>It seems you agree with me. "Natural" behaviors by young humans who do not yet realize it is wrong? QED.

Yes, they try things out. Sometimes, specially in presence of adults, they examine the limits to see if something is OK to do or not.

>I remember when 2 schoolboys killed a toddler in the UK about 20 years ago. They took him from a shopping center, then tortured him by inserting batteries in various places, pouring blue railway paint into his eyes, ears and mouth, then jumped on him repeatedly, then after an hour or two of such fun they left him on railway tracks to be mercifully killed by a passing train. One can only imagine the toddler's terror during such an ignoble death. His 9-year-old killers were investigated in depth. They knew this was an abhorent act and could not explain why they did it. They were from 2 different normal homes. Their upbringings were no different from the kids in the houses around them who required counselling to understand why these 2 popular boys suddenly did this. I don't recall people blaming the parents, though that would have been easy, I guess.

Extreme cases can prove anything. And I wasn't delineating any absolutes here: I said, "if they were persistent". Also, I didn't say just parents... and judging by all the movies about the British educational system... anything is possible.

Btw, does the "normal household" assume they were religious?

>>>This cuts both ways. Keep in mind that in most of those cases, organized religion did weild a lot of power, and that it likewise dictated the society's morality.
>
>Not completely true. An English king was able to shrug off the bounds of organized religion so he could select new wives and kill the castoffs. He then established his own religion because it was needed to maintain his kingdom. QED.

So he needed a powerful church under his thumb, ergo even he calculated that he doesn't have much manouvering space, in those times, without one. Thus, the power of church was such that he couldn't or wouldn't just dismantle it or curb it, he had to create a credible replacement, because the society wouldn't deem him a legal ruler without church's consent. Church:society overlap here over 90%, Q.E.D.

>>>More quotes: volunteer blood donors, doctors without frontiers, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, workers' solidarity funds.
>
>These are not atheist/agnostic groups. Many of their members are religious. "Independent of religion" is not the same as agnostic/atheist, which is what you would need to balance the missionary acts done by overtly religions groups.

I take "independent of religion" as "not attributed, nor belonging to, any religious group". I.e. organizations of just people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

I've donated blood 20 or more times (stopped counting), and at not a single of these occasions was neither religion nor unbelieving mentioned at all. So, I honestly don't know whether the people at the giving end of other tubes were religious or not, nor did I care, nor did the recipients care... except in cases of some really nutcase sects I've heard of.

And why would unbelievers have to get organized at all? Are they threatened by something, or do they have an agenda? If they do, they didn't tell me.

>>>Actually, I don't have any beef with religion per se. I do have with organized religion. If you ever find one which...
>
>Dragan, I have no intention of trying to convince you to be religious- especially when your shopping list would prevent your belonging to any organized group ;-)

But I did! See my reply to Tracy.