There are no "Religions of peace".....

[Brian37]

---

"He's"? Females are also part of our species population.

Um no we are not in agreement.

1. Yes people act on their beliefs. But again, that is not evidence that the source of their behaviors are from a super natural source. It only means they believe that.

2. Yes, their beliefs are informed by their "experiences". But again, filling in the gap is all that is doing. It is assuming an answer, it isn't evidence that it is correct. If a kid gets told the covered olives in the dark kitchen at the Halloween party are eyeballs, that is also an "experience", but the kid is believing they are eyeballs and not olives because they are uninformed and too trusting of the parents putting that idea in their head. With religion, most humans get sold the social norms of their parents prior to formulating adult critical thinking skills. It is very easy for most humans to gap fill, and assume a perception  is true when it is not. Again, the ancient Egyptians TRULY AND FALSELY believed in their gods which were never real. The passing of those social norms were real experiences yes, but not real provable gods. One can be told prayer works by others, one can see others believing it, and based on that, falsely buy into what others sell them. 

Again you keep missing my point.

Humans do good because we observe them doing good. Humans do bad because we observe them doing bad. Just like a rain storm can provide nutrients to crops, while another storm can produce tornados. But funny how you don't assign either to Thor.

---

I'm not trying to be pedantic, it was the "royal" he.
So using your own words we can agree that:
1. People act on their beliefs
2. People's beliefs are informed by their "experiences".
3. We observe humans doing good/bad.

So how do you inject cause into this formula? How do you relate Religion into the equation?

1. People act on their beliefs. I agree. Still does not make their beliefs fact. It merely means they believe it. 

2. People's beliefs are informed by their "experiences". BUT AGAIN see my prior posts. A dog can have a very REAL experience of barking at their reflection in the mirror and still not realize that they are really barking at themselves. Tell a kid at a Halloween party that the covered bowl of olives are human eyeballs, odds are they will believe you if young and gullible enough.

3. We observe humans doing good/bad. Yes, and we observe storms bring rain and rainbows, and also tornados and hurricanes. But you don't assign storms to Thor do you? 

I don't see cause as supernatural. I simply see nature as a collection of events that lead to an outcome without a super cognition causing it. I don't see humans caused by a super cognition anymore  than one should claim that cockroaches pray to a cockroach god.

I see religion as nothing more than a superstitious attempt to explain nature.

---

My earlier harsh comments aside, I think there's some confusion between 'religions of peace' and 'peaceful religionists.'  Take Jainism as a hypothetical example.  Jainism is pretty explicit in its rejection of all forms of violence - you must not kill anyone, nor must you cause another person to kill someone, either directly or indirectly.  Your motivation for violence doesn't matter - if you commit an act of violence deliberately or through carelessness, you have damaged your soul.

Now, imagine that a self-described Jain (for whatever reason), goes out one day and beats twelve people to death with a steel dildo.  He has committed acts of violence, no possible question about it.  But his actions don't change the fundamental Jain tenet against all forms of violence.  What you've got is a bad Jain, but his actions don't alter the fact that  Jainism is STILL a 'religion of peace'. 

Boru

I don't care. 

You don't need Jainism or Buddhism or Christianity or Hinduism or any religion to say, "Don't get violent with other humans".

Jainism didn't invent peace anymore than any other religion. And just like the Amish, funny how it is easy to claim a minority religion with no majority would claim to be peaceful. Problem is majorities worldwide in our species history don't have to worry as much about the welfare of a minority. So any given minority worldwide can easily market themselves as peaceful, when the the reality would be, that if they were the majority, and not the minority, they probably would not be so accommodating.

Again, this is not for me about Jainism, or Amish, or Jewish or Muslim, or Rasta or Muslim or Christian or Hindu.

It is very easy for humans as they unfortunately do a majority of the time, to forget that while they can be an oppressed minority geographically depending on history, does not mean they will always be the underdog and will always be kind to others. 

There is only a species regardless of label, capable of compassion. But our ability to do good or bad is not based on a label. Our species failure is assuming that a label is a cure all. Our actions are a solution, but our respective labels are still in no way universal and have no magic powers.

---

Imagine any label the 100% belief of the world.

Imaging 7 billion Jains

Or 7 billion Buddhists

Or 7 billion Sikhs

Or 7 billion Rastas

Or 7 billion Muslims

Or 7 billion Jews

Or 7 billion Hindus

Or 7 billion Christians.

Or 7 billion atheists.

There is not one sane person that could argue in any one of those examples that human divisions would suddenly go away and 100% of the world would have no violence for the rest of our species existence.