All religions at their core are about arriving at the level of thinking required to understand these concepts. Strip away all the rituals and doctrines and you end up with the same thing.
I disagree. It seems to me the core of most religions is a mechanism for the priesthood or
some other authority to get and hold power. The reason that they are similar, is that the
victims of religion have pretty much the same fears and vulnerabilities to prey on.
Needing proof of something is saying you believe it is incorrect, or has the potential to be incorrect. This need stems from a need to control things around you.
I disagree. Needing proof is saying I don't trust the priesthood to tell me what to believe.
In a rational mind, there's only two options. Right or wrong, left or right, good or evil. If something isn't one, it's the other.
That's just not true. Rational people are fully capable of understanding ambiguity and nonduallity. In science
we even have effects like that with Schrödinger's cat--you can't get much more non-dual than existing in a
superposition of states. It's religion that I see claiming there are moral absolutes of right and wrong, good and bad,
And what exactly do you mean by 'crank'?
I'm not saying you are one, I'm saying you argue in the same style they do...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs...but they tend to be bad listeners...