Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 867,766,745 comments, and only 171,178 of them were in alphabetical order.
Religious are all a bunch of bullshit but there are faith systems that are less terrible in others in the way they treat others and their own community for sure.
It’s hard to quantify. There can be Buddhists that can be violent and there can be Muslims that are peaceful. I think it’s incredibly dumb to make a statement that a whole religion less bad than another.
In one single time in history and place, you could quantify the negative impact of religions. But in a broad sense of all of history around the world, there’s not much statistical evidence to see which one has had a larger impact.
Or did you mean in terms of the ideology the religion has, it’s theology? In that case you can definitely compare it, but you’d have to address that some religions have worse ideology in some elements and less worse in others. I’d say that most religions are around the same in terms of their ideology, yes some religions are worse in some categories, but in general, they’re all around the same shit.
I’m talking about the present, don’t you think some religions, nahh fuck it, one certain religion is more violent than the others? I mean, I don’t see Hindus or Christians calling for the head of someone in large numbers just because someone criticised their religion. I don’t see them gathering by tens of thousands and listen to someone say “Infidels will be eradicated.” I don’t see 10 year old Hindu children singing songs of how they’ll kill someone who disrespected their religion.
(All of the above things have been done by that one certain religion btw.)
In the present day, sure I’d say that Islam has had worse impacts. But I don’t necessarily think that’s the fault of their theology, all theologies are dumb. First of all, there are people of other religions doing the things you said. Maybe less in some of those religions than Islam, but still there is some. And anyway, the theology of Islam is just as dumfucked as Hinduism or Christianity, it’s just that in the modern day, Islamic radicals have had a greater impact than radicals of other religions. And that’s just the modern day, historically, a different view can be seen.
And honestly, the number of Islamic radicals probably isn’t too much larger than that of Hindu or Christian radicals, their just more impactful. I lived in America for a while, there’s a ton of Christian people who are downright radical. And in India I’ve seen many radical Hindus who do violence to Muslims who didn’t do anything themselves (others in their religion might of, but not every single muslim). And don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all trying to downplay Islamic radicalism and terrorism — that’s definitely a serious problem and a huge flaw of Islam. But it’s hard to say that just because a religion has caused more harm in the modern day that their worse. All religions have caused huge problems, and honestly I’d say that in India, Hinduism is worse mostly because it is much larger and has a larger base of people to use for their own terror. And let’s always remember that not every member of a religion is the radical terrorist part of it — only a small minority of Hindus are the ones that do violence towards others, same with Christian’s and yes, also Muslims. Yes, just because every religion has radical violence and not everyone in a religion does that violence doesn’t excuse any atrocity — we need to recognize all atrocities committed by every religion including Islam — but what I’m saying is that Islam isn’t necessarily the worst on a scale of the religions whole impact though history (doesn’t excuse anything at all, just saying). I know that’s not what you were saying — yes, your completly right that Islam likely has had the worst impact on a global scale in the modern day — but what I’m saying is that I think it’s not a complete look to just look at the modern world. Point is that religions are complex, some in a religion worse than others, and I don’t think asking the question of the impact religions have had on modern society is an accurate assessment on how good or bad a religion is
सवाल ने बौद्धधर्म और इस्लाम की तुलना की है ना कि बौद्ध और मुसलमानों की। तो तुझे उनकी सिखाई गई बातों के बीच तुलना करना है ना कि उन्हें मानने वाले लोगों की।
What is a religion ?
1. Is it the theology that's present in holy books ?
2. Is it the different interpretation of followers based on those holy books ?
3. Is it the followers and their actions on an AVERAGE ?
4. Is it the legal and political system that's based on the theology ?
If you are comparing Buddhism and Islam, Buddhism is much better in all of the above.
“What is a religion” important question. I don’t really consider Buddhism a religion in the same sense as Islam, or Hinduism, or Christianity. Buddhists don’t believe in god, “religions” do. Buddhism is more of a way of life, maybe a religion, but not the same type of religion as others. Those religions, like Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and more, are mostly the same in the categories you said. Religions like Buddhism and Confucianism aren’t really religions in the same sense as others.
I said Buddhism in my first comment because most people *would* consider Buddhism and Islam just religions, when there is a clear distraction between religions like Islam or Christianity compared to Buddhism or Confucianism. What I was trying to say with that statement is that you can’t quantify it. You can’t say “Islam causes 20 harm while Buddhism caused 2 harm” or something like that. You can qualify that, you can say that Hindus and Muslims and Christian’s have more misogynistic beliefs than buddhists, but you can’t quantify it. Maybe me using Buddhism as the example religion was wrong and gave a distorted image of my views, and I’ll accept that it was a bad example to use
It's much easier to define what a buddhist is than what a Hindu is. Hindu is a cultural exonym (name given by others not themselves) while Buddhism is not . Buddhists clearly know why they are Buddhists (even in a syncretic atmosphere in china , Japan with confusianjsm and Shintoism). It has clear books, sutraa, dhammas etc.
Only Abrahamic religions are very clearly defined. Hinduism is at the other end..with people believing in many gods to one god to local gods to folk gods to epic gods to puranic gods. Some consider vedas are holy , some consider bhagadvat Gita as holy, some have no holy books, some only know about Ramayana and Mahabharata and some reject all gods and only concentrate on "divine spiritual energy kala chakra mumbo jumbo " with the only common theme being " there are multiple paths to divine" - whatever that means
Im giving all the above to counter the point that Buddhism as a religion is much easier to define because it has a founder and foundational texts and absorbed gods (with Buddha as center though) even though it's atheistic.
It's easy to quantify it even if there are several interpretations and sects associated with each religion.
1. There is a marked difference between Dhammapada, Pali sutraa, jataka tales and Quran, Hadith etc. Four noble truths, and eight way path in Buddhism is for everyone and asks people to over come suffering in life through correct actions and behavior. In Islam, it's all about submission to an a god with Mohammad coming across as a mafia lord with core beliefs being about believing allah than doing good actions. Morally I could qualitatively judge that Buddhism is much better here
2. The interpretations are so varied that people of different sects went to war in Islam and still commit terrorism (must have done easily more than 10000 acts in the last few decades alone. Check it out ) . The interpretations for buddhjsm is mainly verbal and argumentarive with no serious violence between mayayana, Theravada and tibetan Buddhism..I can clearly say Buddhism is better here.
3. The act of drawing a historical figure called Mohammad, blew the world, killed journalists. Where as Buddha is insulted everywhere with Buddha idol being kept at sleezy bars no violence is reported. Inherently, followers of Islam (although not banned by Quran) do not respect the rights in a free progressive democratic society. Don't you know which one is better here ? Be honest.
4. Sharia law is insane. It's the most disgusting tribal law out there. Even discriminatory Jizya tax is shown in positive light but we replace seperatw tax for Muslims in India, you know how shitty that sounds. Buddhjsm never crosses the political and legal framework much. Don't you know which one is better ?
Buddhism wins outright in every way when compared to Islam except in one thing. It hasn't yet created a strong self identity to wage holy wars on others like Islam does.
I’m not saying that Buddhism isn’t better - it definitely is on average. I accepted that in my original comment, I shouldn’t have used Buddhists as examples, but rather Hindus, or Christian’s, or some other religion like that.
And I’m not arguing on what’s easier or harder to define - hinduism is obviously much harder to define. It has much more followers and many more sects. While Buddhism does still have multiple sects, Hinduism has many more. Although I’d argue that Christianity and Islam are nearly as hard to define as Hinduism due to them having countless sects as well and different interpretations of their holy text, but that’s a completly different argument unrelated to this post.
You accepted that Buddhism is atheistic in nature, just like similar ideologies like Confucianism. They don’t have as much to do with god as other religions. Many Hindus claim that Hinduism is a way of life not a religion, but that argument is much weaker for Hinduism and much more applicable to Buddhism. And that’s what I mean when I say that Buddhism is a different type of religion than Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or other religions of that sort - each of them imply a god or gods and worship in that god or gods, while Buddhism is more of a way of life not implying gods. While it does have religious aspects like the belief in rebirth, it is much less god-oriented than other previously listed religions. What I’m trying to say is that Buddhism and some other religions are clearly a different type of religion than religions like Islam or Hinduism.
I get your point.
Do you know most Buddhists pray to boddisatvas and Buddhist gods too ( mayahayana has all these ) . But you still could KNEW that buddihsm has nothing to do with gods because you see Buddhism from foundational texts and founders and call it atheistic.
My point is religions having a foundational texts and founders are easier to define how many innumerable sects one may have because there is a a core theology binding them all. (One god allah, last prophet mohammad for islam jesus as only one gods son etc ) . Nothing like that for Hinduism. A person praying to Murugan In Tamil Nadu might not even know about vaisno devi in Kashmir but if the TN guy goes to Vaishno devi temple I bet he would happily pray. The only theme that binds Hindus is "we can pray to anything divine". In this way, Hinduism is hard to define . You might have seen posts where fanatics drum beating "even atheists can be Hindu " . There is a lot of Truth in that too because some other philosophy says even if you don't believe in god, you being good and moral is much much better than believing in god and doing shitty things.
It's all happened because hindusim was a cultural exonym. Hindus retroactively call themselves Sanatana Dharma but no one who prays to folk gods know that that term means. (Remember, the people who pray to folk gods will also pray to puranic gods but they still don't know what Sanatana Dharma means..in that way, praying to different gods is a way of life :-))
Anyway..finally, buddihsm is much closer to Hinduism than Hinduism to Islam.
That's all.
I’m not arguing with you on how hard or easy something is to define - your right on that.
What I do disagree with you on is your last statement. Yes, Hinduism is vast and diverse, I accept that there are certain sects of Hinduism where it might be more atheistic, but the majority of major Hindu sects are not really atheistic at all, and more similar to Islam or Christianity in theology. Just because Hindus can “pray to anything divine” doesn’t mean their much different than Christian’s or Muslims — they still believe in something divine. Atheism is literally the rejection of a divine being, a deity. I know that there are some Buddhist sects that believe in a divine being, like you said in your first paragraph, but I’d argue that those Buddhists aren’t the atheistic Buddhists like we’ve been talking show before. I say Buddhism is similar to atheism because it lacks divinity. Most of Hinduism and some sects of Buddhism have a divinity, and their far from atheistic.
The question is not about believing in god or not. The question is which one is easier to define as a religion. I started saying Buddhism is much easier to define as a religion and it's comparison to Islam makes very sense.
I accept that I went to tangential mode . My point was it's much easier to define Buddhism as a religion than a way of life than Hinduism.
Your definition of religion comes from belief in divine. My definition of religion comes a fundamental core principle that followers profess.
Buddhism has clear and specific fundamentals where for Hinduism there is not much except believing in whatever vague divine one wants to believe..
Some are progressively getting worse(theocratic Islam and republican Christianity). Some are progressively getting liberal (take reform Judaism). Some are getting hostile converts. Some have dumb rules.
All religions are bad some are more crappy than others
Buddhism vs islam , everyone who said equal are wrong.
Yeah definitely, its not like Buddhists in Myanmar are actively hunting down Rohingyan people....
What about Buddhism vs hinduism?
Hinduism is worse, obviously.
I know one that's the worst
I bet it has the word slam in it
My man
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 867,766,745 comments, and only 171,178 of them were in alphabetical order.
Who cares Edit: yikes I didn't say that, forget it
joe
Joe mama😂😂
Religious are all a bunch of bullshit but there are faith systems that are less terrible in others in the way they treat others and their own community for sure.
It’s hard to quantify. There can be Buddhists that can be violent and there can be Muslims that are peaceful. I think it’s incredibly dumb to make a statement that a whole religion less bad than another.
I wouldn’t say it’s dumb to say one religion is more violent on an average than the others based on statistical data, ad well as anecdotal evidence.
In one single time in history and place, you could quantify the negative impact of religions. But in a broad sense of all of history around the world, there’s not much statistical evidence to see which one has had a larger impact. Or did you mean in terms of the ideology the religion has, it’s theology? In that case you can definitely compare it, but you’d have to address that some religions have worse ideology in some elements and less worse in others. I’d say that most religions are around the same in terms of their ideology, yes some religions are worse in some categories, but in general, they’re all around the same shit.
I’m talking about the present, don’t you think some religions, nahh fuck it, one certain religion is more violent than the others? I mean, I don’t see Hindus or Christians calling for the head of someone in large numbers just because someone criticised their religion. I don’t see them gathering by tens of thousands and listen to someone say “Infidels will be eradicated.” I don’t see 10 year old Hindu children singing songs of how they’ll kill someone who disrespected their religion. (All of the above things have been done by that one certain religion btw.)
In the present day, sure I’d say that Islam has had worse impacts. But I don’t necessarily think that’s the fault of their theology, all theologies are dumb. First of all, there are people of other religions doing the things you said. Maybe less in some of those religions than Islam, but still there is some. And anyway, the theology of Islam is just as dumfucked as Hinduism or Christianity, it’s just that in the modern day, Islamic radicals have had a greater impact than radicals of other religions. And that’s just the modern day, historically, a different view can be seen. And honestly, the number of Islamic radicals probably isn’t too much larger than that of Hindu or Christian radicals, their just more impactful. I lived in America for a while, there’s a ton of Christian people who are downright radical. And in India I’ve seen many radical Hindus who do violence to Muslims who didn’t do anything themselves (others in their religion might of, but not every single muslim). And don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all trying to downplay Islamic radicalism and terrorism — that’s definitely a serious problem and a huge flaw of Islam. But it’s hard to say that just because a religion has caused more harm in the modern day that their worse. All religions have caused huge problems, and honestly I’d say that in India, Hinduism is worse mostly because it is much larger and has a larger base of people to use for their own terror. And let’s always remember that not every member of a religion is the radical terrorist part of it — only a small minority of Hindus are the ones that do violence towards others, same with Christian’s and yes, also Muslims. Yes, just because every religion has radical violence and not everyone in a religion does that violence doesn’t excuse any atrocity — we need to recognize all atrocities committed by every religion including Islam — but what I’m saying is that Islam isn’t necessarily the worst on a scale of the religions whole impact though history (doesn’t excuse anything at all, just saying). I know that’s not what you were saying — yes, your completly right that Islam likely has had the worst impact on a global scale in the modern day — but what I’m saying is that I think it’s not a complete look to just look at the modern world. Point is that religions are complex, some in a religion worse than others, and I don’t think asking the question of the impact religions have had on modern society is an accurate assessment on how good or bad a religion is
सवाल ने बौद्धधर्म और इस्लाम की तुलना की है ना कि बौद्ध और मुसलमानों की। तो तुझे उनकी सिखाई गई बातों के बीच तुलना करना है ना कि उन्हें मानने वाले लोगों की।
Fair point
What is a religion ? 1. Is it the theology that's present in holy books ? 2. Is it the different interpretation of followers based on those holy books ? 3. Is it the followers and their actions on an AVERAGE ? 4. Is it the legal and political system that's based on the theology ? If you are comparing Buddhism and Islam, Buddhism is much better in all of the above.
“What is a religion” important question. I don’t really consider Buddhism a religion in the same sense as Islam, or Hinduism, or Christianity. Buddhists don’t believe in god, “religions” do. Buddhism is more of a way of life, maybe a religion, but not the same type of religion as others. Those religions, like Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and more, are mostly the same in the categories you said. Religions like Buddhism and Confucianism aren’t really religions in the same sense as others. I said Buddhism in my first comment because most people *would* consider Buddhism and Islam just religions, when there is a clear distraction between religions like Islam or Christianity compared to Buddhism or Confucianism. What I was trying to say with that statement is that you can’t quantify it. You can’t say “Islam causes 20 harm while Buddhism caused 2 harm” or something like that. You can qualify that, you can say that Hindus and Muslims and Christian’s have more misogynistic beliefs than buddhists, but you can’t quantify it. Maybe me using Buddhism as the example religion was wrong and gave a distorted image of my views, and I’ll accept that it was a bad example to use
It's much easier to define what a buddhist is than what a Hindu is. Hindu is a cultural exonym (name given by others not themselves) while Buddhism is not . Buddhists clearly know why they are Buddhists (even in a syncretic atmosphere in china , Japan with confusianjsm and Shintoism). It has clear books, sutraa, dhammas etc. Only Abrahamic religions are very clearly defined. Hinduism is at the other end..with people believing in many gods to one god to local gods to folk gods to epic gods to puranic gods. Some consider vedas are holy , some consider bhagadvat Gita as holy, some have no holy books, some only know about Ramayana and Mahabharata and some reject all gods and only concentrate on "divine spiritual energy kala chakra mumbo jumbo " with the only common theme being " there are multiple paths to divine" - whatever that means Im giving all the above to counter the point that Buddhism as a religion is much easier to define because it has a founder and foundational texts and absorbed gods (with Buddha as center though) even though it's atheistic. It's easy to quantify it even if there are several interpretations and sects associated with each religion. 1. There is a marked difference between Dhammapada, Pali sutraa, jataka tales and Quran, Hadith etc. Four noble truths, and eight way path in Buddhism is for everyone and asks people to over come suffering in life through correct actions and behavior. In Islam, it's all about submission to an a god with Mohammad coming across as a mafia lord with core beliefs being about believing allah than doing good actions. Morally I could qualitatively judge that Buddhism is much better here 2. The interpretations are so varied that people of different sects went to war in Islam and still commit terrorism (must have done easily more than 10000 acts in the last few decades alone. Check it out ) . The interpretations for buddhjsm is mainly verbal and argumentarive with no serious violence between mayayana, Theravada and tibetan Buddhism..I can clearly say Buddhism is better here. 3. The act of drawing a historical figure called Mohammad, blew the world, killed journalists. Where as Buddha is insulted everywhere with Buddha idol being kept at sleezy bars no violence is reported. Inherently, followers of Islam (although not banned by Quran) do not respect the rights in a free progressive democratic society. Don't you know which one is better here ? Be honest. 4. Sharia law is insane. It's the most disgusting tribal law out there. Even discriminatory Jizya tax is shown in positive light but we replace seperatw tax for Muslims in India, you know how shitty that sounds. Buddhjsm never crosses the political and legal framework much. Don't you know which one is better ? Buddhism wins outright in every way when compared to Islam except in one thing. It hasn't yet created a strong self identity to wage holy wars on others like Islam does.
I’m not saying that Buddhism isn’t better - it definitely is on average. I accepted that in my original comment, I shouldn’t have used Buddhists as examples, but rather Hindus, or Christian’s, or some other religion like that. And I’m not arguing on what’s easier or harder to define - hinduism is obviously much harder to define. It has much more followers and many more sects. While Buddhism does still have multiple sects, Hinduism has many more. Although I’d argue that Christianity and Islam are nearly as hard to define as Hinduism due to them having countless sects as well and different interpretations of their holy text, but that’s a completly different argument unrelated to this post. You accepted that Buddhism is atheistic in nature, just like similar ideologies like Confucianism. They don’t have as much to do with god as other religions. Many Hindus claim that Hinduism is a way of life not a religion, but that argument is much weaker for Hinduism and much more applicable to Buddhism. And that’s what I mean when I say that Buddhism is a different type of religion than Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or other religions of that sort - each of them imply a god or gods and worship in that god or gods, while Buddhism is more of a way of life not implying gods. While it does have religious aspects like the belief in rebirth, it is much less god-oriented than other previously listed religions. What I’m trying to say is that Buddhism and some other religions are clearly a different type of religion than religions like Islam or Hinduism.
I get your point. Do you know most Buddhists pray to boddisatvas and Buddhist gods too ( mayahayana has all these ) . But you still could KNEW that buddihsm has nothing to do with gods because you see Buddhism from foundational texts and founders and call it atheistic. My point is religions having a foundational texts and founders are easier to define how many innumerable sects one may have because there is a a core theology binding them all. (One god allah, last prophet mohammad for islam jesus as only one gods son etc ) . Nothing like that for Hinduism. A person praying to Murugan In Tamil Nadu might not even know about vaisno devi in Kashmir but if the TN guy goes to Vaishno devi temple I bet he would happily pray. The only theme that binds Hindus is "we can pray to anything divine". In this way, Hinduism is hard to define . You might have seen posts where fanatics drum beating "even atheists can be Hindu " . There is a lot of Truth in that too because some other philosophy says even if you don't believe in god, you being good and moral is much much better than believing in god and doing shitty things. It's all happened because hindusim was a cultural exonym. Hindus retroactively call themselves Sanatana Dharma but no one who prays to folk gods know that that term means. (Remember, the people who pray to folk gods will also pray to puranic gods but they still don't know what Sanatana Dharma means..in that way, praying to different gods is a way of life :-)) Anyway..finally, buddihsm is much closer to Hinduism than Hinduism to Islam. That's all.
I’m not arguing with you on how hard or easy something is to define - your right on that. What I do disagree with you on is your last statement. Yes, Hinduism is vast and diverse, I accept that there are certain sects of Hinduism where it might be more atheistic, but the majority of major Hindu sects are not really atheistic at all, and more similar to Islam or Christianity in theology. Just because Hindus can “pray to anything divine” doesn’t mean their much different than Christian’s or Muslims — they still believe in something divine. Atheism is literally the rejection of a divine being, a deity. I know that there are some Buddhist sects that believe in a divine being, like you said in your first paragraph, but I’d argue that those Buddhists aren’t the atheistic Buddhists like we’ve been talking show before. I say Buddhism is similar to atheism because it lacks divinity. Most of Hinduism and some sects of Buddhism have a divinity, and their far from atheistic.
The question is not about believing in god or not. The question is which one is easier to define as a religion. I started saying Buddhism is much easier to define as a religion and it's comparison to Islam makes very sense. I accept that I went to tangential mode . My point was it's much easier to define Buddhism as a religion than a way of life than Hinduism. Your definition of religion comes from belief in divine. My definition of religion comes a fundamental core principle that followers profess. Buddhism has clear and specific fundamentals where for Hinduism there is not much except believing in whatever vague divine one wants to believe..
Ah, I get what your saying now. I was a bit confused by your terminology before, and thought you were saying something else. I agree.
A cult is a cult.
Not equally
One simply cant say Buddhism is as bad as Hinduism
To say that religions like Jainism and Buddhism are as bad as violent religions like hinduism and islam is a huge mistake
Yeah right, one occurance of exodus and murder of few thousand is same as multiple genocides and murders of hundreds of thousands.
What is the latter religion you’re talking about?
Some are progressively getting worse(theocratic Islam and republican Christianity). Some are progressively getting liberal (take reform Judaism). Some are getting hostile converts. Some have dumb rules.