>>They are equivalent mirror positions. If you claim humans are not intrinsically good then they must be intrinsicaly bad.

Why can't they be intrinsically amoral in the proper sense of the word? That way morality and value as a person is something we strive or are driven towards, whichever direction we take.

>>As I said before this point is not provable either way because human babies cannot survive without caregivers... You can never see the so called "natural" behaviour of a human.

Now you seem to be arguing that one cannot say humans are intrinsically anything. On that we can sort of agree- it was the point I tried to address. But btw, have you had kids close together? did you nurture them well? Did they ever pinch and hurt each other gratuitously when tired or bored? Was that your fault, then, if their behavior is a result of your upbringing?

>>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.

You keep saying that. In response, I'll keep saying that every bad deed attributed to religion was supported by the prevailing society- else it couldn't have occurred. You cannot tar religion without tarring the society framework it occupied as well. In which case it is not logical to assign morality to society and not to religion because it did bad things. Society's hands as just as bloody.

>>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.

My point was that despite the naysayers, religion is more often associated with moral *behavior* than those who are unreligious. I gave examples of missionary activity without prosetylation. Name the agnostic/atheist equivalent. Peace Corps was quoted, but if you go to their site and look at benefits you see one sentence for "help the poor" followed by paragraph after paragraph covering the social, career and academic benefits received in the transaction. Not really the same. Every time somebody claims "religion has a lot to answer for" it seems perfectly valid to point this out as well.

regards

j.R