Will we get a syncretistic religion?

Jr_Wells · February 18, 2015, 10:15pm

We are going around in circles. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Once again, my fault not yours.

Arminius · February 21, 2015, 12:08am

What is your problem here?

A minority of students who do not study are nevertheless students - because they are as matriculated as the majority of students who study.

Replace the word “students” by the word “syncretistic humans” and the word “study” by the word “believe in a syncretistic religion”.

There is reality on the one side and ideality on the other side.

Jr_Wells · February 21, 2015, 12:15am

Will we get “one and only one” syncretistic education system?

No.

Will we get “many” syncretistic education systems?

Yes.

Arminius · February 21, 2015, 12:41am

Education? Primarily we are talking about religion, although religion has much to do with education.

So you are saying that we will not get merely “one syncretistic education system” but “many syncretistic education systems”. Please tell me: why?

Jr_Wells · February 21, 2015, 12:48am

Your logic is hard to follow… you raised the student and study (education) not me.

Why will we get many… because that is already what is happening and has happened since the dawn of man.

Arminius · February 21, 2015, 12:59am

That was just an example in order to explain what is meant - because you did not understand it.

Yes. But that does not necessarily exclude that we will get merely one …

Jr_Wells · February 21, 2015, 1:09am

I understand.

Disagreeing is not the same as not understanding.

Will we evolve into 19 foot giants with four arms?
This too is possible.
Do I think it will happen?
No.

Arminius · February 21, 2015, 1:26am

You said two times:

That is not understanding - of course.

And because of that fact I gave you one more example (**).

Why not?

Perhaps you know the following two thread titles (topics) which are also questions:

I say It is possible, and the probability that it will happen is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Don’t underestimate the changes!

Jr_Wells · February 21, 2015, 2:08am

The assumption is that because I do not agree with you that I do not understand you.

When these things happen, then the probably of them having happened will be 100%.

Sorry, I am not going to read other threads.
If I needed to read other threads then I do not see why you made this one.
… I would have responded to those.

Arminius · February 21, 2015, 8:15pm

I think in our case there is no disagreement which can’t be solved.

According to the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself it is not possible to know what would or will happen - otherwise the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself would be superfluous, redundant.

So you read only this thread! Great! Thank you!

MagsJ · February 21, 2015, 11:41pm

Tweet from a local church:

Most London churches are near all now non-denominational.

Jr_Wells · February 22, 2015, 12:10am

Sorry to hear that you are from London. Immigration is an option for you.

Arminius · February 22, 2015, 12:12am

The second sentence annihilates the first sentence. So why is there the first sentence? The writers of this two sentences make themselves untrustworthy and attackable.

What does that exactly mean? “Non–denominational” does not mean the same in every country. So is it possible in the UK that even members of Non-Christian religions can join a Christian church by keeping / maintaining their Non-Christian religions?

MagsJ · February 22, 2015, 1:01am

Thanks for the tip

I’m currently very happy in London.

All are welcome

Arminius · February 22, 2015, 1:46am

And you do not value it by saying i.e. “that’s not good” or i.e “that’s good”?

Jr_Wells · February 22, 2015, 2:16am

Arminius · March 1, 2015, 12:21am

Do you also not read other posts?

You joined ILP on 9. November 2014, and my thread "Will machines completely replace all human beings? " started on 3. April 2014.

Moreno · March 3, 2015, 5:09pm

Arminius:

Brahmanism /Hinduisms, Buddhism, Jainism and others are syncretistic religions or metaphysics (philosophies); and Judaism, Christianity, Islam are - more or less - also syncretiistic religions: Judaism because of the Babylonian / Persian (cp. Parsee, Zoroastrianism), Egyptian, and Ancient Greek (cp. especially Platonism and Stoicism) forms, Christianity because of Judaism (see there), Manichaeism which is also Persian (see there), and Neoplatonism which is also Ancient Greek (sse there), Islam because of Judaism (see there) and Christianity (see there). Beside this famous religions we have also not so famous religions which are also - more or less - syncretistic religions. So you are right when you say that “we already have many” syncretistic religions. But if we consider all aspects, we have to say that they are also not syncretistic religions, because they have developed their own forms too. And in some cases we have to say that all religions are syncretistic religions, because they all trace back to one primeval religion (primitive religion), the first religion.

“Will we get a syncretistic religion?” as the title of this thread postulates “singly” religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not; so the question means whether all this “singly” religions will lead to merely one syncretistic religion.

Ah, no, I dont think so. Even if there was some generalized merging, there will likely always be new things popping up and getting followers. That said, if we get programmed cyberized merged with AI - re, your other threads - then this will come with an implicit (and possibily explicit) metaphysics. Then you might have unity and there are certainly forces that want unity of belief.

MagsJ · March 3, 2015, 5:53pm

It’s not about assigning a value to it, but about why this is happening in (mainly) inner-city areas… those who inter-marry can now worship without the need for converting to/choosing the others’ religion. A case of modern day problems getting modern day solutions.

Jr_Wells · March 3, 2015, 8:30pm

Moreno:

Arminius:

Brahmanism /Hinduisms, Buddhism, Jainism and others are syncretistic religions or metaphysics (philosophies); and Judaism, Christianity, Islam are - more or less - also syncretiistic religions: Judaism because of the Babylonian / Persian (cp. Parsee, Zoroastrianism), Egyptian, and Ancient Greek (cp. especially Platonism and Stoicism) forms, Christianity because of Judaism (see there), Manichaeism which is also Persian (see there), and Neoplatonism which is also Ancient Greek (sse there), Islam because of Judaism (see there) and Christianity (see there). Beside this famous religions we have also not so famous religions which are also - more or less - syncretistic religions. So you are right when you say that “we already have many” syncretistic religions. But if we consider all aspects, we have to say that they are also not syncretistic religions, because they have developed their own forms too. And in some cases we have to say that all religions are syncretistic religions, because they all trace back to one primeval religion (primitive religion), the first religion.

“Will we get a syncretistic religion?” as the title of this thread postulates “singly” religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not; so the question means whether all this “singly” religions will lead to merely one syncretistic religion.

Ah, no, I dont think so. Even if there was some generalized merging, there will likely always be new things popping up and getting followers. That said, if we get programmed cyberized merged with AI - re, your other threads - then this will come with an implicit (and possibily explicit) metaphysics. Then you might have unity and there are certainly forces that want unity of belief.

Agreed