Simple - first remove all that causes discord and conflict; get rid of all religion and look at the earth, not the world’s of our own creation.
Of course you would also have to get rid of all governments, all medicine, philosophies, and sciences as well. Political leaders create wars. Religion is merely one of their tools.
I voted yes.
There are churches like such here too, where mass is not aimed at any one religion and all denominations are welcome if they want… it is the future.
Not in a free society. There would be no reason to believe that any manufactured syncretistic religion was actually true, and so it’s adherents wouldn’t have the conviction to do what is necessary for it to last more than a generation or so. In some non-free society in which people can be forced to adhere to a religion whether they buy it or not, or simply not taught any alternative, a syncretistic religion is possible or even likely.
We already have a syncretistic religion, Christianity. Fits the definition of a syncretistic religion perfectly. Taking bits and pieces of other religions and molding it into one? That’s Christianity for you. Too bad they didn’t credit the religions from which they took their ideas because now we still have people thinking all the beliefs and concepts of Christianity are original, which is just embarrassing.
Will we get another one? Yes. Infact, we’re getting syncretistic religions constantly, they just don’t spread enough to be known.
May I ask you what your denomination is, Mags?
If we will get a syncretistic religion, will it be a mix of antitheistic / atheistic / religion, anitmasculinistic / feministic religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaisms, Hinduism (including Buddhism), and Heathendom (including Voodoo) etc. …?
…a non-practising Roman Catholic… I’m spiritual, not religious… since the 1990s.
…that is the non-denominational church I speak of, where each and every one of us is welcome to worship the God in our own individual heart and mind.
So, Mags J., you are „a non-practising Roman Catholic“, „spiritual, not religious… since the 1990s“. Would you say that you are a spiritual exerciser? According to the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems.
Maybe - maybe not. I’m very sure that some people will come up with trying to tie into all religions; yet at the same time, there are all these conflicts of ideas and conflicts of people that want to fight for their ‘religion’ in belief that it’s the ‘true’ religion. I know that all religion, with spirituality and metaphysics/philosophy, go back to the same source; the revelation of the Absolute. I think a more emphasis on free thought and inquiry into the nature of the Reality is more viable than simply a ‘syncretistic religion’.
Okay, physics or metaphysics (reality or ideality), but you can have them merely together. It is not possible for humans to have one of them without the other. And if someone dictates to beleive in only one of the two, then all those who do not believe in that one are going to be killed or live in prison or in madhouses - the same procedure as every time. Do you not have a better idea?
Why yes, I do agree with you on the unification of physics and metaphysics. However, what I am talking of is that Truth is to be truly found by individual means, which gets back to my point that trying to come up with the ‘sycretic religion’ will result really in more conflicts, concerning ideas of what it may be.
Then again, perhaps this conflict is what will bring the collective to the Truth; perhaps just as long as there are truly seeking individuals willing to keep peace rather than sustain differences. I’m just considering the possibility of mob mentallity here, and how that functions as part of conflicts and seeking dominance over earnest seeking of Truth.
Yes, probably the syncretistic religion will result really in more conflicts. We have three main possibilities: (1) the tradition, (2) the mix or syncretetism, (3) a new kind of religion or spiritual exercises. The other “possibilities” are merely a part of the three main possibilities.
Do you have any idea or suggestion?
Should the question read: will we get “one” unified syncretistic religion?
The original question cannot be voted on as we already have many.
Here’s are some ideas.
- Belief in the Absolute
- Belief in the universal morals
- The openess to have freedom to think for oneself
Depends who ‘we’ is. But most people already have a syncretistic religion. They mix physicalism, dualism, ideas with transcendent features with monisms that preclude this, strange contradictory mixtures of ideas of the self - which can be seen in changes during the day in how the self is constituted through language. Most religious people in the west have incorporated ideas from psychology and science and are even influenced by other religions via ideas entering the mainstream from these and filtering back through ‘common sense’ and pop psychology and so on into their habits.
Would you mind adding words to your illustration?
B.t.w.: Happy new year, James!
I was kind of hoping that the pictures would be sufficient.
And Happy New Years to thee as well. 
Basically, the picts are depicting (not through any scientific statistical analysis) that with each new religion, a period of cooperation and social gathering arises but then peaks. As that religion becomes less hope inspiring, a new religion springs up. For a short period there is strong contention between them that fades down but still adds to the next religion. Through time, the total amount of contention keeps growing simply because the degree of entropic particlisation is always increasing (the old doesn’t go away but merely becomes a contentious smaller portion of the whole = entropy).
That situation must continue until someone finally properly/accurately resolves the entire issue of contention. That is what I refer to as the “Right Religion”, “RR”.
But the way of homosapian is that agreement (aka. cooperation) is not sought or revered until substantially yearn for due to excessive contention. Thus the contention must become an extreme (eg. “dooms day”, “apocalypse”) before the answer to proper cooperation and the RR is ever truly sought by enough people to solidify it as a religion.
Once that event occurs, like all before it, the RR contends with all prior religions (including Science) simultaneously, bringing the contention to that extreme. But because it actually does handle contention properly, conversion is inherent, the other religions cannot compete with such extreme contention, the other religions fade away, and the contention then fades out once and for all.
It’s simple.
The pictures are sufficient, yes. But sometimes one has to make sure something.