelling black man who robbed a person I knew the other day, did so because he wasn't one. If only he was brought into a humanist gathering, could the robbery have been prevented. 

A right, or true worldview hold something in it relatable to human beings, and not just one bourgeois group of them. Humanism finds it self relatable to middle class liberal rationalist, but repulsive in its naivety to the rest of the world. At least here, Christianity is far superior to humanism, in that it has relatatated to all walks of people, in all walks of life, from liberals, to conservatives, from the rich to the poor, the most impoverished, and the most indulgent, to the slave master, and the slave, from the most superior of thinkers, to the least educated of men. It has had two thousands years of doubts and reflection. 

Christianity holds an image relalatable to most of the world past and present a depiction of a murdered innocent as the heart of the human condition, while Humanism peddles cotton candy. There is something far more identifable for men in the image of Jesus Christ, than any image humanist have attempted to peddle. 

Oh great. Now I'm "bourgeois".

Anything we hold as true, is felt to be true as well, there is no distinction between something being true to us, and something feeling true to us.

and I've "picked" my faith, as I've "picked" that my morning breakfast would taste good. 

If I never knew Christianity, the worldview I would have held would have been a vague resemblance of it. The depiction of the life I've know and lived, the world and the reality that I'm part of, human relationship, love, morality, justice, mercy, truth, god are to me better characterized by Christianity than any other worldview or religion. This is not beyond refute, individuals are more than welcome to argue that it isn't, and their particular view of the world is a truer depiction of it, when you have a competing secular worldview that you would like to present as truer you let know.

NO, i "know" the Christian god is the one true god, in the same sense that I know "love your neighbor" is true. And secondly it's not the romantic strength of sacrifice, which can still be romantic and yet be in vain, in the face of despair that i find empowering, but the notion of it not being in vain, but in the viable form of hope. It's not in the beauty of the depiction (a view I would still hold even I was an atheist), but in the beauty of living it, that I hold it as true. It's conceiving Jesus as the truth, as the emblem of what real love is about, and the transformative power such love holds, that i find Christianity to hold the definitive claim to what God is, and about. 

Judging that the Lord of the Rings is a reflection of Tolkien Catholic Worldview, it shouldn't take a brainiac to figure out why you see some similarities. 

Often fictive works, poetry, art, music are symbollic depictions of the reality we live in, the way it is, and the way it should be. In fact we can't demand calls for justice, morality, love, hope without aesthetic appeals as the grounding. We view the world with aesthetic lenses, humanism, or even scientism are still such lenses. You're not hard pressed to find Dawkins peddling the supposed awe and beauty of the cosmos to sell his view of the world, in fact he claims that science offers a viable alternative to replace religious awe and beauty. 

A worldview is sort of like a work of art, the cheap ones fail it's depiction of how things really are, in how axed they are from the life we live, and are shallow in what sort of conclusions are drawn from this faulty view of life. The great works of art depict life at it's closest proximation, they became relatable beyond lines, speaking of the life we life, it's misery, and hopes, it's depravity and beauty. 

Humanism has failed to appeal even to atheist, most of whom have never even bothered to attend a single gathering, exactly because it's aesthetically cheap, naive it's depiction of life, and cheesy in its supposed beauty. 

        Although I may believe in my chosen religious beliefs, I don't believe in arguing or trying to prove that it's the right one. In my opinion, the emphasis on having faith would render all assertions of certainty impossible. If a believer knew that their beliefs were right, without a doubt, what would be the necessity of faith?

        On a side note, I really like your question clock because I appreciate the thought process you are trying to provoke in believers' minds. 

If I said that, it would limit the question only to people that believe in one god. This is a question open to anyone that follows a religion, giving the opportunity for them to prove why they are unique from other religions and what they have to show to prove their case, that the next person couldn't use for their god(s).

Ah, fair enough

Well, i was born in India, so I guess the "born" factor is sort of a mute point. But I'm assuming what you meant to imply is if I was born in these regions, and raised in the particular religion most dominant there, such as Hinduism. Well, if I had the same sense of self-reflection I have now, I would have eventually rejected any of those various religions, just as I had rejected the Christianity conveyed by the church of my youth. My Christianity is fairly independent of the religion i was brought up in. 

I'm familiar with various religious traditions, I admire many of them, but none of them have ever seem to be convincing, and have often been scattered reflections of the world we live in, if I had to chose between those various religious beliefs, and atheism, I would have chose atheism (just not the popular brand of it, most espoused on this forum, that just a twisted parody of the Christian faith they deny).

If i was exposed to Christianity, not by the experiences of my childhood, but my encounter with it in my adult age, from reading Dostoevsky, and the Gospels, and the picture of suffering, love, and hope in my life was somewhat consistent with what has been now, I would have "chose" Christianity, as the definitive portrait of what life is, and should be. 

 Why don't you tell me why I have to PROVE to you my religion is the right one?Why don't you PROVE  to me that God doesn't exist,that He doesn't perform miracles,so on and so on.Atheists are always asking for proof about religion and If God is real.Jesus could be standing right in front of you and you would still deny him.

...What makes you think I was directing the question only to you? Are you saying that Scientology, Hinduism, and all the other religions are the same as yours (which I'm assuming is an Abrahamic one, since you mention Jesus)?

I am simply asking what makes any responder's religion unique, and for what they take as evidence to their belief that another religion could also not claim.

If you are asking me to disprove something, this is not the point of the thread. I am not asking you to disprove Scientology, Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam, or any other of the many religions there are. I am simply asking what makes one of them special over the others, to the person believing one of them.

I don't believe irrational can be derived so easily from arbitrary. In my opinion, something that is considered arbitrary can be more easily rendered meaningless. Which, I suppose, could be viewed as describing the same thing, but I see it as drawing an important distinction. In my opinion, what is irrational will always be irrational, whereas, what is meaningless is more of a judgement.