Clean energy, no pollution, less stupid people in the world and a lot of good games on Armor Games. What a pity, the first three seem to be almost impossible
No, most religions aren't good things, if I had to choose a religion for everyone to be then it would be Buddhist (preferably one of the Atheistic sects at that).
...or a world where people have different religions but they respect each other. Actually almost every modern religion says "respect the others". Don't confuse religion with fanaticism... or with a doctrine. Buddhism is a doctrine, not a religion (Buddha is not a god, but something like a philosopher).
Anyway, that's what I'd like to see in the future. I think that a world where everyone is forced to be the same religion (or no religion at all) would be a world like: "Hey, you wanna be a [insert religion here]? Well, you CANNOT!". It would be a huge loss of freedom...
...or a world where people have different religions but they respect each other. Actually almost every modern religion says "respect the others". Don't confuse religion with fanaticism... or with a doctrine. Buddhism is a doctrine, not a religion (Buddha is not a god, but something like a philosopher).
Yeah but where'd be the fun in people having different religions and respecting each other? If people follow their religions as they are commanded then that merely makes them good followers and not fanatics - most religions have at least something about trying to convert people to believe. Also, ever source I've looked at pins Buddhism as a religion, which isn't to say that it isn't a doctrine but it's a religion too.
I'd like to see the future that would be pretty useful. But in relation to the thread, I'd be happy to see nobody fighting over their religion since that plays a big role of hatred in many lives.
i think theirs going to be a war bacause the Russians got the gas and a country has got lots of oil but in other hand we could use nuclear energy wind powerand solal energy
If people follow their religions as they are commanded then that merely makes them good followers and not fanatics
I think we have different ideas about what a religion is. You say that following a religion means to be commanded, I'd say that following a religion is someone's choice (something like: "mh, this religion says that ... and that ... . I've always thought the same! This religion represent my way of think/believe"
most religions have at least something about trying to convert people to believe.
I'd say they have something about offering other people to convert. I admit that many followers are actually forcing other to convert... that's what I call fanaticism.
Also, ever source I've looked at pins Buddhism as a religion, which isn't to say that it isn't a doctrine but it's a religion too.
I just picked some random sources that says the opposite: resource 1resource2resource3resource4 Anyway this is a formal distinction. I think that I'm making a strict distinction between religion and doctrine/teachings. When I talk about religion I mean theology which, as the word itself says, is a subject ("logos" about gods ("theos". Buddha is not a god, so, according to this definition, Buddhism is not a religion. A doctrine, instead, is a serious group of teaching... that's what Buddhism is. You probably "are using" a more general meaning of the term "religion", it's a just a matter of terminology. Nothing serious.