>>>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.

They are equivalent mirror positions. If you claim humans are not intrinsically good then they must be intrinsicaly bad. If you prove either one you disprove the other as they are mutually exclusive positions. You prove niether position.


>>>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.

As I said before this point is not provable either way because human babies cannot survive without caregivers. They in turn shape the childs behavour. You can never see the so called "natural" behaviour of a human. Only the adopted behaviour taught by the caregivers and society at large.


>>>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.

I think you are having two discussions here, one with someone else :) But in any case certain religions have an awful lot to answer for. Or perhaps I should rather say the people in power of certain religions do. But I agree that they do not have a monopoly on the abuse of power.


>>>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.

Not sure how you are making all these connections and suspect that you are arguing a different point and defending religion for some reason. But RichP's point in this thread was that morality is not the exclusive domain of religion. That one can be moral without being religous. Thats all. This position does not attack religion not does it exclude it.


>>>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.

Well I am discussing my preceeding paragraph above ...