*discussed = been in contact. (I havent talked to religious people from tv 
)
And you are continuing it. This board is noted for being logical, and all people are geniune.
Where you may be thrown off is that this board generally rejects religion as an explanation for human nature and actions.
Completely agree.
Trust I think you chose a very poor example. Your OP seem to say ‘Humans are evil, I cite the annoying little brother as proof’. We responded with other explanations of why he might disobey you. ‘He is evil’ is not the most likely explanation and there are many possible explanations for his behavior that don’t involve some inherently evil nature.
You said humanity in general, and the kid in particular, were evil. You asked us to explain why they were evil. You failed to prove that we are inherently evil. If we’re not inherently evil, there’s no need to explain why we’re inherently evil.
The rabbit isn’t evil either. It does not, and can not, conceive that chewing a particular spot is immoral, or that disobedience is immoral. It can learn to associate disobedience with being punished. But that’s the extent of it.
If you wanted to discuss a religious topic in terms of morality, philosophy, and theology, you shouldn’t ask “…what is the scientific explanation?”
Have you read Howard Bloom’s the Lucifer Principle? It purports to be a scientific inquiry into human evil.
I’m not endorsing it as gospel. Here’s a little Wikipedia summary of the controversy surrounding it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Bloom
However, it does have interesting and provocative things to say, and few other people seem to have addressed this issue outside of a religious context.
Here’s Bloom’s site for more information on his admittedly unusual theories.
Sailboat
EDIT
Sorry.
Sailboat
I read that expecting to read unusual theories, but instead I found something that matches my own views.
I’m surprised to read there was harsh criticism, unless the criticism was related to his feeling we should preemptively attack other countries.
But back on topic, assuming that evolution is correct, I don’t understand why anyone would think that would result in peoples actions not being generally selfish (and potentially cruel, etc.)
I guess one argument for limiting the amount of selfishness is that as a social species, the ability to get along with others (most of the time) is a valuable trait. Without it one would quickly find themselves on their own, or dead.
You should read The Selfish Gene. It provides a very compelling reason why organisms evolve altruism while being fundamentally (at the genetic level) very selfish - and it’s nothing to do with humans being a social species.
As to the question in the OP:
Because when you tell me I can’t have it, it suddenly appears a lot more valuable. If it isn’t valuable, why would you tell me I can’t have it?