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

I can agree with this. The question is then do we "strive for" or are we "driven towards" ...

By the way the article you linked to in your Message #964871 (http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/morality.htm) makes good reading. The word religion is not mentioned once yet he makes a very interesting discussion about morals and moral behaviour.


>>>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.

I dont keep saying that at all!? I think you are mixing me up with someone else who may have attacked religion in this thread. But, in any case, you snipped my post unfairly and the complete paragraph also said "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". I have no problem with religion but rather with some of the people that run it and the fanatics that want to hard sell it.

And, of course, when the powers of religion did all the naughty things they did society was controlled by religion. These things were not supported by society per se.


>>>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.

OK I dont have enough knowledge of the statistical facts in this. But again we are at cross purposes. Is morality the exclsuive domain of religion? Yes or No. Thats the question/position that was put forward by RichP.


>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.

I did qualify this with the "people in power of religion" have a lot to answer for. I can see though that you are very eager to defend religion, which is fine, but is not the main point of discussion in this part of the thread, which was about whether religion has exclusivity on morals and moral behaviour. I think we get it though.