Christianity is the one true religion

Religion doesn't have to necessarily have Gods or creators. Buddhism is an example where there is no creator. The Buddha was asked about this and though he said gods existed, he said that when confronted later, he said to people that the idea of a creator was false and that people who thought that were suffering and becoming delusional. http://en.wikipedia.org... Now the main question I am confused: You asked me to prove that Christianity is the ONE true religion, yet you say I'm not being asked to defeat all the other beliefs and religions of the world, including atheism since it is a set of beliefs or at least a philosophy. I don't understand. Proving that Christianity is the one true religion must mean that I have defeated the other beliefs and religions in the world? Am I wrong? Tell me if I am. I'll just start by saying this. I'm not trying to convert anybody. I believe that converting requires self conviction. It's basically like a journey. Christianity can only be seen as a truth by those who take the time to really look into it and find their answers. Christianity has so many denominations and everything. Galileo is like Leo Tolstoy who was kicked out of the Russian Orthodox Church for beliefs of what would later be called Christian Anarchy. Galileo may have seen the church as corrupted. I wouldn't blame him if he did. The church is mostly corrupted these days anyways. I can tell you that I have seen agnostics, Muslims, and Jews who converted in my town. In fact, last month, my agnostic friend who actually laughed at the Christian culture of music, turned to Christ. He had been dealing with struggles in his life, like being homeless. I'll show a couple of wiki sites of conversion, but as I suspected, Islam is the 2nd in ranks of conversion. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... One thing I can mention is that while religion has done a great amount of harm, so has atheism. Stalin didn't do the things he did with other communists because of HIS atheism (though that is another thing for debate), but because of the Marx/Lennin political ideology to create equality among all citizens. Anarchists would agree with Marx about no social classes, but Anarchists like myself do not want a government to be in charge of us, while Marx says a government with authority figures must be kept to maintain balance and order. That turned to sham when Stalin forced his citizens to starve. He also destroyed what to me, was a great historical piece of architecture. The Russian Orthodox Church. He blew up churches and arrested many religious people. Now I can say atheists always defend their reasons on this the same way religious people do. They say, Stalin didn't do it because he was an atheist, but because he was an insane mad man who was paranoid. Religious people say the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and Army of God aren't doing this because of Christianity, but because there is a personal agenda behind it. I believe that with Westboro because I believe that this all really took effect after Fred Phelps lost his lawyer license and rumors about him possibly being gay at some point in his life started to show up. A Muslim I met said that Muhammad would've never approved of 9/11 or Jihad in today's world and that those who believe in Jihad are actually doing it for a political agenda of control. I'm sorry for the rant. I'll leave it there for people to just look at. But yes, truth can lack the ample evidences. We could also be wrong about Christ, God, the universe in Christianity just as much as atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, and all other religious organizations could be. I got asked the same question Richard Dawkins was asked. We could all be wrong. We are all held with the accountability of the Burden of Proof. I then responded by asking what he believed in. He said he believed the Earth was formed by first being a big lava rock and then a meteor crashed into it and created the earth. I then asked him "What if your wrong about that?" I then began to ask him about his belief on Nature or Nurture in Psychology. He said he believed in Nature, I said Nurture. He asked I am wrong based off his hypothesis on what he believes is the reason we think the way we do. I then asked, "Well what if your wrong about that?" We kept going until we both agreed to disagree. Note: I am not going to give a straight answer because questions like this is impossible to have one.