Then what do you mean by your remark about how atheists "derive" their moral beliefs? rayiner's comment was about the religious origins of certain beliefs and their persistence in Western societies--not about whatever explicit justification contemporary atheists or believers might offer for those beliefs. In your comment you seem to be disregarding the former question to focus attention entirely on the latter.
I don't write at all about how Atheists derive their moral beliefs, I don't know what you are referring to - show me, if you can.
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.
Oh a new thing in this thread, a bait-and-switch-appeal-to-authority-straw-man! But I'm glad you finally found the point you want to argue that doesn't even require reading the post you reply to and called 'laughable'.
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.
I don't cite those names as authorities whose views on the historical influence of Christianity--which differ greatly in their particulars, by the way--demand acceptance. I'm presenting them as evidence that the subject is worth reading up on, whether by you or by someone else who happens to read these comments.
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.
