Yes this is what I am saying. I think it maintains the idea that it’s the killing that is most important.
Maybe a sugar coated way of saying it would be, religion is an adaptation that allows humans to continue to evolve in the way of our ancestors.
Well, I am not saying that I am in perfect agreement with your proposition, but evidence to support it could be the preponderance of Christianity and Islam in the world today, as both religions, despite presenting themselves as religions of peace, have had murderous elements and murderous justifications, historically, that have apparently supported their establishment and growth.
There are lots of atheists that have justified murder without introducing god into the equation as well. All that we’ve established is that humans have a capacity to kill each other, not that it is based in religion. There are correlations, sure, and many historical events were carried out for religious reasons, but not all of them.
Yes, there are some problems with Tazman’s proposition as he is stating it. And as you say murder can and has and will happen in the absence of religion. The kernel of truth that I see, is that murder has historically been an instument that has been effective in the spread of certain religions. Modern day Christianity, fortunately, though (IMO) still somewhat malignantly, depends more on non-violent evangelism than murder for its continuing spread.