Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior

[Prismatic567]

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.

Other than Judaism, Christianity [0 AD] and Islam [500++AD] came after Buddhism [500 BCE]. Hinduism, Taoism and Jainism also has a long history before Buddhism.

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 was very specific to state "Relatively Inferior" in relation to the specified criteria to avoid confusion. This listed criteria are imo, critical to humanity in the future. Religions are supposed to be peaceful and we don't want to bring religions that are stained with evil elements in their immutable holy texts to the future.

Other than the above, there are many criteria in which the Abrahamic Religions [ARs] are very superior to the Eastern Religions.
For example the ARs can give immediate relief to the psychological angsts arising from the existential dilemma based on the Placebo Effect. Many of them do provide very good social security in terms of the love-bombs they throw at their newly converted believers. However, all these are very pseudo and flimsy.

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.

It is very obvious humans [rare exceptions of the suicidal and others] are driven to live life.
Note EDDY [Existential Dilemma Drives You].

The existence of some percentile of humans within a large group of people who are prone to 'evil' [this term to be 'taxonomized' and agreed] is well documented and discussed within the psychological and psychiatric community. It is often said that 1% of humans have psychopathic tendencies and a reasonable % are prone to evil. Note the serial killers, Ted Bundy, etc. Those who suffered from other mental illness are also prone to 'evil' whilst not being conscious of what is driving them to do it.

No doubt such a % of evil prone also exists within Eastern Religions, but the point is there are no* evil verses from the Eastern religions' texts for them to feast upon, exploit or abuse. *If any = negligible.
On the other hand, SOME [not all] Muslims will insist their holy Quran permit them to kill non-believers on certain conditions and there is no one who has the final say what is the true interpretation. So they kill on the basis of their holy texts.

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.

I wrote somewhere, I am approaching the issue as if I am an alien [no personal bias] assigned to resolve evils on Earth. My term of reference is religious-related evils while my fellow aliens deal with secular evils and ideologies.
I have researched on religion and spirituality for many years so I am very familiar with the main religions and the Philosophy of Religions.
I am not bias towards any religion and I believe ALL religions should be eventually weaned off gradually in the future [next 75-100 years] and be replaced with net-positive fool proofs methods to deal with the existential dilemma. The condition is an effective replacement must be available and no immediate yanking is allowed.

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.

There are three main variables in this issue of religious related evil and violence.

1. A small % of evil prone humans exists naturally, note Bell Curve.
2. A small % of evil laden verses exists in the holy texts of the Abrahamic religions and others.
3. Abrahamic Religions emphasize the "us versus them" impulse malignantly.

With or without 2 and 3, the natural existence of evil prone will commit evil.
However, 2 and 3 provided the additional elements and opportunities for the evil prone to commit evil plus enable a good excuse for them to do evil.
In addition, 2 and 3 also motivate good people to do evil in the name of religion. Many Jihadists' parents [from good background] were surprised how the well behaved sons/daughters turned out to be suicide bombers.

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.

Unfortunately and regrettably, that is a wrong perception. Note I wrote this in another thread,

Whilst my focus is on a specific area, i.e. religion and spirituality, my background is very general.
Here is my overall perspective as responsible citizen of humanity.

1. My vision & mission is Perpetual Peace [PP] on Earth.
(Perpetual Peace refers to a state of affairs where peace is permanently established over a certain area -[wiki] and in the whole World. I adopts and adapts Kant's model of PP.)
2. To achieve PP, humanity should promote 'good' and manage 'evil'. [terms 'taxonomized']
3. Evil comprised secular and religious-based evils. [simplifying the complex]
4. Secular evils are to be dealt with various strategic methods.
5. Religious-based evils being significant will be dealt as a separate specific.
6. Islam is the most critical in terms of religious-based evils
7. To learn from history but to focus on the future.
8. To understand the Complex Human Being [OP] amongst many other fields of knowledge.

[James S Saint]

Whilst my focus is on a specific area, i.e. religion and spirituality, my background is very general.
Here is my overall perspective as responsible citizen of humanity.

1. My vision & mission is Perpetual Peace [PP] on Earth.
(Perpetual Peace refers to a state of affairs where peace is permanently established over a certain area -[wiki] and in the whole World. I adopts and adapts Kant's model of PP.)
2. To achieve PP, humanity should promote 'good' and manage 'evil'. [terms 'taxonomized']
3. Evil comprised secular and religious-based evils. [simplifying the complex]
4. Secular evils are to be dealt with various strategic methods.
5. Religious-based evils being significant will be dealt as a separate specific.
6. Islam is the most critical in terms of religious-based evils
7. To learn from history but to focus on the future.
8. To understand the Complex Human Being [OP] amongst many other fields of knowledge.

You appear to be attempting the opposite (attempting to conflict and demand change to your personal preference). Perhaps what you have specified is your "alter-ego" and proposed "superego" (probably for anticipated evangelical and political gains). What you attempt to imagine and promote yourself to be is obviously not what you are.

{{and Kant was an amateur}}.

[The Eternal Warrior]

Aye, but to refer to such ideological systems of belief by simple names such as the ones you provide is rather insufficient. You expect the person to already be aware of these concepts, or to go in search of the knowledge themselves, which isn't a bad thing and yet leaves something to be desired by anyone wishing to engage in the conversation right away. It was what I mentioned in passing in one of my previous posts in this thread; the fact that you don't go into detail on your points by delving into the belief structures themselves. You might as well be someone who knows very little overall about these religions and have a broad-base coverage of knowledge of it only; not to say that such is a bad thing to do as certainly I am guilty of doing such myself on occasion. I can't claim to know the exact teachings of any of these religions and in fact can only claim to know somewhat the teachings of Christianity and Mormonism for having read their mainstream belief books called 'bibles'; however the inundation of cultural surroundings apart from the religions and systems of belief; cultural tie-downs that I do hold in higher esteem than the belief systems themselves; creates much of the background in transient knowledge as opposed to historical knowledge which transient knowledge also supplies in part in movies like 47 Ronin.

To touch solely on the merits that they have stories of people doing bad things, one needs merely remind that they only told of reality and history and truth as best they could. Why try to cover up a past that is only a section of the root that could bring out the worst in us again; to which I have stated that such would happen regardless according to human nature and the current state of the world; our immediate surroundings.

Whether you were specific in stating 'relatively inferior' or not, my points still stand as to state that one thing is relatively inferior is to state that the other is relatively superior and since you leave out the predicted outcome that what is relatively inferior in some aspects is still relatively superior in others, you can only conclude that such was by biased opinion and not grounded in actual fact or in a fact-finding pursuit but merely to state an opinion of reality and of peoples beliefs which by lack of counter-thesis and argument falls by the wayside in terms of actually delivering proof of the relative inferiority in the terms that you've described, bringing out only a partial perspective of yours that is garnered from a partial fragment of a history already changed too much in modern times throughout the ages since each were designed; in infinitesimal various ways that have gone unnoticed by large amounts of humanity which still cries foul at their perceptions of texts that may or may not still contain the original spirit that was intended and furthermore goes without real explanation of the verses by people who really care about deciphering just what it means without falling into repeated arguments of minor issues. Certainly the confusion still exists in your thesis because you do not go into detail of each of the belief systems to describe the inferiority of each and how it could be ascertained that ones outweighs the others.

You say religions are supposed to be peaceful and yet I have seen nothing but peaceful attitude on the parts of the religious, as if that was some part of the bargain of being religious instead of a simple lifestyle choice and you talk about the evil elements of their holy texts while a majority of the religious do their best to live by the words of wisdom inherent in the messages instead of by the stories of past men and women who lived in a different age and in spite of those within each religion which seek to only further their own gains or the gains of the religion beyond means that could be reasonably determined as wise; i.e. corruption, deceit; lies and slander.

You bring up the placebo effect and I might agree with you except that there is actually something to it that goes beyond imaginary effects. There is palpable energy in a good congregation and it's not just feeling like you belong; you can actually feel the good emotional and energetic vibes coursing through the very atmosphere of the building in certain churches. The sheer good will toward each other and the excitement that can be had; you would be surprised at the pure healing nature of that energy and the sheer amount of miracles that could actually be performed by the power of prayer and good intentions. You can talk about love-bombs and I could agree all day that certainly religion is guilty of preying on the gullible and naive and yet that is still just a surface infraction against the abrahamic religions since so many people have done this to these religions and dragged them through the mud, so-to-speak and people still believe in what is taught by them which also speaks against what individuals within the churches; in power; choose to do or not do. It's easy to say that these are pseudo and flimsy, but what evidence do you have other than that of your average cynic who has trouble accepting good and positive energy in their lives because it seems corny or stupid; the imaginations of child-minded people instead of the accepted reality of a large group of people who have already survived some pretty bad parts of life and consistently seek to make the quality of life better. Just the same as individuals in churches and religions go out of their way to do dirty deeds; others go out of their way to actually further the message of good will toward your fellow man.

You say that it is very obvious that humans are driven to live life and yet they aren't; they aren't driven to love life or to enjoy it; they aren't even driven to derive happiness from it. They are simply driven to work and to create a life for themselves and left to their own devices. I find that people create their own drive based on their surroundings and what they've been through and what they hope to accomplish with their life after viewing enough of it to make a decision one way or the other and stick with it. I find that a good amount of people live average lives. A lot of people living in the world today couldn't even truthfully call what they do living since we live in a giant game preserve for humanity. The existential dilemma doesn't drive everyone; not everyone has existential moments as they either accept a way of living or create their own.

I would love to hear about how psychologists and psychiatrists are able to well-document or discuss in depth the existence of a percentile of humans who are prone to 'evil'; I would love to hear how they measure this and how they've gone out and done actual studies on every man, woman and child who is alive in the world. I would love to see where you get the backing for this evidence you procure that states that 'evil' is an actual byproduct of religion instead of the way of living that those people endured to make them what they were; for you would hardly get a truthful story out of any of them let alone find much truth on the matter in terms of discussing it with their families or friends as they would find ways to make excuses or embellish or change what actually happened in subtle ways with each telling.

I would love to see where you gather proof that people kill based on their holy texts. Sure, it's easy to say such and it's easy for them to say such and yet even in our day to day lives, we know that killing is a far cry away from what is needed in a lot of cases and a reasonable person could still argue that it is needed in certain cases and win that argument. I would bet more often that these religious extremists are lead to believe such about their holy texts by very strong personalities that drive them forward, much like the branch davidians who committed mass suicide based on the direction given to them by their leader. It seems more likely that this is the case based also on a desire from the community driven by necessity to figure out when and when not it is okay to kill and it seems like they found their answer in terms of killing non-believers, but only on occasion. What lengths have you gone to look into the merits behind each killing they have done and why they've done it as you can't just broadline a statement such as 'because of their beliefs'; they have a reason every time; they're not unreasonable people regardless of what they're made out to be, just answering a call of nature as it demands them to have the answer that they have until they find something better in evolution of transient knowledge and necessity.

Please explain to me what fool-proof methods of dealing with existential dilemma that are in the works; discuss them with me, if you would. You think that people need to be weaned off religion like a baby is weaned off a bottle and yet religion isn't the worst thing to hit life; the pollutants and drugs and everything else we've inundated our societies with as a cause of negativity and stress as a cause from trying to find an answer that IS AS SIMPLE AS 'just live.'

All because people refuse to accept the answers given to them whether complex or simple and try to make life what they can in their vain struggle to beat self-fulfilling prophecy and the destruction predicted by some pretty fantastic and ahead-of-their-time thinkers that we deem prophets.

You say that a small percentage of people are born prone to evil and I say they are victims of their situation. I would rate it at about half since half of humanity looks at the other half and goes 'those fools' and both halves are guilty of such. There is a divide between the two facets of good and evil but not be religious design; it was what drove people to develop religions and their beliefs and to refine them enough to teach others how to overcome. There became fierce wars of the spirit fought over this divide in not just men, but all things. It is the balance spoken of in beliefs such as buddhism and taoism bring forth and the discipline they try to teach that is taught anyway as both 'good' and 'evil' learn the same things and exhibit what they learn in different mannerisms and there are varying stages of skill and talent throughout all that creates a reality-wide range of equality all because we fail to actually have equality on a life-form by life-form basis. We fail to go the extra mile, so far, in actually practicing what we preach, but we are getting better and it is largely because all of these systems of beliefs and philosophical remnants have survived and made their way down to us, so please be kind with what you say and remember that before you go slandering the beliefs of the abrahamic religions and other religions with misguided ideas of what is being said.

Do you think that there would be a biblical war between heaven and hell without more than a small percentage of sentient life forms being 'prone' to evil? There is a divine balance in each person that states that each person is prone to both and can be both and that people are driven one way or the other by the divide between the two that isn't a divide at all, a fight that should never have been fought and yet was fought all the same and is still being fought to this day. That we are both prone to do good and to do evil based on our choices. Our choices define our actions regardless of perception, our own or others and to label any action as 'evil' or 'good' is to take it out of the context of which it is placed in. Our concepts of this dichotomy do little to allay the inbalance and do little to set our selves back afoot.

A lot of these so-called 'evil' people are simply looking for fairness from everyone around them and failing to see it, fail to see a reason why they should even try when so much of life itself is based on entertainment and popularity. Too late do people realize as they travel down their paths in life that they become the stereotype downfalls of their way of life or that they might actually succeed only to feel alone for all of the people they had to leave behind and part with to do so, even if they moved on to meet other people.

'Evil' isn't a personality default, it stems from poor parenting, poor discipline and an unwillingness to straight up do whatever it takes to preserve life, even avoiding killing the worst offenders and proving dominance of a smother-effect called just-deal-with-it where 'it' is life and the fact that we would rather have peace than fighting and killing and crime in general. I find that the very nature of society around us speaks against the religions that exist just by having survival of the fittest within society, not enough jobs, a system of money where the necessities in life aren't just given free; where good will still hasn't had the profound effect that so many people have hoped for. You would have us believe that getting rid of these religions gradually over a period of time would solve the problem, but all it would do is cause more fighting in which people like you find a way to justify more killing, just like the extemists you mentioned who believe that their holy texts condone killing as you would condone killing for your beliefs just the same.

I love your plan of perpetual peace on Earth. It's a good one, except it has never worked and will never work as it works under the notion that some people are inherently evil and should be treated differently based on that instead of actually dealing with the problems that might actually be there that spirituality in general may have gotten right; certain tenets like immortal spirits and reincarnation, etc.; which could cause the degradation of the spirit over time if it experiences several life times of viciousness or other traumatizing effects. To understand each person and work with them to integrate society into their life instead of trying to work to have society integrate each person into it, would create a much bigger difference. If we were to be able to bring about cultural awareness in people enough; which we are doing over a long-period of time with our pop-culture, etc.; we could theoretically bring about the next evolutionary leap and I think it's the fact that such is happening naturally in spite of peoples best efforts to make it happen and to prevent it from happening that is deliciously ironic and fascinating; that it is simply what people choose to do to prepare a future world for their children and all the children after; to create a better world as so many people; even 'evil'; fight for the same goals in many ways.

I mean, there is no preset for 'evil'; it's people who have been through the same things as so many others and just... didn't rise above; they made a different choice because it seemed the best choice to make. To change that, you have to change the entire way people are living their lives and that is something that can not be controlled and can only be achieved by allowing life and reality and the idea of God; a universal consciousness; to have its due. To just not fight the fight anymore and to let it fight itself out through us and to let it have some damned closure once and for all. But, if you think for a second people are just going to discard any part of society that we have now, except the parts that we can actually agree on, prepare for a fight and prepare to kill for what you want based on your idea of who is 'evil' and who is not. We love our culture; we really do; and we hate whoever fucks with it without reason, so either make it better or just stop fighting what becomes so prominent in so many peoples lives.

The only way to suitably make this happen is for it all to happen and therein you must trust the concept of God; the universal consciousness; because the more any human or mortal seeks to, on their own, get this done; or even in a group against another group; it will not be done nor will it get done suitably to all to actually bring about the shift in awareness and consciousness needed for the 'evil' in men to be placated by proper balance between the extremes within each so that we don't have extremists in singular individuals who feel driven by necessity to be something they can never be except by special circumstance; necessity.

I'm just saying, if you want to wage war on spirituality in any form, be prepared or just stay home, metaphorically and literally. I mean, come on: 'To learn from history but focus on the future.' So many people do this already that it's not even funny. Here's what I came up with: 'live in the moment while learning from the past to prepare for a future filled with a myriad of possibilities in a constantly shifting mosaic of shit you can not and will not ever completely predict and could either get worse or get better.' 'Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best' doesn't quite cover it because then you have all of these security measures for insecurity against something that may or may not happen. So, really, the best advice you can give anyone is to just let go of seeking to control anything except your own reaction to life and your own perception and to just do what comes naturally; which you are while learning. Look at you think you know something. One day, those thoughts might graduate into actual theses beyond trying to manipulate humanity to do what you want it to do into actually accounting for enough possibilities to see what it may be trying to do enough to help it.

Which is the main and driving force behind every single belief structure of merit in the religious world from God to meditation and discipline; from ancient ages to current pages of philosophical discussion in modern day technological marvels that too many take for granted, myself included. And yet, Jesus or Buddha may have given their testicles for such an invention as the internet in which to discuss their thoughts with a multitude and to refine their thoughts through that multitude in varying stages to actually give to the world a better way than what it all became. And we live in this age; we lucky ones who sit here in our luxurious laziness and have the ability to affect so much of the reality around us just by discussion. Just by fucking discussion and debate. If all discussions were actually had publicly and openly concerning peoples plans for society and everything else, we'd be on much better ground and yet the paranoia and insanity of men; all of the planning put into acts of revolution or changing religions or any other structure of organization; gets in the way yet again and so I say there will be quite the bloody war in eventuality as discussions like these do little to actually soothe and put the matter to rest in a closure good enough for all. We will need a worldwide consensus that the majority of people no longer want to harm other people and no longer want to war and kill and the only way to actually hit that point is to have a worldwide war of sorts and the lucky part of it all is that nobody had to plan it and it happened in spite of all of the people who tried to plan it, because it won't happen the way they have tried in the past to plan it and how people try to plan it now. It will simply evolve on its own and that is the most infuriating part to every person who tries to manipulate reality and the part which makes me laugh the most and breathe relieved at the same time knowing that reality and life itself will continue on regardless of the outcome of such a historical buildup of pressure; we might survive and ironically lose so much of history and everything else that it sets us back countless ages in brutality and everything else. But, we might also survive and hit our best societal success ever: a perfect utopia for imperfect creatures.

[felix dakat]

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.

No the mystical tradition IS the core.

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].

Your whole thesis exhibits "us versus them thinking" so it must be evil according to your reckoning.

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.

Right, and that's why throughout history you see Taoist activists protesting in the streets and overthrowing tyrannical governments. Wait, you don't see that do you?

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.

Right, and that's why there are no Christian monasteries where people are focused on overcoming the flesh in order to realize higher spirituality.

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!].

Right cuz expereince shows that murder always follows from fear and trembling.

[Uccisore]

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 problem is that by your own statistics, these things you are calling evil that are present in Christianity and Judaism haven't lead to any more actual evil than you see in Eastern faiths. It's not as though 'Malignant use of us vs. them' has turned Christian countries into violent, backwards shitholes that your typical Buddhist nation has surpassed. The shining beacon of civility, advancement and equal rights in the Middle East is a nation composed of a bunch of Jews, not a bunch of Jains. So the criteria you list aren't demonstrably evil. All that's demonstrable is that you don't like them.

So for example, suppose Christianity is true (after all, you've done nothing to say that it isn't, you've only argued that it's ideas are naughty). Suppose there really is a theistic God that wants us to believe and do certain things, and will reward us if we do, punish us if we don't. In that scenario, all Eastern Religion would accomplish is producing a bunch of flakey people who lack even the basic ability to comprehend the universe as it exists. This would be true if Neitszsche was right, as well: if we really are nothing more than the greatness we make for ourselves, then Taoism teaches people to be useless clods of flesh that do nothing better than stay out of the way of those to actually accomplish things. If the Marxists are right, and our happiness and worth are tied purely to our material conditions, then Buddhist's teaching of avoiding materialism at all costs is a catastrophic error that is leading billions of people to poverty and starvation for no reason.

The Abrahamic Religions are only inferior in that they aren't as good at promoting your particular ideological values as the Eastern Religions are, that's all.


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.[/quote]

[Uccisore]

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 problem is that by your own statistics, these things you are calling evil that are present in Christianity and Judaism haven't lead to any more actual evil than you see in Eastern faiths. It's not as though 'Malignant use of us vs. them' has turned Christian countries into violent, backwards shitholes that your typical Buddhist nation has surpassed. The shining beacon of civility, advancement and equal rights in the Middle East is a nation composed of a bunch of Jews, not a bunch of Jains. So the criteria you list aren't demonstrably evil. All that's demonstrable is that you don't like them.

So for example, suppose Christianity is true (after all, you've done nothing to say that it isn't, you've only argued that it's ideas are naughty). Suppose there really is a theistic God that wants us to believe and do certain things, and will reward us if we do, punish us if we don't. In that scenario, all Eastern Religion would accomplish is producing a bunch of flakey people who lack even the basic ability to comprehend the universe as it exists. This would be true if Nietzsche was right, as well: if we really are nothing more than the greatness we make for ourselves, then Taoism teaches people to be useless clods of flesh that do nothing better than stay out of the way of those who actually accomplish things. If the Marxists are right, and our happiness and worth are tied purely to our material conditions, then Buddhist's teaching of avoiding materialism at all costs is a catastrophic error that is leading billions of people to poverty and starvation for no reason.

The Abrahamic Religions are only inferior in that they aren't as good at promoting your particular ideological values as the Eastern Religions are, that's all.

[Prismatic567]

Aye, but to refer to such ideological systems of belief by simple names such as the ones you provide is rather insufficient.
You expect the person to already be aware of these concepts, or to go in search of the knowledge themselves, which isn't a bad thing and yet leaves something to be desired by anyone wishing to engage in the conversation right away.
It was what I mentioned in passing in one of my previous posts in this thread; the fact that you don't go into detail on your points by delving into the belief structures themselves. You might as well be someone who knows very little overall about these religions and have a broad-base coverage of knowledge of it only; not to say that such is a bad thing to do as certainly I am guilty of doing such myself on occasion.
....
....
...
.....we might survive and ironically lose so much of history and everything else that it sets us back countless ages in brutality and everything else. But, we might also survive and hit our best societal success ever: a perfect utopia for imperfect creatures.

I like your presentation [not agreeing to all the points] and that is what philosophy is about, note Bertrand Russell's,

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

The difficulty here is you raised too many questions where in most cases we have to dive deep into the 9/10th below the tip of the iceberg to get answers [I am very confident to answer, but tedious & time consuming to present].

For most of the main elements I have raised, I have made it a point to ensure an exhaustive study of each of them to ensure I am not ignorant of the main contentions and that I have answers for them. I have collated these information and principles over many many years and as such, it is impossible to present them in a limited forum and posting like here. Thus what I have presented are mere outlines.

Re many of your questions, I have provided information in bits and pieces in my other posts and I understand you are likely to have read them all, but it is quite tedious for me to repeat them at different times for different posters who asked.

For example you asked,
"I would love to see where you gather proof that people kill based on their holy texts."
This is ABC. Here is an example I quoted very often. I don't have a readily available list so I have to do a tedious google search everytime I have to produce it or them in other cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4716909.stm

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".

There are a tons of evidence which can be gather from the WWW-Net that show how Muslims relied on their holy texts to justify their evils of violence, intolerances and cruelty.

I anticipate the loose term 'evil' will be problematic. I have done an extensive and exhaustive research on the term 'evil' covering every aspects & perspectives out there [e.g. conventional, social, psychology, biological, neurosciences & its subs, psychiatry, anthropological, historical, theological, Philosophy, ancients, modern, religious, spirituality, etc., etc.] and thereupon compile a framework and taxonomy for it.
Based on the work done I am quite confident whenever I use the term 'evil' and I am always on the look out for any perspectives of it that I may have overlooked.
Because the term 'evil' is prevalent and will also crop up in philosophical discussion, I would suggest you do a similar project like what I did, then we can share notes.

There is another principle of "substance over forms".
Most the questions you raised involve the diversified forms. However if we make it a point to understand the underlying principles behind the various forms, we will be understand most of the diversified forms.
Thus if I understand the philosophy and principles of religions in general, I need not have to understand the full diversified forms of each religion. In this case, as an enhancement theory has to be supplemented with experience that reflect the core principles.
For example, we need not have to know how different people all over the world, produce, prepare and eat their food. The basic principle is to understand the generic principles of the hunger impulse, the digestive system, nutrition and other relevant basic elements, because there is a generic human being.

Unfortunately I cannot answer you post point by point, and since you are already into the serious of philosophizing (i.e. questioning broadly) it would be favorable for you to compile the questions as a checklist for further understanding and exhaust them by doing extensive research on them. With the WWW-Net on hand, that is quite easy but imo it may take 5-10++ years (perhaps more) to get a good picture of the questions you raised above.

[Prismatic567]

{{and Kant was an amateur}}.

You are not aware you are kicking your own arse but displaying your ignorance.
This is like saying Newton or Einstein were amateurs in Physics.

[Prismatic567]

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].

Your whole thesis exhibits "us versus them thinking" so it must be evil according to your reckoning.

Duality and "us versus them" is inherent within humans which is a double-edged sword. It is 'evil' if used malignantly.
My thesis highlight the malignant use of the "us versus them" within the core principles of the Abrahamic religions and proposed ideas to deal with such abuses.

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

Right, and that's why throughout history you see Taoist activists protesting in the streets and overthrowing tyrannical governments. Wait, you don't see that do you?

It is not possible. Perhaps it is Confucianism and other ideologies but not Taoism.

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.

Right, and that's why there are no Christian monasteries where people are focused on overcoming the flesh in order to realize higher spirituality.

There are but they are on the fringes of Christianity proper.

[James S Saint]

{{and Kant was an amateur}}.

You are not aware you are kicking your own arse but displaying your ignorance.
This is like saying Newton or Einstein were amateurs in Physics.

No, it is more like you saying, "In reality, Batman is much stronger than Superman."


You have no means to gauge a "good [real] philosopher".

[The Eternal Warrior]

{{and Kant was an amateur}}.

You are not aware you are kicking your own arse but displaying your ignorance.
This is like saying Newton or Einstein were amateurs in Physics.

No, it is more like you saying, "In reality, Batman is much stronger than Superman."


You have no means to gauge a "good [real] philosopher".

Newton had to get hit in the head with an apple before inventing the 'laws' of gravity. I would have ate the apple and called it good with that, because who gives a shit? People who are afraid of suddenly dropping off the face of the Earth? Let them worry about it.

And Einsteins theory of relativity makes me laugh.

Cant say much about Kant, though. Never even heard of him until today. I wonder if he ever recanted anything he said.

[James S Saint]

And Einsteins theory of relativity makes me laugh.

Actually, the very first time I ever heard the theory, I seriously thought it was a joke. Later, I was more than a little disturbed to find that people were taking it seriously. But for the cause, I went to the trouble of proving the theory to be absurd, despite the alleged "evidence".

Cant say much about Kant, though. Never even heard of him until today. I wonder if he ever recanted anything he said.

[Lev Muishkin]

Newton had to get hit in the head with an apple before inventing the 'laws' of gravity. I would have ate the apple and called it good with that, because who gives a shit? People who are afraid of suddenly dropping off the face of the Earth? Let them worry about it.

And Einsteins theory of relativity makes me laugh.

Cant say much about Kant, though. Never even heard of him until today. I wonder if he ever recanted anything he said.

Ah I see why they call you fuck head.

There was no "Newton's Apple", it is a parable told to children.
As for your apprehension concerning Einstein and Kant: ignorance leads to bliss, and your humour.

[Lev Muishkin]

Without Einstein's TOR, GPS would not work. The TOR is proved everyday with your SatNav.

[The Eternal Warrior]

Newton had to get hit in the head with an apple before inventing the 'laws' of gravity. I would have ate the apple and called it good with that, because who gives a shit? People who are afraid of suddenly dropping off the face of the Earth? Let them worry about it.

And Einsteins theory of relativity makes me laugh.

Cant say much about Kant, though. Never even heard of him until today. I wonder if he ever recanted anything he said.

Ah I see why they call you fuck head.

There was no "Newton's Apple", it is a parable told to children.
As for your apprehension concerning Einstein and Kant: ignorance leads to bliss, and your humour.

A parable... I think you mean 'a metaphor', which I can now see the possibility of now that I consider it. A parable is a story with a moral value while the story of Newton's apple really has no moral value, only that it fell on his head while he was sitting under a tree and it caused him to consider the effects of gravity in greater detail. But, to consider it as a 'metaphor' you then think of adam and eve and the apple (used to be a fig in older stories) and that he was hit on the head with a bunch of knowledge which he then used to propel himself forward.

I have no apprehension toward Einstein; his theory of relativity is bullshit. He claims that nothing moves faster than the speed of light and yet we've found things that do. That time is subjective to who experiences we already know; two people could be in the same room and for one the time could pass quickly while for the other the time could pass slowly and there is no true theory for that, is there? I find that my thoughts move faster than the speed of light at times; not all of them; but conversations I can have in my head can be quick when I bypass words and move onto base comprehension in terms of using words, which makes it hard for me to explain what I want to some times when I try to communicate such to others. In the space of a second, I could have a conversation that would take people weeks to have because of my dealings with my own subconscious where I've become cognizant of such interactions. In fact, some times, my conscious mind moves even that fast as I try to form words in my mind and slow it down to have a normal conversation at my pace, it will speed up at times, cut me off and have answers supplied before a question is even finished, showing that the subconscious is much faster than the conscious, to the point of moving faster than the speed of light and verging on time travel within our own mind.

I'm aware of it even now when I dip back into my mind for a second, just the mass of voices and concepts and ideas and words being passed around; not all of them intelligent. It is utterly fascinating to me and some times a bit annoying because I don't really like being cut off mid-sentence and my own subconscious does such to me quite a lot, which forces me to work on my patience and tolerance of such if I wish to keep having conversations with it; which I do because I enjoy such conversations that I know I can't create or engineer on my own. And, some times, it likes to fuck with me and argue with me and hate on me; certain parts of my subconscious anyway, as it is multi-faceted much like the world around us and does seem to have a variety of voices which leads me to believe firmly in group-consciousness; mass awareness. And, I can definitely tell the difference between certain voices and certain trends, to which I also believe in a vibrant and living reality because that is the fastest motherfucker to come into my head and I have great conversations with that one that I will never fully remember because even while it caters to me occasionally, the vastest amount of our conversations are held on that level without words where words may as well be moving faster than the speed of light themselves and if were spoken may sound like a high-pitched whir or buzz like a bee or silly-sing-song language all of its own; if we could speak that fast.

We can do the impossible in our minds in quite a few provable ways and I find that far more fascinating than Einstein's theory of relativity, which needs to be upgraded and Newton's laws of gravity which can't truly explain such phenomenon as Coral Castle, especially when our gravity is created by a combination of centrifugal and centripetal forces along with whatever other energy becomes lended from the sun or from our own planet as it spins on its axis and through time and space on its own path. Gravity is the greatest illusion, for if were to stop spinning and stop moving, who is to say that we would be bound to the Earth as much as we are? And certainly some days we feel heavier than other days if we were to pay attention and on other days we feel lighter. Some days it takes me less effort to walk a good distance than other days and there is no reasonable reason for that as muscle mass is not lost within a week of having it and working on it tends to make it stronger, not weaker; and I do know the rules of work-out mechanics and muscles which leads me to believe that one some days the spin might be faster, certain period of time might see gravity be slightly stronger or weaker than it is usually based on certain principles that we can't rightly measure to which we must rely on the genius of Newton to state laws of gravity that may not be laws at all, merely a surface viewing of something that has infinitely more variables to it than Newton could have dreamed of.

As for Kant, it sounds like he's just a douche. No offense, I don't know him or his philosophies, but you guys make him sound like a douche.

[Prismatic567]

{{and Kant was an amateur}}.

You are not aware you are kicking your own arse but displaying your ignorance.
This is like saying Newton or Einstein were amateurs in Physics.

No, it is more like you saying, "In reality, Batman is much stronger than Superman."

You have no means to gauge a "good [real] philosopher".

Your "amateur" comment demonstrate your silliness especially this is a site that specialize in philosophy.

The great philosophers produced works that are open to tight scrutiny by their peers. Whilst there are likely to be some degrees of subjectivity, this can be eliminated if we based our rating of "good" philosophers or a large numbers of polls with a reasonable large participations.
For example,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_result.shtml
This poll is supported by commentaries by existing philosophers.

In most polls on the 'Greatest Philosophers of all times" or 'Greatest Western Philosophers of all times" you will find Kant appearing within the top 5, if not top 10 and seldom out of the top 20.

If we regard the top 10 are credible "professional" [not re profession] and 'good' philosophers, then Kant cannot be labeled as "amateur".

In any case if you think there are philosophers [dealing with philosophy in general*] who are "much stronger" than Kant, who [not Jesus, Paul and the likes] do you have in mind?
*If not in general but as specialists then one has to compare light to light, i.e. in specific areas such as Ethics, Logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

[Prismatic567]

Cant say much about Kant, though. Never even heard of him until today. I wonder if he ever recanted anything he said.

If that is the case, you have a lot to catch up on Western philosophy-in-general. But since you are very inclined into philosophizing, getting familiar with Kant's work will facilitate a greater grasp and a systematic approach to philosophy and understanding reality.
I understand the mentioned of 'Kant' sometimes direct people's attention to 'down there', but one has to stay focus on intellectual philosophy proper.

Note the OP I raised re the 'Greatest Western Philosopher of all Times'.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187452

Here is a commentary on Kant's works.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/ ... /kant.html

As with any progressive humans, Kant reKanted many times in his lifetime.
For example;
In 1763, Kant wrote, The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God.
In 1781, in his Critique of Pure Reason, he denounced any possibility of the proof of God in reality.
His famous recantation was his awakening from his 'Dogmatic slumber' by Hume. This was when he metamorphosized from a pure dogmatic Rationalist to a middle path of pragmatism* between Rationalism and Empiricism. *btw not philosophical-pragmatism of William James.

The catch is, Kant's philosophy is EXTREMELY difficult to understand and grasp.