The right to be right

When we take a look at what we may call the "religious landscape" of the world today, a couple of things become fairly obvious fairly quickly. As a quick review:

• There are about half-a-dozen, so-called world religions: Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
• There are more other "faiths" than can be counted: ranging from remote, tribal, probably never-seen-before systems to "alternative religions", like Wicca and its variations, to long-standing traditional ones like Baha'i and Taoism to far-out ones, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
• Even non-believers believe in something: atheists are simply those who don't believe in "God", but that doesn't mean they don't believe in anything, even if it is "only" science, for example.
• Of all known religious/belief systems, to my knowledge, there are only three which are exclusive (that is, it's-our-way-or-the-highway, we're-right-and-everybody-else-is-wrong/deluded), namely Islam, Christianity (in most, if not all its major flavors), and Atheism. (I know, for some of you that last one was a bit of a surprise.)

If you've ever taken the time to talk to other believers, you quickly realize that most of them (a) don't really want to talk about details, (b) are more than willing to let you believe whatever it is you do (or don't) believe, and (c) really aren't sure why you're asking the question about what they believe in the first place. With the "exclusionists", as I like to call them, the situation is reversed. They are more than willing to beat you over the head with the details, are quick to tell you how wrong you are in whatever it is that you believe, and finally glad that they found someone to brain-dump on. That's always struck me as odd.

So, here's my question: why do the exclusionists think (believe) they've got it right and everyone else has got it wrong?

Well, for the first two, the exclusionary religions, it's easy: their Holy Book tells them they are right and everyone else is wrong. At least that's what they'll tell you. For the last group, the absolute-non-believers, they'll tell you it's because there is no empirical evidence for anything you believe; that is, no proof, so you must be wrong.

The position of the first two is built on the fallacy of circular argumentation: the Book says so, therefore it is so, because the Book says so. The latter is based only on an assumption, namely if you can't access it through our five sense, it can't exist.

In other words, the claim to exclusivity is based on nothing that can be objectively and unequivocally verified in the end. Makes it all a bit shaky, don't you think?