hello,

I am atheist myself but was thinking if religion not take away willing to take big risks and get worldwide famous/rich/leader/getting in history books ect.
I mean if i had thinking "there will be still 1'000'000'000'000 years after i die where i think/live ect. in some level" i can imagine myself not take risks that much theses 60-100 years here with that think in mind but live "born>rise family>earn living>die" lifestyle.

Any experience/opinions?

I'm not really sure what you are saying. I think you are proposing some version of Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager Wiki

Basically i am asking if regional person are likely to risking less (going for huge things what change world or leave you at history well known for something you did) on average then non regional person in this lifetime because they believe there will be infinite some level continued lifetime after they die and it not like this is only lifetime they have to change world, get know for something for later generations or similar things.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but it would almost be better if you typed in your original language and let us translate it. Your wording and phraseology makes no sense in English.

But to answer what I (think) you're asking: What religious people think and what they do, are two different things. Why do they cry when a loved one dies when supposedly that should be the happiest occasion of that person's existence? I'm the father of two children and while I'd be sad if I never got to see them again, I would rejoice in knowing their future held an eternity of unbounded bliss and happiness. I would be more inclined to hold a celebration than the somber gatherings most funerals take on.

While it is taboo in most religions to commit suicide, one wonders why they seem willing to undertake any extreme measures to stay alive or keep a family member alive? I mean, ok. Don't kill yourself, but you should long for death over surviving some earthly calamity. Yet, they seem to cling to life and want to live as much as any atheist who thinks this is the only life we get. It doesn't make much sense to me.

You seem to be asking if religious people are less likely to try and do great things in "this" life, because the notion of afterlife would give them more time. This as opposed to the non-religious who would have only this life to change the world.

I actually think it is a very good question. You could also flip the logic and ask if they are more likely to do great things in order to qualify themselves for the reward of afterlife. In tandem the two questions could probably make a nice basis for a thesis in sociology of religion.

I don't know the answer. As a (somewhat qualified) guess I would think "no". You could probably find examples of either type, but I'm not so certain the reason would actually be their religion or lack thereof. One of the issues you would likely see is that people aren't really that rational. If you are interested in the subject, then a quick Google-search for "irrationality" together with words like "sociology", "psychology", "neuroscience" or "economics" would be a good start.

Another problem you face is that inherent in people's belief (the various religious/irreligious types you would face) there can be differing concepts of what constitutes great things. It is hard hard to find objective (objective in the sense of "relatively unbiased", not objective as in absolute truth) criteria for "greatness". That doesn't mean it is a bad question, but it does mean in terms of research this might be a question better suited for a qualitative/phenomenological approach (that you base "greatness" on the perceptions of the respondent) rather than an empirical-deductive approach. Which will make it hard to give a "hard" answer.

Religious people are more likely to do risky things like start armed conflicts and make terrorist attacks.

I think you're over-generalizing here, not everybody that says they believe in God has faith, and not everyone that cries does so because of lack of faith.

You yourself said if your children left, you would miss them. When a persons children move away, or go to college, no one would ever criticize them for crying because the children "aren't dead", it's obvious that they will miss them. Seems strange of you to suggest Christians shouldn't cry or feel sad when their loved ones die, they're human.

There are many examples of people refusing treatment, or medical help, and in many of those instances those people are seen as wacko. Seems like a lose-lose proposition, where you value your life too much, or not enough.

Just because you're afraid to die, doesn't mean you have no faith, again, you're human.

"To live is Christ and to die is gain", I believe this, but that doesn't mean I want to die a painful death, or that I'm not afraid of the process of dying, and neither does that mean that I won't be sad when my Christian friends die.