text:
How sexual relations with multiple partners affect us? What are after effects of promiscuity?
I want to know how promiscuity affects us? How it binds? What are the after affects of making many sexual partners?

In his 1st sermon, the Lord Buddha taught:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving
  for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for
  extermination.

Therefore, the more sexual partners, which is interactions based on lust, the more suffering.
Buddhism teaches to relate to people with non-harming (ahimsa), loving-kindness (metta) & compassion (karuna). Therefore, there is absolutely no place in Buddhism for the recommendation or endorsement of sexual promiscuity, because sexual promiscuity is a behaviour (kamma) rooted in lust.
MN 9, which is about Right View, states:

And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed (lust) is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root
  of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

The Dhammapada states:

Verse 202: There is no fire like lust.

In Buddhism, if a person needs to have sex due to strong natural urges, a person should establish a relationship based on loving-kindness & compassion.
In the Pali suttas, there are no teachings about how to engage in sex because all of the teachings are about how husbands & wives should behave in the more important compassionate & loving ways. For example, in AN 4.55, it is taught when a husband & wife are complete with virtue & love towards each other, they will naturally enjoy whatever sexual pleasures they desire.
In conclusion, Buddhism describes the world of promiscuity as the 'animal world', as follows:

... the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. AN 2.9

Therefore, Buddhists that tell other people that sexual promiscuity is "OK" are teaching the path (magga) leading to animal birth (tiracchāna-yoni-gamanīyā), as follows:

And what is the cause of defilements? Ignorance is the cause of defilements.
And what is the diversity in defilements? There are defilements that lead to hell, those that lead to the animal womb (tiracchānayonigamanīyā), those that lead to
  the realm of the hungry shades, those that lead to the human world,
  those that lead to the world of the devas. This is called the
  diversity in defilements.
And what is the cause of kamma? Contact is the cause of kamma.
And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals (tiracchānayonivedanīyaṃ), kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.63

Please try to find more.

Generalisations can be made for men & women.

For men:
(i) difficulty remaining faithful in relationship due to habit of wanting other women on sight
(ii) loss of trust & being shunned in an ordinary community if becoming a habitual predator
(iii) always searching for a sex partner
(iv) unhappiness & loneliness when without a sex partner
(v) lack of virtuous development in how to care for people.
(vi) lack of morals to impart to any children
(vii) similar results to any addiction, as described in the Pali suttas, namely:

(ii) increase of quarrels,
(iii) susceptibility to disease,
(iv) earning an evil reputation,
(v) shameless exposure of body,
(vi) weakening of intellect.
(vii) he is ever thinking:
(a) where is there girls?
(b) where is there women?
(c) where is there porn?
(d) where is there sex?
(e) where is there young women?
(f) where is there mature women?
Sigalovada
Sutta
Note: points (vii)(a) to (f) are an adaptation

For women:
(i) loss of natural bonding instinct
(ii) however, often, no loss of reproductive instinct but loss of genuine love towards eventual marriage partner due to instinctual attachment to a former often first partner
(iii) loss of tolerance & strength needed to maintain a family
(iv) loss of ability to control a man (important in Matugama-samyutta)
(v) difficulty in maintaining marriage
(vi) major loss of instinctual wisdom & morality needed to bringing up children
(vii) become sexual needy & servile (rather than having natural self-control)
(viii) highly probably of needing anti-depressants when older
Pali Buddhism particularly focuses upon sexual impurity of women for such reasons. For example:

Dhammapada  242. Unchastity is the taint in a woman.

The Mātugāma Saṃyutta highlights the importance of morality in women.
In nature, the basic instincts towards moral expectations are mostly found in women. When women lose their moral compass, the world, including its men, become lost.
This is why Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama make many discrete statements about the importance of the role of women in creating a good world but few explain the truth about these matters. Most Buddhists are concerned with 'political correctness' & recruiting 'leftists' to Buddhism.

Since
women are more inclined to be compassionate, their role is more
important in creating a more peaceful society that the world aspires
to achieve," said Dalai Lama.

This is perfect answer from Point of view of Buddhism.

Is any of this answer a direct quote from the Sigalovada Sutta? Is "difficulty remaining faithful in relationship due to habit of wanting other women on sight" a quote, or (conversely) based your own experience?

Only the people in a marriage or in a relationship is covered by the third precept.
If you use your common sense it appears multiple partners could create a lot of health problems and psychological problems perhaps monetary problems.My personal opinion is it is not a good idea.

I want to know how promiscuity affects us?
It can be a good effect if one is honest with everyone involved (and they agree) and not doing it from greed. If you are breaking a contract (marriage or a monogamous relationship) then of course this will have a bad effect because you are lying and doing it through greed not natural love inclination.
Also, even if you are honest and everyone is OK and you are doing it from greed, from a strictly Buddhist point of view it is bad.
How it binds?
It does not bind... nothing has a binding effect except you yourself.
What are the after affects of making many sexual partners?
Possible STDs, complicated life, and also self-exhaustion and no transmutation of jing to chi of energies... lots of effects.

I personally don't care a hoot what religion says about sex. It has no place in my love life.  You only need to look to the rampant hypocrisy within Christianity/Catholicism to realise that the ones moralising about sex don't practice what they preach.   My view is enjoy it while you can but be cautious and stay as safe as possible. I've had countless casual encounters over my life and I don't regret any of them.


text:
Buddhism and misanthropy
Is it possible to be Buddhist and a misanthropist?  I've realised I actually despise humanity and sometimes I fantasise about the sun exploding  and wiping us all out. I believe that the majority of humans are undeserving of this life. So much stupidity and ignorance that I just cannot bear people most of the time. The other night my neighbours just decided to have a loud party on their balcony at 2:45 am. What kind of self centred stupid people would do that? The people in my apartment block are so lazy and dumb that they just dump their garbage in the recycling bins.  It's things like this that I see on a daily basis that lead me to despise people. I've tried and tried metta practice but I just don't feel like people deserve kindness. They're idiots, selfish iPhone addicted idiots. Especially people like Trump. He deserves nothing but suffering in my view.
Thanks for the answers but still not sure what I'm supposed to do. I just don't like most people and I can't tolerate them. I don't have friends because of this and I don't see my family because I can't stand them either. People are just insufferable. I can sit there till I'm blue in the face repeating rote metta phrases but it makes not a shred of difference. I don't feel any empathy or sympathy for a species of creatures who behave the way humans do. The Earth would be a much better place without us. Leave the animals to live in harmony instead of raping and pillaging the place for money. I'm sick of it. I don't feel any love for anyone. The USA has a narcissistic bigoted moron as its leader. What does that say about the people? It's says that half the USA are delusional idiots.

i credit your honesty and the sharp eyes to see through the cosmetics. don't blame yourself if you feel this way. Buddha used a metaphor described that we people are living in the burning house like kids playing happily inside the burning house unaware that's about to collapse in another minute in the Lotus Sutra. seeing the insanity of the world is in fact a hint that you are ready to seek for the doorway - the world appears due to ignorance (無明: means lack of light [to see what is true] thus taking the wrong as right). understand that all these people you don't like are kids - ignorant.

"The earth would be a much better place". Maybe the Earth isn't meant to be a better place. It is what it is, because people want it to be what it is. Maybe the goal isn't to change the Earth but to help who you can, to move to upper planes and ultimately reach nibbana. I suggest you reflect on the 31 planes of existence. In this way you can realize the Earth is just a part of a bigger hierarchy of (better / worse) planes and then let go of misanthropy.

Jocelyn, you don't know that. It's just your opinion and it's a very faith based one. I don't believe in so called "upper planes" or "nibanna". They are religious concepts and there is no proof of any of it just like in Christianity there is no proof of God or heaven.

Misanthropist? Then how it called to be a Buddhist? Buddhism is only kindness and humanity. So answer is no even literally.

It doesn't matter too much whether people are idiots or not - clinging to wishing wrongful things or hatred is what makes you suffer, and most likely, people around you. In the end the latter oftentimes results in things like mass murder shootings that end in suffering both for perpertrators and their families and victims and their families.

@Arturia There is proof for you but I won't see it. Proof doesn't necessarily exist outside the individual who sees the proof.

Is opinion and emotion news? How could anyone believe these news outlets or anyone who parrots their emotions and opinions? Especially people who are supposed to understand the dhamma. How is it,  to one who lives by the Dhamma,
acceptable for people to call the workers that the Dems abandoned "fascists"?  What is that? That isn't right and more people that understand the dhamma could at least denounce  "emotional opinions" as an acceptable form of news. Why are the admins accepting political stuff now? Ran out of topics?

Buddhists meet all the same problems as other beings. If not these problems, there would be no need in Buddhism.
So the question is: what do you have to do to solve them?
If our view on the world leans to aversion, it means our thoughts were focused mainly on unpleasant things.
To explain that Buddha used to speak about six realms of samsara:

Gods
Asuras (titans)
Humans
Animals
Hungry ghosts
Hell beings

Paying attention to faults, we gradually find so much hateful things around that they make our world to be hell.
That's because our mental processes involve "selective amplification", exaggeration of some details.
Likewise, if we develop greed and insatiable wish to have some things, our world becomes the world of hungry spirits, and so on.
The same river is seen

by gods as healing nectar of pleasure,
by humans as water,
by hungry ghosts as pus and blood,
by hell beings as torturing flames.

So in order to heal our world ultimately, we have to drop amplifications and discover the world in its original form. There's always something to cry about, and there's always something to laugh about.
If you imagine how many possible thoughts and attitudes are there, imagine yourself as one with all that space,
then you might find that all the possible mass of thoughts and attitudes have silenced, and your attention is free for this here-and-now.
Be free right here, not captured by attachments to particular ideas and views.
Also to balance our perception we can pay more attention to positive qualities of people.

Pay attention when they do kind, virtuous things,
dedicate merit
and rejoice.

The practice of joy for good qualities of others is one of the most powerful spiritual practices, especially helpful in your case. We can practice it even in dreams!

Excellent response!
A raw percept is beyond all conceptions, beyond all words. On the other  hand, what one thinks one perceives is entirely one's own projection.

@Rafael_Espericueta, interesting point. But why "entirely one's own projection"? Isn't this phrase based on the idea of absolute division between "own" and "others"?

True, in reality there is no division, but  thought creates the illusion of one. As soon as thought arises, duality co-arises, so I was speaking from this illusory point of view. I used the phrase "entirely one's own projection" in an attempt to  convey that what seemed to be an observation "out there" was actually not "out there" in an absolute sense.  The questioner seemed to really believe that the yuck he was observing was "out there" - so I countered that it really was coming from within (perhaps just my unskillful attempt at skillful means!).   ;-)

The picture above is the final plate in the series of Zen ox herding pictures.  The entire series is a visual depiction of the Buddhist path.  It charts the progress from a neophyte just trying to calm his his mind all the way to the highest, Bodhisattva ideal.  It is of paramount importance and distinctly Buddhist that the series does not end with deep meditative absorption, mystical experiences of oneness, or even the bliss of nirvana.  The highest purpose of undertaking Buddhist training is to eventually return to the marketplace - the world of red dust - with bliss bestowing hands.  Everyone is deserving of the Bodhisattva's compassion and wisdom. - the people blasting music at 3AM, those who can't bother recycling, Donald Trump...everybody.
I have a hard time believing that you weren't already aware of this.  What you may not have experienced before is just how hard Buddhist practice can be.  We all eventually reach a point in our practice when the full scope of the dharma becomes evident.  In that moment, the sheer immensity of it leaves us paralyzed.  Fulfulling what we started seems nothing short of impossible.  And maybe it is. Let me assure you, however, that it does get easier.  While you may never reach a point where your compassion is perfect, bit by bit, it will become much easier to manage and understand the ignorant behaviors of others.  But you have try.

"The highest purpose of undertaking Buddhist training is to eventually return to the marketplace - the world of red dust - with bliss bestowing hands. Everyone is deserving of the Bodhisattva's compassion and wisdom." +1. this is true liberation, no need to hide in somewhere a nibbana to avoid or escape from anything.

It might be nice to add to the answer a hyperlink or reference to the Ten Bulls, in case someone doesn't know what you're referring to.

It's possible to be a Buddhist who is striving not to be overcome by misanthropic thoughts. Misanthropy is a product of aversion. Thinking to destroy human kind or wishing harm to even one person is simply hate.
If Metta meditation fails, try to see the world in terms of momentary experiences, not in terms of entities or individuals.

One of the primary purposes of Buddhism is to avoid misanthropic thoughts. While you can call yourself Buddhist and not follow some or many of its teachings, you should remember that you have thoughts and feelings that is in conflict with your belief system. It's akin to saying I am a Christian but I want to kill innocent people. While you're still technically considered a Christian, you are advocating for something that directly opposes one of the ten commandments of Christianity. But if you're talking about trying to be a true Buddhist, then misanthropy is a big no.  I hope I answered your question.

As far as I'm aware your not meant to "avoid" anything. That would be aversion.  Instead you're meant to "see things as they are" or "see reality". In which case misanthropy is arising but it's not self. It's just thoughts and feelings arising and passing.

This mistaken teaching about "seeing things as they are" is outright dangerous. You should not see pathological thoughts as they are, you should make an effort to eradicate them. See The Right Four Efforts.

The Buddha also thought most people are idiots, as follows:

The thought occurred to me: 'When brahmans or contemplatives who are drooling idiots resort to... their drooling idiocy. But it's not the
  case that I am a drooling idiot...'
MN 4

However, this does not mean he dwelt in hatred, aversion & cruelty (lack of compassion). Instead, he used this reality of ignorance for enlightenment.

58. Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
59. Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.
Dhammapada

Buddhism explains the entire social world (loka) is a product of 'ignorance' (via dependent origination). There is nothing controversial about this reality. It is generally those who believe in a Creator God (that created man in his image) who expect more from the natural idiocy & ignorance of the world.

Is it possible to be Buddhist and a misanthropist?
Yes. It's even expected, that Buddhists will (at least sometimes) be conceited.
There's quite a tradition too, of solitary ascetics, who live away from normal society.
Especially people like Trump. He deserves nothing but suffering in my view.
Well maybe you're viewing more of him, getting more views of him, than is good for you.
There are other things, other people to think about.
Maybe the attitude to aspire to isn't metta but upekkha ... or sense-restraint, i.e. avoid contact with sense-input that reminds you of that view of Trump; or treat him as a model of what not to do, and resolve to do better than you think he has done.
I just don't like most people and I can't tolerate them. I dont have friends because of this and I don't see my family because I can't stand them either. People are just insufferable.
Well, if that's a problem then I hope you find a solution.
Buddhism talks about spiritual friends. And, about good and bad social friends.
I don't remember a scripture that talks about how to find or make good friends socially; so here's from experience, for what that's worth:
if there's any activity you like, maybe do that socially. Join a club, or join a class. They'll be doing something (an activity) you approve of. You don't have to (though you might) socialize with them outside the scope/time of that activity. There may be some variety of people participating (young adults, retirees), so you'll meet people who you wouldn't normally.
If you meet anyone you like, they may have a social life -- friends of theirs, who you might meet through them. Perhaps your music teacher has a group of people who help refugees, or etc.
Leave the animals to live in harmony instead of raping and pillaging the place for money. I'm sick of it.
There's some conflict between animals too; even within one species, competition for territory.

Yes animals have conflict but they don't have rational intelligence so they operate entirely on instincts. Humans know better yet still behave like violent wild animals.

Tame animals (dogs) can be well-behaved and cooperative ... friendly.

What a balanced and fair answer. Thanks...I guess I'm taking this too personally but whatever. @ChrisW

By the numbers...

Have compassion for the people you see around you. They do not understand the nature of the world, and act out of ignorance. There's no need to like their ignorance, but we can acknowledge that ignorance is ignorance: a flaw of understanding, not a flaw of character.
If you cannot have compassion for others, have compassion for yourself. The lack of compassion for others merely means that you have not yet fully understood the nature of the world, and are acting out of ignorance. There's no need to like your own ignorance, but acknowledge that ignorance is ignorance: a flaw of understanding, not a flaw of character.
If you cannot have compassion for yourself... Well, that is what creates a misanthrope. It has nothing to do with others, except as they are reflected in the distorted mirror of your perception. It is (again) another form of ignorance: a flaw of understanding, not a flaw of character.

Noisy neighbors, people who don't recycle, iPhoniacs, even the dreadful and dreaded Trump monster... All these people are celebrating life while mired in ignorance (sometimes mired in a great, fetid cesspools of ignorance, granted, but still...). To find compassion, first acknowledge that celebration; then the mire will seem more pitiful than odious.

Your question first describes the things you are adverse to, the way people act.  Then it is followed by the way you craving it “should” be.  The result of all of this is driving you crazy with suffering.
If you want to use Buddhist practice to get out of your present predicament you will have to go back to the basics.  The universe has presented you with a preponderance of instructors in the form of things you are adverse to and also things you are clinging to or craving.
In the Buddhist teachings of the Four Noble Truths, we first learn about things that will cause you to suffer.  These are feelings of craving and also aversion, in this impermanent world in which we find ourselves.  We want things to go our way, line up with our beliefs, in a permanent way, and to stop being the way they are in reality.  We will go on suffering until we understand what reality or the Dharma is.
We cling to our opinions and beliefs, refusing to let go.   It is “clinging and aversion” which are the same thing, that cause you to suffer.  We are trying to alter the Dharma or reality in a way that can’t be done.  This is the first great teaching of the Buddha.
The people dumping trash into the recycling bin are teaching you reality.  Also, the idiotic person acting the fool. is also teaching you about the Dharma.  Look to yourself to see how you are clinging to the belief that they shouldn’t be doing that.  That “belief” is causing you to suffer.  Every time you find yourself suffering, look inside and find the belief that is causing it.  See how you are swimming upstream into the logs that are flowing down.  The natural state of a human is peace. It is attained by surrendering to the Dharma or the way things are.
When it finally comes your day to die, you will take you suffering with you.  And to the degree that you have disentangled yourself from clinging to your beliefs, knowing that is the Dharma, you will  take that peace and happiness with you in the same way.
This isn’t to say that you don’t act out your beliefs.  You might instruct those about your beliefs, but you don’t put any weight on whether it is accepted or rejected.  Remember that those people are YOUR teachers, not the other way around.  Be grateful that they are giving you insight into the way that you are fighting with reality.  Remember, it is meaningless if it is done you way or not.
If it makes so much difference, you might surrender and sort through the trash from the recycling yourself to set an example.  This would also be a way for you to understand your ego more fully, and the way it gets in the way of seeing things as they are.  It’s up to you.
Also, remember this is your life time to throw off all the things that are preventing you from seeing the Dharma.  It doesn’t involve anyone else.  It’s your job to take the cues from the universe that will speed you along, including this letter.  This is your personal struggle.  It will become more clear with daily breath meditation.   You’re in the right place.  Go back and review the Four Noble Truths.

I think that being so jaded and cynical about life and people is what brought me to Buddhism in the first place.  I have felt so let down and hurt by people my whole life. My childhood and adolescence was traumatising with a combination of bullying at school and abuse at home.  So I grew up with a view of the world that people can't be trusted and will disappoint me in the end. Everywhere I look in life I see evidence of this.  Aside from that I think our society is so self centred these days, more so than it used to be.  I'm trying to see things differently but It's very hard

Out of your “grand disillusionment” will emerge an epiphany or a moment of revelation and insight that will guide you on.  You have been blessed with so much pain, and yet you don’t realize it yet.  Growth ONLY comes via pain.  Wallow in it, until the insight comes.  This pain is a gift.  It’s to show you that the material world is just an illusion.  You can’t find peace and true rest going outside.  Turn in, and wait.  Do you see it?

I one would try to kill all his enemies, even having the best weapons, he would probably not finish his undertaking before dying himself. But if one whould kill ones own anger, the world whould suddenly be void of them.
So what of both seems to be easier and more realistic be achived?
Maybe worthy to consider so to become not just ugly and what whould matter to one at least, run it's or one own ways.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Try to forget the Metta practice for a minute and instead think about all the good people in this world. All people on earth can't be bad, right?
What about the monks giving teachings to lay people? What about all the meditators in the world, trying to free themselves from suffering?
These are people who are trying free themselves from this Samsara. These are the lights in this world. Practicing the Dhamma with wholesome intentions is the highest practice anyone can do.
Maybe you could give that recollection a try and see if it helps you.

Yes one on one I do like some people but as a whole humanity are pathetic greedy selfish  idiots and are ruining this earth for all its creatures. Even when I went on retreat some of the people there I hated. They were like spiritual egotists.

Where should the work be done - on humanity/the world or on the unwholesome root of aversion, arising in you?

From what I understand, you have some strong, negative emotions. Your mind, trying to be your friend, points outside when looking for the sources of your problems.
But think about it – if you were to go live in the forest by yourself, wouldn’t you find, at some point, the chirping of some bird a little bit too loud, or too often or just too annoying? Or think about the time when you were soooo in love with somebody that you found all her/his annoying habits so endearing, only to wake up to reality when love subsided a little… Were you happy and at peace with humankind  when you had a different president/different and more considerate neighbours?
The fact that you are looking for a solution to your problems means that you want some peace for yourself = you care about one human being. And that’s pretty much what it takes to not be a misanthrope.
Try not to put a label on all the other people – look for individuals and particular problems, it might seem easier to deal with. You don’t have to care so much about other people. Start with yourself. Care about yourself enough to pass by life’s difficulties having your wellness and peace in mind. Buddhism and meditation might help you. Just care about yourself.
May you find peace and happiness! Be well!

Look mate if you've got a problem with your neighbors being idiots tell them to swivel mate no amounts of meditation will make them change it might change you but selfish people is a constant in this world that's the division between good and bad and has no perspective it's difinative Buddhism is probably the right nature of things but in a practical situation like that action should overeaway reaction. I hate people too but ironically I'm altruistic that's my nature I will go out of my way to help a stranger without benefit to me if the rest of man did the same we wouldn't have the problems we do but people are selfish mate and are programmed to be so, sentience is a dismissal of that programming and enlightenment is selflessness. Unfortunately theres a minority of people with it

You are angry because they annoy you with a loud noise?  I think you're delusional, you should be grateful that they didn't break your leg or pour boiling oil on you.  Who told you that man is a tame animal, that men love one another?
Actually, those people you hate and are averse to are very kind, but you-you fantasize to burn all humanity, that is extreme wickedness? So with such wicked mind, full of resentment, you are blinded, you don't know what you can and can't do.
Stop faultfinding and work on yourself!

I think you are one of the most sincere, honest frequent visitors on this website.
Closest word to "Buddhist" in pali is "savaka" or listener, follower, practitioner of alike teacher,  etc.  Buddha said Dhamma that makes one a follower of his teaching is keeping 5 precepts.  as long as you have your 5 precepts, you are a Buddhist.
Have you tried not adding stories in your head with things that come into contact with you?.  I personally learned that all mental troubles come from adding stories to them.  you meditate for awhile, you know mind pops up here and there and there is something that keeps it away from focusing on breathing on new subject.  Like bills come up, and you think about how to pay, if there was a mistake on the bills, etc.  let go and not to add story to it and go back to focusing your attention on breathing.  That's what practice in meditation is for.  Let go of other things that pop up.  not easy.  you may ask, "then what's the different between sticking your head in the sand?"  that maybe so (if you want to super strawman it), but you will gain something of a greater prize.  An ability to let go. that's what practice in meditation is for, learning not to add story and let go.  When you see garbage in recycle bin, dont think of any stories .."look at these people dont know how to be civilized.  bet they were born in the jungle etc... " .  you know what is the best mental stories to let go for me? things that happens in my past that were bad or things I regret.  Let me know.

One of the major requirements for achieving Nirbana is that WE ALL must achieve Nirbana. In other words; Nirbana is not a select club for those who "made it".
Nirbana is a place of perfect peace and happiness and that cannot be achieved as long as there is anyone still suffering!
Here is a very enlightening (no pun intended) article that will hopefully shed some light (the conclusion of the article may give you your answer):
http://whatculture.com/offbeat/20-problems-only-total-misanthropes-will-understand

Buddhism leads us to "See the world from above". The path of mindfulness/meditation is about disidentification and purification. Disidentification, purification and the unconditional love that comes as a result of these two things don't requires "liking".
Ven. Yuttadhammo's teachings and explanations that is related to this subject can be helpful:
Dhammapada Verse 28: Seeing The World From Above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLEB3QY0H9A
Above the World: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0rPVRw5Db0

"People" is just a general concept. It's a word only useful to name a group of humans. But you cannot said anything about the qualities of such humans.
Think about the word "homosexual". What can you assume without any risk of being wrong about someone recognized as 'homosexual'? Can you say that they are more "femenine" in traits than heterosexual people? Can you say that they all like "femenine" colors? Can you say that they all have the same kind of mannerisms and ways of talking?
No, you cannot, because the only thing you can know for sure is that they feel sexually attracted to people of their same sex.
Maybe, a certain group of people may statistically, in average, share some features. For instance, vegans may be in average thinner than most other groups of eaters (which I'm not sure to be true, but it is just an example).
So, it is a fallacy to assume that "humanity" is X or Y.
Humans are diverse. If you are depressed, the world seems darker than it really is. If you are overconfident and unrealistically optimistic, the world may seem more peaceful and safe than what it really is. Ignorance rises due to this kind of views and generalizations. And precisely, the buddhist training tries to make us free from such views, by analysing our daily experience in an unbiased manner.
Have a wonderful day!

Any form of Wrong View, which you've been attached to for some time, probably cannot be eliminated immediately; but the first step, as they say, is admitting you have a problem.  The "answer" to misanthropy is to consider how it causes you misery, how it causes you pain, how it impairs your judgment, depletes your energy, and erases your potential.  You are the person most affected by your Wrong View.
Even if you were to act upon misanthropic impulses by committing murder -- even mass murder -- the people thus affected would only be suffering at the moment of their deaths.  Whereas you would have been stewing-upon your miserable qualities beforehand, while premeditating the act, while carrying it out, and while facing the consequences following.  Imagine yourself under questioning by the authorities.  Imagine yourself asked about your motives, and you answer by complaining about noise, pollution, bloviating politicians on TV, strangers who don't smile when greeted, minor inconveniences that everybody encounters and deals with.
Imagine yourself handcuffed, in the police cell, harshly questioned by a strict but reasonable man who would much rather be at home, eating dinner with his family.  Would you answer honestly?  Could you look him in the eye?  Would you feel pride in your act?  Or shame, rather?
Buddhism is the psychology of happiness.  Would you be happy if you acted upon aversion towards living beings?  I think you would not.
Why is it that other people can coexists with the inconveniences of civilization, and still find love, succeed academically and professionally, have hobbies and artistic projects and so forth?
Understand that you are suffering.  The misanthropic Wrong View is your suffering.  This is the First of the Four Noble Truths.
The Buddha taught that he had been with the gods in paradise; that anybody else who wishes  to see the gods in paradise gets there by practicing the Four Divine Qualities: lovingkindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity.  These are non-negotiable, fundamental traits of the Buddhist mindset; agreeing that these traits are Buddhist (and the opposite traits non-Buddhist) is the first step of the Eightfold Path; this is Right View.  The desire to attain these for oneself is the second step of the Eightfold Path:  Right Intention.  The full attainment of these are the Seventh and Eighth of the Eightfold Path.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How does Ajita Kesakambali compare to the Buddha?
DN 2 states:

When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
  fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
  other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
  brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
  proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and
  realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
  elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
  the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
  the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
  external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
  external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
  men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
  sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
  pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
  idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
  false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
  foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
  death.'

Ajita Kesakambali is similar to another wrong view, found in DN 1, namely:

Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
  being.

Now the Buddha taught extensively about the elements, such as in MN 115 & MN 140.
Or in MN 43, Sariputta mentions how the sense faculties are scattered at the termination of life, as follows:

Yvāyaṃ, āvuso, mato kālaṅkato tassa kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhāniruddha paṭippassaddhā, cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā
  paṭippassaddhā, āyu parikkhīṇo, usmā vūpasantā, indriyāni
  paribhinnāni.
In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications
  ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is
  exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered.

How do the teachings of Ajita Kesakambali & other annihilationists compare to those of the Buddha? What makes them different?

In SN 22.85, it is taught the five aggregates of an Arahant cease & are destroyed at the ending of life. This is right view in SN 22.85.
But, SN 22.85 also says it is wrong view to believe an Arahant is annihilated at death. This is as wrong view because 'annihilation' and 'death' ('marana') only happen to a 'self' or to 'a being'.
For example, SN 12.2 does not define 'death' ('marana') as the ending of life. SN 12.2 defines 'death' ('marana') as the ending of the life of "a being" ("satta"). SN 5.10 and SN 23.2 define "a being" is merely "a view" of "attachment".
In summary, the word "marana", which has the same root as Satan or Mara, is a "self-view". It is the belief a "self dies".

Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
being.
DN 1

The above view of annihilationism is different to the Buddha because:

It believes as "self" ('atta') or "a being" ('satta') will be annihilated.

It believes in a 'self' that is impermanent where as the Buddha taught there is no real self and the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, the above view, the same as the Buddha, believes in impermanence.

However, it differs from the Buddha because it believes a 'self' is impermanent.

Buddha taught the aggregates are impermanent and there is no self in the aggregates.

When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and
realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
death.'
DN 2

The above view (which was reported by King Ajatasattu) is different from the Buddha because:

It does not have a fruit or Nibbana visible here-&-now, as literally stated in DN 2:

...when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here
and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with annihilation.

Therefore, the view of Ajita Kesakambalin:

Does not differ from the Buddha because it does not believe in 'eternalism' or 'reincarnation'.

It differs from the Buddha because Ajita Kesakambalin did not realise a spiritual fruit, such as Nibbana, in the here-&-now.

Similarly, the answers on this thread that have not mentioned The Fruits of the Contemplative Life in the here-&-now have a similar view as Ajita Kesakambalin.

Ajita Kesakambalin was an annihilationist. Ajita Kesakambalin believed a 'self' ends at 'death'.

Most of the other answers on this question are eternalist.

Both eternalism & annihilationism are reprehensible & wrong views in Buddhism.

Any negative scores to this answers must be by those without sufficient faith to realise Nibbana in the here-&-now.

...............

In the first Paragraph the word 'self' is used in  a conventional sense. It merely refers to the being/Nama-rupa. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is why it is important to have a proper teacher to interpret the Suttas. If everything ends after death, why do you even need to work hard attain Nibbana? Why not just commit suicide when things get tough?  :)

No. Since the teaching in the 1st paragraph is not the teaching of the Buddha, how could it use conventional language, which is used by Buddhas. You are not making sense again.

It's the Buddha who is mentioning the assertions of Brahmins. Who said it is the teachings of the Buddha? Don't get so confused!

Yes. And the assertions of the Brahmans include their belief in self. I am smashing you in debate. LOL.

If ever there's an example for stroking one's own ego :)
Brahmins do have a belief in self, but it is the Buddha who mentions it to the monks. So within the Buddhist context we should take it as Nama-rupa.
How does this prove that everything ends at death ?

@Dhammadhatu Sir, the "death" or "marana" you're referring doesn't have the meaning, "self-dies". The correct definition is; it's the cessation of jivitendriya-rupa stream. Why it will cease? Because no longer the causes won't be able make their effect (jivitendriya-rupa). But there are many other causes. By considering the way the stream of jivitendriya-rupa ceases, the "death" is categorized as "Ayukkhaya marana", "Kammakkhaya marana", "Ubhayakkhaya marana", and "Upaccheda marana". How could someone consider this cessation of the stream of jivitendriya-rupa as "Self-dies"?

@Dhammadhatu Sir, If someone think it as "self-dies" that kind of thought falls under 20 types of sakkhaya ditthi (Take rupa as self).

It doesn't ,matter what is posted when the mind has not comprehended the dhamma of noble realisation. It is pointless to post about sakkhaya ditthi when one's entire conception of Dhamma is itself sakkhaya ditthi . The doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin is sakkhaya ditthi where as the Buddha's doctrine of impermanence is not sakkhaya ditthi. This is the difference.

his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided

This refers to the mental activity in this body. It doesn't mean that there's no next life after death, unless we are talking about an Arahanth. This is why having a good teacher is important. If someone with materialistic views try to interpret this sutta by himself, he might conclude that it all ends after death.

materialist=kamacchando, kamavacaro

@Dhammadhatu Uccheda Ditthi is the materialistic view i'm talking about here.
Also you can call whatever it is that you teach  as "your name"+"ism". But not Buddhism. :)

The belief that rebirth is physical is materialism. You are making no sense at all. The Buddha never used the word 'materialism'. This shows your view is not even Buddhist. I will provide the correct Buddhist answer, soon. But, due to your materialism of believing in physical rebirth, you probably will not understand it.

Belief in reincarnation =kamacchando, kamavacaro. Lust for new life. Your comment is illogical.

Lust/craving for new life is Bhava Tanha. You seem to have a talent for misinterpretation. Why not start a new site for your religion? something like http://kesakambalism.stackexchange.com  ;)

Rebirth is both mental and physical. Hence the term 'Namarupa'. Did you ever study Buddhism under any Theravada teacher or are you just reading the suttas and thinking up meanings that fit with your prejudices?

You show post questions on the forum & I will answer them as a teacher because your comments do not make sense.

But I do not follow your religion. I follow Buddhism. :)

Rebirth is possible in logic. Buddha and pali canon never denied the possible reason. Because people, who denied  the possible reason, have wrong view. Buddha taught to get every profit, not just current profit.

That quote from Ajita Kesakambalin is very similar to what Buddha taught, especially if we view his "no this, no that" as pointing that those things are selfless, devoid of substance.
The difference is that Buddha looked in wider context, not limited by the scope of the ordinary observation. For example, if something has ended as material thing, it doesn't mean its influence ended; likewise, personal human life doesn't end in borders of the living body neither spatially nor temporally. Life of the Buddha and its influence until today all over the world is an example of that. Therefore, limits of seeing "one life" are illusory, and so Buddha spoke of other lives etc. - beyond the illusory limits of ordinary consciousness.

Perfect right view of buddha is:
There are fruits, and effects of good or bad actions, causes (paṭiccasamuppada and paṭiccasamuppanna). Elements such as 89 consciousnesses, 52 mind factors, and 28 matters, are causes and effects of each others. And one effect is arised by causes, so if when causes will change to be impossible to make that effect arise, that effect follow vanish or impossible to be, to arise, too (anicca dukkha anatta).
But the other teachers have not perfect right view like the buddha. Such as ajitakesakambala's view that his elements, causes,  have not their effects, fruits and results.
I am sorry. I write this answer on mobile phone. So it maybe not too perfect.

The Buddha's teachings are different from what Ajita Kesakambali taught.
The Buddha realized this (from MN 19):

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth,
  two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand,
  many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many
  eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name,
  belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food,
  such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a
  name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my
  food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my
  manifold past lives in their modes & details. .....
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &
  reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &
  surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I
  discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly,
  fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings
  — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who
  reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under
  the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after
  death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  the Noble Ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'
  Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I
  saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma.

The Buddha taught his followers to reflect in this way (from AN 5.57):

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
  owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
  origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
  the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
  that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
  their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
  kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
  whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
  this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
  and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
  and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

From SN 12.19:

“Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving, this body has originated. For the fool that ignorance has not
  been abandoned and that craving has not been utterly destroyed. For
  what reason? Because the fool has not lived the holy life for the
  complete destruction of suffering. Therefore, with the breakup of the
  body, the fool fares on to another body. Faring on to another body, he
  is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering,
  I say.

From SN 44.9:

“And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not
  yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be
  its fuel on that occasion?”
“When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been
  reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For
  on that occasion craving is its fuel.”

Also, please note that the term "kāya" has been used in the sense of physical body for example in SN 22.56 (although I know that it can be used to mean group or collection, when combined with other things):

eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousness.
cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, sotaviññāṇaṃ,ghānaviññāṇaṃ, jivhāviññāṇaṃ, kāyaviññāṇaṃ, manoviññāṇaṃ

Pali words for body apart from "kāya" has been used in this context, for example "sarira" in Dhammapada 400:

Akkodhanam vatavantam
  silavantam anussadam
  dantam antimasariram1
  tamaham brumi brahmanam
Verse 400: Him I call a brahmana, who is free from anger, who
  practises austerity, who is virtuous and free from craving, who is
  controlled in his senses and for whom this body (i.e., existence) is
  the very last.
Footnote 1. antimasariram: lit., one who has the last body. This is
  his last body because he will not be reborn; he is an arahat.

From SN 15.3:

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The
  tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the
  death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
  the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
  regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
  shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

Also, please note that since some people do not accept the Digha Nikaya as genuine teachings of the Buddha (please see this question), I have quoted from all the other nikayas instead. Dhammapada is part of KN.

Reading the first quote in the OP, it seems to me that Ajita Kesakambalin is teaching that there's no continuation into the hereafter ... no after-life, no heaven (and therefore no reason for generosity, if e.g. the reason for generosity is to earn as reward an after-life in heaven). It's difficult for me to see/understand how a belief in "annihilation" (at death) could cause him to also say there is no "this life" (as well as "there is no next life"). Perhaps it's an (imperfect) attempt to teach the great king about emptiness, and about not attaching to results.
Conversely the Buddhist Dhamma is meant to be akaliko e.g. pertaining to the here-and-now ... intentions and actions are consequential in this life.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Doubt and Criticism
I have pondered about the buddhist teaching a little bit and I came to a point where doubt arose in me. It is probably because of my skeptical nature (which the Buddha endorsed).
So here are certain points that needs to be elaborated upon. There are probably more, but maybe experienced practitioners can help to shed some lights on my criticism, but I doubt they can, unless with good arguments (as always)
Critique Buddhism:

Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood) Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy, self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry, disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less intense and consequently  give one more room to act and think rational.
People don't learn to act assertively both in speech and deeds
Unrealistic goals:  "purifying the mind" -> Being always good. No bad tendencies.
Buddha is seen as all perfect
Was the Buddha really enlightened? Evidence? l
Ethics are "too rigid". They might be optional, but trying to be kind all the time will not happed, since humans tend to be fallible
Sensual desire. Dropping of sensual desires? No sex? Quite inhumane. See pt. 3
8.While anicca is/might be true, impermanence shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid wealth or pleasure. Everything is transient but to have the experience is still better, for one has a life to experience it (imo)
Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body)
Buddhism isn't wholly tolerant. Look up all the rules bhikkus and especiall bhikkunis have to undertake. Btw, bhikkunis have much more rules to follow. That's sexist and completely contrary to his loving-kindness doctrine(s).
Anger or frustration is seen as all bad when they can, perhaps rarely, have benefits, especially the latter emotion. It drives one to act differently to change certain situations and it displays that certain conditions are contrary to our liking which is human. Why? Because we all have preferences (like/dislike)
Black and white thinking in the satipatthanna sutta: If one is mindful one is  "alive" if one is not "one is like a corpse". No gray zone there. "This path is the only path to liberation" (all or nothing thinking).
Absolute thinking: Nirvana. Endless, permanent and absolute absence of dukkha. But all or never conditions are rarely true.
The end goal (in this case: Nirvana/Enlightenment) that makes every religion worth striving .Similar to heaven (and avoiding hell). But where really is the evidence?
Economic effects of not killing animals or not working in butchery etc. (Right livelyhood, Precepts..)
Not killing pesky insects?
According to the Buddha the superior live is to be a monk. How will society run if no one is working and rather wants to go for alms?
Meditation and/or mindfulness is seen as a panacea. While it has benefits this won't change underlying faulty cognitions (i.e. beliefs, schemas, thoughts) and it can easily be used as a "run away tool".
Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature!
It doesnt teach you how to deal with negative thoughts. It just says observe it or replace it with an opposite. But this rarely works long term! One needs to question the old, to see its irrationalities, that it's illogical and not helpful, and then to replace it with a positive but realistic (that is balanced) new belief which is -again- conform with empirical evidence which helps the practitioner in the long run.
Doesnt teach you with other life obstacles that cause the "holy suffering" like divorcing, social problems, money problems etc.. The buddha taught the cessation of dukkha and if these basics arent met, how is buddhism going to work then?
How can delusion be a "poison" ? We humans have cognitive distortions on a daily basis. It's a constant in human experience. It's literally wired in our brain to think both rational and irrational and both can be trained individually, in society and is also to an extent biologically determined.

This is a lot to tackle in one answer. Can you write individual, scoped questions for each of the doubts you have that you want answers for? You might be able to pack questions in the same theme in one question as well, so you don't write 21 new questions, if you don't want to. As for the criticisms / the things you don''t like (such as 18), it's not clear what you are expecting from publishing them here -- if it's clarification, perhaps you can elaborate what kind of information you are looking for.

Okay. Question 2-14 can be questioned if that's "sufficient".

All of those are perfectly valid and important questions, but I agree, that is way too much for one post.  I think breaking each of those up into their own question would get you better responses.

I gave a thumbs up for your question. I used to ask similar questions in the past but now I have the answers to them. I think it is better if you ask one question at a time.

Yes it's a lot, but they are all under the class of critique. I'm just answering some of them  now and some latter.

Indeed. I read your thoughtful and interesting post until the end but to answer all 21 of these theses you have nailed to this door is no small task.

I'll try to give some quick pointers for each of the items. Like I suggested in a comment, you might be able to get more in depth answers (and more answers) if you post questions on their own.

Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood) Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy, self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry, disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less intense and consequently  give one more room to act and think rational.

Dukkha is highly misinterpreted, see here for a summary of this subject from the pali canon. It's also not true that the Buddha taught exclusively to all people that they should abandon worldly pleasures (e.g. there are texts describing him teaching people how to be good husband and wives, instead of telling them to divorce, abandon sex and become monk/nun).

Was the Buddha really enlightened? Evidence?

The Dharma is the evidence for buddhists, the texts are the evidence for historians (note, evidence ≠ proof). If historians find it almost impossible to prove past events, proving something like the attainment of Nirvana by a person who lived 2500 years ago is certainly not easier -- so there's no proof for the skeptics.
His attainment is taken by buddhists as an act of faith. Such faith is understood to be, with training, gradually substituted by knowledge, exactly as it happens in any teacher/student relationship.

Ethics are "too rigid". They might be optional, but trying to be kind all the time will not happed, since humans tend to be fallible

Being fallible is not forbidden. Buddhist ethics are not commandments.

Sensual desire. Dropping of sensual desires? No sex? Quite inhumane.

See 1 for what Nirvana is and why sensual desires can never lead to Nirvana.

8.While anicca is/might be true, impermanence shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid wealth or pleasure. Everything is transient but to have the experience is still better, for one has a life to experience it (imo)

See 1 for what Nirvana is and why it can't be found in worldly pleasures.

Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body)

See 1 for what Nirvana is and why it can't be found in the body or in sex.

Buddhism isn't wholly tolerant. Look up all the rules bhikkus and especiall bhikkunis have to undertake. Btw, bhikkunis have much more rules to follow. That's sexist and completely contrary to his loving-kindness doctrine(s).

Tolerance ≠ absence of rules or guidelines. The buddhist doctrine instructs to be tolerant against other people's transgressions. The meaning of tolerance does not extend to do whatever one pleases.
Furthermore, the rules the monastics undertake are a choice. Also, the role of such rules is of enabling the buddhist practice and make progress easier. Just like athletes choose to undertake a strict diet, to enable their practice and make their progress easier -- that does not make them intolerant people.
I'm not super familiar with the distinctions of vinaya for male and female monastics, but still, the rules are not mechanisms of oppressing people. Part is to enable people subject to mistakes who have a shared goal in mind to live together for a long time without killing each other, and part is to make their practice easier.

Anger or frustration is seen as all bad when they can, perhaps rarely, have benefits, especially the latter emotion. It drives one to act differently to change certain situations and it displays that certain conditions are contrary to our liking which is human. Why? Because we all have preferences (like/dislike)

Anything, even something terrible as the holocaust, can be seen as having "positive benefits" by someone with imagination. However, benefits interpreted a posteriori are not the point. The point is that the characteristic of anger is that of disturbing, obstructing and weakening the very faculty of discernment.
One may argue that that is not always the case. In analogy, a frequent unhealthy diet may also not be an obstruction to someone who needs to lift some boxes every other day. But it will be a severe obstruction if one is a weight lifting athlete.

Black and white thinking in the satipatthanna sutta: If one is mindful one is  "alive" if one is not "one is like a corpse". No gray zone there. "This path is the only path to liberation" (all or nothing thinking).

I'm not sure how you came to this interpretation of that sutta.

Absolute thinking: Nirvana. Endless, permanent and absolute absence of dukkha. But all or never conditions are rarely true.

It's quite common, actually. I'm absolutely not physically at your side right now. And I'm absolutely not angry, thirsty or sad right now.
Rarity is not proof, nor is unlikeliness. For centuries, it was absurd to think that we are in motion, much worse, spinning at the speed of 1600 km/hr, and yet that seems to be the case for us in this planet. It was also absurd that invisible living things exist -- until microscopes were invented. And so on...

The end goal (in this case: Nirvana/Enlightenment) that makes every religion worth striving .Similar to heaven (and avoiding hell). But where really is the evidence?

Just like one believes, in first day of class, that the calculus teacher knows calculus and is not drawing random graphics in the blackboard and at the end, come to the conclusion he/she learned some mathematics, so a buddhist practitioner trains and, upon observing the changes undertaken, concludes the dharma is visible and subject to investigation and scrutiny when put into experience.

Economic effects of not killing animals or not working in butchery etc. (Right livelyhood, Precepts..)

There is no buddhist project or agenda to have every living being becoming buddhist. Buddhism is for those who, looking for long lasting happiness, come to the understand that those things do not lead to their own happiness, and they come to decide by their own that they, personally, won't engage in those things.

According to the Buddha the superior live is to be a monk. How will society run if no one is working and rather wants to go for alms?

See 15.

Meditation and/or mindfulness is seen as a panacea. While it has benefits this won't change underlying faulty cognitions (i.e. beliefs, schemas, thoughts) and it can easily be used as a "run away tool".

The noble eightfold path is not 8 limbs constituted of "meditation". Only one limb, strictly speaking, is focused on meditation. Meditation just happens to be a trendy topic that attracts the attention of a lot of people nowadays.

Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature!

It's not that they are not allowed. These are vows, so the meaning is that they chose not to. Furthermore, the community should not be disturbed just because one of them wants to have sex -- they are free to do so, just leave the monastic community.
Finally, the monastic community functions as a republic: vinaya rules can be changed upon consensus.

It doesnt teach you how to deal with negative thoughts. It just says observe it or replace it with an opposite. But this rarely works long term! One needs to question the old, to see its irrationalities, that it's illogical and not helpful, and then to replace it with a positive but realistic (that is balanced) new belief which is -again- conform with empirical evidence which helps the practitioner in the long run.

It's not appropriate to say the buddhist doctrine lacks something without having scrutinized it. There are many practices for dealing with these things (e.g. here and here for excerpts from the pali canon -- there's a lot more written about all of it).

Doesnt teach you with other life obstacles that cause the "holy suffering" like divorcing, social problems, money problems etc.. The buddha taught the cessation of dukkha and if these basics arent met, how is buddhism going to work then?

If the root causes are resolved, the derivative symptoms do not manifest.

How can delusion be a "poison" ? We humans have cognitive distortions on a daily basis. It's a constant in human experience. It's literally wired in our brain to think both rational and irrational and both can be trained individually, in society and is also to an extent biologically determined.

it's a poison in the sense that a deluded act (that is, an act that is ignorant of how suffering and happiness works and come to be) is prone to create suffering and misery for us, just like randomly typing keys in the keyboard, ignorant of how words and grammar works, is prone to not create a meaningful message.

You don't nessasarily have to have much intellectual faith in the teachings but you do need a little bit. Just enough for you to realise or believe the truth that you need to practice the teaching of the Buddha so that you can witness the teaching of the Buddha. The practice of the Buddha is generally "The Eightfold Path".
  Yeah,  too much intellectual thinking can blind a practitioner making them think they have true wisdom when they are really just thinking too much.

1. Suffering.
Why did Buddha speak about suffering, or dissatisfaction, in the First Noble Truth? Was it the main thing to discuss?
The reason of putting dissatisfaction on the first place was to explain:
Where and why should we start our practice?
People are dissatisfied in their lives, it's the prevalent condition. It becomes especially clear when you develop awareness. Advancing on the spiritual path, we find new way of life - in the atmosphere of real easiness, calmness and natural satisfaction. Then we see much better, how far people are from our natural state.
Ordinary people try to escape and to turn their heads away from the fact of dissatisfaction. That's why in Buddhism we thoroughly explain this topic. It's not because Buddhism exaggerates; it's because first of all you have to face the problem; otherwise it will unlikely disappear.
So,

that's why the First Truth is about dukkha,
and that's why we explain thoroughly: dissatisfaction is a real factor that poisons human lives.

Is that so?
Yes, this is so. For example, if you are young and healthy, and your life is pretty smooth, you can feel: "My life is well!"
But it might be not so well for your parents or friends, or for other beings around; and there are ups and downs, so it's better to be prepared when things will change, and you will get sick, old or down on your luck.
Moreover, when you are accustomed to living in shit, you don't realize how shitty it is. You need to experience really pure conditions to compare and to understand that. So what seems to be rather well, for awakened view might be miserable. That's why you were told: there's a lot of suffering, get out of there!
I hope it must be clear now.
It's normal to feel unpleasant sensations sometimes, so indeed there's no need to become obsessed with the idea that we suffer; however, it's normal also to remove discomfort.
Therefore, please, don't fixate on suffering, but also don't remain in it as mindlessly as people usually do.
Practice the Noble Eightfold Path and find the liberation and the wisdom.
Note also an important detail: if instead of the intention to cease suffering we would call people to chasing happiness, then that would likely lead to developing desire and attachment - i.e., to recreation of suffering.
Chasing something is not the way to satisfaction. Therefore the path is not through chasing happiness, but through removing dissatisfaction.
That indeed leads to profound easiness, openness of wisdom and harmony.
2. The cause of suffering and the way out.
Basically, we are dissatisfied because we left our natural condition of satisfaction.
We left it for the chase of desires.
Do you understand? Do you accept this idea?
It's easy to understand.
It might seem even too easy, too primitive. So we don't even try to apply this idea to our life.
But if we don't apply the advice, then it doesn't work.
We may think that dropping the chase we will lose something. That nirvana is bland or something. But why don't you try?
Just try and compare.
If you really abandon chasing desires, you might discover something miraculous.
Having stopped to chase few things...
...you suddenly realize that all the things are already here.
That's because while you wander apart from the natural condition, you have an attitude of chasing, all in struggles and oppositions.
The whirlpool of mental energy generates vexations, questions, disagreements...
If you let it calm down, the dirt subsides, and everything becomes clear. Instead of problems everywhere, natural field of causes and effects appears - in its silent unconcerned perfection.
Therefore, practice the path to awakening by going deeper than mental oppositions and struggles.
Explore the mind, rather than stirring it again and again.

Monks and nuns are not allowed to have sex, dance, sing, the have to look down at certain points in a conversation... that's inhumane and life denying and against our nature!
How is it inhumane? It's a voluntary practice. It's the practice of trying to stop clinging to sensual desire. Sensual desire is the main distraction from focusing on present moment experience where reality actually is. The more we see this kind of reality as it's arising in the present moment, the more we understand what the Buddha was saying and the more we understand the less we suffer or react to what we like and dislike.
You have some serious wrong view going. Don't worry, almost everybody does. All you, me or most anyone have ever known is our human being worldly ways. The Teaching of the Buddha is an entirely different approach to handling oneself and a different approach to relating to reality. It's a useful way to see reality and it doesn't mean we throw the other way of looking at reality out the window.
   The teaching of mindfulness is about focusing on your own mind and body moment by moment with an open heart balanced with just the right amount of intellect.
Unrealistic goals: "purifying the mind" -> Being always good. No bad tendencies
No practitioner has no bad tendencies unless they are enlightened. You don't have to believe in enlightenment, (many have trouble with that one), you just have to be going in that direction.
Denegration of sex and the body (see: meditation of the parts of the body)
Sex is merely a distraction for serious practitioners, usually monks are always free to leave the monk order(well, in Sri Lanka they say you must ordain for life but a monk in Sri Lanka can still leave).
There is nothing inherently wrong with sex. Sex is very distracting for the Buddha's practice, that's all. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexual sex to the Buddha. Just destractions from the practice.
If you never tasted a shiitake mushrooms how would a practitioner of eating shiitake mushrooms tell you with words what the actual experience of eating shiitake mushrooms is like? You have to practice eating the mushrooms yourself to have that kind of understanding. Practice the Eightfold Path yourself and you will know the taste of the Dharma and understand the Buddha's teaching gradually.
You seem to act like Buddhism is being forced on you or something. Is it? You certainly don't have to have anything to do with Buddhism if you want. It's your suffering.

Here are some thoughts on your first three questions.

Suffering is highly exaggerated portrayed. As if nothing positive or
  good can happen from a bad event/feeling. Suppose one had a good
  experience and then the person get's back to his ordinary things, a
  buddhist would exaggerately call this state dukkha and suffering
  (because the good event was fleeting and now he is back to shithood)
  Or simple frustration is seen as suffering or dukkha when in fact it's
  totally natural to feel both positive and negative emotions. Why? So
  long they are not extreme (i.e.: anger, depression, unhealthy jelousy,
  self/other depreciation) emotions like concern, frustration, sorry,
  disappointment, regret, give one feedback. These emotions are less
  intense and consequently give one more room to act and think rational.

My understanding is that the teaching is not to suppress emotions but to observe them. Are you sad your girlfriend left you? Why? Do you miss certain aspects of her character? Do you miss the sex? Are you scared you won’t find another one? Was she unique? In what way? Why? etc. It’s not to say that any of these are right or wrong but rather to get to the heart of the matter. The point is that getting attached leads to suffering (it hurts if you don’t get what you want and if you get what you don’t want). Seeking lasting happiness in what doesn’t last isn’t a long term strategy. By all means, have a relationship. Enjoy the relationship. When it ends, learn from it and move on. Or fight to revive it but at least know why. Flowers are nice to look but fruit is good for you to eat. And flowers fade and die. So does fruit but at least you can harness its goodness through eating it. Attachment is not engagement or interaction. Attachment is dependency, a bond, a fetter. The master can. The slave must. I must have those shoes. I learned a lot through learning about triangles, waves, wheels and how they all link and by meditating on what a carriage is and what work the different parts do. The fewer things you are attached to the less you are going to get dragged around by desire. Think of the prison guard who gets distracted through some ruse appealing to his stomach or his loins.

People don't learn to act assertively both in speech and deeds

Like Gevurah tempers Chesed in Kabbalah, I think something similar is going on with the Buddhist paramitas Dana and Sila. Dana is generative: put out, bring forth, produce, make or even the first step on a journey of a thousand miles; Sila imposes justice i.e. it draws a line: give but not ALL things at ALL times and to ALL people.

Unrealistic goals: "purifying the mind" -> Being always good. No bad
  tendencies.

Pure mind is difficult to explain. I will try, bearing in mind that it will probably fail and may even be wrong. Pure comes from Latin purus and really just means clear/clean. Think of finding a hair in a pizza. It’s disgusting because it’s not the right place for hair. But hair on your head is ok. Finding pizza in your hair is also wrong. It’s not morally wrong. It’s just not the right place for it. At the start of life, a human is open to experience and learning etc. As they grow older, they become more set and stiffer, until one day they no longer move at all. Pretty much everything rigid in this world is dead. Trees move very slowly but the wooden chair made from them is dead. Most of your body is non-Newtonian fluids e.g. like ketchup. If you get a hair on your eye it hurts. If you get a hair on the dark part of the eye, you are compelled to remove the hair immediately? Meditate on why that is. What are your eyes for? What is the relationship between the looker and the looked at and even looking itself? Purifying the mind doesn’t mean sterilising your mind. It means getting to the heart of the matter and clearing out the junk. A book you haven’t read in ten years could be better put to use in someone else’s hands. What good does it do on your bookshelf? You want to get mega-rich and have dominion over thousands? Why? Know why. For me, good and bad relate to karma and waves. Does the action lead to that which is beneficial or does it just set the wheel in spin and make waves leading to people being unhappy. Try what works for you. The teaching is primarily about dukkha and karma rather than moralising.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Mindfulness of Breathing, Mindfulness with Breathing
I saw a comment in another post suggesting that these are two different things. Can anyone explain or refute?

Mindfulness ('sati') means 'to remember'. The breathing as a meditation object cannot be 'remembered'. Instead the breathing is observed, which is called 'anupassi'.
The purpose of 'mindfulness' in Buddhism is 'to remember' to keep the mind in a state of right view & right intention (refer to MN 117) or 'to remember' to keep the mind free from covetousness & distress (refer to MN 118; MN 10; etc).
Therefore, to practise 'mindfulness of breathing' is an impossibility because mindfulness (sati) means to remember rather than to observe (anupassi).
Instead, the practise is 'mindfulness with breathing', which means to remember to keep the mind free in right view free from craving, as instructed in the four noble truths. When this is properly done, awareness/observation of breathing will naturally arise due to the quiet & silence of the mind.
Thus, mindfulness with breathing is remembering to keep the mind free from craving with awareness of breathing arising automatically/non-volitionally as the 'sign' of this right mindfulness.
Those that try to practice mindfulness of breathing rarely progress because the mind must let go of craving to progress; which includes letting go of the craving or intention to watch the breathing.
Ideas about 'mindfulness of breathing' are yogic or Hindu meditation.
'Mindfulness with breathing' is Buddhist meditation.

Thanks, so why do we hear so much emphasis on the breathing, in-out, long-short, start-finish?

@m2015 That would be appropriate to post as a new/separate question (instead of as a comment).

Mindfulness is often mentioned within the scope of maintaining ethical behaviour in the actions of body, speech, and mind. However, many people conflate 'Mindfulness' with 'Vipassana'.
Mindfulness of mental activity is by far the most challenging, and likewise the most important.
Monitoring the breath is a good way of calming excessive internal chatter. Once you have the simple ability to monitor the breath, switch to monitoring the mind.
The effort you use in your meditation is: a mode of joy in having the opportunity to practice, the determination to practice, and faith in your ability to practice.
I believe that vipassana arises out of mindfulness: as we monitor our minds we begin to perceive the nature of mind - not through thinking about it, but from experiencing how it shapes our world.  @Dhammadhatu or others may be able to point to text that support (or lay waste) to such an idea.


text:
Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?
Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?
I was thinking maybe an early school without the abhidahrma (mahasanghika) or perhaps prasangika-yogaraca in which non duality and convention / absolute emptiness is all there is.
However, do these schools say that there is no essence?

i suppose that i would say that if there is no svabhava what-so-ever, then that is not nothingness (nihsvabhava) but its inverse (emptiness of svabhava), so that the dharmakaya voidly (?) exists... apologies if my termonology is off there: i suppose i mean only the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. i think, at heart, everyone can understand the latter

I will explain some views in accordance with Madhyamaka-Prasangika:
"Essence" is something assigned by mental elaboration.
Therefore we can say that apart from mental elaborations there is no essence.
Another view is that
whatever appears (as an individual phenomenon) is its own essence.
That's because the phenomenon is what can be directly perceived; anything else would be mental additions (conceptualizations, associations). Therefore only the phenomenon itself can be its essence.
In that sense we can say that appearance and essence (or "essence and function") are the same thing.
See also discussions on svalakshana.
Note that, in order to understand "what is", we can't rely on flat view of "is" or "isn't". We should see how does appearance relate to mental processes; only there we can see real answers.
So "existence" can be seen as a construction, a way we construct our world - elaborating over directly perceived appearances.
And the deeper we go there, the more we understand that ultimately everything is "Don't Know".
PS: Note that from other points of view other concepts will be true. It would be wrong to think that a Buddhist school claims its concept as the only possible truth. For example, in Zen we can use views both of Yogachara and Madhyamaka, though they seem to contradict. "Everything is Consciousness" and "Consciousness doesn't exist". Logically these two sentences seem to contradict, but in fact they can be seen as both true; only as constructions built from different starting points; describing different levels of analysis. Likewise, we can discuss the duality of essence and function - in order to understand something - and then we can say that essence and function are the same thing, and understand something even deeper.

'Svabhava' is not found in the Pali suttas but might possibly be similar to the term 'sā dhātu' found in the Pali suttas, as follows:

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā
Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of
the Dhamma.
AN 3.136

Thus 'svabhava' does not refer to being a 'self' but to the unique nature of something, such as an 'eye', which has the unique nature 'to see' (rather than to hear or smell); the element of earth, which has the unique nature of solidity (rather moisture); or the law of dhamma, which has the unique nature of 'anatta' & 'sunnata' (emptiness of self).

Buddha taught dependent origination without going to two extremes existence and non existence.


text:
In which suttas did Lord Buddha teach nihilism is better than eternalism?
I read the Lord Buddha taught nihilism is better than eternalism.
In which Pali suttas is this teaching found?
Please provide quote the relevant suttas. Please do not give personal opinions.

In AN 10.29, it said:

(8) “Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I
  shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that
  one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are
  beings who hold such a view

In Iti 49, it is said:

And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
  them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
  acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
  Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.
"How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea
  of) non-being, asserting: 'In as much as this self, good sirs, when
  the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
  exist after death — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
  reality!' Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

In these suttas, the Lord Buddha teach nihilism is better than eternalism because eternalism is based in lust, bondage, delighting & clinging, which are dirty defilements (kilesa/กิเลส).

In the first paragraph it is talking about end of Samsara. So in a Buddhist context it would be those who accept the existence of Nibbana and those who do not. It is not talking about anihilationism. How does the 2nd paragraph imply annihilationism is better?  You seem to have a knack for misinterpreting the suttas. My advice is to you is stop thinking of yourself as a teacher and find a good Theravada teacher and study under him.

Obviously "holding back" is worse than "overreaching" because the over-reacher is seeking what is "peaceful" while the holder-back is full of lust.

It is not in this context as there's no reason to do good deeds if everything ends at death. Those who believe in life after death would usually do good deeds to make the next life better

Wrong. Buddhists who believe in life after death are murdering people, such as Rohingya & Tamils, in Burma & Sri Lanka. Christians & Muslims have been murdering people for 100s of years. Burma & Thailand had many wars. Tibetan monks murder eachother.

Murdering has nothing to do with believing in life after death.  It's like saying "people who drink water rape women" :)

You have refuted your own argument; when you say "Murdering has nothing to do with believing in life after death" because this is the same as saying: "Not murdering has nothing to do with believing in life after death"

It's not the same.  Because a person who believes in Karma has an additional reason not to murder as he would fear being born in hells. This is not to say that his reasoning may not  be overcome by hatred. But a person who does not believe in life  after death would usually be concerned about how to do it secretly without anyone noticing.

Not true because monks, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, have made a case for "Just War" or "Holy War". The Buddha taught kamma is intention therefore many Buddhists, such as in Burma, Sri Lanka & the USA, believe the intention to preserve a Buddhist nation via war is good kamma.

You were wrong saying the first paragraph it is talking about end of Samsara. Please read the 1st paragraph in my answer again. The Buddha defeated you in debate here because the Buddha said in AN 10.29 the view of nihilist is the foremost among the views of outsiders.

Intention to preserve a Buddhist nation is indeed good Karma. But thinking that murdering will preserve Buddhism is bad karma as it involves wrong view.

I does not matter if it is wrong view. My point is that Buddhists that believe in future lives still kill people in war. This shows you are wrong. Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims have been at war for 100s of years.

You are doing it again. If you can understand Sinhala, try to get a Sinhala copy of the sutta and read. Buddha never said nihilism is foremost in AN 10.29 .

People kill in  the name of religion because of wrong views. Not because of belief in afterlife :)

Lord Buddha never said nihilism is better than eternalism.
It's actually the reverse as Nihilism comes under Niyata-micca ditti. It both blocks the path to heavens and blocks the path to Nibbana. That is why it is called Saggavarana, whereas eternalism is only called Maggavarana(blocks the path to Nibbana)

Buddha never said that nihilism is better than eternalism.
What he said was that people who take Rupa as self is more sensible than the people who take Nama as self because the mind is changing faster than the matter.

Can you reference a sutta in which this is said?

Hi, Chris sorry I can't find the Sutta reference right now.

SN 12.61: “It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing [...] for a hundred years or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night"

This answer is irrelevant.

There is in Dīghanakasutta, that is memorized by sariputta's students at 1st saṅgāyanā.
However, buddha neither taught to develop nihilism nor eternalism at all.

Please quote from the sutta.