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

[tackattack]

Some things act as force multipliers for our worst impulses.  Just as before, while there's a wide range of nasty things that both the religious and non religious share, there are nasty things unique to the religious just as there are nasty things unique to specific religions and specific forms of religion.

Note, though, that you went ahead and said "but mom, timmy hit him too!"

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'm told that heroin feels great. The objective moral authority of religion tends to be something decidedly non-objective. I don't actually concern myself much with violence in some non-specified form, so I'd be the wrong guy to ask. I think that a measured application of violence can be a force for good. I don't long for a world where everyone sings kumbayah so much as a world where shitty people are more terrified of the good ones than the good ones are of them. My only comments on thus notion of "religions of peace" is that there just isn't any such thing. There has never been a religion that can't be leveraged in equal measure to justify violence. That's more a feature than a bug...the violent ones aren't getting it wrong, we're engaging in escapism by imagining such a thing in the first place.

I will agree that it is a force of escapism, and the fact that it's a feature is exactly my point. It involves people. It's systemic across infrastructures (whether religious, government, SJW cause, etc.). What you and Brian are implying is that Religion is bad because it's not peaceful, but nothing is. What it amounts to you both saying, when you agree that it's systemic and a feature, is that people are violent, organizations are violent, let's just not have any organizations, let's start with dismantling religion because I don't like it. Let's just be a little more honest here and call a spade a spade. The problem, and solution will be in the individual.

What I disagree with is "feeling like something helps doesn't actually make a thing a force for good. ". Believing that something is the reason for your good informs you that what you're doing is good. Feeling and belief (as well as hope, fear, justice, etc.) are because of, and the cause of, action. I'm aware this isn't always a societal agreed good, but individually, those things we perceive as being a positive sounding board, inform us that we are right (even when we aren't).

So if the problem is systemic in the species, why rail against one group (religious)? If some people feel being religious helps them be better people or some people see religion as a more objective moral authority than society, doesn't that mean it makes a positive difference (whether entirely peaceful or not)?

Feeling that something does you good, is not the same as saying it has any real divine power to make you only do good. It only means the person holding that label as the source of good means they believe it does.

The reality worldwide in our entire species history, is that we have always displayed both acts of cruelty and compassion. Claiming that one is good because of a label only means they believe the label is the source. It does not mean the label has any real power. 

I believe someone when they say they believe it is the source.. Not the point. I simply doubt that is where our behaviors as a species are coming from.

To address your point and continue with what I was saying to Gae, It's not the label that holds the power, it's the Belief backed by how we label ourselves and how others label us that does have power. One is subjectively good if their personal subjective morality defines them as a good doer. One is considered socially good when they're morality is followed and aligns with the societal definitions of morality. Example: You could find executions as murder personally but your society accepts that the moral impetus for justice requires it and labels it moral. That person could either believe they're doing good by society or doing good by themselves, and it will inform a belief followed by an action.

Their behaviors come from far more things than we could map, and I'm not aware of it being done successfully yet. The myriad of beliefs and feelings that inform and spur us to action is not just one thing, as your argument implies. Who are you to say that the fact I believe alien's will abduct me if I go to Nevada is keeping me out of Nevada? Can you say it's not the cause? It may not be a reliable belief, or even the most important one, but it still would inform if I held it true.
Bringing it back to religion, such an emotive force (a type of force multiplier as Gae said) as powerful as religion, does have more power than say, a belief that Popsicle are tasty. A powerful force that can make things spiral quickly either god or bad, based on the direction of the organization and the individual.