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

[The Grand Nudger]

You said "Some people feel many things, that doesn;t mean that their feels are an accurate representation of reality, so..no...feeling like something helps doesn't actually make a thing a force for good. " I didn't claim it was a truth of reality but an influencer of reality. Just because something feels right, doesn't mean it is right. That's the main reason for searches for objective truth, which I thought you were a proponent of. It's a fairly simple and common concept called positive reinforcement. The crux of the issue though isn't about the feel goods, but that feeling good about something can lead to good actions which causes good systemically.

Feeling good about that something doesn;t actually mean that it will lead to good actions.  I don't know how many times or how many ways I'll have to restate this?

The OP was attempting to frame the thread as a universal claim (that all religions are not peaceful) while at the same time acknowledging that people as a whole aren't peaceful and the problem exists in many facets of civilization. I was simply pointing that out as preposterous.  

What's preposterous about it?  Do you think that your religion, of killing the better man, is "peaceful", somehow?  It's fundamental article of faith and long history to the contrary would have to be entirely ignored.  You may feel comfortable discarding the one..but you can't discard the other and remain christian.  

I wasn't feigning knowledge. We both know the church as a whole has and does some atrocious claims, but since you seemed to want to get specific, I was allowing you to elaborate.  You can't fault me for the Timmy hit me too perspective when one person is trying to make a generalization and another is getting specific. No, I am not down with a tax exempt institution sucking up public tax funds. Does that even happen? The rest of your list isn't dogmatic, organizational or doctrinal and smacks of typical HUMAN behavior on every facet.

I can actually fault you for it, because it's an atrocious argument -on it's own grounds-..excusing nothing.

Do you believe people are responsible for the evil they commit or that God is? I feel they are personally accountable.
Do you believe that "bad religion" negates personal accountability? I don't, but you have yet to prove that "bad religion" exists, much less the responsibility on God or an organization. As an example, I know that the Catholic Church has been doing horrible shit to kids for a long time and then covering it up. I hold the individuals responsible for their actions. I don't (nor do I think they do) blame religious doctrine or God for that. If the people in the food lines feel it's their calling to take care of the homeless, widows and orphans cite their beliefs, doctrine and God as the reason why the do it then that reason (at least partially) informs their beliefs and spur their action improving society doesn't it?  Being religious doesn't prevent you or excuse you from doing bad things. I will admit that it does really speak towards human drive to commit evil that, despite indoctrination into "loving religion" and societal pressures, people still do atrocious things. I just don't see how you're arguing that simply having a particular moral framework is by definition automatically detrimental as a whole.

If a person can be convinced that evil is righteous than it's very difficult to pin the pious and holy atrocity that they've committed fully on themselves.  

You don't have a "particular moral framework" - your religion is not a moral system...lol, it's a transactionary scheme meant to escape accountability for your own actions by killing the better man.  That you then go on to blather about morality (and objective morality, as well) is a wonderful example of the ability of indoctrination to subvert the better angels of our nature.

If you want to tally up souplines against the bullshit that we both know religions have gotten themselves into (and the bullshit tha you would never accept -as- bullshit, see above) then I;ll just remind you that people manage to form souplines without all that shit - whereas no one can justify atrocity by reference to divine fiat of their "moral system" without an explicit belief in and invocation of their god. Then, ofc, theres the nagging fact that those souplines were very often used explicitly as propaganda and recruitment tools.

That's something that timmy the non believer can't actually do, even if he can throw 99 blows to your hundred on the other poor fucker..you've got that one extra knife to the gut. If religion is as profound and unique a motivator as we both are likely to agree that it is...then to any extent that it provides the faithful with some tacit or explicit justification for shittiness..that's it's unique and profound possession.

You know what I've always found amusing? How often the faithful don't realize how much anti-theists like myself broadly agree with them about their religions, and the articles of their faith. How much of it isn't based on rejection or doubt, but acceptance. If your god exists, and it is as your religion claims it to be...then it's no religion of peace. If you espouse the beliefs it's alleged to have certified then you will only manage to be cruel and petty yourself..and if you choose to discard those things you know to be cruel and petty then you will only be following your own conscience, not the will of any lord or strictures of any religion.

Your's is a religion of fear, and predation, and terror, and ghoulish lies - and it's only through the common human decency of it;s followers winning out that anyone has ever managed to convince themselves otherwise, imo, ofc.