Atheists don't derive their morals from these stories, that's the difference. That there is some superficial overlap (a tree? presents?) doesn't allow you to claim the morality of atheists as religion-derived. That's ludicrous. It's like saying the local butcher taking apart a pig is adhering to Aztec rituals and their morals because at some point in both 'ceremonies' someone holds a heart in their hands.
In fact, the source of morals among atheists seems to be a permanent puzzle for many people with religious background, simply claiming them as religion-based misses the point completely.
I don’t have a religious background and it’s still a puzzle for me. Best I can manage to explain it is through a combination of tradition and genes (“human nature”), and tradition is often indeed derived from historical religious environment. Moral is mostly universal but not completely - for one example the attitudes towards hard work at the expense of everything else vary greatly across different cultures and religious traditions.
Sure, religious people get their morals largely from their religion. But where do the morals of the religion come from?
It's not only not universal, but it's highly fluid (which it couldn't be if it was universal).
As a reference to my biases, I'm a theistic agnost, I don't know, but I believe. The life of pie or secondhand lions explain the why pretty well.
Raises hand: Atheist here who thinks that a historical Jesus is at least plausible. Obviously not a son of god, though, that would have been embellishment by later generations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus has a good overview of the non biblical sources.
1- https://i.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_...
The notion that atheists--or Christians, for that matter--ground their moral reasoning in first principles, completely free of unexamined assumptions and social convention, is so laughable that I'm amazed anyone here is seriously suggesting it.
I also don't write about how Atheists would justify (religious) beliefs - and why would atheists have to justify religious beliefs? Now that is laughable. The whole point of Atheism is to no longer rely on beliefs, much less having or feeling the urge to justify other people's beliefs.
Also, rayiner doesn't write about that at all. What they claim is that the fact that certain cultural customs prove the original Christian origin and persisting influence of Christianity of these customs, ignoring that sitting around a pine tree with your family and celebrating that days are finally getting longer predates Christianity by hundreds or, more likely, thousands of years.
Rayiner in their reply to my post completely ignored that the whole point of my post was about 'cultural legacy' vs 'organized religion', so I don't feel particularly bad that you think I did not address their comment enough. Also, I can't change that they are hijacking the thread to praise Christianity over Arabs.
I should explain that I meant belief in a very ordinary sense of the word. As in, I believe capital punishment is wrong, or, Mike doesn't believe in the existence of aliens.
>What they claim is that the fact that certain cultural customs...
rayiner argued that the "cultural legacy" of Christianity is about more than just custom. They're saying that certain values--equality, moral universalism--are widely and deeply held throughout the modern, secular West, and that those values (or rather the great weight that Westerners assign to them) are a legacy of Christianity.
It's not a ridiculous position. Plenty of serious thinkers have argued along similar lines--Nietzsche, Weber, Foucault, Charles Taylor, Marcel Gaucher, Ivan Illich. No doubt there are lots more.
I'll humor you anyway and just refer to [1] that thoroughly debunks the position that those values originate in any way as a legacy of Christianity. You're welcome.
Thank you, that's an interesting paper. Looking at the "morality-as-cooperation codebook," though, I see a great deal that contradicts orthodox Christian doctrine--for example, Giving preferential treatment to (members of) your group. Assuming that the opposite belief--that you should "love your enemies, bless them that curse you," etc.--has gained any adherence in the West, that ethic must have originated in something else (maybe a religion?) besides the code of reciprocity your paper's authors have assembled.
I'm glad I specified the planet, or else someone would have pointed out planets without a tilted axis.
[Edit] Fair point, though. I asked for a single counterexample and you delivered.
I really dislike religion claiming monopoly on morals.
Even tribes of cavemen cared for each-other. We have evidence of people being cared for and living for years with crippling iniiries. They could not care for themselves let alone help the tribe.
Even animals care for each-other and protect each-other, can't claim culture or religion there - its a basic feature of evolution.
If there was actually a correlation between religion and morality, then we would see less crimes like murder/ robbery /rape in religious societies. If anything, the opposite is true.
Where's the monopoly? A discussion on the moral values of religious rituals doesn't preclude anything. I don't even belong to a church.
It seems you think (perhaps subconsciously) that religion has a monopoly on morals. Why else are you bringing that into the discussion and arguing against it?
> Even animals care for each-other and protect each-other, can't claim culture or religion there - its a basic feature of evolution.
Religious morals are an instance of mutual care emerging through social evolution in an animal - the human, specifically. And humans call it "culture", because humans like to invent words to describe specific instances of phenomena.