I can't grasp what you are trying to say about the context. To differentiate between this object, as a brussels sprout and that object, as an eggplant, is to make a judgement. This is regardless of whether you are saying that you prefer one to the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seems to me by your standard just about any statement would be a judgment.

... history ["the bronze age"] has devised ways [religions] to make us homicidal [scapegoat "them"]. — ENOAH

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg

Of course, one must decide which words to use. Don't you agree?

And how do we get evil people to do good things?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." — 180 Proof

More bigoted baloney.

And how do we get evil people to do good things? — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't. :mask:

More bigoted baloney. — T Clark

Yeah, but which happens to be true.

We don't. :mask: — 180 Proof

Kill them then?

"What would your good do if evil didn't exist, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it? After all, shadows come from objects and people. Here's the shadow of my sword. But there are also shadows from trees and living things. Do you want to strip the entire globe bare, wiping out all the trees and all living things because of your fantasy of enjoying naked light? You're stupid."

These are the words Woland (the lord of darkness) used to reply to Matthew Levi from Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita.

We cannot say lion's are murderous or evil. We alone have transcended nature

I don't agree. If a cat "plays" with a mouse until it dies, yet doesn't eat the mouse, many would call that torture.

Great book. :up:

Kill them then? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's evil, sir!

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg — 180 Proof

Not quite. All it takes is making someone believe something—anything—that results in dehumanization (or dehumanization by proxy ie. elevation of one's self over others, which per human ego and evolutionary confidence is an easy, almost natural ingrained dynamic of the human experience to appeal to). Very easy. Natural, even, per our scientifically recognized "own race" bias. Sure, most beliefs that have profound effect incorporate some idea of a higher power, otherwise it's just one man's opinion in a sea of innumerable others. There are few people on Earth who at the end of the day aren't looking out for number one first and foremost. If it comes down to your kid or a stranger's kid getting fed, let's not kid ourselves as to who you're going to act toward getting fed, irrespective of gods, religion, and who's food it "rightfully" is or should be.

While I do not dispute your points, I should clarify. As we inevitably have violence in our conditioning, the violence is not in our natures. Killing for food or territory, though evident in nature, is not the same as war, or murder. We cannot say lion's are murderous or evil. We alone have transcended nature

Yes, I agree with your premise, but there are tendencies in our natures which appear to be there from birth for certain people to be disrupters, a tendency for psychopathy, sociopathy etc.
Such that in any society these people can disrupt or take control and themselves have to be controlled. This might be an evolutionary development.