Is it harsh?
I looked for synonyms of 'bullshit', but decided that using a synonym wouldn't make the question less harsh
I thought the question was,
- I discovered recently that Buddhist seems to me to be (too) similar to Hinduism.
- I think Hinduism is
bullshit untrue, nonsense, lacking evidence.
- Therefore I now find it difficult to believe specific Buddhist doctrines.
- Therefore I now find it difficult to believe Buddhism in general.
This site is meant to welcome practical question ("I'm having trouble with my meditation practice..."). I thought it might welcome questions about belief or faith as well ("I'm having trouble with my faith...").
Is it reasonable?
To some extent it depends on the motive of the OP, which we must guess. A question like ...
LOL! Buddhism is bullshit! Try to prove me wrong!
... is a question I'd find a reason to close (e.g. as "unclear" or "opinion-based" or "rude or abusive"); but this question (and/or this questioner) seemed to me a sincere question, and a fairly specific one.
Too many assumptions, too much misinformation?
I also think it's good of the OP to state their (false) assumptions. To a doctor you'd list the symptoms of your illness, if you were complaining about meditation you'd say what your complaint is, and similarly if you complain about belief I think it's helpful to say what your (false) belief is: it's necessary and helpful because it's those (false) beliefs which people can try to clarify in their answers.
I listed a lot of prior assumptions of my own when I asked, Is rebirth a delusional belief? and Suminda commented "+1 for research effort".
In summary I wouldn't have voted to close this question.
Is it clear?
Apart from being 'harsh' it was put on hold for being 'just a rant'.
I though that was reasonable: that the OP could make it clearer what their actual question is.
And in fact the question did change significantly when the OP edited it.
So maybe it was correct to mark the original version as 'unclear what you're asking'.
Is it OK to
close 'put on hold' a question?
Maybe the 'system' worked as it's meant to:
Lanka wasn't the only one who thought it worth closing
There were clear conditions for reopening it:
I'd like to see the author clean up the question, remove ranting and harsh language, add structure and add 1 or 2 clear cut questions.
The OP presumably read those conditions, edited to meet those conditions, and the question is now reopen.
That's part of the way in which SE is supposed to work: a recently-closed question is labeled as "on hold" rather than "closed", because the expectation is that it might be edited and reopened.
Moderators and users keep needing to make judgement calls about what's acceptable. When I consider questions maybe my judgment goes something like this,
- Even 'harsh' is OK if it's necessary for the message
- 'Unecessarily harsh' is not so OK and could maybe be edited -- after editing it's OK
- 'Hostile' is probably not OK and maybe can't be fixed by editing either
Even without any moderator intervention it takes only 5 votes to close a question (and then 5 votes to reopen it). So if a question displeases even only 5 trusted users in a large community, it's put on hold.