Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.
“While I’m not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise… I would say I’m probably a cultural Christian,” the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. “There’s tremendous wisdom in turning the other cheek.”
Christian beliefs, Musk argued, “result in the greatest happiness for humanity, considering not just the present, but all future humans… I’m actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think they’re very good.”
Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?
Also.
Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?
Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.
An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.
Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief) Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief) Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 2:59 am
....Those that believe that it is not necessary to be part of an organised religion to serve God today are effectively saying they do not need their Christian brethern ( 1 Cor 12: 21-25) and are rejecting a chief aspect of God's is purpose in these last days. Further, the "anti-organised religionists" risk losing out on everlasting life by failing to support Christ's brothers* who represent the earthly part of God's universal organisation ...
Person who is a disciple of Jesus, can have organized religion, even if he don't find other disciples of Jesus. The organization is simple, God-Jesus-disciple of Jesus.
But, I agree, other disciples of Jesus can be helpful. The problem is, in religion there is many of those that are not loyal to Jesus, not really disciples of Jesus. And those can be very harmful and lead others astray and risk of losing everlasting life. That is why I recommend people to remain in words of Jesus, that is sufficient on itself.
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” John 8:31-32 It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life. John 6:63 For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak. John 12:49-50
That''s a good point. Religions are divisive. Thew is a meme or Axiom; "There are many religions; there is only one science". Despite the efforts of anti- atheists to point to different kinds if atheists, there is on;t one kind - the kind that does not believe the god - claim. The rest is just people.
I think that atheists have placed themselves in a sealed room on that point.
For example, Simulation Theory introduces the element of a creator mind without having to dress the mind up in various held beliefs re the nature and motives of said mind.
Said creator(s) of the simulation could still be regarded as "God(s)" (because of the meaning of the word) thus, atheists (as you have defined them) would have no chance of even wanting to examine in detail the idea of Simulation Theory, simply in order to uphold the dictates of the position of their kind (the kind that does not believe the god - claim)
However, re the possibility of us existing within a reality simulation, one can (in theory) still treat other people according to the belief that we exist within a real thing which came about without any mindfulness, and mindfulness (re humans) emerged from a chaos and has the opportunity to design ways in which to get a more permanent foothold in the only thing believed to being real.
My own "anti-atheism" has more to do with the sealed room than the people within said room.
Yes, yes. The Believers forever turn to the fallacy of the unknown. I've even posted a thunderfoot video about it, and will again as, clearly, as the open mind vid shows (that may be worth posting too) the message bounces off the closed mind of the believer. It is fallacious thinking because it is based on belief as true, something that is not known.
Here we are again, explaining a simple thing that Believers do not get because they do not and cannot listen.
Nobody knows for sure whether there is a god i or not (agnosticism)
One either believes in what is not known (theism) or one does not believe it. The latter is logical. Belief in what is not known is irrational.
I know that Believers think that their hypothesis is valid because they believe it, but it is not valid. They protest that, like the seagull, we only know the chips on the pier. Sure, there is a huge Unknown but the unknown is, by definition, Unknown. It is not even a valid hypothesis, let alone some Life - changing truth that has to be dinned into those who refuse to see it - as they think, unable to see that it is their worldview that is limited. What's worse, they may resist and oppose any discoveries about that Unknown if it conflicts with what they believe.
Not so much the sortagoddists as you seem to be, even though they are as stubborn about the Cosmic Mind as the religious are about their various man = made religions.
The seagull analogy picks up the limitations of beliefs in mundane conditions as being the True Thing that explains the unknowns, even without Holy wars between seagulls about whether it is chips on the pier or breadcrusts in the town square that us the clue to the Bigger Thing.
The seagull that suggests that neither limited view is anything to do with the unknown reality gets its' eyes pecked out by both sides.
Whichever 'frog in the pond' analogy the theists may use, appeal to the Unknown is still a fallacy.
The Bible - believer asks or used to ask that non - believers read the Bible 'with an open mind'. What they really mean is 'read it with unquestioning acceptance. An open mind, asks questions and admits alternative explanations. Religions, whether of the fries on the pier or the breadcrusts in the town, are not only just one hypotheshis or claim, but not even the best or logical ones.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 2:59 am
....Those that believe that it is not necessary to be part of an organised religion to serve God today are effectively saying they do not need their Christian brethern ( 1 Cor 12: 21-25) and are rejecting a chief aspect of God's is purpose in these last days. Further, the "anti-organised religionists" risk losing out on everlasting life by failing to support Christ's brothers* who represent the earthly part of God's universal organisation ...
Person who is a disciple of Jesus, can have organized religion, even if he don't find other disciples of Jesus. The organization is simple, God-Jesus-disciple of Jesus.
So, would it be fair to say you are not saying one doesnt need to be part of an organised religion, only that God wants Chriistians to be in an organised religion of one human. Does that fit with Jesus' instructions for his followers and the biblical requirement of unity?
JOHN 17: 22, 23
...in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.
MATTHEW 18:19, 20
Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 2:59 am
....Those that believe that it is not necessary to be part of an organised religion to serve God today are effectively saying they do not need their Christian brethern ( 1 Cor 12: 21-25) and are rejecting a chief aspect of God's is purpose in these last days. Further, the "anti-organised religionists" risk losing out on everlasting life by failing to support Christ's brothers* who represent the earthly part of God's universal organisation ...
Person who is a disciple of Jesus, can have organized religion, even if he don't find other disciples of Jesus. The organization is simple, God-Jesus-disciple of Jesus.
So, would it be fair to say you are not saying one doesnt need to be part of an organised religion, only that God wants Chriistians to be in an organised religion of one human. Does that fit with Jesus' instructions for his followers and the biblical requirement of unity?
JOHN 17: 22, 23
...in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.
MATTHEW 18:19, 20
Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them
I love it when the believers start dismantling each other.
Do you see, JW, how one bunch can absurdly claim they are the only ones interpreting the Bible correctly?
The Believers forever turn to the fallacy of the unknown.
Q. What is the fallacy of the unknown? A. The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
It appears that this turning to the FOTU is a thing non-believers do as well. What is the remedy?
Richard Dawkins regards himself as an atheist yet recently declared himself a “cultural Christian” during an interview with Rachel S. Johnson of LBC.
Sir Richard Dawkins wrote: I do think that we are culturally a Christian country I call myself a cultural Christian I'm not a Believer but there's a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian and so you know I love hymns and Christmas carols and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense it's truth that statistically the number of people who actually believe in Christianity is going down and I'm happy with that but I would not be happy if, for example, we lost all our Cathedrals and our beautiful Parish churches so I count myself a cultural Christian. I think it would matter. Certainly, if we substituted any alternative religion, that would be truly Dreadful.
Q. Where on that spectrum do you consider your position to being?
The seagull analogy picks up the limitations of beliefs in mundane conditions as being the True Thing that explains the unknowns, even without Holy wars between seagulls about whether it is chips on the pier or breadcrusts in the town square that us the clue to the Bigger Thing.
I see the seagull analogy as the one asking the other deep questions "where are we heading" (as a specie) and then further clarifying its question with "I mean the Big Picture - what is the culminating result of consciousness? Where does this path end?" and the other focused on only survival/being comfortable.
Q. Which of the two seagulls do you consider yourself to being?
My answer is that I am the one asking the Big Picture question. If you are also that, then we have all opportunity to discuss the subject further, and if not, then whether it is chips on the pier or breadcrumbs in the town square, that is your position and our positions are too far apart to have any practical/meaningful discussion.
The first video (why do people laugh at creationists) is an example of two seagulls arguing the best place to dine (the pier or the town square/we exist/don't exist within a creation) - something which does not interest me - not because I am close-minded to the dynamic existing, but because it is mundane/childish and unfit for the purpose of corrective mindfulness, so I see no value in getting involved with that dynamic, because there is a lack of new ideas to consider.
The second video (open-mindedness) is similar, the "supernatural explanation" vs the "scientific explanation through the lens of atheism" being the same dynamic (arguing the best place to dine).
What's worse, they may resist and oppose any discoveries about that Unknown if it conflicts with what they believe.
Not so much the sortagoddists as you seem to be, even though they are as stubborn about the Cosmic Mind as the religious are about their various man-made religions.
That I understand we exist within a mindfully created thing is based upon knowledge rather than belief. With both the town square diners and the pier diners, what I share re my knowledge seems to conflict with what they believe - because of a close-mindedness both believe/claim they don't have/operate from - while in the same breath - are claiming that their opposition does.
Q: How is one to remedy the paradox of such hypercritical behaviour?
An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.
Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief) Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief) Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 2:59 am
....Those that believe that it is not necessary to be part of an organised religion to serve God today are effectively saying they do not need their Christian brethern ( 1 Cor 12: 21-25) and are rejecting a chief aspect of God's is purpose in these last days. Further, the "anti-organised religionists" risk losing out on everlasting life by failing to support Christ's brothers* who represent the earthly part of God's universal organisation ...
Person who is a disciple of Jesus, can have organized religion, even if he don't find other disciples of Jesus. The organization is simple, God-Jesus-disciple of Jesus.
So, would it be fair to say you are not saying one doesnt need to be part of an organised religion, only that God wants Chriistians to be in an organised religion of one human. Does that fit with Jesus' instructions for his followers and the biblical requirement of unity?
JOHN 17: 22, 23
...in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.
MATTHEW 18:19, 20
Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them
Yes, Christians can form larger groups. I am not against it. I just think it is not absolutely necessary. It is enough to have connection to Jesus and God. And some times it may be that there simply are no other disciples of Jesus near, only so called Christians that love more their own doctrines than the word of Jesus.
But, I like those scriptures. The goal should be that all disciples of Jesus have the same will with God.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 2:59 am
....Those that believe that it is not necessary to be part of an organised religion to serve God today are effectively saying they do not need their Christian brethern ( 1 Cor 12: 21-25) and are rejecting a chief aspect of God's is purpose in these last days. Further, the "anti-organised religionists" risk losing out on everlasting life by failing to support Christ's brothers* who represent the earthly part of God's universal organisation ...
Person who is a disciple of Jesus, can have organized religion, even if he don't find other disciples of Jesus. The organization is simple, God-Jesus-disciple of Jesus.
So, would it be fair to say you are not saying one doesnt need to be part of an organised religion, only that God wants Chriistians to be in an organised religion of one human. Does that fit with Jesus' instructions for his followers and the biblical requirement of unity?
JOHN 17: 22, 23
...in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.
MATTHEW 18:19, 20
Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them
Yes, Christians can form larger groups. I am not against it. I just think it is not absolutely necessary. It is enough to have connection to Jesus and God. ...
Jesus did not present the love for one's Christian brothers as optional nor as just a feeling, he said it would have to translate into observable actions that would in turn identify his followers.
JOHN 13:35 NIV
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Can you find words to explain in a complete sentences how a personal relationship with God identifies someone to the outside world (humans) as being part of a particular group ?
1 JOHN 4:20, 21
... For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother
How is an isolated Christian in a "religion of one" any different from an humanitarian atheist? How can someone's observable actions (motivated by love) identify the group he belongs to as true disciples of Christ?
The Believers forever turn to the fallacy of the unknown.
Q. What is the fallacy of the unknown? A. The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
It appears that this turning to the FOTU is a thing non-believers do as well. What is the remedy?
Richard Dawkins regards himself as an atheist yet recently declared himself a “cultural Christian” during an interview with Rachel S. Johnson of LBC.
Sir Richard Dawkins wrote: I do think that we are culturally a Christian country I call myself a cultural Christian I'm not a Believer but there's a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian and so you know I love hymns and Christmas carols and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense it's truth that statistically the number of people who actually believe in Christianity is going down and I'm happy with that but I would not be happy if, for example, we lost all our Cathedrals and our beautiful Parish churches so I count myself a cultural Christian. I think it would matter. Certainly, if we substituted any alternative religion, that would be truly Dreadful.
Q. Where on that spectrum do you consider your position to being?
The seagull analogy picks up the limitations of beliefs in mundane conditions as being the True Thing that explains the unknowns, even without Holy wars between seagulls about whether it is chips on the pier or breadcrusts in the town square that us the clue to the Bigger Thing.
I see the seagull analogy as the one asking the other deep questions "where are we heading" (as a specie) and then further clarifying its question with "I mean the Big Picture - what is the culminating result of consciousness? Where does this path end?" and the other focused on only survival/being comfortable.
Q. Which of the two seagulls do you consider yourself to being?
My answer is that I am the one asking the Big Picture question. If you are also that, then we have all opportunity to discuss the subject further, and if not, then whether it is chips on the pier or breadcrumbs in the town square, that is your position and our positions are too far apart to have any practical/meaningful discussion.
The first video (why do people laugh at creationists) is an example of two seagulls arguing the best place to dine (the pier or the town square/we exist/don't exist within a creation) - something which does not interest me - not because I am close-minded to the dynamic existing, but because it is mundane/childish and unfit for the purpose of corrective mindfulness, so I see no value in getting involved with that dynamic, because there is a lack of new ideas to consider.
The second video (open-mindedness) is similar, the "supernatural explanation" vs the "scientific explanation through the lens of atheism" being the same dynamic (arguing the best place to dine).
What's worse, they may resist and oppose any discoveries about that Unknown if it conflicts with what they believe.
Not so much the sortagoddists as you seem to be, even though they are as stubborn about the Cosmic Mind as the religious are about their various man-made religions.
That I understand we exist within a mindfully created thing is based upon knowledge rather than belief. With both the town square diners and the pier diners, what I share re my knowledge seems to conflict with what they believe - because of a close-mindedness both believe/claim they don't have/operate from - while in the same breath - are claiming that their opposition does.
Q: How is one to remedy the paradox of such hypercritical behaviour?
Culturally I was brought up in W Europe, which makes me culturally Christian. I am also English wh ish makes me culturally protestant. Do you see how absurd this is to try to argue that this makes atheism wroing and Christianity right? Ok, you may argue that you are more interesting is irreligious theism (cosmic mind) in which case, what is the point in appealing to the cultural relics of religion in one country or another? Only as a ploy to try to undermine atheism with invalid arguments.
As it happens, I value Christmas (not Easter), old churches for their history, not religious significance and organ music, not the religious basic which underlies it.
More than cultural Christianity i am something of a cultural Hindu -Buddhist, and value the Ramayana performances as much or more than the St Matthew passion or cantatas of Bach.
Cultural Christrianity by Dawkins or anyone else does nothing to undermine atheism or validate religion. No more that visiting castles makes me a cultural Feudalist.
What else. The fallacy of the unknown. You still don't get it. Theists never do.
Atheism looks at the unknown and says 'we don't know what is there'. Theism believes something without proof and claims it is out in the unknown area without any proof, and in fact put there to excuse there not being proof.
The other points are based on both these fallacies. The equivocation of 'creation'. That a creative process has gone on is undeniable, but for Theism it has to be Intelligent creation, which has to be proven, not smuggled in with semantic trickery. What was the other?
Oh yes, a sly attempt to sideline the materialist default, or the record of science as showing what was unknown whereas theist claims have been debunked, generally.
"The second video (open-mindedness) is similar, the "supernatural explanation" vs the "scientific explanation through the lens of atheism" being the same dynamic (arguing the best place to dine)." It seems that you cannot mentally escape from this idea that science is just eating chips or breadcrusts (or the naturalists playing in the sand) when there is a world of unknowns out there. Science is the one that has discovered what is in the unknown and religion or theism hasn't.
Even philosophy, from what i have seen, comes a cropper when it tries to do research with mind experiments. It can only make hypotheses and relies on science to validate it. Theist - based speculation is of even less value because it prefers to discard logic in favour of sophistry to try to make a case for 'god' when there isn't one., and have a lovely week-end
Q. Where on that spectrum do you consider your position to being?
Ok, you may argue that you are more interesting is irreligious theism (cosmic mind) in which case, what is the point in appealing to the cultural relics of religion in one country or another?
Where have I appealed to such. I simply point out that influences such as Elon and Richard are doing so.
Only as a ploy to try to undermine atheism with invalid arguments.
Cultural Christrianity by Dawkins or anyone else does nothing to undermine atheism or validate religion.
Feel free to "validate" atheism to me if you can do so without resorting to arguing where the best dining is to be found.
Q. Which of the two seagulls do you consider yourself to being?
Atheism looks at the unknown and says 'we don't know what is there'.
What is there to "look" at if something is "not there"?
You are conflating "atheism" with "atheists" when referring to atheism in the personal. Atheism is a position (lacking belief in gods) atheists who lack belief in gods have varying positions and opinions on the matter of where they prefer to dine.
Theism believes something without proof and claims it is out in the unknown area without any proof, and in fact put there to excuse there not being proof.
Theism is more than what you are making out in your statement. Elon Musk claims that we possibly exist within a created environment. If you think he does so without evidence, you need to get the facts instead of making these blanket statements in the name of "atheism".
(it seems to me that your arguments in the name of your precious "atheism" is an example of that which is undermining itself)
Q. Which of the two seagulls do you consider yourself to being?
That a creative process has gone on is undeniable, but for Theism it has to be Intelligent creation, which has to be proven, not smuggled in with semantic trickery.
How is my stating that I prefer interacting with the deep-thinking humans rather than with the shallow-thinking humans arguing over the best place to dine, "semantic trickery"?
Q: How is one to remedy the paradox of such hypercritical behaviour?
It seems that you cannot mentally escape from this idea that science is just eating chips or breadcrusts (or the naturalists playing in the sand) when there is a world of unknowns out there. Science is the one that has discovered what is in the unknown and religion or theism hasn't.
For whatever reason, you missed the point I made, while at the same time resorted to semantic trickery by implying that science and atheism are somehow the same thing.
Undermining atheism is not the same thing as rejecting science/scientific process re discovery.
Rejecting atheism is not the same things as rejecting science.
Accepting science is not the same things as accepting atheism.
I reject atheism because (as I have already informed) it is a like sealed room with nowhere to go.
An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.
Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief) Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief) Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)
