Religion, what's the point?

[Gehrman]

You are correct. Buddha and Jesus (by and large) were pacifists, they didn't believe in fighting back. Do you know what happens to people who don't fight back? This happens:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori


In the words of the late Malcom X
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."


It's a base human instinct to subjugate those who are weaker. Why would you be against a message telling people to hold onto their rights and fight their oppression.

Only that Muhammed was the bullied who later in turned into the bully. Siddharta was born in to worldly power as the crown prince but left it excatly because he considered it a hinderance to his spiritual pursuit of the cause of suffering and end to suffering. There is a reason why Siddharta says that buddharma goes against the stream of the world. It goes against the wordly conventions and traditions. It even goes beyond a conventional reality.

"Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching.
— Kakacūpama Sutta, Majjhima-Nikāya 28 at MN i 128-29[5]

Unlike Muhammed who taught that his jihadists could already smell the sweet perfume of heaven if they died as martyrs on the field of battle, Siddharta said that soldiers do not attain higher rebirth(human and above).

As a pragmatic person I'm not against self-defense, but I am against agression.

And actually the vast majority of enlightened buddhist practioners and teachers on earth managed to live happy and free lives without inflicting violence or oppression on others. If you want dirt on buddhism I'm all for it because it's a favourite subject of mine.

 

[Revan]

You are correct. Buddha and Jesus (by and large) were pacifists, they didn't believe in fighting back. Do you know what happens to people who don't fight back? This happens:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori


In the words of the late Malcom X
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."


It's a base human instinct to subjugate those who are weaker. Why would you be against a message telling people to hold onto their rights and fight their oppression.

There is a difference between fighting back, and initiating wars. Muhammad initiates wars. The Muslims after him, lead by people whose life we should emulate (Abu-Bakr, Umar etc) and generals who were friends of Muhammad (Khalid ibn al Walid for example) were into constant wars, first with Muhammad’s own tribe, then with the other Arab tribes, and finally with the Romans and Persians. These were not defensive wars, it was the Muslims who initiated them, with tens of thousands of people being killed of them.
With whomever they could, it was convert to Muslims and accept Muhammad as overlord (or later the khalif), pay the tax and accept Muhammad/khalif as overlord, or get killed.

Let’s be fair, it is a quite similar treatment to what ISIS gave to the ‘nonbelievers’ a few years ago. Or what Genghis Khan and Timur gave to their enemies (tho Genghis didn’t care about changing their religions, it was pay tax or die), or Alexander the Great gave his enemies. Sure, it was what the other leaders of that time did and it was perfectly acceptable. But it would look ridiculous if someone would start saying that Genghis Khan was a symbol of peace, preached peace and should be emulated.

 

[ThatsGreat]

Why compare Muhammad with Buddha, compare him with islamic sufi saints like Rumi or Moinuddin Chisti. He doesn't even compare favourably with people of his own religion.

 

[MrMarcello]

Reading the past page plus of the back and forth reminds me of this quote by Seneca
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

 

[Revan]

Why compare Muhammad with Buddha, compare him with islamic sufi saints like Rumi or Moinuddin Chisti. He doesn't even compare favourably with people of his own religion.

For what is worth, I think that he compared favorably with most of the leaders of his age (especially Arab tribe-leaders). He was definitely a highly intelligent person who achieved much on his life, whom has been arguably the most important person in mankind's history, and whom after death essentially reached Godhood status * (he is a God for Muslim, in all characteristics a God has, except not being called a God).

The problem is, when you put today's moral standards to judge his life, he comes very poorly, just like most of Nomadic rulers of that age. And while this is fine for most historical figures, it is not for the guy we are supposed to worship and emulate. As a good Muslim, I shouldn't even live in some non-Muslim country **. If I am living in a Muslim country, I should go to jihad and convert the other countries to Islam (or die trying, death for a warrior is desirable, the highest part of heaven is guaranteed). While we are there, I should also marry underage girls ***.

* Technically he is not a God, he was just a prophet. However, he showed Godlike powers, like when he divided the moon, or when angels fought his war, or when he traveled the entire universe in a single day. He is venerated by Muslims, every day Muslims not only thank him, but also his family and his friends (whom by the way fought each other after his death, for example, Muhammad's widow Aisha fought a war vs Muhammad's nephew, friend and one of his successor Ali, which resulted with a few thousand deaths). Yet somehow, we should thank both of them every day, and try to emulate them. So in the end, he has many characteristics of a God, though in the Quran, it is explicitly shown many times that he is not a God. He had only delegated power (at times without even knowing it), but nevertheless he had plenty of power that in the myths, only Gods have.

** I am not saying this as a racist 'Muslims don't belong here'. I am saying in the way, that a good Muslim who tries to reach the best version of himself, should be surrounded by other good Muslims, and should live in Arab countries, preferably Mecca or Medina. After all, a good Muslim should try to emulate Muhammad as much as possible, in pretty much everything (though he might find himself confused when he realizes that he can marry only 4 wives, but to emulate Muhammad, he needs to have more).

*** It doesn't matter if Aisha was 6 or 8 or 9, or we can become generous, even 12. It doesn't matter if she has passed puberty or not. It doesn't matter if that was the standard of that time. Again, I acknowledge that for the standard of his time, Muhammad compares favorably. But if you assume that we need to emulate Muhammad, and he was the greatest and best human being ever, then it is okay to be a pedophile. At the end of the day, "pedophile" is a social term that might change with age, and genetically speaking, there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. But morally speaking, there is plenty of wrong with that, and as a human species, we have passed that stage. So, Muhammad as a historical figure marrying Aisha, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Muhammad as the best person ever and someone we should emulate even now, there is plenty of wrong with that, and this incident alone would make him not worthy of being emulated.

 

[Gehrman]

For what is worth, I think that he compared favorably with most of the leaders of his age (especially Arab tribe-leaders). He was definitely a highly intelligent person who achieved much on his life, whom has been arguably the most important person in mankind's history, and whom after death essentially reached Godhood status * (he is a God for Muslim, in all characteristics a God has, except not being called a God).

The problem is, when you put today's moral standards to judge his life, he comes very poorly, just like most of Nomadic rulers of that age. And while this is fine for most historical figures, it is not for the guy we are supposed to worship and emulate. As a good Muslim, I shouldn't even live in some non-Muslim country **. If I am living in a Muslim country, I should go to jihad and convert the other countries to Islam (or die trying, death for a warrior is desirable, the highest part of heaven is guaranteed). While we are there, I should also marry underage girls ***.

* Technically he is not a God, he was just a prophet. However, he showed Godlike powers, like when he divided the moon, or when angels fought his war, or when he traveled the entire universe in a single day. He is venerated by Muslims, every day Muslims not only thank him, but also his family and his friends (whom by the way fought each other after his death, for example, Muhammad's widow Aisha fought a war vs Muhammad's nephew, friend and one of his successor Ali, which resulted with a few thousand deaths). Yet somehow, we should thank both of them every day, and try to emulate them. So in the end, he has many characteristics of a God, though in the Quran, it is explicitly shown many times that he is not a God. He had only delegated power (at times without even knowing it), but nevertheless he had plenty of power that in the myths, only Gods have.

** I am not saying this as a racist 'Muslims don't belong here'. I am saying in the way, that a good Muslim who tries to reach the best version of himself, should be surrounded by other good Muslims, and should live in Arab countries, preferably Mecca or Medina. After all, a good Muslim should try to emulate Muhammad as much as possible, in pretty much everything (though he might find himself confused when he realizes that he can marry only 4 wives, but to emulate Muhammad, he needs to have more).

*** It doesn't matter if Aisha was 6 or 8 or 9, or we can become generous, even 12. It doesn't matter if she has passed puberty or not. It doesn't matter if that was the standard of that time. Again, I acknowledge that for the standard of his time, Muhammad compares favorably. But if you assume that we need to emulate Muhammad, and he was the greatest and best human being ever, then it is okay to be a pedophile. At the end of the day, "pedophile" is a social term that might change with age, and genetically speaking, there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. But morally speaking, there is plenty of wrong with that, and as a human species, we have passed that stage. So, Muhammad as a historical figure marrying Aisha, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Muhammad as the best person ever and someone we should emulate even now, there is plenty of wrong with that, and this incident alone would make him not worthy of being emulated.

People who claim divine authority claim timeless values and should be held to timeless values otherwise they are "just a guy". Muhammed doesn't even pass the decent person test when you factor in his whole life. If we factor in that he was just a man of his time, we should welcome in the perception that he wasn't anything beyond that. Jesus and Siddharta alone were miles ahead of him despite that he is the newest of religous icons.

 

[Revan]

People who claim divine authority claim timeless values and should be held to timeless values otherwise they are "just a guy". Muhammed doesn't even pass the decent person test when you factor in his whole life. If we factor in that he was just a man of his time, we should welcome in the perception that he wasn't anything beyond that. Jesus and Siddharta alone were miles ahead of him despite that he is the newest of religous icons.

To be fair, it could also be that Jesus didn't have any power (Muhammad had) so hard to abuse power if you don't have power, and Siddharta probably never existed.

In either case, they were relatively unimportant during their lives, and didn't have really much power. Muhammad on the other hand, became the most powerful person in Arabia during his life, and within 10 years of his death, his country was the most powerful country in that part of the world.

 

[Gehrman]

To be fair, it could also be that Jesus didn't have any power (Muhammad had) so hard to abuse power if you don't have power, and Siddharta probably never existed.

In either case, they were relatively unimportant during their lives, and didn't have really much power. Muhammad on the other hand, became the most powerful person in Arabia during his life, and within 10 years of his death, his country was the most powerful country in that part of the world.

There is no evidence that Siddharta never existed. The existence of Shakya clan is well documented and Siddharta as well. It's just something you've made up.

 

[Revan]

There is no evidence that Siddharta never existed. The existence of Shakya clan is well documented and Siddharta as well. It's just something you've made up.

I didn't say he never existed. I said, he probably never existed.

The burden of proof is always in those that say something existed. I don't have to prove his non-existence, same as you don't have to prove the non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn that I pretend it exists.

For what is worth, I don't have a strong opinion on his existence, and as far as I know, Mahayana part of Buddhism can perfectly go on without a historical Buddha.

 

[Gehrman]

I didn't say he never existed. I said, he probably never existed.

The burden of proof is always in those that say something existed. I don't have to prove his non-existence, same as you don't have to prove the non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn that I pretend it exists.

For what is worth, I don't have a strong opinion on his existence, and as far as I know, Mahayana part of Buddhism can perfectly go on without a historical Buddha.

There is ample evidence that Siddharta existed. The Kangyur, which is complitation of Siddhartas teachings equals the volume of 108 bibles in volume. I've never heard a historian say he probably never existed. Whether he fulfilled the criteria of Buddhahood is another thing for those who consider buddhahood a thing.

If my posts aren't saved on redcafe I'm not even sure it's possible to prove I existed in 50 years time.

 

[Revan]

There is ample evidence that Siddharta existed. The Kangyur, which is complitation of Siddhartas teachings equals the volume of 108 bibles in volume. I've never heard a historian say he probably never existed. Whether he fulfilled the criteria of Buddhahood is another thing for those who consider buddhahood a thing.

If my posts aren't saved on redcafe I'm not even sure it's possible to prove I existed.

There is plenty of books, probably even more, that talk and mention about the Greek Gods. I don’t think they prove the existence of a historical Zeus.

Anyway, I am not very educated in Buddishm to have a strong opinion on this. From what I have read, there is no consensus on his existence. Probably the first written evidence come from Emperor Asoka, but that is quite later. Writing was definitely a thing in Buddha’s time though, but there is not writings about him. I know that the theory says that there was no mentions of him, cause his monks memorized his teaching instead of writing them, but this doesn’t give a lot of scientific confidence.

Similarly, Lao Tzun probably did not exist too. Maybe they both did, maybe Abraham and Noah did too, but there is no evidence about it (while there is some evidence for Jesus, and a mount of evidence for Muhammad).

 

[Gehrman]

There is plenty of books, probably even more, that talk and mention about the Greek Gods. I don’t think they prove the existence of a historical Zeus.

Anyway, I am not very educated in Buddishm to have a strong opinion on this. From what I have read, there is no consensus on his existence. Probably the first written evidence come from Emperor Asoka, but that is quite later. Writing was definitely a thing in Buddha’s time though, but there is not writings about him. I know that the theory says that there was no mentions of him, cause his monks memorized his teaching instead of writing them, but this doesn’t give a lot of scientific confidence.

Similarly, Lao Tzun probably did not exist too. Maybe they both did, maybe Abraham and Noah did too, but there is no evidence about it (while there is some evidence for Jesus, and a mount of evidence for Muhammad).

Well you're entitled to your opinion. unfortunately, I not have his bones and dna to show you.

 

[Zlatattack]

The difference is that Jesus and Buddha were pacifists who practiced what they taught. Sri Lanka is not the leading buddhist country in the world either. But any buddhist who commits violence has breached the 5 precepts. Muhammed and his companions who he called the best muslims were directly reponsible for what we would call crimes against humanity and he called for all muslims to follow in his example. No he wasn't all bad, I quite admired his tolerance in his early days while he was mocked and mistreated in Mecca although he did grab his bully by the throat and said "Woe you! Wou you! By Allah you will be slaughtered!". Which happened later in their first formal battle.

When he started feeling comfortable in his military power he also sent this remarkably peacefull letter to the King of Oman and his brother.

"In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful, from muhammed bin. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. I invite both of you to the call of Islam. Embrace Islam. Allah has sent me as a prophet to all His creation in order that I may instill fear of Allah in the hearts of his disobedient creatures, so that there may be left no excuse for those who deny Allah. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country, but if you refuse my call, you must remember that all your possesions are perishable. My cavalry would take possesion of your land, and my Prophethood will assume superiority over your kingship".

What to you call this if not the threat of war if he and his brother surrendered to Islam?

And Allah is by no means a truly compassionate deity in Islam. It's his way or the highway(hellfire).

Completely false. Provide a source for this BS please.

 

[Gehrman]

Completely false. Provide a source for this BS please.

Which part of it? If you are talking about the islamic stuff I am using "The sealed nectar" voted as the best biography of Muhammed as reference. I will send you my copy for free if you are willing to pay for the porto, but you have to promise me to read it.

 

[Cascarino]

There is no evidence that Siddharta never existed. The existence of Shakya clan is well documented and Siddharta as well. It's just something you've made up.

See I used to hold this view, until one day cutting into a watermelon, which revealed the seeds to be laid out in a pattern which read that Siddharta does not exist.

 

[Zlatattack]

Which part of it? If you are talking about the islamic stuff I am using "The sealed nectar" voted as the best biography of Muhammed as reference. I will send you my copy for free if you are willing to pay for the porto, but you have to promise me to read it.

The contents of the letter are false. Many versions of it are spread over anti Islamic sites.

 

[Gehrman]

The contents of the letter are false. Many versions of it are spread over anti Islamic sites.

I am quoting the biography recommended to me by our fellow muslim caftards and voted as the best biography of Muhammed by the muslim world league.

 

[Zlatattack]

I am quoting the biography recommended to me by our fellow muslim caftards and voted as the best biography of Muhammed by the muslim world league.

You're misquoting it. Free pdfs of the Sealed nectar are available online. That was the gist of the letter but not the word.

 

[Gehrman]

You're misquoting it. Free pdfs of the Sealed nectar are available online. That was the gist of the letter but not the word.

Its the words. Do you want me to send you scanned photo as evidence? Like I said I will send you damn book for free if you promise me to read it. I will scan the letter tomorrow if it doesn't suffice, but you have will admit you're wrong otherwise your not holding up your end of the bargain.

It starts on page 479 and continues to page 480. If the PDF is similar it should easy for you to look it up.

 

[Revan]

Well you're entitled to your opinion. unfortunately, I not have his bones and dna to show you.

You seem to slightly get offended (for someone who attacks other people religions, though I agree with you there), when basic questions are thrown about Buddhism. But regarding the existence of Buddha, and who needs to prove it, I can only quote a wise man:

The burden of proof is on people who claim there is an almighty god.

So, the burden of proof is on you. Until then, Buddha probably didn't exist.

 

[Gehrman]

You seem to slightly get offended (for someone who attacks other people religions, though I agree with you there), when basic questions are thrown about Buddhism. But regarding the existence of Buddha, and who needs to prove it, I can only quote a wise man:




So, the burden of proof is on you. Until then, Buddha probably didn't exist.

It's pretty hard to prove beyond doubt that anyone existed 2500 years ago. We can only rely on the evidence available. Do you want me to recommend books? Or what kind of evidence are you looking for?

 

[Revan]

It's pretty hard to prove beyond doubt that anyone existed 2500 years ago. We can only rely on the evidence available.

And the evidence is very scarce and dates to a couple of centuries after his death. A bit like Confucious, Pythagoras, Zarathustra, or Lao Tzu, less than Jesus, far less than Muhammad, more than Abraham or Moses.

Which is fine, if he existed, it is likely that like Jesus, he was relatively not famous on his life, probably even quite irrelevant. But his teachings - like Jesus' - grew over time. Or were invented - like Jesus' - from people who didn't know him.

I don't even think that saying this is controversial outside of Buddhist circles. And I am quite sure, that the existence of Buddha is not extremely important for some Buddhist schools (for example Zen).

 

[Gehrman]

And the evidence is very scarce and dates to a couple of centuries after his death. A bit like Confucious, Pythagoras, Zarathustra, or Lao Tzu, less than Jesus, far less than Muhammad, more than Abraham or Moses.

Which is fine, if he existed, it is likely that like Jesus, he was relatively not famous on his life, probably even quite irrelevant. But his teachings - like Jesus' - grew over time. Or were invented - like Jesus' - from people who didn't know him.

I don't even think that saying this is controversial outside of Buddhist circles. And I am quite sure, that the existence of Buddha is not extremely important for some Buddhist schools (for example Zen).

Siddharta is just considered one of many buddha's, but the supreme nirmanakaya of this eon. Like I said before, you can do buddhism entirely without Siddharta, it did not start with him or end with him. The Dzogchen transmission starts with Prahevajra, the mahamudra transmission starts with Tilopa. The first Budhha on earth is said to be Vipassi. The first buddha of all time is said to be Samantatabhrada.

 

[Revan]

Siddharta is just considered one of many buddha's, but the supreme nirmanakaya of this eon. Like I said before, you can do buddhism entirely without Siddharta, it did not start with him or end with him. The Dzogchen transmission starts with Prahevajra, the mahamudra transmission starts with Tilopa. The first Budhha on earth is said to be Vipassi. The first buddha of all time is said to be Samantatabhrada.

Yeah, ok, though this has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

Oh, and the other two guys seem as believable as Posseidon and Hades.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

I do believe in Heaven and Hell, I really hope it’s real. Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens. Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere. And Never seeing the people you’ve lost seems depressing as hell. but just for the sake of a conversation of the other side. Is that religion was put in to stop the world from killing itself and things being a thousand times worse for today. Even the “guilt” religion teaches you, feeling seems like an illusion because being bad is a feeling we were taught when we were young. The sins. if we knew there was no other side. Being sad when a relative dies seems pointless. We are never seeing that person every again, what would being sad even do for you. It should make us more colder as a person. We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. Otherwise, the world would be so different. There’s no sin, so there’s no evilness. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt. You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness. Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything. Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.

Let’s say the 10 commandments came in, the rules were set. Now everyone is obeying them so theres less murder, less evilness. Even though some are using religion with evil intent. Creating wars, killing Millions because they follow the “wrong god“. So yeah religion made the world worse in that sense. Don’t know where I’m going with that, my mind kinda went a bit off here sorry. I hope you guys get what I’m TRYING to say . I’m never good with explaining things. But I do love talking about shit like this.

 

[Foxbatt]

These are the points I have been making. It's not the religion but people.
By looking at the comments here you can see that. The hatred towards other religions without actually understanding it. This is the same with lots of people in every religion. Muslims included.

If people are so blind that they can't see beyond their nose then no matter how much you try to explain and open their minds it will be closed.

Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in around 270 BC.
Thai Buddhism is greatly influenced by the Theravada class of Buddhism.
Buddhism started in India of course, but it didn't flourish much.
So Sri Lanka is now the leading country in certainly this class of Buddhism. China maybe the largest but officially communism has no religion.
Every full moon day( poya) is a holiday in Sri Lanka. Bodu Bala Sena is a very hardliner Buddhist organization and their chief has even been in jail for inciting riots against Muslims.
The same way there are extreme organizations in Muslim countries like Pakistan inciting riots against non Muslims. Of course India too along with Myanmar.
It's not unique to any particular religion. People need to understand that religion is personal and it's between the person and God.
I do agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow people to pray to whatever they want to. No one can force someone to believe in anything.
Saying Mohammed is a killer and Buddha was a peaceful man is being stupid. Closing one's mind and seeing what is in front of your nose is the quickest way to lose the human perspective on life and more importantly one's own salvation.

 

[Gehrman]

Yeah, ok, though this has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

Oh, and the other two guys seem as believable as Posseidon and Hades.

I consider that a completely reasonable position.

 

[Gehrman]

These are the points I have been making. It's not the religion but people.
By looking at the comments here you can see that. The hatred towards other religions without actually understanding it. This is the same with lots of people in every religion. Muslims included.

If people are so blind that they can't see beyond their nose then no matter how much you try to explain and open their minds it will be closed.

Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in around 270 BC.
Thai Buddhism is greatly influenced by the Theravada class of Buddhism.
Buddhism started in India of course, but it didn't flourish much.
So Sri Lanka is now the leading country in certainly this class of Buddhism. China maybe the largest but officially communism has no religion.
Every full moon day( poya) is a holiday in Sri Lanka. Bodu Bala Sena is a very hardliner Buddhist organization and their chief has even been in jail for inciting riots against Muslims.
The same way there are extreme organizations in Muslim countries like Pakistan inciting riots against non Muslims. Of course India too along with Myanmar.
It's not unique to any particular religion. People need to understand that religion is personal and it's between the person and God.
I do agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow people to pray to whatever they want to. No one can force someone to believe in anything.
Saying Mohammed is a killer and Buddha was a peaceful man is being stupid. Closing one's mind and seeing what is in front of your nose is the quickest way to lose the human perspective on life and more importantly one's own salvation.

It's really not unless you render history completely pointless. I might as well say buddha was muhammed and muhammed was buddha going by this logic. It's the bullshit argument that all religions are the same because they are religions, which is like saying that all political positions are the same because they are all political. Hence there is really no diffference between democracy or fascism.

 

[Revan]

I do believe in Heaven and Hell, I really hope it’s real. Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens. Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere. And Never seeing the people you’ve lost seems depressing as hell. but just for the sake of a conversation of the other side. Is that religion was put in to stop the world from killing itself and things being a thousand times worse for today. Even the “guilt” religion teaches you, feeling seems like an illusion because being bad is a feeling we were taught when we were young. The sins. if we knew there was no other side. Being sad when a relative dies seems pointless. We are never seeing that person every again, what would being sad even do for you. It should make us more colder as a person. We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. Otherwise, the world would be so different. There’s no sin, so there’s no evilness. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt. You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness. Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything. Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.

Let’s say the 10 commandments came in, the rules were set. Now everyone is obeying them so theres less murder, less evilness. Even though some are using religion with evil intent. Creating wars, killing Millions because they follow the “wrong god“. So yeah religion made the world worse in that sense. Don’t know where I’m going with that, my mind kinda went a bit off here sorry. I hope you guys get what I’m TRYING to say . I’m never good with explaining things. But I do love talking about shit like this.

No one in their right mind said that a fecking eyeball just popped out of nowhere.

 

[Revan]

These are the points I have been making. It's not the religion but people.
By looking at the comments here you can see that. The hatred towards other religions without actually understanding it. This is the same with lots of people in every religion. Muslims included.

If people are so blind that they can't see beyond their nose then no matter how much you try to explain and open their minds it will be closed.

Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in around 270 BC.
Thai Buddhism is greatly influenced by the Theravada class of Buddhism.
Buddhism started in India of course, but it didn't flourish much.
So Sri Lanka is now the leading country in certainly this class of Buddhism. China maybe the largest but officially communism has no religion.
Every full moon day( poya) is a holiday in Sri Lanka. Bodu Bala Sena is a very hardliner Buddhist organization and their chief has even been in jail for inciting riots against Muslims.
The same way there are extreme organizations in Muslim countries like Pakistan inciting riots against non Muslims. Of course India too along with Myanmar.
It's not unique to any particular religion. People need to understand that religion is personal and it's between the person and God.
I do agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow people to pray to whatever they want to. No one can force someone to believe in anything.
Saying Mohammed is a killer and Buddha was a peaceful man is being stupid. Closing one's mind and seeing what is in front of your nose is the quickest way to lose the human perspective on life and more importantly one's own salvation.

How is called a warlord who initiates unprovoked wars that kill thousands?

There is no hatred of the religion, it is calling a spade a spade. Secular Islam is perfectly okay, but secular Islam is not the Islam Muhammad taught. Jihad was not a fight within our mind to become better people, but was literally a call of arms against nonbelievers. fecking an underage woman was not a figure of speech - and it does not matter if she gave consent or not - neither it was marrying 11 women.

In a civilized country, if you feck a 8-9 years old, you go to jail, simple as that. A Muslim who wants to emulate Muhammad, would go to jail in today's modern societies. But maybe 8 was a figure of speech for 28 and it should not be taken literally, and it is me who cannot see what is in front of my nose.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

No one in their right mind said that a fecking eyeball just popped out of nowhere.

I said All that and that's what you say. Goddammit! . Also big bang maybe?

 

[Gehrman]

All that and that's what you say. Goddammit! . Also big bang maybe?

I for one welcome our eyeball overlords.

Kind of reminds of Sauron who was fecking badass.

 

[Revan]

All that and that's what you say. Goddammit! . Also big bang maybe?

Ok, I draw it for you. There is a perfectly credible theory that explains very well, where did the eye come from. There is such a mountain of evidence for it, that in science circles, it is as accepted as the theory of gravity. It is called 'the theory of evolution' btw, it probably won't harm you if you read something about it. At the very least, I would give it a try.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

Ok, I draw it for you. There is a perfectly credible theory that explains very well, where did the eye come from. There is such a mountain of evidence for it, that in science circles, it is as accepted as the theory of gravity. It is called 'the theory of evolution' btw, it probably won't harm you if you read something about it. At the very least, I would give it a try.

Ok calm down. I was joking.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I do believe in Heaven and Hell, I really hope it’s real. Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens. Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere. And Never seeing the people you’ve lost seems depressing as hell. but just for the sake of a conversation of the other side. Is that religion was put in to stop the world from killing itself and things being a thousand times worse for today. Even the “guilt” religion teaches you, feeling seems like an illusion because being bad is a feeling we were taught when we were young. The sins. if we knew there was no other side. Being sad when a relative dies seems pointless. We are never seeing that person every again, what would being sad even do for you. It should make us more colder as a person. We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. Otherwise, the world would be so different. There’s no sin, so there’s no evilness. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt. You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness. Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything. Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.

Leaving aside the spontaneous eyeball generation strangeness, something seeming pleasant does not make it true or vice versa not is morality based dependant on fear of punishment or hope of reward in an afterlife.

 

[Gehrman]

Ok, I draw it for you. There is a perfectly credible theory that explains very well, where did the eye come from. There is such a mountain of evidence for it, that in science circles, it is as accepted as the theory of gravity. It is called 'the theory of evolution' btw, it probably won't harm you if you read something about it. At the very least, I would give it a try.

I think Mrs. Garrison describes the theory of evolution quite nicely.

 

[Revan]

I think Mrs. Garrison describes the theory of evolution quite nicely.

 

[Foxbatt]

How is called a warlord who initiates unprovoked wars that kill thousands?

There is no hatred of the religion, it is calling a spade a spade. Secular Islam is perfectly okay, but secular Islam is not the Islam Muhammad taught. Jihad was not a fight within our mind to become better people, but was literally a call of arms against nonbelievers. fecking an underage woman was not a figure of speech - and it does not matter if she gave consent or not - neither it was marrying 11 women.

In a civilized country, if you feck a 8-9 years old, you go to jail, simple as that. A Muslim who wants to emulate Muhammad, would go to jail in today's modern societies. But maybe 8 was a figure of speech for 28 and it should not be taken literally, and it is me who cannot see what is in front of my nose.

If the cap suits you put it on.
Fighting against the Meccans who fight against is not being a Warlord.
Abu Bakr and Umar conquering lands is a different story. In that vein the Christians conquer countries in the name of Jesus. Does it make Jesus responsible for the deaths?
As for the age of marriage of Aisha, yes today he would have been jailed. But in those times, without birth certificate etc a woman is considered an adult when she reaches her puberty. Islam also states marriage is between two consulting adults.
It's much later the age issue has cropped up. It's because the Arabs wanted to keep the women down and for them to " marry" whom they want to marry.
Sadly in some countries it's economic and in others political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia talking about the age shows the tyranny of these countries rather than the essential nature of Islam.

 

[Revan]

If the cap suits you put it on.
Fighting against the Meccans who fight against is not being a Warlord.

But he initiated the war for Mecca though. When he was in Medina, everything was fine, the Meccans were not attacking him.

Abu Bakr and Umar conquering lands is a different story. In that vein the Christians conquer countries in the name of Jesus. Does it make Jesus responsible for the deaths?

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't those 2 guys, Muhammad's best friends? I think this is a pretty acceptable and non-controversial hadith:

Abu Bakr is in Paradise, ʿUmar is in Paradise, ʿUthman is in Paradise, ʿAli is in Paradise, Talhah is in Paradise, Az-Zubair is in Paradise, ʿAbdur-Rahman bin ʿAwf is in Paradise, Saʿd bin Abi Waqqas is in Paradise, Saʿeed is in Paradise, Abu ʿUbaidah bin Al-Jarrah is in Paradise.

See who is in the top of the list. Abu-Bakr (responsible for deaths of tens of thousands for the wars he did with Arabs, Persians and Romans), and Umar (continued the wars with the Persians and Romans). Sa'd personally lead the war against the Persians (and defeated them), where the Arabs were the aggressors.

Was Muhammad wrong to trust them (him being a peace-loving guy who fights less than them, but nevertheless fights)? How does people who initiate wars that kills tens of thousands are to be guaranteed paradise, and we should thank them every day we pray? Or maybe, we just ignore the hadith cause now it is a bit inconvenient.

As for the age of marriage of Aisha, yes today he would have been jailed. But in those times, without birth certificate etc a woman is considered an adult when she reaches her puberty. Islam also states marriage is between two consulting adults.

Sure, I grant you that. At that time, there was no problem. If only Muhammad claimed that he is the best person of his time only, and should be emulated only from the people of his time. But here comes the problem, he is venerated as the best person ever, and that he should be emulated from people in all time. Raise a beard cause Muhammad did so. Pray extra cause Muhammad did so. feck an underage girl, cause Muhammad did so. But this is inconvenient to do in secular countries, but I guess it is fine in countries who have sharia law.

 

[Gehrman]

If the cap suits you put it on.
Fighting against the Meccans who fight against is not being a Warlord.
Abu Bakr and Umar conquering lands is a different story. In that vein the Christians conquer countries in the name of Jesus. Does it make Jesus responsible for the deaths?
As for the age of marriage of Aisha, yes today he would have been jailed. But in those times, without birth certificate etc a woman is considered an adult when she reaches her puberty. Islam also states marriage is between two consulting adults.
It's much later the age issue has cropped up. It's because the Arabs wanted to keep the women down and for them to " marry" whom they want to marry.
Sadly in some countries it's economic and in others political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia talking about the age shows the tyranny of these countries rather than the essential nature of Islam.

Aisha was cheeky enough to equate muhammeds revelations to be completely in line with his own desires.

"Aisha from speaking her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!'"[64 "