[nautilius]

You’re not alone. Many religious people cannot fathom that something outside of and independent of their moral system exists. Take the old discussion of atheists as satanists. What is that joke again? “No, we don’t believe in any of your imaginary friends.“

[throwaway894345]

I don’t see how that fits into the context of this conversation. Are you sure you responded to the right person?

[nautilius]

Yes because you still interpret the similarity of morals as a causal direction (‘legacy’, ‘divorce‘) from religion. You’re giving religion way too much credit there.

[throwaway894345]

Fair enough. Then yes, it’s hard for me to believe that the west’s wholesale adoption of Judeo-Christian ethics was unrelated to it steeping in Christianity for a thousand years—the gradual but significant ethical transition just happened to coincide with the Christian era.

> Many religious people cannot fathom that something outside of and independent of their moral system exists.

Well, this isn’t exactly an unpopular theory among Atheists either. Never mind that Atheists can go toe to toe with religious people with respect to dogmatic faith, tribalism, etc. Perhaps it’s not an issue of categorical superiority?

[nautilius]

Again, what you consider "Judeo-Christian" was there before Christianity. Look no further than ancient Greece. Christianity was very successful in hijacking existing ideas and customs (Christmas, Easter) to be more easily adopted, and now claims to be the origin and cause of all (the good) that comes with it - which is the topic in this thread.

>Well, this isn’t exactly an unpopular theory among Atheists either.

What part? You think Atheists cannot see that religion exists and that people derive their 'morals' from that? Dogmatic faith? That's absurd, and sounds again like Christianity imposing their worldview onto others when faced with different worldviews. It's the same 'Atheists=Satanists' again, in which Atheists are only understood in the framework of Christianity.

[edit] formatting

[throwaway894345]

> Again, what you consider "Judeo-Christian" was there before Christianity. Look no further than ancient Greece. Christianity was very successful in hijacking existing ideas and customs (Christmas, Easter) to be more easily adopted, and now claims to be the origin and cause of all (the good) that comes with it - which is the topic in this thread.

I think you're deeply mistaken on many counts. First of all, Christianity didn't "hijack" Christmas or Easter--those were patently Christian concepts; however, the medieval Church did dress up those concepts with superficial pagan trappings. That said, if you reduce Christianity to its holidays, then of course you would look at modern Western Civilization and feel that Christianity's effect was superficial. You have to have a modicum of understanding of Christian theology and ethics to see how those have influenced western civ.

> What part? You think Atheists cannot see that religion exists and that people derive their 'morals' from that?

I mean that I don't think "modern Western morals were significantly derived from Judeo-Christian values" is particularly controversial among Atheists.

> Dogmatic faith? That's absurd, and sounds again like Christianity imposing their worldview onto others when faced with different worldviews.

It's really not, you're just conflating "faith" with "religious faith". Atheists have faith in lots of things from various political ideals to the belief that God doesn't exist, and with respect to zeal the faith of Atheists can absolutely rival that of anyone else. Indeed, even your apparent belief that religious minds are feebler than those of Atheists is an article of faith. At the end of the day, people are just people and "religious" vs "atheists" isn't a useful taxonomy for virtually anything.

[nautilius]

>Christianity didn't "hijack" Christmas or Easter--those were patently Christian concepts;

You're arguing that no culture celebrated that days are finally getting longer in winter (e.g. complete with family gatherings and evergreen trees), and that no culture had spring/fertility (rabbit!) rituals, millenia before Christinity? Don't be ridiculous. Christianity came, hijacked those established celebrations, and rebranded them. Simple as that.

>I mean that I don't think "modern Western morals were significantly derived from Judeo-Christian values" is particularly controversial among Atheists.

Well, you think wrong then.

>Atheists have faith in lots of things from various political ideals to the belief that God doesn't exist,

You have a very loose unreligious view of 'faith' then. Do you need 'faith' to trust that you won't just float away when jumping, do you need faith that the sun will rise again tomorrow? I don't.

Not believing that God exists is not in any way a larger leap than not believing in Santa Claus or Harry Potter. I wouldn't call that 'faith'.

>even your apparent belief that religious minds are feebler than those of Atheists is an article of faith.

I never said that. But now we're getting closer: At the core, are you saying that your 'faith' then is nothing but insinuating and lying?

> "religious" vs "atheists" isn't a useful taxonomy for virtually anything.

You're barking up the wrong tree then - religious people should simply stop doing that. Why do they feel so threatened and keep bringing it up again and again? I've never heard of an atheist crusade that goes around giving people the choice between not believing or being killed. That's just ridiculous. No atheist goes around banning and burning books. Why do I find bibles in every hotel room, but not 'A brief history of time' or 'On the origin of species'? The only true religious freedom is freedom from religion.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701478