If claims conflict between them, then they can't all be correct. They could be all incorrect, but not all correct. Christianity makes the claim that it's way is the only way to heaven (if such exists which it claims that it does). This claim automatically places it at odds against any claim to the contrary (e.g reincarnation). Therefore, they can't all be correct.

It seems the religions that share a son of god philosphy have a common thread, Love...healing...forgiveness...truth...and a son of god representing the same message, notice each is a son of god carrying the same message.

Those principles have no hatred attached only a refusal to accept a truth.

Sure they can all be correct. Not to the same mind (assuming the mind is relatively sane), but to different minds. Thing is that all these claims exist in the mind, only. No claim can ever be materialized and therefore verified. C'est impossible.

It's really only when the religious person starts to argue the veracity of his or her respective claim that conflicts arise between claims. And that's when there is no other option than to declare conflicting claims to be lies, or, at the very least, false. But until that happens, they are all true

What basis or definition are you using for "correct?"

Well, at least one of those principles has hatred attached to it. Let's see. Truth can't exist without falsehood, so that has falsehood attached. Forgiveness can't exist without sin. Attachment must therefore be sin. Healing has wrecking attached. Love doesn't exist without hatred .. oh, there it was.

In this case, i.e. without possible verification, it can only be the notion of or belief in truth.

My argument was based on objective facts or reality. If there is any conflict in claims, then they both can't be factually correct.

If one defines correct as an unverified notion or belief, then correct fails to have its accepted meaning.

If one believes that there is no god and there is a god, then one is incorrect. If one believes that there is a god and there is no god, then one is incorrect.

Subjective appeals won't change this.

You could make that same argument about anything, religious or otherwise; there's no escaping the fact that all claims "exist in the mind" and that there's no way to get to any verification without going through the mind.
You could say that it's only when I start arguing the veracity of my claim about George Washington being the first US president that a conflict arises with a claim that Bob Hope was the first president. After that, there's no option but to call the conflicting claim a lie or at least false.
But it would be kinda stupid to say that both claims were true just because we didn't argue about it.

Any claim, by definition, is an assertion of its own veracity.

Well, it gets a little spicy since all of those concepts we conform to or agree with in order to be correct are kind of hanging in subjective limbo when it comes to claims for which there can be no evidence.

Subjective appeal is all you have in order to resolve the correctness of those claims.

For any claim for which there is no evidence placed against a contrary claim also without evidence means that at least one if not both are incorrect. So subjective appeal is not all you have.

If a claim is without evidence and without contradiction, then it may or may not be correct.

Why can't truth exist without falsehood or love exist without hatred?

Sure, but only if you argue the veracity (or investigate it if that makes for a better word) will your claim be confronted with other claims that infringe upon it. I'm not saying that you will have to deal with the falsehood of your claim - by the nature of the claim, it will most likely never be false to you - but you will have to deal with the falsehood of other claims, even if only to declare your claim true (which is the entire argument, by the way).

A claim that Bob Hope was the first president of your nation can surely be an example of a similar imagination but since the first president of your nation did not exist in the imagination only, or, at least, existed in the collective imagination that we call reality, it has to stand in light of reality as well. That's where it'll fail, of course (although your Bob Hope claim can certainly remain as truth in your mind for the rest of your life - that's not a problem).

If a claim is unconfronted,then that does not make it automatically correct. Declaring something true does not make it true.

Whether either the claim of Bob Hope or George Washington as the first President of the United States is made, a priori they both can't be correct. Confronted or not, they both can't be correct.

I respectfully disagree. If I present the creation account of the Flying Spaghetti Monster then there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that invalidates the truth of that account. It simply is correct.

Now, if we have constructed and agreed upon rules for when something can be correct and when it can be incorrect then I certainly agree with you. But that's not the issue here. You may hold the rule that there can be only one god but I can trump that by installing as many gods as I like. That doesn't make my claims more correct than yours but it certainly doesn't make your claims more correct than mine. Ergo, they are all as correct as they can be.

Of course, if I attempt to walk outside the realm of my claim and argue the truth by means for which there is either actual evidence or axiomatic rules, then I'm screwed.

SMadsen, your use of "correct" here is all over the map.

I think the point is that, while we not be able to determine with absolutely certainly which of two contradictory claims is accurate (if either is), we can at least assume that both they are not both accurate.
If we refuse to make that assumption, we are essentially stating that the same statement can be true and false at the same time. Doing that destroys all logic and all claims.