WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

Occidental culture

B E L I E F   -   R E L I G I O N   -   T H E O L O G Y


Religion is certainly both a collective and a personal issue, but the collective side is more powerful and retroacts to each person, so that one doesn't really know, whether one is religious because of personal or because of collective decisions, interests, motives and so on. I think most people don't believe what they want to believe personally, but some do. Most people believe what the rulers want them to believe, and merely some people believe what they want themselves to believe.

So for the most part religion is political. De jure and de facto religious freedom is merely those people guaranteed who live in states with a judical and collective guarantee of religious freedom, protection of minorities. So if you want to be a heathen (again), you have to know whether your state, if you have one, does guarantee you your heathendom, your heathenish life. If you live in a Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is guaranteed. If you live in a Non-Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is not guaranteed.

Is there still (or again?) any heathenish state in the world like it was in ancient times, for example in the polities of the ancient Greece, the ancient Rome, the ancient Carthage and so on.


Arminius lived from about 17 B.C. to about 21, and this man stands especially for (1) freedom and (2) heathendom, pagandom. Arminius saved freedom and heathendom (pagandom); if he had not done this, Europe would have developed in a different way. We don't know, whether it would have been better or not, we merely know, that it would have been different.

(1) Arminius fighted slavery. He and many German tribes fighted the civilised barbarism, the Greek-Roman civilisation, at that time represented by the Roman Empire.

Caesar and Arminius lived nearly at the same time - Caesar died 1½ decades before Arminius was born -, Caesar was the embodiment of getting powerful by money, and Arminius was the embodiment of getting powerful by virtues (e.g. of his tribe). Arminius defeated the ancient Romans because the virtues defeated the money. Rome at this time was merely a decadent civilisation and ruled merely by money. If Caesar had not defeated the Gauls, he would have lost all his power and probably committed suicide. Today the Dollar Empire has very similar problems like the ancient Roman Empire had at Ceasar’s time.

In the year 9 Arminius defeated the ancient Romans by annihilating three legions of Augustus’ army - Augustus was the first „Ceasar“ after Caesar (himself!) -, and Augustus despaired of that fact.

At that time the ancient Romans had reached their maximum of power, but had similar birthrates as we have today because they were just as decadent as we are today. They tried to replace the lack of children by slaves who were captured by war and brought into colonies. But at last the decadence had been stronger, so the Romans became less and less, the Germans became more and more in the Imperium Romanum, and at last the Germans conquered the Imperium Romanum also by military actions.

(2) Heathendom (pagandom) is what the civilised barbarians and the so called „barbarians“ have in common - so it was, so it is, and so it will be (except if all culture, history will end [**|**|**]).

A culture with civilisation produces very much more entropy than a culture without civilisation. In the meantime the whole globe and nearly all human beings are civilised. So the problems are so huge that we have to ask ourselves whether we really can continue this way of life; and if we don't really can continue this way of life, we should ask ourselves whether we are able to change this way of life and how we should do it; and if we are able to do it, it could be better to do it as heathens (pagans) again?

Should we become heathens (pagans) again? Or not? Or is it indifferent?


The consequences of the Thirty-Years-War have shown how people with different religious denominations come together again - after such a great war with so much harm (! [in spite or because of that? {that is an interesting question}]) - and be able to live peacefully together. My wife is a Lutheran (Protestant), I am a Catholic - no problem at all! We are of the opinion that also in the 1960's there were no problems between Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants ) in Germany.


I was born in the 1950’s in a 99%-Catholic village; during my time as a schoolboy and also later one of my best friends was a Lutheran (Protestant) - his family was the only Lutheran family (besides three other families which were refugees / displaced persons from East Prussia in East Germany) in our village, all other families were Catholic. There was no problem at all between all the Catholics and the Lutherans. And I did not make any other experience in other regions of Germany at that time. So relating to cantacts between Catholics and Lutherans I have been making no bad experiences in Germany since my first experience with such a contact.

And since I was about 15 years old I have been asking myself whether the Thirty-Years-War was the cause / reason of the fact that Catholics and Lutherans or Huguenots (they were refugees / displaced persons from France) and other denominations have had as well as no or even no problems with each other since the end of that Thirty-Years-War.


Is it acceptable if we say that polytheism is part of paganism? If so - and I say: yes, polytheism is part of paganism -, then we can also say that monotheism is less tolerant than polytheism. Thereby the probability for the following declaration rises: yes, the heathendom will bring freedom back to us (**|**). But this heathendom would have to be very powerful, because the montheistic religions do not want the heathendom to be powerful.


Ideology is a modern religion and more a neurosis than the non-modern religion, the normal religion. In parts Freud's “Psychoanalyse” is an ideology, a modern religion, and thus more a neurosis than the non-modern religion, the normal religion.

Non-modern religious behaviour can be compared with some aspects of a child behaviour. Modern religion behaviour can be compared with some aspects of an adult behaviour. It is not possible to eliminate religion because either it resists all attacks as a non-modern religion or it becomes a modern religion, an ideology. By hiding behind an ideology, it is easier for the modern religion to enforce its nihilism. Modern religions - ideologies - are always nihilistic.

Why did so many heathens became monotheists? What was the success of the missionaries?

1.) Chosen people in the case of the Judaism?
2.) Salvation (especially by Jesus) in the case of the Christendom / Christianity?
3.) Capture / conquest and power by war in the case of the Islam / Mussulmans / Mussulmen?

Will also many monotheists become heathens? And without missionaries?

1.) ?
2.) ?
3.) ?


Probably we can't overcome monotheism because it exists and - especially - because we know that it exists. So we can’t forget it or it will take a very long time to forget it. A very long time, although not als long as it takes to forget nihilism and especially the meaning of nihilism.


If the heathendom wants to be more successful, it has to become political in order to eliminate the monotheistic memory.

But probably it does not want to be more successful, and probably it is the right decision because of the monotheistic envy and revenge.


I think, heathendom will as long remain a small religious group of a minority as monotheism remains in the memory.


Science is already partly a religion.

Most of the current scientists are so corrupt, that the word “scientist” is not the right word for them and their profession. They are saying what the rulers want them to say - and that has nothing to do with science, but very much with religion, with being obedient to ideology as modern religion.


Yes, it is unbelievable how religious science has become. According to my theory and also because of that fact I often say that ideologies are modern religions. Therefore it is not surprising to me that this has happened and happens an will happen (until the time when science will be no science anymore, but to 100% the new religion, probably worldwide). Once every Westerner thougt religion was replaced by science, in the future every Westerner or even every human being will think the reverse.


Who is really thinking? God?

When you think that you think, what do you then think about the question “who is really thinking”?


“Psyche” is not defined. Psychology has no object at all.

One of the least understood concepts is that of the “psyche”. Formerly the word “psyche” was used mythological and religiously and actually relatively well understood, since modernism it has been going through the propaganda mills, and no one can really say what it could be or even is. Misunderstood words or concepts are especially well suited for the propaganda and the establishment of new religions. Funny, isn't it? No, that's not funny, that's fateful, isn't it?


“Psyche” is not defined. Psychology has no object at all.

There is no psychological object (for research and so on). So it is not true if someone says that “psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche” (**). It is not proven that „psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche” (**); and as long as this is not proven one can say that the definition of “psyche” is unproven and probably false.It is also not true that the word “psyche” is “one of the fundamental concepts for understanding human nature from a scientific point of view” (**), since there is no psychological “nature”, because there is no psychlogical object.

No other words or concepts are more misused for power, control, propaganda, agitation, oppression, elimination etc. than (1.) “psyche” (incl. “psychological”, “psychology”, “psychiatric”, “psychiatry” and so on), (2.) “social” (incl. “sociological”, “sociology” and so on), (3.) “eco” (incl. “ecological”, “ecology”, also “economic[al]”, “economy”, “economics”etc.) and (4.) “climate”.


Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same.


There is only one fundament of religion and science: the belief - belief in truth. B.t.w.: philosophy has this fundament too.

Belief as the belief (or faith) in truth is the fundament, and then it goes:

RELIGION => THEOLOGY (DIVINITY) => PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE => NEW THEOLOGY (NEW DIVINITY) => NEW RELIGION.

The result is a new beleif (or faith) in truth.

The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached the top of its history - science seemed to be „free“ -, then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity) into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion, but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

What does that mainly mean?

The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies. One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part of the rulers, thus its former enemies.

An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture's modern times can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever - that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started its “way” from a new theology (new divinity) to a new religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and perhaps it will end very badly.

The next time you visit the scientific “church” (“universiy”) or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific “experts” (priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of science.

Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely under the control of the rulers.


Theres is no fundamental distinction between science and religion. Both - and also philosophy - begin and end with the belief: belief in truth.

You should not always believe what you have learned in school(s) or universities.

Long ago, before the historical religions, there were only primitive religions, and this primitive religions were based on evidence too. Most crucial is the belief, the belief in the truth. And primitive pople believe as well in truth as modern people. There is no difference. The fundament is the same. Different are merely the objects and the methods, but neither the objects nor the methods are the fundaments of science. When science has its objects and methods, then it has already left his starting point since a relative long time. The fundament of religion, theology (divinity), philosophy, and science is always belief in truth. Then they go different ways or meanders. At last they find together again, but as new forms.


Some specific sciences (branches of science) or scientific communities do not accept the possibility of being wrong, and do not give opportunities to truly test the accuracy of their claims.

Again: Religion and science are not the same, but they have the same fundament, and that's the reason why they are similar and often “behave” in the same way.

Humans are able to see, the most animals are able to see. Are humans and animals the same? No. Can they act in the same way? Yes. They are related, have the same origin, the same fundament.


Many Catholic and Protestant Christians defend the Islam in order to destroy their own religious community. So why I am saying that? The modern Occidental Christianity is the only religious community which destroys itself. Today Christianity is the most attacked religious community. So it is more attacked than Islam. Christianity is attacked by other religious systems and also by itself.


I don’t know any Western Christian who would say: “I am a proud Christian”. This Christian would not survive the agitation of the Western media.


Christianity is originally a so-called “monotheistic” religion, and as a such it demands defending other religions, especially other “monotheistic“ religions. Hinduism as a whole is no so-called “monotheistic” but a “polytheistic” religion. And in polytheistic religions the defense of other religions is not as big a problem as in “monotheistic” religions because polytheistic religions are able to integrate other religions. Thus: when Christianity defends other religions, then it attacks itself because it is actually a “monotheistic” religion; and because the modern Western Christianity has been destroying itself more and more since the beginning of its modern times it probably has been changing from a monotheistic to a polytheistic religion.

And if all religions do that what the modern Western Christianity has been doing since the beginning of its modern times, then there would merely be polytheistic religions. And polytheistic religions can also be called as one polytheistic religion, if there is no monotheistic religion anymore (maybe that will be the case in future).

Maybe for 99% of the humans in the future the religion will be a polytheistic one (similar to what the monotheists call heathendom), the society and its economy and policy either a “Brazilanised” one with an impending dominance of the machines, or similar to that of the hunters and collectors of the past.


The author “The Idiot”was a Russian, and Russia has never been a part of the Western culture. All Orthodox Christians have never been a part of the Western culture. The border (see above) between the Catholic and Protestant Christians, thus the Westerners, on the one side and the Orthodox Christians on the other side has been existing as border since the 4th century or earlier because the Roman Empire had been declining since the 2nd century.

Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox Christianity and didn’t want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since tsar Peter (“the Great”). Probably Dostojewski’s books were based on that two aspects.


„Tolstoi ist das vergangene, Dostojewski das kommende Rußland.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917-1922, S. 792 **
Translation:
“Tolstoi is the past, Dostojewski the coming Russia.”


„Tolstoi ist mit seinem ganzen Innern dem Westen verbunden. Er ist der große Wortführer des Petrinismus, auch wenn er ihn verneint. Es ist stets eine westliche Verneinung. .... Der echte Russe ist ein Jünger Dostojewskis, obwohl er ihn nicht liest, obwohl und weil er überhaupt nicht lesen kann. Er ist selbst ein Stück Dostojewski. .... Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917-1922, S. 792, 794 ** **
Translation:
“Tolstoi with his whole inside is connected to the West. He is the great spokesman of Petrinism, although he denies it. It is always a Western denial. .... The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoevsky, though he does not read it, though, and because he can not read. He himself is a piece of Dostoevsky. .... The Christianity of Tolstoi was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and meant Marx. The next millennium belongs to the Christianity of Dostoevsky.”


When will the “new religion” be complete? First of all they had to create a “new theology” because they had to create some gods, divinities, godhoods. But after that they had to create that “new religion”, and that has more practical aspects that we have been noticing for so long. Spirit is a taboo, although science is not possible at all without spirit. They are forcing more and more in their religious system. But obviously it is inevitable. The “new religion” is not finished yet. There is going to come something more to us.


The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.


We really do not know for sure whether Nietzsche wasn’t against Jesus. Nietzsche in his “early times as a philosopher” was not against Jesus, Nietzsche in his “middle times as a philosopher” was not very much against Jesus, and Nietzsche in his “late times as philosopher” was against Jesus, although not always. It is really difficult to find the truth about Nietzsche's relationship with Jesus and Christianity because the whole Nietzsche has to be considered.


Nietzsche in his middle and late time of an adult philosopher admired the original Christianity mainly just because of its historical success. And who was the one who historically brought the Christianity to the success? It was Paulus.


I invite you to come to Europe because Europe has almost no real Christians anymore. So according to your statements Europe would have to be a paradisie. Funny, because the reverse is right. Again: Come to Europe! For example and very especially: Come to France which is almost islamic and voodoo-like, just “delicious”.

Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe that will be a “better” religion?


Anti-theism is just another theism. Anti-theism always refers to theism. Interestringly, the history shows us that a-theism has always behaved like anti-atheism, thus also like another theism. Theory and theism belong together. So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.

A muslim knows that theism and theory are related, that they are very similar to each other, probably he even says that they are „the same“ because his culture is one of the most religious cultures of all time.

There has never been a culture without any religion and theology. But when cultures decline religion and theology have to decline as well - this seems to be a declining “law”.


Don’t think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity will be destroyed. That’s an dangerous, fatal error. And if you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why don’t you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally an Oriental form?


The base of religion and theology (also theism) is belief respectively faith. The German word for “belief” is „Glaube“ (and “to believe” = „glauben“), and this has its roots in the the term „FÜR WAHR HALTEN“ - HOLD FOR TRUE (ACCEPT AS TRUE) -, so that one can also say that philosophy, science, and something near have also their roots in what religion and theology have their roots; but science and philosophy are more elaborated and “higher” than religion and theology. For belief there are also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical side and way and (2.) a theoretical side and way. (1.) The practical belief leads to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways but differently. When Westerners are saying that there is “a huge difference between religion and science and between theology and philosophy”, then they are saying more about themselves and their culture because that difference is not as huge as they always assume.

Theism is merely the ideologised form of theology. Antitheism is just another theism. Theology is the theoretical side and way (=> 2.) of belief, the belief in God („qeos“, “theós” «» “God”). And if you don't want to belief in God, then you can call yourself „disbeliever“ but not „antitheist“ because an antitheist is just another theist, although or because of the attempt to become a disbeliever. Because of the fact that antitheism refers to theism and although both fighting against each other both a parts of Hegel's dialectic process and have to bow to it, thus became a synthesis, and in the case of theism there can merely be theism as the thesis, antitheism as the antithesis, and syntheism as the synthesis. And one can easily guess what syntheism is.


Any and every antitheist is (at last) another theist, and (unfortunately or fortunately) atheists prove permanently that they are also merely another theists. It is easily to prove.

At last antitheism can’t overcome the theism. There is no example in history. All examples show that if theology or theism is opposed by antitheology or antitheism the result is always a syntheism, consequently a new theism.

And that is really interesting!


“Atheists” have just another God. In other words: atheists who say that God does not exist and is impossible are antitheists, because their “arguments” are the same as those of the antitheists. Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called “agnostic atheists”). But those who allegedly “know” that God does not exist are antitheists, thus another theists, because they merely have another God(s). We may not forget that metaphysically God is a personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe. Who is the personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe for the atheists? And does he exist? Yes, he does! As a ghost of all ghostly ancestors. Should I name some of them? I think I don’'t have to, because you probably know them anyway. One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is also impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says “God does not exist” or “I do not know that God does not exist”. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.

The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called “Indios” or “Indians” didn’t even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.


Wether something is or not does not only depend on thinkling and imaging, because (for example) zero, the nothingnesss, or the infinity can be thought and imagined, but according to James S. Saint’s „RM:AO“ they do not exist, because they have no affect.

Again my examples:

The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called “Indios” or “Indians” didn’t even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.

I don’t know wether the bushman and the “Indio” (“Indian”) could imagine the things and White humans before they saw them for the first time. But nevertheless: Those things and the White man existed.


Do you think and/or imagine nothing when you think of “zero”, or “nothing”, or the “nothingness”?

When I think of nothing or the nothingness I often think of the word “nothing” (“n-o-t-h-i-n-g”) or the word “nothingness” (“n-o-t-h-i-n-g-n-e-s-s”), because the words “nothing” and “nothingness” exist as well as (for example) the words “zero” and “infinity”. What do you think when you think of God?


Do you not believe that there is very much lie, hypocrisy, blatancy, bravado, showing-off, just exhibitionism when some people behave, speak, think about anything and everything that has to do with “qeos”, “theós”, thus with God, with theology, with antitheology, with theisms, with antitheism, etc., often even then if those people “believe” (!) that they are “atheists”, so that it is difficult to say who is more theistic - the theist or the antitheist or even the atheist?

It is not possible to “know” God, because if it were, the belief in him would make no sense anymore. Those who just want to oppose the theists say that they “know” that God does not exist, although it is impossible to know that, and when they say “know”, they mean “believe”, so that one can never know wether the atheists or the antitheists are the real deists, the real believers in God respectively substituted God.

The Ancient Greek morpheme “a” means “not” / “non”, “without”, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme “anti” means “against” / “contra”. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s).

But how or with which weapons do antitheists oppose, fight against theists, theism, and their god(s)? They do it with their own theism, the antitheism, their owm god(s), the antigod(s).

The most atheists are merely antitheists because they can’t ignore theists, theism, and their god(s).


I know that the Western modernity changed the meaning of the Ancient Greek prefix “a”, because of rhetorical reasons. But all this rhetorical reasons don’t matter for those who know what is meant by the original morphemes “a” and “anti” and what is meant by the rhetorical morphemes “a” and “anti”.

Another example:

Are antifeminists called “afeminists”? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism, so they are just another feminists when they merely oppose the feminists. Demanding the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. “masculinists”) that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with the same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call “opposition” or “fighting against”. Feminism, militarism, theism, ... and so on (there is just no end ...) - they are all part of Hegel's Dialektik, so they develop according to Hegel's dialectic process: thesis => antithesis => synthesis.


Religion and science are different, they are not the same, but hey have the same root: belief.

Every culture is inimitable, and the Faustian culture is a science culture. Most of science is Faustian science, thus Faustian culture.

Faustians have a never-satisfied thirst for knowledge. Therefore the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science.

That all is unique. That all lacks- in Non-Faustian cultures.


If there were not a Faustian culture there would not be the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science, the technical and consequently the economical and social progress with all its good and bad sides.


Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.


Will we get a syncretistic religion? ** **


Those people who say that they are “not religious” are often more religious than the other people.

Do you really know what “religion” is and/or means?


The term „Abrahamic Religions“ is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term „Monotheistic Religions“.

Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.

For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament.


Nietzsche said that (for example) there are „ja-sagende“ („yes-saying“) and „nein-sagende“ („no-saying“) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies. Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are „ja-sagende Religionen“ („yes-saying religions“) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are „nein-sagende Religionen“ („no-saying religions“). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Der Wille zur Macht“ („The Will to Power“), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no „three Abrahamic religions“ because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.


It seems that after the current battle or civil war between Christians on the one side and the antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and the fundamentalistic Moslems (the fighter for the darkest ages) on the other side the next battle or civil war in Europe will be between antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and Moslems because the Christians will then be expelled from their home in Europe.

Visit Europe with its modern persecution of Christians. Don't look away. Don't listen to your double moral.

According to Peter Sloterdijk religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems. Currently the exercising antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and their best friends, the even more exercising fundamentalistic Molems, are fighting together for the darkest ages.


If we will get a syncretistic religion, will it be a mix of antitheistic / atheistic religion, antimasculinistic / feministic religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaisms, Hinduism (including Buddhism), and Heathendom (including Voodoo) etc. ...?

    

[]

Religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems.


Probably the syncretistic religion „will result really in more conflicts“ (**). We have three main possibilities: (1) the tradition, (2) the mix or syncretism, (3) a new kind of religion or spiritual exercises. The other „possibilities“ are merely a part of the three main possibilities.


it has been going in another way for about six millenniums, thus for nearly three cycles. What are those cycle? I give you one example

(A):

Aa)
__________ Religion X __________
Theology Y _________ Theology X

Ab)
___________________ Theology Y __________
Philosophy/Science X ___________ Religion X

Ac)
__________ Philosophy/Science X ___________
Theology Z ___________________ Theology Y

Ad)
__________ Theology Z ___________________
Religion Y ___________ Philosophy/Science

XBa)
__________ Religion Y __________
Theology A _________ Theology

ZBb)
... and so on .....

Any cycle contains four phases (a-d). The realm „Philosophy/Science“ (i.e. „X“) dominates averagely one phase, the realm „Religion“ (i.e. „X“) dominates averagely one phase, and the realm „Theology“ (i.e. „Y“ and „Z“) dominates averagely two phases. So the realms „Religion“ and „Theology“ together dominate averagely three phases (75% of one cycle). That is averagely, which means that in reality the realm „Philosophy/Science“ dominates even less than 25% of one cycle (and b.t.w.: it is not said whether philosophy or science dominates). Today we are in Ad: the realm „Philosophy/Science“ (i.e. „X“) is dominated by the realm „Theology“ (i.e. „Z“), whilst the realm „Religion“ (i.e. „Y“) is waiting for its new domination, is at the ready to take over, because - usually - it is its turn when it comes to start with a new cycle. Maybe the next new cycle will be a very much different one, for example a cycle without the realm „Religion“ and/or without the realm „Theology“, and maybe it will already start in the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd century.


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. 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.


Q: Was it allowed to be a Non-Roman in the Roman Empire?
A: Yes, but most needed to be Romans in that emprie for it to be a Roman empire.

Q: Could the Romans have more than one Roman Empire?
A: No, ist had to be one and only one.

There will always be people who deviate from the norm.
This deviation will not eternally allow one perfect and eternal Romam Empire (therefore Jesus said: „My empire is not of this world“), but temporarily it is possible.

Temporarily one syncretistic religion is possible, if deviation is allowed. Later this syncretistic religion will decay. Everything deacys, but temporarily it can exist.

We can think of many analogies in that case. For example: Each living being has a so-called „individual“ body, a unit, although there are many other living beings in that body, if this living being is a so-called „higher living being“ like a human being. The other living beings in that one living being are the deviations of the rule that one living being is always one living being. It's right: one living being is one living being, regardless whether there are many other living beings in that one living being or not. Beyond that: this one living being needs the other living beings. Living beings are beings of self-preservation (including: self-organisation and reproduction) with an immune system; and the immune system of a so-called „higher living being“ depends on other living beings (bacteria / germs).

Without deviations a syncretistic religion can not exist, but we have to call it „syncretistic religion“ nonetheless, even then, if some people who are part of this syncretistic religion say „we do not want to be part of this syncretistic religion“. As long as this deviated people of one syncretistic religion are not too many, the „immune system“ of that syncretistic religion works very well, thus that syncretistic religion is very „healthy“, exists very well.


One syncretistic religion is possible. Maybe that the probability of it is not very high, but that does not change its possibility and probability at all.

It is not my intention to propagate a syncretistic religion or many syncretistic religions - but I just want to ask: Will we get a syncretistic religion?


Amenophis IV. (Amenhotep IV., a.k.a. Echnaton [Achenaton]) was the founder of the first henotheism, a.k.a. monotheism.

The Sun-God was called Aton (Aten). The belief was that he appeared as a sun disk:

Aton

Is that what you like to worship?


„If you are dead in this universe you must be alive in another?“ (**). Why shoud I? Do you mean that the soul of a dying or already dead person goes through a black hole in order to enter another universe? And if so: Do you believe that you will ever know whether that will happen to you or/and your soul or not? And if you believe that: Would you then say that the black hole is similar to God or/and his „Last Judgement“ and the another universe is similar to haeven or/and hell? And if so: Do you want others to believe that as well? Such a religion, or anti-religion, or syn-religion would be similar to those the humans already have. So: Do you believe that this religion, or anti-religion, or syn-religion is going to be established? And if so: For all or almost all humans? And if so: Why do you believe that? And if you do not want to argue religiously: Why did you ask your question? Do you have any proof or evidence? I guess that you do not have any; therefore my last question: Is my guess right?


In modern secular words religion is ideology.


„It will be a peaceful world when humans have eradicated themselves.“ (**) ?

When humans have eradicated themselves there will be no one who knows what a peaceful world is.

„Up until then, so long as we have people who divorce and separate we will also not have syncretistic anything.“ (*) ?

Syncretism has always been a part of the human evolution at some times.

„People will never unify.“ (**) !

That is even not necessary.

A syncretistic religion does not require an unification of all humans. But nevertheless: if we all get a syncretistic religion, then those who don't want this syncretistic religion will also get a syncretistic religion (that's logical, even tautological!), although they do not want it, although they are not religiously (but for example: economically or politically) unified.

But the question is: Will we get a syncretistic religion? This syncretistic religion would be more syncretistic than all other syncretistic religions before it. Probably a syncretistic religion for all humans (the minority is included) is already in the making but not a complete reality yet, because those who are against it are still a majority.

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


It is a self-evidence for all islamic terrorists (fundamentalists, ideologs), a matter of course, that they speak for all islamic people, that they speak for the islam, thus not for „islamism“ (). „Islamism“ is an Occidental invention as much as every „ism“ is an Occidental invention. No „ism“ is invented by others than Occidental humans.

There are three kinds of so called „revolutions“ which threatens the modern Occident:
1) One „revolution“: the „Occidental revolution“.
2) Two „revolutions“: the „Occidental revolution“ and the „White revolution“.
3) Three „revolutions“: the „Occidental revolution“, the „White revolution“, and the „Colored revolution“.

The islam as islamism (Occidental spoken) belongs to the „Colored revolution“ in the Occident.

Islamic people do not call their islam „islamism“, although the Occidental people do it, if they speak about the extreme or funfamenatistic islam. That's the point.

The „Colored revoultion“ in the Occident - Islam/ism and other religions / ideologies (i.e. voodoo/ism) included - will only end, when the Occidental modernity will end.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Before the modern times of the Occident there was merely one real foreign threat for the Occidental culture: the islam!


Obama said: „No religion is responsible for terrorism.“
Is the system of greed and lust responsible for terrorism?

Obama said: „People are responsible for terrorism.“
Are the globalistic people responsible for terrorism?

Obama said: „The terrorists do not speak for“ all „Muslims.“
Does Obama speak for all US Americans?
...?
Did Truman speak for for all US Americans?
Did Churchill speak for all English / British?
Did Hitler speak for all Germans / Aryans?
Did Stalin speak for all Russians / Soviets?
Did Roosevelt speak for all US Americans?
Did Lenin speak for all Russians / Soviets?
Did Wilson speak for all US Americans?
...?
...?
...?
Did Napoleon speak for all French(men)?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
Did Caesar speak for all Ancient Romans?
...?
...?
...?
Did Alexander „the Great“ speak for all Ancient Greeks?


Those „misunderstood spiritual exercise systems“ which you call „Abrahamic“ (**) acted not in a similar way when they had power and act not in a similar way when they have power.

Your „witch burnings“ (**) are no argument, because you have to consider what took place at the same time and what takes place even nowadays (!) in countries of the Islam. And your „power“ argument is not a convincing one. Who has still more power? Christians or Muslims? And although Christians have still more power than Muslims, Christians are still much more peaceful and civilisated than Muslims.

Nietzsche was not always right, but he was right i.e. in the case of putting Brahmanism, Judaism, Islam on the one side and Buddhism, Christianity on the other side. That makes much more sense than the „Abrahamic“ myth.

Brahmanism, Judaism, and Islam are similar to aristocratic / oligarchical or even monarchical / tyrannical systems and more active than passive, whereas Buddhism and Christianity are similar to democratic / ochlocratic systems and more passive than active.


There would never have been any industrial „revolution“ (the better word is „explication“), if the Faustian people had not brought it to them.

The whole culture of the islamic people is a religious culture - that means that their lives are dominated by religion / exercise systems (see above).

In almost all cases cultures have many forms, thus not only religious forms. Religious forms can influence the culture, of course, but the religion of the Faustian culture has never been as powerful as the Islamic religion. The „Abrahamic“ myth is not important for that, and Christianity, which was and is the official but not the real religion of the Faustians, is not as monotheistic or henotheistic as Islam and Jewry are (but that does also not as much matter as each whole culture matters). It makes not very much sense to isolate religions from their cultures and their landscapes they belong to. Christianity is not an original religion of the Occident but of the Orient, especially of the Oriental desert (also Jewry and Islam); but the mix of this Oriental desert religion on the one side and the landscape and climate of the Occident (boreal, nordic, rainy, just mild: not too warm and not too cold) and its original culture on the other side is a successful one. One of many examples is that in the Occident religion and state (secaular politics) are seperated from each other.


Islam started with violnce, violence, and ... violence-. During a few decades it has become a huge empire. What you call „philosophie, maths“ started after the four brutal violence centuries (7th, 8th, 9th, 10th), after they had attacked and conquerd so many countries and people that a bit wealthy and thus also a bit „philosophies, maths“ (from the Indians!) could appear.“ **

Look into the history books.

The „holy scriptures“ of Jewry (torah) and Islam (koran) are ful of violence, and it is not allowed to change only one single word or even only one single letter of that „holy scriptures“.


At that time - in the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th century - it was not possible to become such a huge empire without violence. And by the way: a huge empire has always been the result of violence.

**

Islamic expansion from 622-750 - with nowadays borders overlaid.

And the following map shows the areas that came under islamic control after the 10th century:

**

Current borders are overlaid.


The pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomonistic pantheism: only God exists; the self-existence of the world is repealed.
2) Physionomistic pantheism: only the world exists (but is called „God“); the self-existence of God is repealed.
3) Transcendental pantheism (also called „panentheism“): the world is an appearance of God who contains the world; the self-existence of the world is not repealed but relativised.
4) Immanent-transcendeental pantheism: God realises himself in (the things of) the world; the self-existence of God is not repealed but relativised.


I often say that those who say or/and think that they are not religious are more religious than those who say or/and think that they are religious. Not the truth but the lie is the easier and more effective way when it comes to get, to keep, and to expand power.


Knowing and believing are not the same but similar - because of their common source. Science and religion are not the same but similar - because of their common source.


The religious or scientific „belief“ („faith“) does not change so often.


Hedonism leads i.a. to the conclusion that we should just believe whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe.


Christianity is hope-based, not threat-based.


Buddhism and Christianity have much more in common with each other than with any other religion. Buddhism is partly hinduism and partly not hinduism. Nevertheless: Buddhism belongs historically to the Indian culture with its hinduistic religion(s). But what do we want to know when it comes to live together? We want to know how our ethics amd morality are. Buddhism and Christianity answer this question very similarly. In this important case they on the one side and other religions on the other side are even opposites.


It doesn't matter very much today whether religions „talk“ about Adam and Eva or about Abraham, if the people want to know how to live together and under which ethical and moral conditions they can live together. The quintessence of the AT and the Koran is very much different to the quintessence of the NT. Today it is not important to know whether there were („once upon a time“) Adam and Eva, or Abraham, and other fictional „persons“, eating, drinking, and lenten regulations. Modern Christian people are interested in their religion because they want to know whether their religion is social or not, hope-based or not, threat-based or not, what kind of ethics and morals is important for them, what will be after their deaths, what it has to do with their current lives, but they do not want to know whether there was i.e. „Abraham“ or not. In addition: Ethically / morally it is not important to modern Christians to know very much about the NT, whereas Jews and Muslims have to know each sign of their holy texts in their holy books. In Christianity it is allowed to change the text of the NT, whereas Jews and Muslims art not allowed to change a tiny sign of their holy texts in their holy books. And: Christianity is not as monotheistic as Jewry and Islam.

Just compare the Old Testament with the New Testament and you will soon notice that the Old Testamet deals very much more with threat than with hope and that the New Testament deals very much more with hope than with threat. And the quality of threat and hope shows the same difference and relationship, also the violence and the quality of violence, ..., and so on .... The bottom line is that one could say: the Old Testament and the New Testament almost contradict each other.


The Christian Easter which is not the original Easter (**); it refers to the historical fact that the Christians tried to Christianise the Ancient Germans by a mix of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Ostara, the goddess of spring, If they had no tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful. The original Easter is a heathen Easter referring to spring, a new beginning, birth of life, seed / sowing.

The birth of Jesus Christ (in English it is called „Christmas“) has to do with the beginning of winter (24. December in those days), the winter solstice which was also a very meaningful date for the Ancient Germans. The Christians tried to Christianise them by a mix of the birth of Jesus Christ and the winter solstice. If they had not tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful.


The modern religion is something like an ideology, and the modern deities are idols, false gods, for example such as dream interpreters or therapists (both formerly known as shamans). So a modern areligious person would have to be one who has nothing to do with this modern religion, because this modern religion is also a modern kind of superstition.


Creating false guilt is always good for those (0.001—1% of all humans) who create and manage it as a moral tenet, but who are „those“ today? If „they“ are really „religious“ people, their „religion“ is a political, governmental, financial, criminal one, a modern ideology for the other 99—99.99% and with idols (false gods) which are called e.g. „Political Correctness“, „Affirmative Action“, „Feminism“, „Genderism“, and other kinds of racism, sexism, communism, capitalism.

The current rhetoric trick is that each of those who create false guilt for profit says e.g.: „I am not religious.“ But each of them is religious, although in a modern manner, thus in an ideological manner.

Ideologies are opium for the people.


Do you think that the current governments and so-called „business“ have nothing to do with religion, in more modern terms: with ideologies?


There are god-believers (theists), non-godbelievers (non-theists, thus: a-theists), and anti-godbelievers (anti-theists). Compare protons (positve), neutrons (neutral), and electrons (negative) in an atome.

Theism is like a proton, positively charged, atheism is like a neutron, neutrally charged, and antitheism is like an electron, negatively charged.

Most ot them who call themselves „atheists“ are „antitheists“, otherwise they would not fight against theism. Real atheists are not interested in theism, but antitheists are very much interested in theism.

A more detailed analogy:

-------------------------------------

– A protrons consists of three quarks:
1) up quark (charge: + 2/3),
2) up quark (charge: + 2/3),
3) down quark (charge: –1/3)
---------------------------------------
= Protron (sum of charge: 1).

If we use the analogy in the way that theists are like „protrons“, then a majority of them are like up quarks (charge: +2/3), whereas a minority of them are like down quarks (charge: –1/3). The „up quark theists“ are more theistic than the „down quark atheists“.

Another example: If agnostics tend to theism, then they are „up quark theists“.

----------------------------------------------

– A neutron consists of three quarks:
1) up quark (charge: + 2/3),
2) down quark (charge: –1/3)
3) down quark (charge: –1/3)
---------------------------------------
= Neutron (sum of charge: 0).

If we use the analogy in the way that atheists are like „neutrons“, then a majority of them are like down quarks (charge: –1/3), whereas a minority of them are like up quarks (charge: +2/3). The „down quark atheists“ are more atheistic than the „up quark atheists“.

Another example: If agnostics tend to atheism, then they are „up quark atheists“.

------------------------------------------

– An electron.
(Charge: –1). If we use the analogy in the way that antitheists are like „electrons“, then we have to state that ALL antithesist are in the same way like electrons. Their thoughs are always orbiting the „nucleus“ because of the „charged“ theism (compare: proton) not because of the „non-charged“ atheism (compare: neutron), although it is also a part of the „nucleus“.

Antitheists often claim to be what they are not, for example: „atheists“; but the reason for the antitheists' claim to be „atheists“ is just that they are orbiting the „nucleus“ because of the „charged“ theists (compare: protons); and claiming to be an "atheist" just means the antitheists' wishful thinking that they are closer to the „nucleus“than they really are.

Another example: Agnostics do never tend to antitheism.


Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In order to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know the meaning of the words „theist“, „theism“, „theology“, and so on.
Newborns do not know these words.

Those who want newborns to be called „atheists“ or whatever just want more power (in this example: more power over newborns).

The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect. A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers as their moneygivers want.

Why should god be „logically impossible“ (**)? Or are you the one who wants to be god? Are you (like the most antitheists) a godwannabe? You want to be the one who dictates (by using the word "posit") that god is impossible.

Theists say that god is possible, atheists say that they do not know whether god is possible or not, and antitheists say that god is impossible (because theists say that god is possible and because, if the times are modern times, then being against theists is so hypocritically „progressive“ and can lead to more appreciation, thus power, and that is the goal). You „argue“ like an antitheist - not logically but dictatorially.

It does not matter how falsely and rhetorically these words are used in the English language. Almost everyone knows what is logically meant by „a“ and „anti“, regardless how you or anyone else „translate“ them. What I was saying has to do with both linguistics and logic, what you are saying has only to do with the use of an everyday language by an English speaker. Again: An Atheist does not know and says to not know whether (it is possible that) god exists or not, but an antitheist (like you) claims to know that god does not exist in order to say the oppsite of that what a theists says. „Anti“ <=> „against“, „contra“.

About 99% of all atheists are antitheists. Atheists are not interested in These themes we are talking about. Atheist are not interested in the theme "god", "theism", and so on (that is - by the way - the reason why atheists are so seldom and merely a few [about 1%]), but antitheists are interested in that, often more than theists.

If someone does not believe in god, then this one is a non-godbeliever but not necessarily an atheist or an antitheist. Theism, atheism, and antitheism require a modern society - amongst others the „isms“ stand for this requirement -, so non-modern societies have nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism, regardless whether they believe in god, or not know whether they should believe in god, or do not believe in god. They have nothing to do with „isms“, and they believe what they believe without any thinking about it.

Additionally: A newborn does not need to be a theist, an atheist, an antitheist in order to be.

Is a newborn „old“? According to you: yes, at least with a high probability; because the probability is high that a newborn will become an old human.
is a newborn „old-fashioned“? According to you: yes; because a newborn has no clothes.

A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist. The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words „theism“, „atheism“, and „antitheism“ would have no meaning at all. A newborn is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what "god" and "gods" are.

Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.

Do you know another language besides English?

The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words „theism“, „atheism“, and „antitheism“ would have no meaning at all. A newborn, for example, is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what „god“ and „gods“ are.


For being a theist, or an atheist, or an antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.

About 90-99% of those who call themselves „atheists“ are antitheists. And the antitheistic „Wikipedia“ is one of their false gods.

I have given the definitions of „theist“, „atheist“, „antitheist“ in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:

Features Lexemes
„Theist“ „Atheist“ „Antitheist“
Living being yes yes yes
Human being yes yes yes
Godbeliever yes no no
Intellectual yes yes yes
Child no no no
Against theism no no yes
Against atheism no
Against antitheism yes no no

Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions.

A newborn or other children are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists.

A newborn human has nothing to do with that.

The sources are all results of science (all their disciplines that have to do with it), the common sense, the perception / awareness / cognition, all experiences with newborn humans.


It is the prefix „a“ that tells us why an atheist is not against theism and not against antitheism. And it is the prefix „a“ too that tells us why so many antitheists call themselves „atheists“ - either they do not know better, or they lie.


Babies are are also no pretheists; they have absoluetly nothing to do with theism, atheism, anititheism.

According to Mutcer's false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus false conclusions everything and anything is an „atheist“.

I hope that you know what it consequently means when someone „deals“ with such false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus false conclusions and insists on them.


All humans you want to classify must have the same chance, the same possibility - by definition and by premises (preconditions), because they are required.

In other words: Your (**) set must be: „humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists“; then one of your two subsets must be: (A) „humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists“; and the other one of your two subsets must be: (B) „humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A“. That would be correct, because both subsets belong to the same set. But newborn humans, for example, are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists; so they have nothing to do with the set, thus also nothing to do with both subsets. So you are using the wrong subsets and thus also the wrong set. The following set and its subsets are correct (note the description too, please):

** or as a symmetric difference: **
A and B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
A = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists.
B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A.

And logically you are also not allowed to confuse the conclusion, also then, if it is a false conclusion (e.g. „newborn humans are atheists“ => false), with the premise, also then, if it is the false premise (e.g. „newborn humans fall into #2“ => false), because you are using the conclusion as premnise, namely the false conclusion as the false premise („newborn humans are atheists“ => false) and the false premise as the false conclusion („newborn humans fall into #2“ => false).

You are in violation of logic, and ignorance can never help you, because it can never change the rules of logic.


If we refer to all humans, then the Venn diagram is e.g. the follwong one:

Q, Q+, N, Z
N = All humans.
N and S = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
S = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exist.
K = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into „S“.
P = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who fall into both „S“ and „K“.

Your (**) error is that you confuse „Q“ with „Q+ and Z“, or equal them, and ignore that „Q“ is not a subset and that „Q and Z“ are not the set.

In other words: Your definitions are false, your pemises (precondions) are false, your conclusions are false. This is what I have told you again and again. I'm sorry.

No baby is capable of belief in the sense of godbelief, not to mention theism, atheism, antitheism.

No human baby does belong to the subsets „Q+“ and „Z“ (see above) but „merely“ to the set „Q“ (see above).


We are talking about logic and mathematical set theory in order to get to philosophical statements. We are not talking about antitheistic ideologies (thus: modern religions).

When it come to classify those humans who are capable of holding a belief, then it is not possible to classify all humans.

Ideologies, ignorance, and ad hominems do not change any logical rule.


If you want to put the two words „atheist“ and „newborn“ together - in a logical sense (!) -, then you have to define both words and not merely one (like you do [**]). If you want to define what a „newborn“ really „is“ - and if you are capable of doing that (!) -, then you will soon note that a „newborn“ can never be a theist, can never be an atheist, can never be an antitheist. It is already known, so there are no linguistic „revolutionaries“ necessary. We know this by definition, by dictionaries, by lexcica, by logic, by science, by reason, by common sense, by good sense, by good judgement, by experiences, by perception of newborns, and by much more.


You do not change anything of the logicial rules by ignoring them!


First of all you have to define the words - before you perhaps put them logically together and before you perhaps categorise or classify them. And your definitions are false; so this is your first mistake; your second mistake is that your first mistake inevitably leads you to your second mistake, because false definitions lead to false premises; and - last but not least - false premises lead to false conclusions, thus your second mistake inevitably leads you to your third mistake: false conclusions.

Not your wishful thinking but logic dictates that categories, and it begins with the definitions. Your definitions are false. You are logically not allowed to put definitions together, if they are false, and „false“ means „provably false“.


You are saying by your false conclusions that the whole universe (except theists and theism), thus also all stones, all trees, and all newborns are atheists. That is more than a blatant straw man fallacy, more than a fallacy of composition, more than than a ridiculous fallacy!


The following is your false syllogism:

Major premise: All humans are capable of holding a belief that a god exists. | ! FALSE !
Minor premise: Newborn humans are humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Newborn humans are capable of holding a belief that a god exists. | ! FALSE !

If merely one of the premises is false, then the conclusion is also false.

Many humans are not of holding a belief that a god exists (see above: Major premise which is false).
Newborn humans are also not capable of holding a belief that a god exists (see above: Conclusion which is also false).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The syllogism that contradicts, debunks, refutes, disproves your „syllogism“ (see above: FALSE) is the following correct syllogism:

Major premise: The humans of „X“ are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists.
Minor premise: Newborn humans are humans of „X“.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Newborn humans are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists.

*
By the way: This refers to such a simple knowledge that it seems absolutely ridiculous when someone is sceptical about it.


Most of those who call themselves „atheists“ are antitheists. I have never met a real atheist. But I have met many so-called „atheists“, thus antitheists.

And just because I am defending the logic against those antitheists who know not much or even nothing about logic, those antitheists think, although they do not know me: „He is a theist“. They do not know that defending logic does not imply being a theist.

In addition: The definition of „theists“ does not necessarily imply „religious“. Atheists and antitheists can be more religious than theists; and because of the fact that I know many antitheists and many theists I can say that antitheists are often more religious than theists.


If one logic statement (for example: as a part of a syllogism) contradicts another, then one has to check it again and to eliminate the false one.


Who said that „humans of »X«“ are not humans? „Humans of »X«“ are humans - that is logical.

You (**) do not have any logical argument because of your false definitions, false premises, and thus false conclusions.

An example from the realm of physics and chemistry:

In the past scientists claasified all metals as being „heavier than water“. So this was the syllogism: Major premise: Gold, silver, ..., iron, ... and so on are heavier than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME FALSE) !
Minor premise: Metals are are gold, silver, ..., iron, ... and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Metals are heavier than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME FALSE) !

That syllogism had been true for a long time - until the potassium was discovered. Since this discovery of the potassium the following syllogism has been being true:

Major premise: Potassium is lighter than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.
Minor premise: Some metals are potassium.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Some metals are lighter than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.

You see: The first syllogism (see above) had to be corrected by the second syllogism (see above), because scientist discovered the potassium!

Here follows your false antitheistic example again: **.

Again: You do not have any logical argument because of their false definitions, false premises, and thus false conclusions.

In addition: You have committed a blatant straw man fallacy.


„Indoctrinating newborns into selective indoctrination is bad and it forms the basis of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc).“ (**). This indoctrination is worse than all other indoctrinations, and those who suffer most from it are the children!


The natural state has nothing at all to do with atheism. Nothing at all. Regardless whether atheism lacks theism. Theism is required in order to have atheism. Theism precedes atheism. Without theism there can never be atheism. Theism is also not the natural state, because it is a cultural phenomenon, and theism can lead to antitheism and atheism. If (if!) atheism occurs, then the lack of theism occurs as well, but that does not mean that atheism is the natural state - the reverse is true: if (if!) atheism exists, then as an effect which is caused by theism (perhaps later also by antitheism) but never by itself.


Did anybody say that „newborn humans are no humans“ (**)? Besides you yourself and the other antihamnists: No one else!

Your nonsensical question also shows that you are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy

Your „statement“ that „a newborn human is not a human“ is a contradiction, absolute nonsense. Of course. And: Your „statement“ that a newborn human is like an adult human“ is also a contradiction, absolute nonsense. In addition: These two contradictory „statements“ also contradict each other, so that the conclusion of this absolutely contradictory „statements“ is: „A human is a human and not a human“ - which is a typically contradictory „statement“ of nihilistic debutants.


The burden of proof is upon you, dear magic Mutcer, to show that „newborns are capable of holding a belief that a god exists“, because in order (a) to believe that a god exists and/or (b) to believe that a god does not exist one has to be capable of holding a belief that a god exists, as I said and showed several times, and newborn humans are not capabe of holding a belief that a god exists, as I also said and showed several times - again and again.

Stop ignoring everything besides you!

In addition:

You are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy.

All your posts imply the false premise that „newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists“. This utter nonsense is what you are implicitly saying, again and again, by ignoring anything else. In order to be an atheist one has to be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. This is what I said to you again and again. If one is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then (and only then!) this one is capable of becoming a theist, an antitheist, or even an atheist.

I said this again and again, Mutcer, so please stop ignoring it.


A „newborn baby“ can be any mammalian newborn baby. But the main point is that any newborn baby has nothing to do with atheism. So the the definition of „atheist“ is not possible without mentioning the capability of holding the belief that a god exists. Theists, antitheists, and atheist must be capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and all newborns are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists.

If you were a „newborn baby“ and an „implicit atheist“ (???), what would you „intellctually say“ (???) about god or even about theism? Theism is a precondition of antitheism and atheism. Both antitheism and atheism are impossible without godbelief and especially theism. If you want to be an atheist you have to know what „godbelief“ and „theism“ exactly mean before you can overcome them and become an antitheists or an atheist.

What you and your „friends“ do is also comparable with what the egalitarian(ist)s have been doing since the so-called „french revolution“: confusing the future with the past and saying „back to nature (!), because the real humans are those who live in natural state (!), have no power (!), and do not believe in god (!) but in those humans who know what is good for them“ (???). Who is really meant by the word „them“? What „is good for »them«“? What? For whom?


I defined „atheist“ in this way: „An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.“

The term „who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but ...“ should not be in brackets, because it could be misinterpreted as an „option“, although it is no option, or in the direction of „not that relevant“, but it is most relevant. This term is the premise of that whole definition and of other premises and conclusions.


You (**) have no idea of the English adverb „implicitly“ and no idea of logic. I know that the English language is not suitable for logic, science (including philosophy). That is no surprise. Can you speak other languages? Maybe we will find a solution in another language. Mutcer, all your posts contain the implicit statement that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and that statement is false.


You are implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause. **

No one of the humans was an atheist before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! And no one of the humans have any single ancestor who was an atheists before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! In order to be an atheist one has to know what the prefix „a“ in the substantive „atheist“, the suffix „ist“ in the substantive „atheist“ and the suffix „ism“ in the substantive „atheism“ mean. By definition: as an atheist one has to know what one „is not“, what one „lacks of“, and one has to know that this requires an intellectual processing in a modern / nihilistic sense. One can know this then (and only then), if one is at least capable of holding the belief that a god exists.

An atheist is an atheist - the exact definition: An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.

You want to „create“ an animal or a stone-age human animist out of an atheist. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. You want to turn the time back to the Stone Age because of your „dream“: you want your „atheistic baby“. That is utter nonsense. Rethink it, please!


And don't forget that according to your false syllogisms „a bike is a car“ (**), „a mouse is an elephant“ (**|**), ... and so on ....

Other examples for your false syllogisms: „blonde hair is the natural state“ (**), or „odd ILP members are the natural state“ (**|**), ... and so on.


The fact is that newborn babies are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists. If one is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then this one has nothing to do with your „statements“. Your „statements“ are completely based on your false definitions, your false premises (preconditions), and your false conclusions.


Not only your definition of „atheist“ is wrong / false, Many other definitions are also wrong / false. In addition: You are ignoring reality and logical rules. Your„world“ is a „world of antiscientists, antilogicians, antirealists, antitheists (not to forget!), ...“, just an „antiworld“.

What you are doing here has nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with logic, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with ... (put in whatever you want) .... So it has not even anything to do with atheism, although you are always talking about it.

Your „arguments“ are very irrational, full of false definitions, false pemises, false conclusions, contradictions, fallacies, and other falsities.


Tweaking the definitions:

An example of a definition is the word „theism“. In order to be a theist one has to be capable of (A) believing, (Aa) believing in a god or more gods (this makes you a believer in god or gods), and (B) processing this in an intellectual / professional way (this makes you a theist). If you are a theist, then you can become an antitheist, and an atheist, if you fulfill some further preconditions. This was - b.t.w. - what I meant when I said Mutcer was „implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause“ (**|**). The theological cause is always the belief, and the succession of this theological development is always: => (1) belief => (2) godbelief => (3) theological knowledge, for eaxmple as => (3a) theism => (3b) antitheism => (3c) syntheism (synthesis of theism and antitheism) or (3d) atheism.

So it is not possible for one to be a godbeliever, if this one is not capable of believing. And it is also not possible for one to have theological knowledge, if this one is not capable of a god(s)belief. Furthermore it is not possible for one to be a theist, if this one is not capable of the required theological knowledge. In addition it is also not possible for one to be an anthitheist, if this one has not been a theist before. And it is also not possible for one to be an atheist, if this one has not been an antitheist and a theist before. If you want to deny „something“, you have to know this „something“. If you want to form a synthesis out of theism and antitheism, you have to know what „theism“ and „antitheism“ mean and be capable of forming a synthesis out of theism and antitheism. But if you want to be released from theism, antitheism, and syntheism, know what they mean, and are sure you can ignore them, then (and only then) you can honestly call yourself an „atheist“. So in reality there are merely few or even no atheists.


According to my experience with so-called „atheists“ there are merely a few or even no atheists, because this so-called „atheists“ turn out to be antitheists: they are against theism, against god, against Christianity, against religion insofar as it is Christian, against ..., against ..., against .... The Ancient Greek word for „against“ is „anti“. So this so-called „atheists“ are antitheists.

Another phenomenon is that this so-called „atheists“ create their own god or gods, a false god or false gods. This so-called „atheists“ are syntheists insofar as they have overcome their antitheism as the opponent of theism and come to a synthesis of theism and antitheism, namely syntheism (later: the new theism). But they have not come to atheism. I do not any atheist.

God is perhaps an atheist. That would at least mean that the so-called „atheists“ are merely godwannabes.


„1) True
2) False
3) Neither, Not applicable“ **

People love letting out that third option.
Compare the one (**) who seems to know merely two categories:
1) „theists“,
2) „atheists“.
That there are also people who are neither theists nor atheists is not imaginable - not to mention thinkable - to him.

People love two opponents, especially then, if they can prefer one of them. All other options seem to be too elaborated, too complicated for them.


If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape of children „legally“, then the easiest way is that he (or she!) tells again and again the lie that „children are atheists“, because the probability that this will become a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the case in the so-called „comministic“ countries (especially in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this societies had to be „atheists“. If all people are „believed“ (!) and have to be „atheistic“, then it is very easy for the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing them from their allegedly „theistic“ parents and all other allegedly „theistic“ members of their families in order to legally rape this children. The definition of „theist“ is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called a „theist“ and be punished by death because of „being a theist“. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become more and more.

This tendency exists, and it exists more than ever before.


Look at this:

Religion —› Theology —› Philosophy / Science —› Theology —› Religion


God as the „limit to possibility“ (**) and the „impossibility itself“ (**) means that „God exists as that limit“ (**) and beyond that limit, right?


Those who claim to be „atheists“ are antitheists, or theists, or both (that's possible), and in this case Darwin is their false god. There are many of those false gods - as you know; but the main problem are not the false gods themselves but those stupid ideologists (modern-religious zealots) who believe in them.


Darwin was a theologist. If you do not believe it, go and google it and get that your false god Darwin was a theologist and a theist, eaxctly a „pantheist“, and pantheists are often confused with atheists, although pantheists are theists and there are almost no atheists. Also often confused with atheists are antitheists. And a new religion in modern times can be correctly called a modern religion, thus an ideology, of course with false gods, thus idols.

Darwin was no atheist, Marx was no atheist, all babies are no atheists


There is change, and change strikes everything. Christianity also changed. It became corrupted or/and corrupt. Another change is possible. But I do not know whether christianity will become something like it was in its early times.


That is a good questions, because this thread is not only about Christianity but also about economy, at least capitalism; and mostly all good questions are not easy to answer. I strictly referred to the op of this thread when I wrote the post you are referring to (**|**). So we could ask Ierrellus how he meant the term „early Christianity“ in the op of his thread. But at first I try to answer your question. To me the most authentic Christianity is identical with the Christianity of the Late Antiquity on the one side and of the Early Middle Ages of the other side. But this thread is about both christianity and economy, and Christianity came to its economy in the early Early Middle Ages, beginning with - for example - St. Benedict of Nursia (480–547) who wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

„The Rule of Saint Benedict has been used by Benedictines for fifteen centuries, and thus St. Benedict is sometimes regarded as the founder of Western monasticism.“ **

The monasteries became centers of the Occidental culture (science included - of course), economy, and so on. So the earliest typical Occidental form of economy has its roots in the monasteries. Whether this form can also be regarded as the earliest form of capitalism or not is indeed not easy to say, but I would say that this earliest typical Occidental form of economy led to the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. And the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism was already achieved in the 8th century.

But we have to add another aspect, if we want to find out the earliest typical Occidental form of economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. We have to consider the economy of all Germanic peoples, thus also of those Germanic peoples who conquered and settled the Roman Empire, because the Germanic peoples were the real founder of Europe and had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade. The combination of their economy and the Christian monastery (cloister) economy led to the the earliest typical Occidental economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental capitalism.

If we seek what the true authentic Christianity is, then we might find it in the Late Antiquity, but because of the fact that this early Christianity was suppressed and pursued until the early 4th century it did not have its own economy style - it had the pure poorness. So economically and socially the Christianity of its first 300 years was the the Roman empire's proletariat, so to speak in modern terms. The proletariat and the modern capitalism are not incompatible, Ierrellus. They are compatible - unfortunately.


I did not deny the fact that other ancient societies did not have economy or even capitalism. They had their economy and capiatlism. Of course. If you really want to know what I was talking about, then you have to read my post more carefully than you did. I said that the mix of the Germanic form of economy and the Christian monastic form of economy led to the typical Occidental capitalism - and not the Greek and Roman form of economy. You did not notice that I was talking about forms of economy - because of the op of this thread.

I was talking about historical facts every schoolchild knows. It is a historical fact that Christianity was a huge part of the Roman empire's proletariat during the first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a historical fact that Christianity became powerful after this first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a fact that the Germanic people conquered and settled the Roman empire and that they had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade (you do not know which typical kind of economy I meant); and it is also a fact that Benedict of Nursia (480–547) wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

„The Rule of Saint Benedict has been used by Benedictines for fifteen centuries, and thus St. Benedict is sometimes regarded as the founder of Western monasticism.“ **

„ORA ET LABORA“.


„Occidental“ means „Western“, namely „Western Europe“. Did you know this? Greece is not Occidental. „Occidental“ is a geographical and a cultural word. Did you know this? You can find Greece in the South East of Europe - not in the West of Europe. I am sorry, but that is also a fact that you do not want to be true. It is not my „idea“ that Greece is in the South East of Europe. The other point is that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity, thus the Roman Catholic part of Europe. It is not my „idea“ that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity.

The frontier/border of Occident and Orient:

Die Ostgrenze des „Westens“ (S. P. Huntington, 1996)


During the time I was talking about the said post Germanic peoples settled in the whole Europe; some of them became, for example, Romans which means Rome + Germans = Romans, or they remained Germanic peoples and/or suppressed the peoples of the conquered territories and forced them to speak their language and live according to all their habits, for example in the territory that later was called England. How did they get there? An example: **.


Geography facts of the European history:

**
Before the conquests.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... ire_period .

**
They all were Germanic tribes - except the Huns.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration ... Chronology .

**
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration ... Chronology .

You have to consider the history of the Germanic peoples and of the Christianity in order to understand the Occidental culture - religiously the Roman Catholic and Protestantic Europe, geographically the Central, West, North, Northwest, South, Southwest, and some parts of the East of Europe.


Belisar's success was of short time. The territories in Italy and in South Spain he conquered for a while were completely reconquered by the Germans (at last by the Langobards), by us.


It has been proven that the economy of the Occident (the Christian Occident is meant!) can only be based on both Germanic peoples and Christianity, namely Roman Catholic and later also Protestantic Christianity. So Belisar had nothing to do with it, because he was a Byzantine, an Orthodox Christian, thus a man of the Orient (East Europe and West Asia). This was how the Europeans divided the world at that time as well as later and how they divide it today too: West and East. (And by the way: I am not against the people of the East - the mother of my daughter is Greek, and my current wife has lived in Greece for 12 years).


1) Is robbery also a form of economy?
1,1) Is robbery also a form of capitalism?
2) Has Christianity anything to do with economy and capitalism?
If yes:
2,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for economy?
2,1,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for capitalism?
2,2) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for economy?
2,2,1) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for capitalism?
3) Is economy avoidable?
If yes:
3,1) Is economy avoidable by Christianity?
4) Is capitalism avoidable?
If yes:
4,1) Is capitalism avoidable by Christianity?

Answers:
1) Yes.
1,1) Yes.
2) Yes.
2,1) Yes.
2,1,1) Probably.
2,2) Yes.
2,2,1) Probably.
3) No.
3,1) No.
4) Perhaps.
4,1) Perhaps.


Even the Roman empire had its German Caesar, for example one of the Franks. More and more Germans became high military generals in the Roman army. The reason for all of this was the fact that the Romans had had no or too less offspring and to let more and more Germans into the empire - additionally there had been to German provinces in the Roman Emipre since Ceasar: Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. This Germans became either Romans or remained Germans. So the whole thing in the Roman empire during its last 5 centuries was the fact that the Romans had not enough children anymore - because of wealth. It was the same problem the Europeans have today. After Rome was conquered by the Germans there was no single territory - except in East Europe which was a steppe and Byzantium, although it had also many German inhabitants. There was a treaty between them. This all is well documented, also the fact that Augustus tried to prevent by law (LEX JULIA, 14 B.C.) that the Romans in his empire died out. After Rome was conquered there was no single place in Europe that was not ruled by Germans. Shall I name all the German kings of the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages in the whole Europe? That would be a very long list. During the whole Middle Ages the Holy Roman empire of German Nation was the main power. One can say that the whole Occidental culture is a German culture. The nations as we know them today were formed later when the main power changed more and more to the side of the sea power, and the German Hanse was also a great sea power. „Sir“ Francis Drake was a robber, but he was also ennobled by the queen of England. Why? .... So we have to ask whether robbery is also a great business and a form of economy.


The religion of modern nihilism are all these ideologies that have been confronting us since the beginning of modernity. Besides nihilism itself: liberalism, egalitarianism, fraterianism, nationalism, internationalism, communism, socialism, fascism, globalism, feminism, sexism, genderism, and some other isms. These ideologies are modern religions or nihilistic religions.


NO ATHEISTS (examples):

Darwin was no atheist, Marx was no atheist, all babies are no atheists

No atheists

NO GODS (examples):

**


It is hard for modern believers when they notice their idols are as dead as their ideologies.


Religions 2010-2050.

**


The „Other Religions“ of the United States will increase from 0.6% (2010) to 1.5% (2050):

USA

The Jews (1.8% => 1.4%) and the Christians (78.3% => 66.4%) are the two religious communities that will decrease, whereas all other religious communities will increase. The Jews will decrease by 22.22% and the Christians by 15.20%, whereas the Buddhists will increase by 16.67%, the so-called „Unaffiliated“ by 56.10%, the Hindus by 100%, the Muslims by 133.33%, the so-called „Folk Religions“ by 150%, and the so-called „Other Religions“ by 150%. So the so-called „Folk Religions“ (0.2% => 0.5%) and the so-called „Other Religions“ (0.6% => 1.5%) will relatively increase most (60%), whereas the so-called „Unaffiliated“ (16.4% => 25.6%) will absolutely increase most (9.2%), the Buddhists (1.2% => 1.4%) will absolutely increase least (0.2%); and the Christians (78.3% => 66.4%) will absolutely decrease most (11.9%), whereas the Jews (1.8% => 1.4%) will absolutely decrease least (0.4%).

Christians and Jews: 80.1% (2010) => 67.8% (2050); decrease (in percent points: 12.3) by 15.36%.
All other religious communities: 19.9% (2010) => 32.3% (2050); increase (in percent points: 12.4) by 62.31%.

USA

In 2010 the numerical relationship was about 4:1.
In 2050 the numerical relationship will be about 2:1.


The „PEW Research Center“ (**) predicts that the fertility rates and the age distribution of the religious groups (incl. the global average) will develop as follows:

Mulims: 3.1 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus –0.8;
Christians: 2.7 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus –0.3;
Global average: 2.5 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus –0.4;
Hindus: 2.4 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus –0.6;
Jews: 2.3 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus –0.2;
Folk Religions: 1.8 (2010) => 2.0 (2050), thus +0.2;
Unaffiliated: 1,7 (2010) => 1.9 (2050), thus +0.2;
Other Religions: 1,7 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus +0.1;
Buddhists: 1,6 (2010) => 1.7 (2050), thus +0.1.

PEW Research Center PEW Research Center
 PEW Research Center

Source: **

„The largest net movement is expected to be out of Christianity (66 million people), including the net departure of twice as many men (44 million) as women (22 million). Similarly, net gains among the unaffiliated (61 million) are projected to be more than twice as large for men (43 million) as for women (19 million). Muslims and followers of folk religions and other religions are expected to experience modest gains due to religious switching. Jews and Buddhists are expected to experience modest net losses through religious switching.“ **

PEW Research Center 
PEW Research Center

Source: **

„Unaffiliated“.

„During the next few decades, the number of religiously unaffiliated people around the world is projected to grow modestly, rising from about 1.1 billion in 2010 to a peak of more than 1.2 billion in 2040 and then dropping back slightly.42 Over the same 40-year period, however, the overall global population is expected to increase at a much faster pace. As a result, the percentage of the world’s population that is unaffiliated is expected to drop, from 16% of the world’s total population in 2010 to 13% in 2050.“ **

PEW Research Center PEW Research Center
PEW Research Center

Change in the 10 countries with the largest unaffiliated populations.

„Projected Population Change in Countries With Largest Unaffiliated Populations in 2010All 10 countries on this list are expected to see their overall populations decline as a share of the world’s population. Collectively, these countries held 33% of the world’s population in 2010. By 2050, their share of the global population is expected to decline to 25%. China alone is expected to shift from having nearly 20% of the world’s population in 2010 to 14% in 2050.

In six of these countries (Japan, the United States, Vietnam, Germany, France and the United Kingdom), the share of the population that is unaffiliated is expected to increase in the coming decades. But the potential growth of the unaffiliated is constrained by the fact that these are all countries with overall populations that are shrinking as a share of the world’s people.

The religiously unaffiliated are heavily concentrated in relatively few countries. As of 2010, about 86% lived in the 10 countries with the largest unaffiliated populations. Consequently, the demographic trajectory of these countries will help shape the projected size of the global unaffiliated population in the decades to come.

In 2010, more than six-in-ten (62%) of the world’s religiously unaffiliated people lived in China. The next largest religiously unaffiliated populations were in Japan (6% of the global total), the United States (5%), Vietnam (2%) and Russia (2%).

In 2050, China is expected to remain home to a majority (54%) of the world’s unaffiliated population. The United States is expected to have the world’s second-largest unaffiliated population (8%), surpassing Japan (6%).“ **

PEW Research Center
PEW Research Center

Age Structure and religious switching.

„Age Distribution, 2010Globally, the religiously unaffiliated population was older (median age of 34) than the overall population (median age of 28) as of 2010. In Asia and the Pacific, where most of the unaffiliated live, the median age of the unaffiliated (35) was six years higher than the regional median (29). While sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the youngest median age of religiously unaffiliated people (20), the region’s overall median age is even younger (18).

Age Distribution of Unaffiliated by Region, 2010In other regions, the unaffiliated tend to be younger than the general population. In North America, the median age of the unaffiliated (30) is seven years younger than the regional median (37). In Europe, the median age of the unaffiliated (37) is three years below the overall median (40). And in Latin America and the Caribbean, the median age of the unaffiliated (26) is one year younger than the regional median (27).“ **

PEW Research Center PEW Research Center
PEW Research Center

Source: **


The people of the so-called „PEW Research Center“ (**) do not stop their projections at the year 2050:

PEW Research Center


If until 2050 the Muslims will rise fastest and the Unaffiliated shrink as a share of the world population, then we will probably not get a syncretistic religion before 2050 but war before 2050, because additionally the Christians as a share of the world population will neither rise nor shrink (2010: 31.4% ; 2050: 31.4%), the Jews as a share of the world population will neither rise nor shrink (2010: 0.2% ; 2050: 0.2%), the Hindus as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 15.0% ; 2050: 14.9%), the Other Religions as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 0.8% ; 2050: 0.7%), the Folk Religions as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 5.9% ; 2050: 4.8%), the Buddhists as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 7.1%; 2050: 5.2%), and - as I already said - the Unaffiliated as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 16.4% ; 2050: 13.2%). So merely the Muslims will rise both absolutely (2010: 1.6 billions; 2050: 2.76 billions) and relatively, thus as a share of the world population (2010: 23.2; 2050: 29.7). That will not necessarily but probably lead to war, namely to more war than we already have.


Some geographical facts and data and also some statistical data (based on the year 2010) referring to the muslim Immigration to Europe (basic year: 2010).

Northern Europe includes 13 countries and territories: Channel Islands, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Isle of Man, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom. Western Europe includes nine countries and territories: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands and Switzerland. Southern Europe includes 17 countries and territories: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Gibraltar, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Malta, Montenegro, Portugal, Republic of Macedonia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Vatican City. Eastern Europe includes 11 countries and territories: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine.

** 
**
** ** **

„France’s Muslim population is expected to climb from 4.7 million in 2010 to 6.9 million in 2030. Germany’s Muslim population is expected to increase from 4.1 million to 5.5 million during this period. Although Italy, Sweden, Spain, Belgium and Austria have smaller numbers of Muslims than the U.K., Germany and France, their Muslim populations are forecast to grow significantly in the next 20 years. The Muslim populations in Italy and Sweden are projected to more than double in size, while those in Spain, Belgium and Austria will likely increase significantly.

Though Ireland has a relatively small Muslim population, it is expected to have the largest percentage increase in Europe in the number of Muslims. Its Muslim population is projected to increase by almost 188%. Other European countries expected to have percentage increases of more than 100% include Finland, Norway, Sweden and Italy. Countries projected to have percentage increases of 50-100% include the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. The Republic of Macedonia is projected to have the largest increase in the portion of its population that is Muslim. By 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 40.3% of Macedonia’s population, up 5.4 percentage points from 2010 (34.9% Muslim). In Sweden, the Muslim share of the population is projected to increase by five percentage points, from 4.9% in 2010 to 9.9% in 2030.“ **

Muslim populations in Europe today are more youthful than their non- Muslim counterparts:

**

See also: **

Source: **


You asked: „Is a religious society better?“ **

If you agree to my statement that religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems, then you also agree to the statement that this spiritual exercise systems are one of the typical human systems and can merely disappear with the humans. So there is no areligious society possible, because religion means a spiritual exercise system. Religion does not only mean „tradition“ and so on and so forth. Religion means a spiritual exercise system. It can be as modern as other human systems. Modern religious systems are, for example, ideological systems, regardless what they claim.

So, actually, you asked: „Is a society better?“


Religions can also be secular. Oh, yes. Very much.


It is not possible to completely understand God. If it were possible, then God would not be God. This impossibility is also the difference between religion and science, and this difference may be called theology. However. It is impossible to prove or disprove God, otherwise we would just know everything. God can do what no one else can do (the accent is on the word „can“). If we were capable of proving that God exists or that God not exists, then we would not need religion, theology, science and so on, because we would know everything, thus the imposibility too. Proving that God exists or that God not exists means knowing as much as only God can know. All other meanings and definitions make no sense in this case.


It is not possible to prove or disprove God. That is why he was „created“ by humans (or did he „create“ the humans?).


The first monotheistic God was invented by the Egyptians, the next by others, at least not by Hebrews that you falsely call „Jews“. The Hebrews copied „their“ God from the Egyptians and many aspects of „their“ religion from the Babylonians.


Schopenhauer was the first European Buddhist, an Eurobuddhist, so to say, a syncretistic Buddhist.


Buddhism is not only a religion but also a Weltanschauung, a philosophy, an ethical system. And ethically it has much in common with Christianity as in stark contrast to Judaism and Islam.


Pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomononistic pantheism.
2) Physiomonistic pantheism.
3) Transcendental pantheism.
4) Immanent-transcendental pantheism.


One of the words for the definitions of „belief“ and „knowledge“ that they must begin with as one original phenomenon is the word „information“ in a very primitive sense which means, for example, without lie, fraud, corruption, cynism .. and so on.


Just think about it:

Epistemology for Beginners


The core is what we can call „information“ - in order to be „in form“ (to survive) . This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.

Epistemology for Beginners


Belief and knowledge are exactly the same, but they have the same evolutionary root.
Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help, because knowledge did not accure without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more a believer than those who say the opposite.

All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives.

Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help. Knowledge did not occur out of the nothingness and also not without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more a believer than those who say that knowledge is not absolutely independent.

Information is in the outer circle - as the superset of belief and knowledge -, and it is also an intersection of belief and knowledge. Both belief and knowledge have their origin in information (their intersection) and lead to information (their superset). The intersection and the outer circle had been one circle (without belief and knowledge) before belief and knowledge were „born“. A stone (for example) does not have belief or knowledge but does nevertheless give information.

Information is the whole process, whereas understanding is merely a part of it. You do not need to know or to understand the informations you give. For example: I have got information about you, but you do not know this information. Another example: trees do not know and not understand the information they give and get. Many many other examples can be given. Most living beings are without understanding but with information. And these most living beings do what is true or false, although or, better, because they are not capable of understanding, knowing, thinking - but capable of giving and getting information. They do not need to know and to understand what true or false is - they just do it (and mostly with more success than those „higher“ living beings with knowing and understanding).

Plants, for example, seem to understand what the words „true“ and „false“ mean, but, of course, they do not, because they have no nervous system. They do not need to understand what „true“ and „false“ mean. But they act and react as if they understood the meaning of „true“ and „false“. And by the way: their actions and reactions are averagely more successful than those of the living beings with a nervous system.


First of all, one has to understand what others say and then, secondly, what they mean. If you read my words I am just writing, then you have to be capable of knowing the letters, the syllables, the words, the sentences, the whole text and, of course, the grammatical structure and the relations of all that, and after it you can begin with your interpretation of what the people mean, because the people and their world are part of the context but not the text itself.


How many humans are scientists? How many humans were religious priests in the past 6000 years? It was and is always the same percental number, and that was and is no accident. Most of the other humans (mostly 99%) do not distinguish scientistic priest from religious priests. These priests have always been called „experts“ and „specialists“ and in reality always been functionaries of the rulers.


The roots of our Occidental scientific institutions - the universities - are Occidental monasteries. So the first university scientists were monks. In other words: religion can lead to science, whereas science leads to religion (the latter development is currently observable). So if you are defending our current scientists, then you are defending the religious priest of the future. Universities were relatively free, but they have been becoming corrupt, thus more dependent (because of their increasing dependence of money for their research - which is exploited by the rulers). So at last the scientists can only choose to be functionaries and priests in the name of the rulers.


One can become more powerful by knowlege but also or even more by belief.Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two floors. The first floor as the lower floor is your belief and the second floor as the upper floor your knowledge. If you take away your first floor, you are not able anymore to inhabit your house; but if you take away your second floor, you can remain in your house and just inhabit the first floor.

Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal, because belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to epistomological certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than belief. If you are uncertain, then remember your epistemological beliefs, because your beliefs make you more certain again than knowledge. The conclusion that knowledge can give you more epistemological certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you want to maintain your knowledge, then support it with your belief - like the lower floor supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge is not relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained or nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible without belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than knowledge. Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief. It is worthless without belief.

If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of belief knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics of both words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what the rulers and their functionaries have been doing for so long by their so called „political correctness“, which is just not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical supremacy. They are destroying knowledge, because they try to replace it by belief, which they call „knowledge“.


Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two floors. The first floor as the lower floor is your belief and the second floor as the upper floor your knowledge. If you take away your first floor, you are not able anymore to inhabit your house; but if you take away your second floor, you can remain in your house and just inhabit the first floor.

Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal, because belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to epistomological certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than belief. If you are uncertain, then remember your epistemological beliefs, because your beliefs make you more certain again than knowledge. The conclusion that knowledge can give you more epistemological certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you want to maintain your knowledge, then support it with your belief - like the lower floor supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge is not relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained or nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible without belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than knowledge. Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief. It is worthless without belief.

If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of belief knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics of both words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what the rulers and their functionaries have been doing for so long by their so called „political correctness“, which is just not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical supremacy. They are destroying knowledge, because they try to replace it by belief, which they call „knowledge“.


To find a real atheist is as difficult as to find a real God.


The superconsciousness is comparable with a godhood that is coming from outside and inside of us. Now, the anti-religious and anti-theistic humans will say: „This is the same old religion“ . I do not care. Religion does not disappear by forbidding the word „religion“. We can call it „spiritual training“ too. It does not matter at all. At least as long as our brains will work in this way, the phenomenon and the corresponding behavior as a whole will not disappear.


Psychiatry is also a system of religion and belief in god(s).


The word „belief“ is originally not meant „religiously“ or even „theologically“.

Now, the trick is to not use belief as a dogma but merely as an epistemological „crutch“. If there will be more certainty, then you will not use it anymore and put it in your „cellar“.

It is at least no advantage or satisfaction to you, if you must always say „I know nothing“ or „I know that I know nothing“. Philosophy and science do not have 100%-answers. So it is better to live with an epistemological „crutch“ than with stupidity or/and lies.

The epistemological „crutch“ helps you to find a solution or not, to come a to yes/no- or true/false-decision. It does not dogmatize you, or, in other words, it depends on your personality and character whether it dogmatizes you or not: if it does, then you are not a good philosopher or scientist; if it does not, then you are a good philosopher or scientist. Science would never have been successful without help like what we call „empirism“ („observation“, „experiment“, „extrapolation“, and so on and so forth), „deduction“, „induction“, and other „crutches“.

If this all turns out as a dogma, then it is not the „crutch“ that is to be blame but those humans who are corrupt or too dumb.

Science and philosophy have always used such „crutches“. Otherwise they would never have developed (historically evolved).

....

Belief is needed.


A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: „I“ („Information“) and „E“ („Energy“), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent, and both could not really be separated from each other.

Epistemology for Beginners


The question whether the universe just appeared or was made by a creator is very similar to the question whether nature is because of itself or because of god. This leads to the question whether „god“ is what we call „nature“ or „nature“ is what we call „god“? The subject is called „pantheism“ with all its various modes.


In certain times religion and politics are not distinguishable.


The people of the media - the „mediots“ (from: die „Medioten“ - Udo Lindenberg) - should be punished for their sins.


God as a principle and as the one (the unmoved mover?) who caused the universe (**). Has this also to do with the impossibility?

If there is only one causer (this can be doubted), then it is the „first mover“, the „unmoved mover“, the causer of the universe.

Without the human beings and especially without the occidental culture with its enormous technologies there would be e.g. no internet (yet). But who or/and what caused the human beings to be resp. to develop; and who or/and what caused the occidental culture to be resp. to develop? The latter can be explained by genetics, geographical aspects, especially environment (landscape etc.) and climate; but the former is one of the most interesting questions, especially for philosophers.


Martin Luther was a very intelligent person. (By the way: I am not Protestant but Catholic.) Now the average global intelligence is shrinking. Thus: such an intelligent reformation or even another reformation will probably not take place in the near future or in the future at all. Individualism has to do (although not only) with intelligence, intellectualism in the right sense. This means that we are facing an authoritarian social form of anti-individualism, anti-intelligence, and anti-intellectualism. Unfortunately. They will preach the „we“ more than the „I“. The „we“ is important, yes, but the „I“ is important as well.


It is probable that those who claim that they are not conservative are even more religious (because of their ideologies and ideological exercises) than those who claim to be conservative.


Martin Luther appealed to the „I“. The belief or faith should be a thing of the „I“ and no longer of the „we“, namely the church that exploited its believers, for example by indulgence, thus payments!

The Occidental culture is an „I“ -culture, thus it is very much more individualistic than all other cultures. So in the Occidental culture the „I“ is more considered than in all other cultures. But this does not mean that the Occidental culture does not consider the „we“- it merely means that it considers the „I“ much more than all other cultures do. And this is especially due to the reformation (protestantism).


In the Mesopotamian or Sumerian culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Egyptian culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Chinese culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much, in the Indian culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much, in the Apollinian (Greek-Roman) culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Old-South-and-Middle-American culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Arabic/Islamic culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much. It was and is only the Faustian Occidental culture where the „I“ did and does matter much (at least relatively to all other cultures).


**

Other middle or large collective forms are - for example - „gangs“, churches, states, cooperations/companies (super-organisms / organisation-systems).

There has always been more „I“ in the culture of the Occident than in all other cultures. Even the current „human rights“ are based on this typical Occidental issue, and note: I am not judging here - I am talking about facts.

The Lutheran reformation was a revolution of both (1) about the „I“ itself and (2) how we think about the „I“.


According to pantheism God is in everything resp. everything is in God, because God is nature resp. nature is God, or there is no God but only nature and humans just call nature „God“ resp. there is no nature but only God (the existence of the world is repealed - so to say).


It is certainly no coincidence that two similar beliefs occured and became dogmas at the same time: (1) the belief that the big bank can create the money out of nothing; (2) the bielef that the big bang can create the universe out of nothing.


The first „gods“ for a child are the parents of the child. Later the child learns what „gods“ mean or/and what a „god“ means. So that learning of the concept „god/gods“ by children is a part of the ontogenetic development. I think that the learning of the concept „god/gods“ by erstwhile adults, thus a part of the phylogenetic development, is similar to the ontogenetic development. Ancestors had and have been gods for a very, very, very long time.

Modernity fights the origin. So theologically said, modernity means inventing false gods (idols). But in other times and always for children gods are not an invention but a part of the development of language-based thought from the concrete to the abstract.


The crusades happened between 1096 and 1270.

Note: Jerusalem, which the Christians wanted to reconquer, had been occupying by the Moslems since they conquered huge Christian territories (including the region with Jerusalem - of course) by terrible wars, violence, and other evils.

Say what you want, but Islam is a hate-and-war-religion, whereas Christianity is a love-and-peace-religion.


Interestingly, Christianity originated from a desert of the Arabian Peninsula where later the Islam also orginated from, but the former conquered the Europeans (their souls and their climate), whereas the latter did not. I think that is the main difference between the both, because the Europeans as an intelligent and industrial populace conquered the whole world, became wealthy and powerful, got a guilty conscience and the Islamic immigrants (economic refugees and conquerers). And this Islamic immigrants - accompanied by other immigrants and the European feminists - shall stop the said European development. That is the idea behind feminisation, immigration, islamisation. The Europeans become more and more feminine/feministic and then - via immigration - more and more islamic/islamistic too - and the result will be the greatest chaos of the last 6000 years or even of all times.


„»In Sweden at first I was appalled by all the rapes of us Swedish women especially as a feminist but later I discovered that these rapes are justified in that it makes up for the white guilt of us Swedes where possibly it might be morally justified on the part of Muslim men. Now I've converted to Islam and wear a Hijab everyday. Everyday is a real struggle reconciling my western feminist beliefs with Islam but slowly I am being able to. Down with the sexist white Christian Swedish patriarchy! Allah Akbar!«“ (** ). The one who said that seems to make money (thus: to get recognition and power) out of that politically correct text or/and to suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. Another politically correct text with the following question as its title: „Why are there high rape crimes in Sweden, Norway and Denmark compared to the rest of the world?“ (**). One of the politically incorrect and thus forbidden questions is: „Why are Vikings no longer allowed to be Vikings?“

Wikinger (Vikings)


Feminism is another religion of hate, a modern religion of hate and other modern and ancient religions of hate threaten an ancient religion of love (that has more than 2 billion believers [**|**|**|**]) and a whole culture (of about 1 billion people). This threat is part of what Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) predicted and called „Farbige Weltrevolution“ („Colored World Revolution“).

Do not forget that feminism does not automatically stand for all women. Moreover: not all feminists are women, and not all women are feminists.

But what about Islamism? For what does Islamism not automatically stand? Moreover: are not all Islamists Musllims, and are not all Muslims Islamists?

In this case we probably have to adjudicate on both islamism and feminism in the same manner.

The more globalism - materialism in the sense of both techno-creditism (formerly known as capitalism) and socialism (formerly known as communism) - expands, the more forms of reaction and resistance it gets until the great chaos. Feminism and Islamism are religious „ism“ examples for those forms of reaction and resistance.


Time will tell.

**

Time will tell.


The current number of the world population is 7,447,916,555. So we currently have 1,495,833,110 humans as the 20% of the current world population. I think this is probably a realistic number of those you mean. And 20% are enough for those who are managing „it“.

„Population in the world is currently (2016) growing at a rate of around 1.13% per year. The current average population change is estimated at around 80 million per year.

Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. The rate of increase has therefore almost halved since its peak of 2.19 percent, which was reached in 1963.

The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years. Currently, it is estimated that it will become less than 1% by 2020 and less than 0.5% by 2050.

This means that world population will continue to grow in the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 39 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2038.

....

Population density map of the world ...:

Bevölkerungsdichte

....

World Population by Religion.

According to a recent study (based on the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion) by The Pew Forum, there are:

- 2,173,180,000 Christians (31% of world population), of which 50% are Catholic, 37% Protestant, 12% Orthodox, and 1% other.
- 1,598,510,000 Muslims (23%), of which 87-90% are Sunnis, 10-13% Shia.
- 1,126,500,000 No Religion affiliation (16%): atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. One-in-five people (20%) in the United States are religiously unaffiliated.
- 1,033,080,000 Hindus (15%), the overwhelming majority (94%) of which live in India.
- 487,540,000 Buddhists (7%), of which half live in China.
- 405,120,000 Folk Religionists (6%): faiths that are closely associated with a particular group of people, ethnicity or tribe.
- 58,110,000 Other Religions (1%): Baha’i faith, Taoism, Jainism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Tenrikyo, Wicca, Zoroastrianism and many others.
- 13,850,000 Jews (0.2%), four-fifths of which live in two countries: United States (41%) and Israel (41%).

Prevailing Religion

....

How many people have ever lived on earth?

It was written during the 1970s that 75% of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment. This was grossly false.

Assuming that we start counting from about 50,000 B.C., the time when modern Homo sapiens appeared on the earth (and not from 700,000 B.C. when the ancestors of Homo sapiens appeared, or several million years ago when hominids were present), taking into account that all population data are a rough estimate, and assuming a constant growth rate applied to each period up to modern times, it has been estimated that a total of approximately 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of the human species, making the population currently alive roughly 6% of all people who have ever lived on planet Earth.

Others have estimated the number of human beings who have ever lived to be anywhere from 45 billion to 125 billion, with most estimates falling into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.

World Population clock: sources and methodology.

The world population counter displayed on Worldometers takes into consideration data from two major sources: the United Nations and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs every two years calculates, updates, and publishes estimates of total population in its World Population Prospects series. These population estimates and projections provide the standard and consistent set of population figures that are used throughout the United Nations system.

The World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision provides the most recent data available (released on July 29, 2015). Estimates and projected world population and country specific populations are given from 1950 through 2100 and are released every two years. The latest revision has revised upwards the world population projections. Worldometers, as it is common practice, utilizes the medium fertility estimates.

Data underlying the population estimates are national and sub national census data and data on births, deaths, and migrants available from national sources and publications, as well as from questionnaires. For all countries, census and registration data are evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted for incompleteness by the Population Division as part of its preparations of the official United Nations population estimates and projections.

The International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division also develops estimates and projections based on analysis of available data (based on census, survey, and administrative information) on population, fertility, mortality, and migration for each country or area of the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, world population reached 7 billion on March 12, 2012.

For most countries adjustment of the data is necessary to correct for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in the data. Finally, since most recent data for a single country is often at least two years old, the current world population figure is necessarily a projection of past data based on assumed trends. As new data become available, assumptions and data are reevaluated and past conclusions and current figures may be modified.

For information about how these estimates and projections are made by the U.S. Census Bureau, see the Population Estimates and Projections Methodology.

Why Worldometers clocks are the most accurate.

The above world population clock is based on the latest estimates released on July 29, 2015 by the United Nations and will show the same number wherever you are in the world and whatever time you set on your PC. Worldometers is the only website to show live counters that are based on U.N. data and that do not follow the user's PC clock.

Visitors around the world visiting a PC clock based counter, see different numbers depending on where they are located, and in the past have seen other world population clocks - such as the one hosted on a United Nations website and on National Geographic - reaching 7 billion whenever their locally set PC clocks reached 4:21:10 AM on October 31, 2011.

Obviously, the UN data is based on estimates and can't be 100% accurate, so in all honesty nobody can possibly say with any degree of certainty on which day world population reached 7 billion (or any other exact number), let alone at what time. But once an estimate is made (based on the best data and analysis available), the world population clock should be showing the same number at any given time anywhere around the world.“ **

Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?

There is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.

The humans of the Occidental culture and merely some others are probabaly the only humans (probably in fact about 20%) who are interested in the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.


Inventing gods has never been stopped. The opposite is true: More and more gods have been invented.


Brahman (Sanskrit: „holy might“, „world soul“), originally a magic spell, then the force giving the effectiveness to the act of sacrificing, finally the creative and conversing principle of the world - being by the fact itself („ipso facto“) - that creates, carries, conserves, and takes back everything into itself.

According to the Vedanta the Brahman is identical to the Atman (Sanskrit: „self“, „soul“/„psyche“).

Samsara (Samasara) is the self-repeating cycle of the individual life (life cycle) by rebirths (cycle of rebirths) with all their sufferings from which one can merely be redeemed by entering the Brahma resp. the Nirvana.


„Islam's incorporation into Europe, as it is right now, is too forced and quick, meaning that someone is pushing for war. (A war which will benefit US).“ (** ). Yes. And it is also true that that war will benefit the US (like other wars did before).


Nietzsche did not say something new with his statement „Gott ist tot“ („God is dead“), because God died or was already dead when the so-called „French revolution“ began (1789) and certain philosophers, theologians, and others already said that God was dead.

(The extreme excessive life style of the last three French kings had led to the fact that the French people had nothing to eat. The terror system of the French revolution gave the first example of modern terrorism and modern state terrorism. Some people interpreted the French revolution as hell, as an ungodly situation of evil, of the devil himself.)


Believing in science and its „gods“ or believing in philosophy and its „gods“ is very similar to believing in religion and its „gods“ and believing in theology and its „gods“ . The gods do not disappear - because humans want to be gods.

(Note: These last two sentences are not referring to the question whether gods exist or not, because there is no answer in the sense of knowing it, there is only an answer in the sense of believing it.)


Science has created many gods. Some are already „dead“, some are still „alive“. The number of gods has increased (thus: not decreased!).

Which „scientific god“ do you prefer?

Or do you think that all these „gods“ are no „real gods“ or „true gods“ but merely „false gods“?

„We“ did not kill all gods, it is the other way around: more gods have been invented since „our“ one God was murdered by „us“ (in the last 18th century). Scientific gods, economic gods, political gods, pop gods and many other gods are the most and the youngest gods (false gods).


It is all about declaration of war on all Non-moslems.


The trillionaires will become the gods.


One can try to apply the dialectic process to Hegel’s dialectic itself. If we say that Hegel’s dialectic is anti-analytic and the analytic philosophy anti-dialectic, then there are thesis and antithesis in two ways, but we do not really know which one of them starts at first as thesis. Starting at first is an advantage in this case. So which one is the one with that advantage? If we will never know this, then we will have to state that both remain just opposites, because it would be unfair to say this or that one starts at first. But, in that case, it is also problematic to say what the synthesis is. The first one (thesis) with the advantage will always say that the second one (antithesis) is somehow „false“ or „evil“, so that the first one will always make a major contribution to the synthesis.

Another possibility is to give the advantage to the second one, the antithesis, for example to the dictatorship of the proletariat - as we know not only from history. Principally, everyone and not only egalitarianists like the communists, can „argue“ in this way.

Peter Sloterdijk wrote:
„In an earlier day, the rich lived at the expense of the poor, directly and unequivocally; in a modern economy, unproductive citizens increasingly live at the expense of productive ones—though in an equivocal way, since they are told, and believe, that they are disadvantaged and deserve more still. Today, in fact, a good half of the population of every modern nation is made up of people with little or no income, who are exempt from taxes and live, to a large extent, off the other half of the population, which pays taxes. If such a situation were to be radicalized, it could give rise to massive social conflict. The eminently plausible free-market thesis of exploitation by the unproductive would then have prevailed over the much less promising socialist thesis of the exploitation of labor by capital.“
In this example, the (advocates of the) unproductives ones „argue“ as if they were the (advocates of the) productive ones, and the (advocates of the) real poroductive ones argue in the same way: They are exploited. But only the productive ones are right, because they (and only they!) pay taxes, and, moreover, the unproductive ones are paid by this taxes. The taxpayers (and only the taxpayers) are exploited by those who do not pay taxes, and this are not only poor people but also very rich people.

My point is that it is not theoretically decidable who is on first, because, apparently, that decision is given by history (resp. evolution) itself, and that means by powerful people (resp. nature).

Dialectic processes are not nonsense, because they really happen. So they are, philosophically said, ontological, thus not only logical.

Humans always place something (e.g. „Big Bang“) or someone (e.g. God) at the beginning. So according to most humans this placed one came first. Let us take the following example for a dialectic process in a religious and theological sense: (1) the thesis God came first, (2) the antithesis Devil was the second one who came, (3) the synthesis Man came as the thrid one. If we exchange the first one (thesis God) and and the second one (antithesis Devil) for each other, then we will pretty soon notice that the third one (synthesis Man) would have other properties than in the first example.

So we better should assume that there was neither a first one nor a second one, but both existed already at that time which we want to be the first time or the beginning of time?!?. They were, are, and will be in conflict with each other. And it is up to the third one - the synthesis - (as „the smiling third“?) to make the best of it, e.g. to gain from the polemic, the struggle, the war of the first and the second one?!?. Good for the human rulers ....

If you have made the Hegel's dialectic your own and are powerful enough, then you can do with the less powerful people whatever you want. You just play the historical game called „dialectic process“ by using them like chess-men.

If you want to rhetorically use these polemical two (thesis and antithesis), you merely have to jump into the synthesis as the smiling third by supporting the thesis and pretending that the antithesis is considered too, although in reality the antithesis is much more suppressed than considered.

(The polemical two are certainly misused, because we live in an era of much misuse.)


These days, you should not be white, not be male, not be heterosexual, not be Christian - and all those who are still white, male, heterosexual Christians should never be fathers, thus never have children.

If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just for example, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a man-who-officially-hates-men, a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists, ... and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.

The method is very easy: You jump with your „thesis“ (e.g.: „X is evil“) into your „synthesis“ (e.g.: „if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good“) - the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the „antithesis“ (e.g.: „X is good“) and telling the lie that „the antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its opposing role“.


Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.

So those who believe in God and his laws do not believe that „everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws.“ (**). One has to consider two aspects here: the philosophical (especially metaphysical) and the scientifical (especially physical) one.

If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word „physics“ shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word „metaphysics“ shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.

Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are.


There have always been some Christians living like primitive Christians.


A „religion of humanity“ (**), if it should be a „positivistic church“ (**) is absurd (typical French). It makes no sense, it is not logical, because humanity is not merely a „positivistic“ thing, and positivism is not merely a „humanitarian“ thing.


Religion has to do with faith on the one hand and with control on the other. A new religion originates before you can take away the old one.


The „Christianization“ happened to all those who were later called „Europeans“, then to almost all Black-Africans, to all native Americans, to all Australians, to many Asians; thus: to almost all humans of the world.

At last the world has become „European“:

Europas Welt

Then the „White World Revolution“, which had already existed since the end of the 18th century, and the „Colored World Revolution“ (Oswald Spengler’s concept [„Farbige Welt-Revolution“] reacted.

Now the interim result is as follows:

Rassismus und Sexismus

Rassismus

Rassismus

Rassistische Preise

he worst is yet to come. There will be hell to pay.


The modern colonisation and imperialism through the Europeans were perhaps indirectly but not directly motivated by certain foreign invasions. By „indirectly“ I mean „through their own earlier history“ when they were probably or perhaps motivated by those invasions. So, if the reference is (A) the earliest beginning of the Europeans as the Occidental Christians, then we have to talk about the change from the pagan German tribes to those Occidental Christians and the proabability that they were motivated (1.) with a very high probability by the Ancient Roman empire and invasions, (2.) with a relatively high probability by the Byzantine empire and invasions, (3.) with medium or low probability by the Arabo-Islamis empire and invasions; if the reference is the (B) earliest beginning of a self, a self-assurance, a self-consciousness of those Occidental Christians, then we do not have to talk about the Mongolian invasion, because the probaility is very low that the Mongolian invasion was such a motivation at that time, but nevertheless: it was not without any effect and may have motivated in some aspects. The main motivation for colonisation and imperialism through the Europeans as the Occidental Christians is their origin, their own being and becoming, and this is something that is not Christian - but Faustian which means e.g. dynamic, highest risk, adventure, technology, science, intelligence, striving for all this till endlessness, regardless whether this striving is possible or not (Faustians just do it).

So I do not think that the Faustians were and are real Christians, they have always conserved something that was before their Christianisation. And by the way: „Occidental Christians“ does not mean „like all other Christians“.

Faustians (Occidentals, Westerners) are no real Christians, because they have been conserving their soul and mind since their origin. They had to „work Christianity off“ after they had become Christians nominally. So deep in their soul and mind Faustians have always remained Faustians. Their real religion or soul image is Faustian (regardless which one the other sprachregelung [convention of speech] is, be it „Occidental Christian“, thus „Catholic“ and „Protestantic“ or whatever).


he so-called „monotheistic religions“ are religions of the desert, namely: of the desert of the Arabian peninsula. So this religions do not fit Europe, especially not fit the colder climate zones of Europe.

Climate zones:

**

**

**


We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that „universe“ is a concept) ... and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.


Many people have tried to show that „God is an impossibility“ (**). All of them have failed. That does not prove the existence of God, but it shows clearly that God is a possibility. And there is another evidence: History of mankind. It is full of several beliefs in the same old possibility named „God“.


The evil is either denied or regarded as tests sent by God. So, either God (1) wants to repeal the evil, but can’t; or he (2) can, but doesn’t want to; or he (3) can’t and doesn’t want to; or he (4) can and wants to. The first three cases are, with regards to God, unthinkable. The last case contradicts the existence of evil.

We can give evidence or come to, for example, the following logical conclusion which is based upon physics and metaphysics: There must be a first mover, if everything is in move (this is not a real proof, but an evidence-based conclusion). Besides such an evidence-based conclusion, it is impossible to prove or to disprove God. And basically, there is only belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. So, basically, theists and anti-theists are believers.


Pantheists turn God into the All (universe, space, nature) or the All into God.


The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and mostly is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.

The perspective of those who wrote the Old Testament obviously required an evil God.

Those who wrote the OLd Testament - many during many centuries - had to find a „consensus“, and the consensus seemed to not allow another option than an evil god, a furious god.

Their motifs were fear, angst, anxiety, awe, deep respect ..., compulsion, coercion.


The word „evolution“ should not be used when it comes to religion, because all religions we know are so much different. So instaed of the word „evolution“ we should use the word „history“. In any case, the development has absolutely not gone from animism towards a perfect God. Firstly, animism means that the ghosts or gods the so-called „primitive humans“ believe in are already perfect, because they are (based upon) their own ancestors. They are so perfect that they have become totem persons and determined the respective taboos. This is an absolutely different kind of religion than, for instance, monotheism, so that we should not bring both together in your sense of an „evolution“ from „primitive“ to „progressive“. There is still animism in the world, and nobody really knows whether animism will end someday or not. Paganism is coming back. Polytheism is increasing again. Except Islam, monotheism is stagnating and will likely decreasing in the future. (**|**|**|**|**|**). Secondly, the God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call „the idea of an absolutely perfect God“ to God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The „change“ you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is „theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God“.


Not God is an impossibility, but the „proof that God is an impossibility“ is an impossibility. And this impossibility is just the reason why humans or most humans have always believed in gods. It is a success story just because of the impossibility that gods are impossibilities, regardless whether they are perfect or not, regardless wether they are absoute or not.


Related to the global population, the number of the unaffiliated decreases and will further on decrease, whereas the number of the muslims increase and will further on increase. **Science will not save us. It is more likely that it will do the opposite.

Religion is likely more capable of saving us than science is. How likely is it? Which kind of religion would or should it have to be? Would or should this religilion be a theistic one? If yes: Would or should it be a religion of pantheism (is already very close to atheism), of monotheism, of polytheism. If no: Would it or should it be a primitve religion, at least a heathenish religion?

If the demographic, economic and political development we have been experiencing for a pretty long time will go on, then we will get a syncretistic religion or just the islamic religion which is a monotheistic religion and currently increasing the most. This is possible and probable, but not what I would like to have.


If Christianity had not overrun Europe, then Europe would have kept and further on developed its own religion: the European religion.


The Translator of Oswald Spengler’s „Untergang des Abendlandes“ wrote:

„The Classical* religion lived in its vast number of separate cults, which in this form were natural and self-evident to Apollinian man, essentially inaccessible to any alien. As soon as cults of this kind arise, we have a Classical* Culture, and when their essence changes, in later Roman times, then the soul of this Culture is at an end. Outside the Classical* landscape they have never been genuine and living. The divinity is always bound to and bounded by one locality in conformity with the static and Euclidean world-feeling. Correspondingly the relation of man to the divinity takes the shape of a local cult, in which the significances lie in the form of its ritual procedure and not in a dogma underlying them. Just as the population was scattered geographically in innumerable points, so spiritually its religion was subdivided into these petty cults, each of which was entirely independent of the rest. Only their number, and not their scope, was capable of increase. Within the Classical* religion multiplication was the only form of growth, and missionary effort of any sort was excluded, for men could practise these cults without belonging to them. There were no communities of fellow believers. Though the later thought of Athens reached somewhat more general ideas of God and his service, it was philosophy and not religion that it achieved; it appealed to only a few thinkers and had not the slightest effect on the feeling of the nation — that is, the Polis.

In the sharpest contrast to this stands the visible form of the Magian religion – the Church, the brotherhood of the faithful, which has no home and knows no earthly frontier, which believes the words of Jesus, »when two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them«. It is self-evident that every such believer must believe that only one good and true God can be, and that the gods of the others are evil and false. The relation between this God and man rests, not in expression or profession, but in the secret force, the magic, of certain symbolic performances, which if they are to be effective must be exactly known in form and significance and practised accordingly. The knowledge of this significance belongs to the Church — in fact, it is the Church itself, qua community of the instructed. And, therefore, the centre of gravity of every Magian religion lies not in a cult, but in a doctrine, in the creed.“ (*Source of the translation*) *Source of the original*

*) „Classical“ means here: „Ancient-Greek-and-Ancient-Roman-before-both-became-Christian“.


An example of a first preform of scientists are the monks of the Order of Saint Benedict (ca. 480–543).

Benediktinisches Kloster
Benediktinisches Kloster
Benediktinisches Kloster
Benediktinisches Kloster


Those „modern“ guys who say „religion is opium for the people“ want to give them their religion, a modern religion (examples: „liberalism“, „egalitarianism“/„communism“, „fascism“, „humanitarianism“/„globalism“), which has always to do with the elimination of the old religion and with antitheism (with slogans like „religion is opium for the people“, „God is an impossibility“ ...). The main problem ist that the new, the „modern“ religion is even worse than the old one.

Do not buy the modern opium!


Money has to do with belief, with religion, with theology, theism, with God. Money is a secularized God (false god), buying in the sense of spending money and accelerating the circulation of money is a secularized religion, the constant jurisdiction in favor of money is a secularized theology or theism. And each bank is a secularized church.


Christianity is no purely monotheistic religion, because the Christian God can be (1) God Father, (2) God Son, (3) God Holy Ghost, and he has a (4) mother too, the so-called „Mother of God“. (4 does not equal 1.) If a god has a mother, then this has nothing to do with monotheism; if a god can be three different gods, then this has nothing to do with monotheism. (3 does not equal 1.) So Christianity is more polytheism than a monotheism.

Polytheistic gods do not have to be and are not perfect. A god does not have to be such a god - all polytheistic religions and also all (namely: two [see above]) monotheistic religions show this clearly. The god of the Jews and the Muslims is not absolutely good, but more evil than good. And polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: „monotheism“). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are „undying humans“, so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said „undying humans“ as the said „projections of the humans“. So, their gods were not „absolutely perfect“ - their gods were much more unperfect than perfect.

People of the Jewish and the Islamic religion do not agree on the statement that the trinity is a „manifestation“ of one god and thus of monotheism. In addition, they do not agree on the statement that a god has or should have a mother, because this would mean more than one god, at least two gods. If you visit certain countries of Europe, you will see that their Christian cult has more to do with the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God than with God himself or his son Jesus (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries) or his Holy Ghost (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries). Christianity is not only characterized by division of powers (see: the Christians’ trinity and Mother of God), but also by the separation of its Church and the state (laicism) as well as by peacefulness and humanity.

The Jewish God is not the Christian God. That is - by the way - the reason why all monotheists are actually henotheists. They know that certain others have their own one god too and accept him, but they accept him merely as a god of the enemies.

But Christianity is not as much of that kind as Judaism and Islam are. Christianity is not a pure henotheism (in everyday language: „monotheism“) like Judaism and Islam are. When Christianity came to Europe, it became more and more adapted to the European religions (later called: „heathendom“), first in the Ancient Roman Empire, then in the rest of Europe. So, Christianity became more and more poytheistic, but never completely.

Polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: „monotheism“). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are „undying humans“, so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said „undying humans“ as the said „projections of the humans“.

The Ancient Greeks were not „the most rational of men“ (**), but they did indeed not need an absolutely perfect God. Their gods were more like the Ancient Greek humans themselves. Their gods were projections of Ancient Greek humans. Their religion worked perfectly. So, the religion (and not God) must be a perfect one to them. Yes.

Not only the Ancient Greek religion gives evidence that an „absolutely perfect“ (**) God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. It worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.

The henotheistic/monotheistic religions give evidence too that an „absolutely perfect“ God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. Each God of each henotheistic/monotheistic religion is not and does not have to be „absolutely perfect“.

The Ancient Greek religion had been a polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places before it became a cult church during the first three centuries A.D. (Julian the Apostate [Flavius Claudius Julianus] was one of its supporters, and it was based on Neopythagorism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism and probably part of a „pseudomorphis“). At that time, there were at least six greater religions in the Romam empire: (1) rests of the said Ancient polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places, (2) the said Ancient Greek religion as a part of a „pseudomorphis“ cult church, (3) Zoroastrianism and its derivations, e.g. Mazdaism, (4) Manichaeism, (5) Judaism, (6) Christianity and its many derivations, e.g. Jewish Christianity, Greek Christianity, Arianism, Catholicism ....

In other words: Christianity changed a lot within four or (in certain regions) even seven centuries before its real stability through two of its main versions: the Greek (later called: „Orthodox“) one and the Catholic (Western) one. At this time, your mentioned „heretical Jewish sect of Judaism itself“ (**) had already vanished for a long time.

„Abrahamic“ does not prove that the said three religions are the same and that they accept the Old Testament in the same way. All bananas, all apples, all oranges are subordinations of the superordination fruit, but nevertheless: they are not the same. All elephants, all cats, all dogs are species of the mammalia class, but nevertheless: they are not the same.

If I had (but I do not have [as you know]) to accept your „chimera“ (**) supposition and to answer the question which of the three „Abrahamic“ religions matches which of the three animals lion, ram, snake the most, then I would say: „the lion matches Islam, the ram matches Christianity, the snake matches Judaism the most“.


|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|

- Register -

 

  Occidental culture