Is It Possible for Humanity to Create a Peaceful World with Religion in it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry sir, but I disagree with the part in bold.  I think my post and yours have just illustrated an important point relating to the challenge of communicating effectively and clearly with others; we often try to make sense of others via our own truths and thinking patterns.  However, it is very likely that others may have a different way of seeing things, which is irregular for us but is completely normal for them.

You disagree to what?  You must have an internal list of of things you perceive to be negative conflict or the question you asked is meaningless on it's own terms.  

With that in mind, the question of whether or not whatever we perceive to be negative conflict actually -is- negative conflict is asking the same question, only more directly and with fewer unspoken assumptions.  Answering my question would answer your own.  If some example "x" of negative conflict was, in fact "positive" then the answer to your question would be no.  The existence of conflict does not always have to be negative.  It would be convenient, and it's highly likely, that at least -some- of the negative conflict we have in mind is only negative because of our mis-appraisals of it...identifying candidates would, by default, make for a more "peaceful world" by removing those examples of "negative conflict" from the pile.  We were just being cynical pessimists, as we chased hopeful idealism, a delicious irony.  

Avoidance and being artificially kumbayah are poor ways to manage difference; IMO, people only grow resentful and will eventually renew their conflict in the future.

-exactly why I prefer a hook to the jaw. Get's it out there and done with...and when it;s over, you can buy each other a beer, now you have memories together.  

I'm not interested in fantasy.  Can we create a realistic way for people to peacefully manage their differences?  If this is ultimately going to be attributed to fantasy or wishful thinking, then is this the result of it being an objective fact, or is it a result of personal opinions, sir?

People -do- manage their differences peacefully, in the crushing majority, don't they?  My wife and I don't take it outside when I want to watch a romcom and she wants to watch UFC.  
Maybe we should.....but that's beside the point.  

Without knowing which differences we're talking about, and it can't be many of them because most -are- resolved peacefully, then we won't know what's being asked.  You're being ambiguous, fishing in the hopes that your contributors will know what you're talking about.  The desire to peacefully resolve or manage some conflict -is- rooted in fantasy, for all of the reasons already mentioned in thread.  Those are, point of fact, the sorts of examples where we see conflicts resolved "less than peacefully".  People don't beat the shit out of each other with any regularity over their differences in programming preference.....they do over scarcity of resources and what they perceive to be oppression or persecution.  

IMO, I do not think that you and I are on the same page here; I do not think that we are discussing the same things.  Hence, I can only imagine how much of a challenge this would be on a worldly scale.  Do you have any suggestions, sir?

It's difficult to know, it's not as though you've nailed down what you were talking about.  Even in this request, suggestions for what?  A list?  Let's start with a tricky one.

Is deposing a tyrant by military force a positive or negative conflict, and could or does it lead to a more peaceful world?  Where does that fall on the list-line?

Or suggestion to move towards a more peaceful world?  Realistic suggestions.  There are plenty of things that -could- work, in principle.  We've tried some of them, their effect is spotty at best and counterproductive at worst.  The big two contributors to "non-peace" that stand out are disparity of access to wealth and resources, and institutional abuse.  We've tried wealth redistribution and regime change.  I don;t know how effective any solution along those lines would be without access to force, violence. Whether this qualifies or not depends on the status of that list I was mentioning. Does the proper application of negative conflict (if either -is- negative conflict) lead to a more peaceful world? Or would they, in reality as oppsed to principle, lead to a spiraling fall toward a less peaceful world? For that matter, would peaceful resolution actually lead to peaceful outcomes (appeasement didn't work in ww2) or would it lead to more of the same as the former? Without some specificity as to what were talking about, how can we determine the status or make suggestions? At some ppoint, that has to materialize or this -is- just an exercise in nebulous fantasies regarding conflict, peace, and resolution in the abstract.