Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior

[Prismatic567]

I suggest this very detailed and lengthy article and explain why they are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions#Common_aspects

A link to Wikipedia is your evidence? Very detailed and lengthy? Did you even read this? Many of the subtopics are only one or two sentences long. This is pathetically NOT detailed and short, and therefore leaves out many important details. Many of the points actually highlight differences between the three even though the topic is Common Aspects. How about you look at a source that goes over both the common aspects and the differences in some detail. This would require at least what's called a book length treatment of the subject.

Just a few excerpts from your source that contradict your opinion:

Excerpts from the subtopic of proselytism:
"Jewish scholars have traditionally maintained that it is better to be a good non-Jew than a bad Jew, thus discouraging conversion"

"Christianity encourages evangelism." "Forced conversions are condemned as sinful by major denominations"

"Da‘wah produces converts to Islam, which in turn grows the size of the Muslim Ummah, or community of Muslims." What the section on Islam doesn't mention, is that it is the doctrine of Islam that if a person does not convert or at least submit to the rule of Islam, then the Muslim is to conquer by the sword and force submission.


On Monotheism:
"All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, though known by different names.[17] All of these religions believe that God creates, is one, rules, reveals, loves, judges, punishes, and forgives.[14][need quotation to verify] However, although Christianity does not profess to believe in three gods — but rather three persons, or hypostases, united in one essence — the Trinitarian doctrine, which is a fundamental of faith for the vast majority of Christian denominations, conflicts with Jewish and Muslim concepts of monotheism. Since the conception of divine Trinity is not amenable to tawhid, the Islamic doctrine of monotheism, Islam considers Christianity to be variously polytheistic or idolatrous.
Jesus (Arabic: Isa or Yasu among Muslims and Arab Christians respectively) is revered by Christianity and Islam but with vastly differing conceptions, viewed as the saviour by Christians (and God incarnate by most Christians as well), and as a Prophet of Islam[23] by Muslims. However, the worship of Jesus, or the ascribing of partners to God (known as shirk in Islam and shituf in Judaism), is typically viewed as the heresy of idolatry by Islam and Judaism. The incarnation of God into human form is also seen as a heresy by Judaism as well as Islam."


Worship and Religious rites:
"Worship, ceremonies and religion-related customs differ substantially among the Abrahamic religions."

There are more but I think this is sufficient to make my point.

This is like,
1. you insist blacks are different from whites,
2. I understand your point in 1 but I insist they are the 'same' as human in general based on their DNA, etc.

I pointed out there is the 'substance' and the 'forms' of any religion.
If you focus on the 'forms,' it is obvious there are difference.
However, if we analyze the 'substance' there are commonalities.

There should not be an issue if we qualify the context and I have done so. The counter points raised to highlight the obvious differences [which I agree] are irrelevant for the OP.

Note I have highlighted the critical common elements* that made the Abrahamic religions less effective than the Eastern religions as listed in the OP.
* These are the common root in the story of Abraham, the reliance on the malignant [note this] use of the primal "us versus them" impulse, the focus on the lower part of the brain, ...

[Show-Me]

I pointed out there is the 'substance' and the 'forms' of any religion.
If you focus on the 'forms,' it is obvious there are difference.
However, if we analyze the 'substance' there are commonalities.

The substance of any religion is their doctrine. Their doctrine explains what THEY “think” and why. What you’re calling substance is what YOU “think” based on some completely unproven psychological theory.

There should not be an issue if we qualify the context and I have done so. The counter points raised to highlight the obvious differences [which I agree] are irrelevant for the OP.

These “obvious differences” that YOU brought up as evidence that the Abrahamic religions are the “same”, are now irrelevant for the OP? If they are obvious differences, why did you bring them up as evidence that they are the same?

I suggest this very detailed and lengthy article and explain why they are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_ ... on_aspects

I responded directly to 4 of the 12 categories that you brought up as evidence that they are same. Of these 4 only “Worship and religious rites” is an outward form of the religions, the other three are doctrine and therefore substance. And now all of sudden because the evidence you presented as proof that they are the same, turns out to prove that they are not the same, you declare that the evidence you brought up is irrelevant for the OP.

Note I have highlighted the critical common elements* that made the Abrahamic religions less effective than the Eastern religions as listed in the OP.
* These are the common root in the story of Abraham, the reliance on the malignant [note this] use of the primal "us versus them" impulse, the focus on the lower part of the brain, ...

How about you present evidence to prove this statement.

Discussing things with you is like trying to discuss something with a talking doll with a pull string. When someone presents evidence contrary to your pet theory, you either ignore it, or dismiss it, by continually repeating your pet theory over and over…just like pulling the string on a doll.

[Prismatic567]

I pointed out there is the 'substance' and the 'forms' of any religion.
If you focus on the 'forms,' it is obvious there are difference.
However, if we analyze the 'substance' there are commonalities.

The substance of any religion is their doctrine. Their doctrine explains what THEY “think” and why. What you’re calling substance is what YOU “think” based on some completely unproven psychological theory.

Philosophically, the 'substance' [or matter, essence, ouisa] of common forms is the most ultimate concept that common forms can be reduced to. Conventionally, those concepts which are nearest and next to the ultimate concept can also be regarded as 'substance' within context.
For example, the 'substance' of the physical world is 'quark.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
However, conventionally the atom, its nucleus & electrons can also be considered as 'substance'.

All religions are reducible to their doctrines or main texts which represent the substance [not ultimate] of religions. The doctrines cannot be the ultimate substance of religions. Analogically to the physical world, they are at most molecules.

The penultimate substance of theistic religions is God.
Within theistic religions we have the main categories, i.e.
1. Abrahamic theistic Religions - common root to Abraham
2. Non-Abrahamic theistic
As such, 'Abraham' is the sub-substance of the Abrahamic Religions.

Meanwhile, the sub-ultimate substance of the non-theistic religions are their founders.
However, the ultimate substance of the non-theistic religions is the existential dilemma, a psychological theory.

My theory is, the ultimate substance of the theistic religions is also the existential dilemma.

Therefore the ultimate substance of all religions is the existential dilemma (ED).

I am very confident my psychology theory of ED as the ultimate substance of all religions is sound and can be justified.
Btw, ED is not only the substance of all religions, but the ultimate substance of all human behaviors and its resultants of good and evil.
I have not presented the full arguments for my theory and I do not intent to do it here [no imperative at all to do so], but I have left various clues that those interested can follow up with.

There should not be an issue if we qualify the context and I have done so. The counter points raised to highlight the obvious differences [which I agree] are irrelevant for the OP.

These “obvious differences” that YOU brought up as evidence that the Abrahamic religions are the “same”, are now irrelevant for the OP? If they are obvious differences, why did you bring them up as evidence that they are the same?

You missed my points.
I did not highlight the difference, it was you who dig out the irrelevant differences.
There are common aspects in the points I presented, but you deliberately and blindly ignore them and instead focus on the differences.
My evidence is based on the sameness and ignoring the difference which are irrelevant.

Analogically it is like, I say all humans are the same, while you insist they are different.
Both claims by you and me can be correct if we take into account the context.
I see all humans the same in terms of the DNA and common physical features [the substance], while you look at them in terms of external colors, height, voice, etc. [the forms].
The point is, substance overrides and is more critical than form in this case of the OP.

I suggest this very detailed and lengthy article and explain why they are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_ ... on_aspects

I responded directly to 4 of the 12 categories that you brought up as evidence that they are same. Of these 4 only “Worship and religious rites” is an outward form of the religions, the other three are doctrine and therefore substance. And now all of sudden because the evidence you presented as proof that they are the same, turns out to prove that they are not the same, you declare that the evidence you brought up is irrelevant for the OP.

Note my explanations above that you deliberately ignored the sameness in those points.
Doctrines are not the main substance.

Note I have highlighted the critical common elements* that made the Abrahamic religions less effective than the Eastern religions as listed in the OP.
* These are the common root in the story of Abraham, the reliance on the malignant [note this] use of the primal "us versus them" impulse, the focus on the lower part of the brain, ...

How about you present evidence to prove this statement.

For the sake of his own selfish soteriological and salvation, Abraham has the odious impulse to the extent of killing his own son. This is inherent in all Abrahamic believers.
The malignant use of the "us versus them" impulse plus the evil laden verses in the Abrahamic Religion texts has contributed to all the terrible evils the Abrahamic believers had committed in the past to the present (e.g. ISIS).
The evil laden verses together the abuse of the "us versus them" impulse dehumanized non-believers as pieces of sh:t and SOME evil prone fundamentalists exploited that to kill with intents to exterminate non-believers. Examples, the inquisitions, killing of natives during missionary projects all over the world, genocides by ISIS, mass rapes, Boko Haram killing to hinder educations, etc.

Discussing things with you is like trying to discuss something with a talking doll with a pull string. When someone presents evidence contrary to your pet theory, you either ignore it, or dismiss it, by continually repeating your pet theory over and over…just like pulling the string on a doll.

You are the one experiencing a jammed string and pulling the strings frantically instead of understanding the mechanics and relation between the strings and the actions of the doll.

The point is, let say we are like Democritus in his time [hopefully you know him?],

Democritus (460 – c. 370 BC) was an influential Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.[3]

We are like Democritus chasing after the 'holy grail' of the physical world and there is the idea then of the 'atom' as the ultimate substance of the physical world.
Now in this quest, why should be bothered about the outer forms of the physical world, i.e. the Earth, water, air Sun, stars, planet, etc. This forms are irrelevant to the issue of finding the 'atom.' The path is to did deeper instead of outward to the external forms. The proof of the pudding, note we have dug out the atom, electrons, nucleus, various sub-atomic particles to quarks and now speculating on strings and Higgs' particle.
This is why I deliberately brushed you off when you veer towards the form instead of the substance. It is wasting mine and your time to deal with the irrelevant.

I think you may not get it even after this detailed explanation, .... whatever will be will be.

[phyllo]

Prismatic does not seem to understand that the subatomic particles do not determine whether something is good or bad for life. Water molecules sustain life and cyanide molecules end it - both are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.

He has lost the essential features of the various religions by reducing to an abstract root.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic does not seem to understand that the subatomic particles do not determine whether something is good or bad for life. Water molecules sustain life and cyanide molecules end it - both are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.

He has lost the essential features of the various religions by reducing to an abstract root.

You are off tangent again and you are totally ignorant of my main point of contention.

The subatomic particles example was an analogy to highlight the principle of unity within diversity.
I used another analogical example, i.e. the unity of humans in terms of DNA within its diverse forms.

My main point was to justify there was unity of the same root of 'Abraham' within the diversity of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, which collective are often termed 'Abrahamic Religions'.

The story of Abraham indicate that the essence of the Abrahamic religions that follow the same root focus more on the animal or 'lowest' part of the brain. In addition, the Abrahamic religions also exploited the inherent primal "us versus them" impulse malignantly. The resultant is the existence of SOME evil laden verses in their holy texts being abused by SOME evil prone believers committing terrible evils upon humanity in the past and present with a greater threat in the future.

In contrast, the Eastern Religions [as listed in the OP] focused away and progressively on the 'higher' cortical brain. These religions do not rely on the common "us versus them" malignantly. There are no 'significant' evil laden verses in their religious texts which focus more on personal development to deal with the existential dilemma.

Based on the above central criteria as qualified, the Abrahamic Religions are Relatively inferior to these main Eastern Religions [as listed].

Your point has no relevance to the above at all.
Btw, I do not deny the Abrahamic Religions may be relatively superior if we use other criteria[s].
For example, the Abrahamic Religions are very effective [almost immediately] in relieving the angst of the existential dilemma [its a pseudo solution and a placebo]. This sort of quickie however results in SOME committing terrible religious-based evils.
For the Abrahamic believers all they need is just believe and viola! the passport to heaven and eternal life is given to them.
In contrast, the believers of Eastern Religions has to work at it by developing their brain or the lay believers has to do sufficient merits and other necessaries.

[James S Saint]

"Us vs Them" - as in;
"Us Atheists vs Them Religious"
"Us Socialists vs Them Masses"
"Us Communists vs Them Constitutionalists"

[felix dakat]

What I really doubt is anyone's ability to go beyond their subjective prejudices and make an objective decision about the OP proposition.

[Prismatic567]

What I really doubt is anyone's ability to go beyond their subjective prejudices and make an objective decision about the OP proposition.

One good start towards objectivity is the resultants, e.g.


The figures [24,705] above are sort of a first draft and thus need some polishings and refinements.
The above statistics is since 911, we should consider statistics since the Abrahamic Religion emerged.

Note, just in case, you think the following are obvious.
There are evils committed by Buddhists in recent times (e.g. Sri Lanka, Tibet, Myanmar) and in the past, but these evils are not motivated by any evil laden verses from their religious texts.

[phyllo]

You are off tangent again and you are totally ignorant of my main point of contention.

I think that there is no point in engaging with you any longer. Take care.

[felix dakat]

The figures [24,705] above are sort of a first draft and thus need some polishings and refinements.
The above statistics is since 911, we should consider statistics since the Abrahamic Religion emerged.

That seems like an arbitrary statistic for judging world religions that have existed for centuries?

There are evils committed by Buddhists in recent times (e.g. Sri Lanka, Tibet, Myanmar) and in the past, but these evils are not motivated by any evil laden verses from their religious texts.

What were those evils motivated by and why are those evils better than those is that motivated by "evil laden verses"?

[Prismatic567]

The figures [24,705] above are sort of a first draft and thus need some polishings and refinements.
The above statistics is since 911, we should consider statistics since the Abrahamic Religion emerged.

That seems like an arbitrary statistic for judging world religions that have existed for centuries?

The above statistic is sort of a first draft and it can be refined if need to. The evidences and facts are readily available for various media and government authorities.

Note this;

Jihadism: Tracking a month of deadly attacks
Jihadist attacks killed more than 5,000 people in just one month, an investigation by the BBC World Service and King's College London has found.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-30080914

One can refine the above to Jihadists who claimed to commit the above based on their religion or to specific verses in their holy texts.

Here is one example where evil in committed in direct association with Islam;

A Dutch court has sentenced a 27-year-old radical Islamist to life in prison for the November murder of controversial film-maker Theo van Gogh.
Mohammed Bouyeri, who has joint Dutch-Moroccan nationality, had made a courtroom confession and had vowed to do the same again if given the chance.
Bouyeri had told the court he had acted out of religious conviction.
Clutching a copy of the Koran, he said that "the law compels me to chop off the head of anyone who insults Allah and the prophet".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4716909.stm

The above claims by Islamists killing under compulsion of their holy texts is very common. Thus is it not difficult to collate statistics for such religious-based evils.

There are evils committed by Buddhists in recent times (e.g. Sri Lanka, Tibet, Myanmar) and in the past, but these evils are not motivated by any evil laden verses from their religious texts.

What were those evils motivated by and why are those evils better than those is that motivated by "evil laden verses"?

These evils are motivated by the believers own human nature and not catalyzed by evil laden verses. No, they are not better than the ones motivated by 'evil laden verses.' They are merely a different category of evil which must be dealt with seriously and separately.

In general there are no stringent policies to restrict anyone from becoming a Buddhist monk or a believer within the Eastern religious community.
Therefore when a Buddhist monk or a common Buddhist who had just watched porn, then it so happened his lust got the better of him and ended up raping or/and murdering someone, we cannot blame Buddhism per se for that. We cannot blame the religion if there are no evil laden verses that condone evils upon non-believers.

In contrast, a Danish cartoonist drew some cartoons of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Some Muslims perceived such act as an insult and a threat to Islam, therefrom they rioted and killed non-believers because the holy texts condone the killing of non-believers if they insult the religion.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... -islam.htm

[James S Saint]

This should be moved to the politics forum.

[Uccisore]

That seems like an arbitrary statistic for judging world religions that have existed for centuries?

The truly arbitrary bit is that he's using that statistic to condemn 'Abrahamic Religions'. Why not just Islam? Why not all religion? Why not all patriarchal religions? Why not all non-eco-centric religions? He's taking a completely arbitrary slice of the pie because he's desperate to prove East > West.

[felix dakat]

That seems like an arbitrary statistic for judging world religions that have existed for centuries?

The truly arbitrary bit is that he's using that statistic to condemn 'Abrahamic Religions'. Why not just Islam? Why not all religion? Why not all patriarchal religions? Why not all non-eco-centric religions? He's taking a completely arbitrary slice of the pie because he's desperate to prove East > West.

Right. Lately not even Muslims in the US and around the world want to be associated with the brutality of the Muslim extremists. During the past year Muslim groups have stood up to condemn these actions. Maybe there isn't a single monolithic Muslim religion let alone a single Abrahamic one. And maybe the same its true of the Eastern religions as well. To lump the religions together like this is to oversimplify a highly complex sociological problem.

Personally, I have a really hard time looking at religion objectively because of my own experience relative to it. I suspect that other people have the same problem because we're all situated somewhere existentially relative to it. If people claim objectivity without acknowledging the difficulty of overcoming their own subjective prejudices, I tend to doubt them. It isn't that this isn't an interesting and perplexing problem. But, I might be more impressed if difficulties were explicated instead of offering a single statistic as if it sheds any light on the question.

[Prismatic567]

That seems like an arbitrary statistic for judging world religions that have existed for centuries?

The truly arbitrary bit is that he's using that statistic to condemn 'Abrahamic Religions'. Why not just Islam? Why not all religion? Why not all patriarchal religions? Why not all non-eco-centric religions? He's taking a completely arbitrary slice of the pie because he's desperate to prove East > West.

IMO, your views are very bias and unbalanced.

I had used that statistic because it is the most easily available as a first draft. i.e. 24,732.
It was 24,705 on Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:05 am -see my post earlier.

Note on the Sources of the above stats:

For years, TROP has published a daily list of Islamic terror attacks with supporting detail culled from reputable news sources. For each incident, we provide enough information for any serious inquirer to verify practically any attack on our list, including date, location and a brief description.

Even in the absence of the full facts, one can readily gather a sense of truth [intuitively and hypothetically] in those numbers from the daily news of terrible evils oozing from the Islamist community as committed by SOME Muslims.
If you have other readily available statistic which are reasonably reliable, I will readily accept them for reference.

The following are the main religions in the world at present;
1. Christianity
2. Islam
3. Judaism
4. Hinduism
5. Buddhism
6. Taoism
7. Jainism
8. Sikhism

If I were to estimate the number of deadly attacks as influenced by their holy texts by each of the following religion since 911, it will be as follows;

1. Christianity - less than 100
2. Islam -appx 24,732 per statistic above.
3. Judaism -- less than 100
4. Hinduism -- less than 100
5. Buddhism -- less than 100 (those in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Tibet, are not texts related)
6. Taoism --- less than 100
7. Jainism -- zero
8. Sikhism -- less than 100

The above refer to number of incidents not number of fatalities.
Can you prove me wrong with the above estimates, the number re Islam from the statistic linked and the rest estimated to the best of my knowledge.

Prove me wrong on the above estimates, anyone?
If not at least give me a clue where I could be wrong.

East > West??
That is very narrow and distorted thinking.
The Abraham Religions are spread all over the world and the largest Muslims population is in Indonesia. There is a large number of Christians in the Philippines. Besides the Abrahamic Religions originated from the East, i.e. Middle East not from the 'West.'

[Prismatic567]

Personally, I have a really hard time looking at religion objectively because of my own experience relative to it. I suspect that other people have the same problem because we're all situated somewhere existentially relative to it. If people claim objectivity without acknowledging the difficulty of overcoming their own subjective prejudices, I tend to doubt them. It isn't that this isn't an interesting and perplexing problem. But, I might be more impressed if difficulties were explicated instead of offering a single statistic as if it sheds any light on the question.

I have a very strong interest in the subject of 'Religion and Spirituality' and thus has done exhaustive research and continual monitoring on this topic.
Being human, subjectivity is inevitable but I do make it a point to be as objective as possible.

I approach to the problem is as if I am an alien assign to Earth to resolve all the terrible evils on Earth and my specialty is religious-based evils.

My first task is to collate all evidence of evils from all sources, i.e. secular, religious related, religious-via-holy-texts, and various categories.
Since my specialty is religious-via-holy-text-evils, I will focus on that specialized aspect and leave it to my fellow aliens to deal with the other categories.


I note the first draft of the estimated number of deadly attacks as influenced by their holy texts by each of the following religion since 911, is as follows;

1. Christianity - less than 100
2. Islam -appx 24,732 per statistic above.
3. Judaism -- less than 100
4. Hinduism -- less than 100
5. Buddhism -- less than 100 (those in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Tibet, are not texts related)
6. Taoism --- less than 100
7. Jainism -- zero
8. Sikhism -- less than 100

If from the above, the numbers in No. 2 re Islam do not ring alarms bells, then, there is something morally wrong with the person (human, aliens or any morally rational entities).

From the first draft of the above, we can do more detailed research, verifications and analysis to refine its objectivity.

[felix dakat]

Seems like you are now arguing against the OP thesis that lumps Judaism and Christianity and Islam together as inferior. By your reckoning it appears as if Judaism and Christianity are no more evil than most eastern religions. Your claim that you can somehow look at all this as if you were an alien is doubtful. How do you know you are not simply be deceiving yourself as to your own objectivity?

[Prismatic567]

Seems like you are now arguing against the OP thesis that lumps Judaism and Christianity and Islam together as inferior. By your reckoning it appears as if Judaism and Christianity are no more evil than most eastern religions. Your claim that you can somehow look at all this as if you were an alien is doubtful. How do you know you are not simply be deceiving yourself as to your own objectivity?

By the way I not presenting my views as if I am God. It is open for discussion and opposing views.

If you reread the OP you will note I am comparing the differences of the main neural and psychological paths are directed at. The Abrahamic religions as a group is directed and focus more on the 'lower' brain whereas the Eastern religions focus on the 'higher' faculties of the brain. In addition, there is the malignant use of the primal "us versus them" impulse.

The statistic of evils re fatal terror attacks [where Judaism and Christianity at present in contrast to the past are insignificant] is just one example of the resultant of the above differences.

The inferiority of the Abrahamic Religions contribute to other negativities beside the very obvious evils of violence and terror.
The other evils from the Abrahamic Religions [including Judaism, Christianity] which I had not highlighted are intolerances, cruelty, hindering of Science, social issues, cultural, political and others.
Another critical difference is the personal spiritual development of the followers, the Abrahamic Religions exacerbate the primal impulses, instincts and emotions while the Eastern Religions take the trouble to modulate these impulses to leave the person to potential for peak actualization of self.

[James S Saint]

Prism has already stated that his opinion concerning inferiority and evil are merely his personal preference. There is nothing objective about his "study as an alien". It's just an opinionated, not sufficiently involved and thus ignorant yet emphatic, self-justifying alien/foreigner/outsider/novice.

[felix dakat]

If you reread the OP you will note I am comparing the differences of the main neural and psychological paths are directed at. The Abrahamic religions as a group is directed and focus more on the 'lower' brain whereas the Eastern religions focus on the 'higher' faculties of the brain. In addition, there is the malignant use of the primal "us versus them" impulse.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mystical traditions that probably involve similar neural pathways to the mystical traditions of eastern religion. There are also us vs them practices in eastern religions. There has been a recent resurgence of Hindu fundamentalism for example. So, most of these aspects seem to be present in all the religions and it is a matter of more or less which is difficult to measure.

The statistic of evils re fatal terror attacks [where Judaism and Christianity at present in contrast to the past are insignificant] is just one example of the resultant of the above differences.

Right and it illustrates how value judgments are unavoidable when evaluating goodness or evil. There's no value free "alien" objective way to do that.

The inferiority of the Abrahamic Religions contribute to other negativities beside the very obvious evils of violence and terror. The other evils from the Abrahamic Religions [including Judaism, Christianity] which I had not highlighted are intolerances, cruelty, hindering of Science, social issues, cultural, political and others.

But, you wouldn't argue that Eastern societies are less evil than Western ones would you? Because if they aren't then it may be that eastern religions are just more passive and tolerant toward social evils that exist whereas Abrahamic religions are more engaged and therefore end up being more complicit in them. For example, Taoism teaches inaction with respect to the state whereas Islam doesn't recognize separation of religion and state. The net result could be that the society in question is no more or less evil but that the respective religion is responsible in a different way. In the example Taoism would be passively complicit in the evil of the state and Islam would be actively involved. But, the net amount of evil may be no more or less. [Of course, evil is not the religious intent in either case.]

Another critical difference is the personal spiritual development of the followers, the Abrahamic Religions exacerbate the primal impulses, instincts and emotions while the Eastern Religions take the trouble to modulate these impulses to leave the person to potential for peak actualization of self.

I already addressed that above. They all have traditions of spiritual development. Who can say which is the top unless they have scaled to the top of all of them? The inner traditions of the Eastern and Western religions are more similar then the outer aspects.

[Uccisore]

Right. Lately not even Muslims in the US and around the world want to be associated with the brutality of the Muslim extremists. During the past year Muslim groups have stood up to condemn these actions. Maybe there isn't a single monolithic Muslim religion let alone a single Abrahamic one. And maybe the same its true of the Eastern religions as well. To lump the religions together like this is to oversimplify a highly complex sociological problem.

Nothing involving human beings has ever been monolithic so far as I am aware, and I don't know how it possibly could be. We are chaos. However, that doesn't mean that certain organizations and ideologies can't be our enemies. I have a dark view of ethics and philosophy lately, and I don't think 'they aren't all bad' is sufficient to justify inaction. So in the end, "Is Muslim evil?" isn't a question with an answer because it is composed of individual humans with individual wills. However, it may be necessary to act as though it is as a matter of national or cultural security. Or not. Each nation and people will have to look at the data and the trends and decide that for themselves.

If people claim objectivity without acknowledging the difficulty of overcoming their own subjective prejudices, I tend to doubt them. It isn't that this isn't an interesting and perplexing problem. But, I might be more impressed if difficulties were explicated instead of offering a single statistic as if it sheds any light on the question.

I think it's easier to be objective with regards to an end than it is to be objective about the existential nature about something. A group of people could disagree forever about the fundamental nature of Islam, or theism, or religion, and agree to certain actions to prevent the next terrorist attack, or to ensure peaceful relations with a Muslim nation, or whatever.

[Uccisore]

IMO, your views are very bias and unbalanced.

So long as they aren't incorrect, I have no problem with that. I find that people who strive for balanced, unbiased views above all else just become very eloquent liars.

The above refer to number of incidents not number of fatalities.
Can you prove me wrong with the above estimates, the number re Islam from the statistic linked and the rest estimated to the best of my knowledge.

Prove me wrong on the above estimates, anyone?
If not at least give me a clue where I could be wrong.

I have no interest in proving those numbers wrong because they have nothing to do with my point. My point is that using a critique of Islam to condemn "Abrahamic Religions" is arbitrary. To blame "Abrahamic Religion" for this violence amounts to blaming Christians for violence against Christians and Jews for violence against Jews. There are a million possible configurations you could lump in if you want to blame more than just Muslims for Muslim violence- you could blame people of Middle Eastern descent, or men, or patriarchy, or theism, or lots of things. Why do you blame what you do? Because you want to promote eastern religion at the expense of western religion, or so it seems from your posting history.

East > West??
That is very narrow and distorted thinking.
The Abraham Religions are spread all over the world and the largest Muslims population is in Indonesia. There is a large number of Christians in the Philippines. Besides the Abrahamic Religions originated from the East, i.e. Middle East not from the 'West.'

Narrow and distorted as it may be, you are the one that opened this thread comparing Abrahamic faiths to what you consider to be the Superior Eastern Religions, not me. Presumably if it was good enough for you then to say "Eastern Religion" and expect people to understand you don't mean Muslims in the Philippines or Orthodox Christians in Russia, it is good enough for me now.

[Prismatic567]

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mystical traditions that probably involve similar neural pathways to the mystical traditions of eastern religion. There are also us vs them practices in eastern religions. There has been a recent resurgence of Hindu fundamentalism for example. So, most of these aspects seem to be present in all the religions and it is a matter of more or less which is difficult to measure.

I agree the Abrahamic Religions have their mystical traditions but they are not the core practices in line with the ethos of those religions. In some cases, the Sufis of Islam are treated as infidels and subjected to genocidal killings and persecutions.
The existence of their mystic tradition will not get rid to the evil laden verses in their holy texts which will be exploited by a natural occurrence of small percentile of evil prone believers.

The primal "us versus them" impulse is inherent in all humans. However, it is presented malignantly in the holy texts of the Abrahamic religions as in other evil secular ideologies. There is no such malignant abuse in the 'Eastern Religions' [note as specifically listed in the OP].

Note I specifically excluded general Hinduism in the list as Hinduism comprised 100s of religions and cults and some do have evil laden verses which could be directly or indirectly abused. Example, the Nazi abused some verses in the Gita for their selfish interest. The Gita also verses that apparently promote the Caste system.
There are no evil laden verses in the Buddhist texts except for a few very controversial ones in one or two the Mahayana sutras.

The statistic of evils re fatal terror attacks [where Judaism and Christianity at present in contrast to the past are insignificant] is just one example of the resultant of the above differences.

Right and it illustrates how value judgments are unavoidable when evaluating goodness or evil. There's no value free "alien" objective way to do that.

There is no absolute objective evilness, but we can have some sort of objectivity by consensus. If we grade all evils and evilness within a rating of 1 -100, those above 80 can readily be accepted by almost all as objectively evil, e.g. genocide, mass-rapes, serial killing, senseless beheadings, and the likes.

The inferiority of the Abrahamic Religions contribute to other negativities beside the very obvious evils of violence and terror. The other evils from the Abrahamic Religions [including Judaism, Christianity] which I had not highlighted are intolerances, cruelty, hindering of Science, social issues, cultural, political and others.

But, you wouldn't argue that Eastern societies are less evil than Western ones would you?
Because if they aren't then it may be that eastern religions are just more passive and tolerant toward social evils that exist whereas Abrahamic religions are more engaged and therefore end up being more complicit in them. For example, Taoism teaches inaction with respect to the state whereas Islam doesn't recognize separation of religion and state. The net result could be that the society in question is no more or less evil but that the respective religion is responsible in a different way. In the example Taoism would be passively complicit in the evil of the state and Islam would be actively involved. But, the net amount of evil may be no more or less. [Of course, evil is not the religious intent in either case.]

I argued on the following point why Abrahamic Religions (btw, not societies nor Western] are inferior relative to the Eastern religions [listed];
1. Existence of evil laden verses in their holy text
2. Malignant use of "us versus them"
3. Focus on the 'lower' animal brain
The above elements contributed and catalyzed evil prone believers to commit evils. The listed Eastern religions has none of the above properties, therefore no potential for evil.

Btw, Taoism do not promote inaction but rather the maxim is 'Action in Inaction', Fight without Fighthing, and the likes. It is merely the concept of engagement without mental attachment to it.

Another critical difference is the personal spiritual development of the followers, the Abrahamic Religions exacerbate the primal impulses, instincts and emotions while the Eastern Religions take the trouble to modulate these impulses to leave the person to potential for peak actualization of self.

I already addressed that above. They all have traditions of spiritual development. Who can say which is the top unless they have scaled to the top of all of them? The inner traditions of the Eastern and Western religions are more similar then the outer aspects.

The primary ethos of the Abraham Religion is reflected in the story of Abraham who was willing to kill his own son for his own selfish salvation. This is all about triggering the primal emotion of fear, as in;

Philippians 2:12King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

This is why most of the Abrahamic believers will feel very uneasy and disturbed and some will not hesitate the kill those who critique their beliefs. And worst of all, the Quran and their God condone the killing of those who insult Islam [as sensitive as drawing cartoons of Muhammad!].

[Prismatic567]

My point is that using a critique of Islam to condemn "Abrahamic Religions" is arbitrary. To blame "Abrahamic Religion" for this violence amounts to blaming Christians for violence against Christians and Jews for violence against Jews. There are a million possible configurations you could lump in if you want to blame more than just Muslims for Muslim violence- you could blame people of Middle Eastern descent, or men, or patriarchy, or theism, or lots of things. Why do you blame what you do? Because you want to promote eastern religion at the expense of western religion, or so it seems from your posting history.

I did not critique Islam solely to prove the OP.
Suggest you reread the OP.

I argued on the following points why Abrahamic Religions are inferior relative to the Eastern religions [listed];
1. Existence of evil laden verses in their holy text
2. Malignant use of "us versus them"
3. Focus on the 'lower' animal brain
The above elements contributed and catalyzed evil prone believers to commit evils. The listed Eastern religions has none of the above properties, therefore no potential for evil.

The general principle is;
Evil laden verses in Abrahamic religions + evil prone believers = terrible evils.

I show the current statistics from Islam as an evidence of the above. The past records of Judaism and Christianity also reflect the above equations.

If you are assigned to resolve the above specific religious-based evils and you have limited resources, the above Pareto-based statistics will be useful to ensure your efficiency.

[The Eternal Warrior]

My point is that using a critique of Islam to condemn "Abrahamic Religions" is arbitrary. To blame "Abrahamic Religion" for this violence amounts to blaming Christians for violence against Christians and Jews for violence against Jews. There are a million possible configurations you could lump in if you want to blame more than just Muslims for Muslim violence- you could blame people of Middle Eastern descent, or men, or patriarchy, or theism, or lots of things. Why do you blame what you do? Because you want to promote eastern religion at the expense of western religion, or so it seems from your posting history.

I did not critique Islam solely to prove the OP.
Suggest you reread the OP.

I argued on the following points why Abrahamic Religions are inferior relative to the Eastern religions [listed];
1. Existence of evil laden verses in their holy text
2. Malignant use of "us versus them"
3. Focus on the 'lower' animal brain
The above elements contributed and catalyzed evil prone believers to commit evils. The listed Eastern religions has none of the above properties, therefore no potential for evil.

The general principle is;
Evil laden verses in Abrahamic religions + evil prone believers = terrible evils.

I show the current statistics from Islam as an evidence of the above. The past records of Judaism and Christianity also reflect the above equations.

If you are assigned to resolve the above specific religious-based evils and you have limited resources, the above Pareto-based statistics will be useful to ensure your efficiency.

Yes, you can tell that the abrahamic religions came not only prior to buddhism and other eastern religions, but also have a rich history to them. You can almost see the evolution of theology between the two and yet most of these religions are still held up and buoyed by strong personalities that defined and created such systems of belief enough to have them named after them. I don't see it as any of them being inferior or superior based on the merits you provided, merely what you like and dislike about them. I find that they compliment each other a lot and should be taken sparingly as provided and then more as you follow your own journey as each of those beliefs were spawned with the concept of each person having their own journey through life and with the concept that those beliefs, etc. would help others on their journeys.

You could say that buddhism and eastern religions are inferior to the abrahamic religions based on how widespread the abrahamic religions are comparatively to the eastern religions and how much of a worldwide presence that the abrahamic religions have. I think you overlook the fact that people aren't evil or prone to evil but prone to living life and are living. You would have just as many of those people in eastern religions and their belief sets as you do abrahamic religions, yet you would hear less of it. I think what changes the most is the way of living and presentation of beliefs and the culture that surrounds them and while you prefer one, you are or were surrounded by the others in such a way as to make the flaws of the others less apparent.

Perhaps if you lived and breathed buddhism or taoism or any of the other eastern religions you would have an entirely different point of view and might better be able to point out the flaws of the people who bring forth the ideas of those systems of belief. Perhaps it is you personal opinion-oriented bias that makes you prefer the wording of one over the other. Needless to say I agree with you in certain areas such as presentation of beliefs and style of believing; I do find a certain preference toward how those eastern systems of beliefs exist and yet they have their fallibilities as well, so to remain fixated on any one or any set of beliefs can be detrimental, especially to the point of putting one above another or a set of one above a set of another.

Certainly we are not denied the pleasure of playing favorites and yet at some point in time, one would have to go through and appreciate the merits of each in turn, equally and without bias. Do you really think it is the content that spawns such terrible evils in men? It's not. Even without the content, men would still create it if it were their penchant; you could repress and deny those contents and those writings and have your self another book-burning and yet those ideas and thoughts do not go away nor are they forgotten. Even if all of history and culture were erased from the face of the earth and humanity were wiped clean of memory, soon would come again the same ideas and beliefs that founded those religions, given new form and shape and new ground and traction and so, too, would there be those who sought to abuse and use those to perform evil or would perform evil even without, causing the formation of them.

No matter which way you go to state that certain peoples and systems of belief are inherently evil because of what they bring forth in their teachings, or are 'more prone' to 'evil doings', you will find that all people and all walks of life are similar and it still come down to individual choice and the fact that we are getting better with each passing age of the world regardless of beliefs and teachings or lack thereof and have been since our species began, wherever and whenever it did begin.

I find this thread to be a base maneuver to put your established liked and loved beliefs above systems of belief you see to be inferior denoting your own bias and opinion rather than to be an actual and honest intent to establish fact as seems to be your priority with this thread. When you get right down to it, I personally think that free-flow spirituality and living to trump every single idea, theory, system of beliefs, etc. and is far better than anything others put forth and yet still accounts for it and acknowledges the brilliance and stupidity inherent in each one at the same time as constantly and consistently furthering the ideas, theories, etc. of each system of belief including forgotten ones and ones too small to be labeled as religion or acknowledge as groupings of humans who are more like the animals they seek to distance themselves from than they care to acknowledge themselves as they seek to provide the grouping numbers to establish another grand embellishment of reality for the dithering fools that follow cults of personality instead of reality itself.

Because, when you get right down to it, any one of these systems of beliefs would fall apart in the long term if you actually lived and breathed them 24/7 on their own. They would consume you, body and soul and make of you a pawn for their purposes; the purposes of a group devoid of the wisdom they sought to have to get through life as they hastily embrace one set of beliefs or many and discount other possibilities. And, you have spent quite a few pages already arguing the better nature of those 'cults' that you prefer. When it gets down to the final wire, it is just arguing without and shred of actual evidence of anything other than personal opinion, to which my free-flow reality and system of beliefs tramples underfoot and continues right on rolling as if they weren't even there and would I if I could honestly say that my system of beliefs was better and yet my beliefs would go nowhere without the beliefs of others, so even against my own ego, I must say 'fuck no, kid, yours ain't the best, just another addition to the mess.'

Welcome to life.