You are aware that by demanding peacewithoutgod make his case by examples, you also claim that among belief systems yours cannot have any violent traits or acts in general, except certain situations, right? And if he does give examples then what will you do? Start to evaluate it case by case by other factors or say that that's not true hinduism but just perverted understanding of it? Does that sound familiar from somewhere?
The majority of muslims and christians and jews are not violent. They are strongly against violence, they are simple people trying to make their way and scared that something will happen to their family and love ones. They believe that what has been going on with their religion, what is being promoted as their religion is just perverted by emperialism, modern political games played in countless levels. Exactly like people in your culture.
You keep saying you are an atheist, but you are defending a religion -or series of religions- by claiming that their inherent qualities hold some truth or essence -different than others- that people don't know about it if they don't see it that way and that those qualities distinguish these belief systems from others. You are saying that your religion -yes your religion- is something that has a fixed essence; an understanding free and from that but changed in 'practice' or some other ways under the attack of a certain other culture.
That's^ the definition of a believer and a religion. You see your system as entitled a place above others. Isn't that something also fundemantlly conflicts with what those belief systems offer?
See, as long as a system is a religion, it stops being universal just there.
It seems to me like you are confused about two things. First, the set of conditions and factors -inner/outer- that transforms a society and its culture; its religion through time AND that the religions are just primitive control systems invented by men to impose on to societies by a minority in power according to certain benefits and profits -be it in favour of people or not, irrelevant at this point, but mostly not- so the wheel can turn, therefore they change through time. These are the same things. It's not just about what happens to a society while that is a factor, it is about the fundamental quality of religion.
The belief systems you are defending are likely to include violent groups as much as the others, because their members are homo sapient. We are violent, social primates. You see yours different; above the others -like all others- because you believe in it. And in your case, definition in contrast
plays a lot of role as I said before and makes it easier.
It's basically what Western cultures do to define all the other cultures, including yours. Creating a definition in contrast and transform the same problems of their societies with different terms than the ones less developed ones into something else; create identities. Like identifying certain crimes -like rape and domestic violence- with islamic or other eastern cultures. Demonising the other.
You are identifiying the cultural and religious corruption with British Imperialism. Is it a factor? Certainly. But it doesn't change that all belief systems inherently define themselves and their members above others. That's the root of the idea. Doesn't matter how 'peaceful' one looks compared ot others.
If Abrahamic religions vanished from face of the earth over a night, the religions left behind would fill the same space transforming and adapting to the same machine in a very short time. And after a few generations, it would be fully functional in the same violent manner as those and people would be discussing the terms of killing someone according to Hinduism with the same terms, genuinely thinking how peaceful and accepting their religions are.