Comment: "Well, that is a blanket

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "A lack of something can be a (see in situ)

"Well, that is a blanket

"Well, that is a blanket statement of your own."

Yes, it is. No doubt about that. And after reading your thought provoking reply about money, I think I see more clearly your philosophical point. An absence cannot, in and of itself, cause a particular behavior. A lack of money may cause a need, which in turn causes an action. A lack of food may cause hunger, which in turn motivates actions. A lack of oxygen may make one gasp for air, but something else is at work in the interim. Good point and important. However, I would say that my original comment -"perhaps certain behaviors followed from the presupposition that there is no god, however such behavior may have been effected by other traits each carried" - still applies. As beliefs go in a person's outlook, they all connect and network with one another. And what one believes is not true may just as easily lead to other things that a person believes are true... and in that process, certain behaviors may logically follow.

"Detrimental to whom? -Everyone in the tribe. You either lose a hunter or a worker."

Everyone? Perhaps you lose an invalid who neither hunts nor works, but sucks resources from those who can and do. Perhaps you lose a lazy soul, unwilling to do either for themselves, preferring to steal from those who do. Perhaps the murderer, or other individual(s) gets to keep some resources from the victim, enriching himself, no matter the loss to the whole of the tribe.. meaning 'everyone in the tribe' loses in some measure, while one or more individuals get a net gain in the process.

"I never said society is a judge..."

Perhaps not in so many words. But you did say,

"We have learned as a species, and it is inherent in our social system, that it is detrimental."
Somebody must judge to make determinations about what has been learned and what is inherent to us. And if it is not society in general, then what or who is it?

"We also, being sentient beings and self-aware, have a drive to survive. So, any threat to that survival is shared among groups and tribes."
How is the fact that the murderer and his victim both have a drive to survive relevant?

"it has nothing to do with society....or judging."
Then what does crime (and specifically murder) have to do with, if not society and judging?

"But, using your assertion - then the United States is such a society. We are an immmoral nation. And, given we are the most religious nation on earth, and the most Christians by far -- what does that say?"

I made no such assertion. I was trying to understand your assertion. But I will play along.. Okay, we are an immoral nation. But are we a Christian nation? Highly debatable. But let us assume we are. It means nothing, since it is in the very dogma of Christianity that all men are corrupt, Christians included.