Will we get a syncretistic religion?

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.

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 …

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?

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!

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.

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! :slight_smile:

Tweet from a local church:

Most London churches are near all now non-denominational.

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

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. :-k

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?

Thanks for the tip :confused:

I’m currently very happy in London.

All are welcome

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


Do you also not read other posts? :wink:

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

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.

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.


Yes. But nevertheless: it is about tassigning a value to it, because one values such developments, if one has enough mind for valuing it. Therefore I asked the question which is about tassigning a value to it. To be honest, I say that it is not a good development, because the other people who don’t want it will probably become fundamental and more fundamental, fanatic and more fanatic, extreme and more extreme, thus dangerous and more dangerous. There are always Non-Christian people who do not want to join a Christian church, and mostly this people are more than those who want to join a Christian church. Do you know what I mean? I am talking aboout a religious “arms race”.

I don’t know whether I agree or not, but that doesn’t matter, because I am merely the questioner. So let me ask you another question: What could those “forces that want unity of belief” be?

And how’s attendence?

Inside many religions and certainly in the monotheisms there is the idea that everyone should have the same God(s)/religion I have. So there are forces interested in marketing and coversion within these. Then in general you have a worldview that is trying to cover the entire planet. This worldview sees everying and modular, physical, marketable, controllable, sum of its parts, empty and, in a sense’ inorganic or engineerable and best engineered. This is a religion and one that is promoted via media, advertising, many films, technological replacement of nature, patenting of life both at the organismic level and in terms of parts (for example, genes). Since this is not a theist worldview it is often seen as not religious (let alone insane) but it is. So I see forces amassed behind spreading this. Hence the irritation caused by other kinds of (insane or not) regimes or holdouts - communist, islamist, pagan, anarchist/libertarian, vitalist or whatever.

So you mean somethimg that is not that new in the history of the last 6000 years, but what has really become new since the modern Occidental times is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result - the possibility that machines replace all human beings. Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction of the number of the humans.