With so many religions in the world, isn't it convenient that yours is right? This kind of absurd reasoning is standard in atheist apologetics. This, of course, overlooks the obvious fact that, whether they admit it or not, atheists also have their own religions. They have their own beliefs about origins, nature, morality, and purpose. Even the very statement "there is no God" is inherently religious. And no, they don't get to avoid this reality by claiming "that's like saying off is a TV channel".
Equally absurd is when they say things like "when you understand why you dismiss other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours". This quote, from Steven Roberts, fallaciously assumes that Christians simply dismiss other gods due to personal incredulity, rather than simply because any rational person knows if you believe one thing, you cannot logically believe its antithesis. This is called "hypocrisy", and it's typically frowned upon.
But atheists are no strangers to hypocrisy. While they claim, correctly, that religions are too mutually exclusive for them all to be true, they simultaneously claim they are comparable, to the extent where dismissing one religion is enough, in their mind, to dismiss them all. "Religion says...", "religion does...", "religion is...". Religion is a blanket term, covering a wide range of mutually exclusive beliefs, but atheists choose when to emphasise this fact, and when to downplay it, according to the argument they are attempting to make at the time.
But while we're comparing religions, whether to acknowledge their differences or to highlight their similarities, we may as well go the distance and actually compare their strengths and weaknesses. When we do this, we find that not all religions are created equal. Some have stronger support than others. Not surprisingly, of all of them, Christianity is the most reasonable faith.
To begin with, it is the only one that can actually account for reason in the first place. Ultimately, circular reasoning is inevitable. How do we know we are reasonable beings? We must assume we are reasonable beings to begin with, and then draw that conclusion somehow. As Christians, we believe we were designed to reason by a maximally great God. Using that assumption, we can begin to reason as to whether such a God exists. And once we have concluded that He does, we can reasonably verify our assumption that we are able to reason.
Other religions cannot do this. Islam posits a god who boasts of his deceptive powers. Catholicism presents a god who says one thing in his book, but another to his "infallible" church. Evolution suggests we are descended from lower mammals, an undirected, purposeless process that just happens to preserve certain reproductive abilities, and thus we have no reason to believe we have any greater minds than the apes we are supposedly related to. No other religion has such a reasonable case for human reason.
Perhaps this is why, as even atheistic historians acknowledge, science itself is a Christian invention. While modern atheists act as if science is a cuss word to Christians, it was our belief in a rational world created by a rational God that drove our forefathers to study it, believing it to be a fulfillment of the dominion mandate. Prior to the Reformation, in particular, "science" was a philosophy hindered by paganism. There were gods for everything. Gods of love and fertility, gods of war and death, gods of the harvest, gods of livestock, gods of the sea, gods of the sky, you name it, there was at least one god attached to it. But Christianity teaches that there is one God who created an orderly creation, a belief held by both the Reformers of the Church, and the many Christians who founded almost every field of science. Still to this day, Christians continue to make amazing contributions to their fields.
By contrast, once again, other religions tend to fail in this area. That's not to say atheists don't try to discredit Scripture by taking obvious idioms (which are practically identical to idioms we have in the English language) as literally as they possibly can. The sun being in the sky, for example. This is such a common idiom, even NASA uses it.
But Islam cannot make this excuse for Muhammad, who not only wrote, in the Qur'an, that Alexander the Great found the place where the sun sets in a pool of muddy water, but also later told his companion that this is, indeed, quite literal.
Of course, Evolution is a whole boatload of anti-scientific nonsense in and of itself, but it also has a history of advancing science, not by making accurate predictions, but by being so abysmally wrong that it made childbirth, of all things, unbearable.
Science is not the only field in which Christianity excels. We happen to have a powerful and compelling history, too. Whereas other books, such as the Book of Mormon, have extreme trouble finding any historical evidence for even the greatest events described within them, the Bible is so historically reliable, it is often used as a guide for archaeologists.
This shouldn't surprise us, given the large number of times it defied that particular expectation. I often point to the Hittites, a culture that effectively dropped off the face of the Earth (another modern idiom that can only be taken literally by the daftest of atheists). Prior to the 1900s, the Bible was the only known source of the Hittites, and naturally atheists claimed this as proof that the Bible is a book of fairy tales. But then, in 1906, the capital city of the Hittites was re-discovered, and it is now possible to receive a degree in Hittite culture. The Bible was, as is its habit, proven correct. When discussing this with Evolutionists, I often like to joke "we've found our missing links, where are yours?"
But more often than not, the Bible is a powerful enough source of its own. Although atheists like to cry foul here, suggesting any use of the Bible at all is circular reasoning, this is, itself, circular reasoning. See, when we study history, what we want are sources as close to the people or events as possible. Something as simple as a coin can tell us a lot. This is another thing that is conveniently remembered when atheists want to disprove the Bible. Every now and then, we find evidence of some pagan religion being practiced in ancient Israel, and this is somehow "proof" of one of their favorite conspiracy theories, such as the Documentary Hypothesis. Of course, all these things ever serve to prove is that the Old Testament, which documents an endless cycle of apostasy and repentance in Israel, is accurate.
But ultimately, the Bible is, even ignoring its divine inspiration, a primary source. Or, more accurately, a collection thereof. Matthew and John were direct disciples of Jesus, eyewitnesses to the events they describe in their Gospels. Mark was a known associate of Peter, another well known disciple of Jesus, and tradition holds that Peter heavily influenced his Gospel. Luke, while not a disciple (and believed by some to have been a Gentile) carefully compiled his Gospel in order to give an orderly account to a man named Theophilus, a contemporary of the events. Most of the New Testament is so early, it was written by witnesses to witnesses, even appealing to other witnesses. Likewise, a lot of the Old Testament was written contemporaneously, including Exodus through Deuteronomy.
Such cannot be said for other religions. Evolution, it goes without saying, has no historical records. No reliable records even go back far enough to contradict the Biblical account, and the records that do are demonstrably suspicious. Egyptian chronology, for example, is known to be anything but chronological, based on the dates given by an Egyptian priest in the third century B.C., by the name of Manetho, who, seeking to demonstrate the superiority of Egypt over its rival cultures, is known to have exaggerated Egypt's history.
Catholicism, ironically, loves to boast of its historical pedigree, but it lacks any historical strength. Although it developed early, a simple study of Scripture, the primary source of all things Christian (and acknowledged by the Catholic Church itself as the word of God) shows that it was completely absent during the lives of the Apostles, none of whom were addressed as a "Pope", or who are shown to have any successors. On top of this, entire Catholic doctrines are missing from history, forcing them to come up with the concept of "Development of Doctrine", suggesting that Catholic doctrine has always been present in seed form, but didn't become explicit until later Councils settled the matter.
Things aren't much better for Islam, which is currently facing a bit of a crisis: Muhammad himself isn't historically verifiable! None of the main sources on his life come from his time. Furthermore, evidence is mounting that he may never have existed. It would take more than a brief summary paragraph to dive into that, but suffice to say for now, while new evidence is casting doubt on the existence of a man whose existence is already questionable, Jesus Mythicism is regarded as the flat earth theory of history.
This article is, by no means, extensive. In fact, I do not even intend it to make an especially powerful case. It is mainly intended as a rebuke of atheistic hypocrisy when it comes to comparing Christianity to other religions. When the comparison goes into any depth, there is a very clear winner, and it certainly isn't the atheists.