>>The argument here, John, is in respect of whether a person is "intrinsically bad" (your words).

Really? I thought I was refuting the suggestion that people are intrinsically good/moral. I do not have to prove or believe the diametric opposite to make that argument.

>>Being "investigative, testing, competitive" does not make a person evil.

No. But nor does it make a person moral. As would be required by a suggestion that we are intrinsically moral.

>>I dont say that moral behaviour is prompted by some "materialistic benefit" per se. I do think that moral behaviour is in part determined by society and its norms.

OK. But every time somebody attributes past bad behaviors to religion, they seem to forget that society was not standing by shaking its head at the time; it was right there with bloody hands. Not sure why religion gets 100% of the bad rap.

>>The discussion in the thread, I believe, was whether religion was a prerequisite for moral behavior. Personally I dont think so. I think one can be moral without being religious. The question is not an attack on religion.

But why should your "I think" prevail over Charles Manson's "I think"? As per previous discussion, there has to be an external "something" to remove that ambiguity, because we know that anarchy does not work. Some seem to think it is society that fills that role while religion can be discounted because of a bad past. See above.

>>Why are we talking about attacking religion?

Just because you and I have not attacked religion in our posts does not mean religion has not been attacked in this thread.