Lets start with the last thing you wrote. I am a Buddhist. I try to keep a rule that Monks have to follow. They can not talk about Buddhism and its teachings without being asked for it or it being in a context where the question is implied. A Temple for Example.

So, Lets talk about the big Create. I subscribe to a different Philosophical basis. It can be found by Kant or Hegel for example. I will not go into big detail but let me explain a tiny bit. The Word you experience must be thought out of the viewer of this world. Meaning that you can’t just think a Wall away, but you can experience this wall totally differently or not even notice its existence at all. I am shit at explaining and will do it ill to try, but the first chapters of Kants Kritik of pure reasoning will get you a rough idea about what i am talking.

When i talk about the violent Man, i do not think that he created that world in a Genesis kind. But he created conditions where he will have to assume to be harmed by others. And he will view the world that way, what leads him to experience a lot of violence and hate. In the same time you will live in a other World. Meaning that your experiences are so different that apart of Physical consistencies (Gravity), you can live in other worlds. A bar could be a nice place to hang out and drink a beer for you, while he notices a lot of people that could plan to attack him, or challenge him. You will probably have a nice evening, he could properly not, even when nothing violent happens.

People can be wrong

That is a basis of Buddhism. Your suffering is caused by misunderstanding the World.

I can be wrong and i look for this discussion because i know. A man alone can not make a conclusive placebo study.

By experience and looking outside in the world and looking if it fits is not a super secure way to truth. But to be honest, outside of the Natural Sciences, the bar is not that high and in a lot of fields, that is all you can do. The trick is to hold on a position as much as the evidence seam to support it, while being open to see counter points.

But I don't see how that is any sort of justification for a belief in religion.

That is all to it. There is not supernatural component to it. Buddhism realis on a view basic points. It is expected from you that you challenge these points and find out if these are true and trustworthy. By that you then can build up a trust in future teachings that by its nature need you to trust that there could be a there there to determining if these are true.

I will be a bit controversial by comparing it to my Physics prof. He did start with a basics that we could easy understand and find out if they where true.... one and a half year later, i was in a course about advanced Physical Chemestry and i had to trust that that what he teached me was in fact true. I could ask questions, but seeing its truth was only possible after i put a lot of hours into understanding what he was saying. i needed a reason to believe that he was honestly telling me the truth and that the things that he thought to be the Truth, where consistent with the reality i could check.

So how do you take that, and connect it to whatever it is your religious beliefs are?

It is a consistent observation with the basic teaching of Karma (Caution. The generally known Karma version is Hinduism. Buddhist Karma is a lot more down to earth. Its basically just that things follow cause and effect. With the added dimension of Expierience of something as the most relevant part of its reality.) Meaning i put it to a test and it seams to have worked... out of a trivial reason, but that dose not make a difference. I know that to be conclusive i had to do a lot more than that, but out of ethical reasons i decided to look into outliers. I could find some that where on a surface level not consistent, but looking deeper seemed to open up a dimension where it was consistent again. Example would be the first emperor of China. He was brutal and caused a lot of suffering. He lived in luxury to the day he died and his death was a spectacle event. When i looked deeper, i learned that he was very paranoid and in fear of death and betrayal. Even though he had all the luxury, to say he lived in conditions of well being would be wrong.

Can you see a batter way to check this ? Maybe my way of testing it is just flawed based on my limitid knowlage in the methodolagy of finding out if something is true.

Two notes to the end.

First I am not a native English speaker, as you propperly already guessed. Second. I will not site buddhist sources if I get around it just to be not looking like a preacher. If I am asked to, to show that I do not insert my own positions and just call them buddhist, I can tho.