Don't forget the environmentally friendly VW I was sold! Another product which will never deliver.

You sir still didn't answer my question. Which way will make people prevent doing bad deeds more.

1. Believe in God , does not live a good life/does live a good life, confess , find eternal paradise.
2. Live according to the Buddhist doctrine, live a bad life and bad things will follow you. Live a good life and good things will follow you. There is no judge, no forgiveness and no helping hand.

Both ways don't make any sense to you sir yes. My question is which way minimizes the bad deeds people do. Neither belief will stop people from doing bad I agree. But at least let people take responsibility for their actions.

Neither, we don't have to wonder, it's not exactly a "what if" scenario.  There are christian -and- buddhist rapists in the world, as you well know. Christians -do- assume responsibility for their actions, it's integral to their entire belief system. They deserve their hell, their sansara, for their misdeeds and misthoughts.

Seeing as they are the same strategy, the same threat, the same reward..if you think one wouldn't work, christianity, why would you think the other would work?

"My bb gun doesn't seem to be phasing this bear Cletus, let's try yours!"....really.....................really...?

I manage to be (what I hope is) a good person, as many atheists do, without any imaginary threats or promises.

Unless there's an actual study that's been done comparing crime rates between Buddhists and other groups, then it's just idle speculation.

You can't choose to believe in nonsense either, it has to be jammed into your brain one way or another. It's not a viable "choice".

Well Rob, you can see which groups bomb each other in the world and under who's name ?

Isn't the majority of those based on religion ?

In war torn theocracies, virtually everyone is religious, so there's no fair comparison. The people who do bad things there are going to be religious.

Speculating that if they were all Buddhist things would be different is pretty pointless and probably naive. Religion isn't going to be the sole reason for all the unrest.

Outside of such places, judging the whole of religion by the extremists isn't fair.

Now I'm defending fucking religion, what's going on? Religion is shit and I think everyone would be better off without it. But I'm not going to say that replacing it with a different load of nonsense would suddenly make it all OK.

And again, I don't know what your point is, because we're talking about different types of indoctrination. Not personal choices. People can't choose to suddenly believe Buddhist stuff and abandon Christianity because someone tells them they'd be better off. I assume you claim to really believe this Buddhist stuff, not just play at believing because you think it makes you a better person.

I think it is because religion supports violence. Or treating non believers in a different way. Most of them say all non believers go to hell. Buddhists don't support violence. Nor they think with it. They are given a path to live a righteous life. One can question back what they have been thought.

"Any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in greed, hatred and delusion and thus lead us away from Nirvana are bad and any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in giving, love and wisdom and thus help clear the way to Nirvana are good. To know what is right and wrong in god-centered religions, all that is needed is to do as you are told. But in a human-centered religion like Buddhism, to know what is right or wrong, you have to develop a deep self-awareness and self-understanding. And ethics based on understanding are always stronger than those that are a response to a command. So to know what is right and wrong, the Buddhist looks at three things - the intention, the effect the act will have upon oneself and the effect it will have upon others. If the intention is good (rooted in giving, love and wisdom), if it helps myself (helps me to be more giving, more loving and wiser) and help others (helps them to be more giving, more loving and wiser), then my deeds and actions are wholesome, good and moral. Of course, there are many variations of this. Sometimes I act with the best of intentions but it may not benefit either myself or others. Sometimes my intentions are far from good, but my action helps others nonetheless. Sometimes I act out of good intentions and my acts help me but perhaps cause some distress to others. In such cases, my actions are mixed - a mixture of good and not-so-good. When intentions are bad and the action helps neither myself nor others, such an action is bad. And when my intention is good and my action benefits both myself and others, then the deed is wholly good "

Ok, but are there are any studies supporting this speculation? You can't compare Buddhists in the west to messed up theocracies in the east and call that a fair comparison. You need to compare Buddhists in the west to religious people in the west.

And again... it's not a choice, unless you don't really believe what you say you believe. What are you suggesting should happen?

(November 14, 2015 at 6:26 am)robvalue Wrote: In war torn theocracies, virtually everyone is religious, so there's no fair comparison. The people who do bad things there are going to be religious.

Speculating that if they were all Buddhist things would be different is pretty pointless and probably naive. Religion isn't going to be the sole reason for all the unrest.

Outside of such places, judging the whole of religion by the extremists isn't fair.

Now I'm defending fucking religion, what's going on? Religion is shit and I think everyone would be better off without it. But I'm not going to say that replacing it with a different load of nonsense would suddenly make it all OK.

And again, I don't know what your point is, because we're talking about different types of indoctrination. Not personal choices. People can't choose to suddenly believe Buddhist stuff and abandon Christianity because someone tells them they'd be better off. I assume you claim to really believe this Buddhist stuff, not just play at believing because you think it makes you a better person.

Sir , I will never ask anyone to abandon their belief. Just because I believe in something doesn't mean everyone else has to. Buddhist never try to convert people. It's not a cult. There is no religious leader. It's a philosophy.

Classic example, if a Catholic woman marries a Buddhist man the church will always try to convert the man and the church wedding is compulsory. And ask the man if he is willing to give the children to the church etc. If you go to a Buddhist temple to discuss the marriage a monk would say "It is not my place to discuss your marriage"

The language "always" and "compulsory" shows that you are painting with too broad a brush. Perhaps "usually" and "common" would be better words?

In England especially, we have paper Christians, some of whom are Catholic, who don't particularly do anything their church normally does. But you don't get to tell them they're not Christians.

You've got an atheist defending religion again. Are we in the twilight zone?