Cultural Christians.

[William]

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.”

{SOURCE}

For debate.

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.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #160]

Why is it not about which game is better? You want to play a certain game and certain rules will be logically better for that kind of game, but why should people lay down the game they want to play (with rules that are logically better for their game) and play the game you want to play? You and I want a fair game; not everyone else does.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #160]

Why is it not about which game is better? You want to play a certain game and certain rules will be logically better for that kind of game, but why should people lay down the game they want to play (with rules that are logically better for their game) and play the game you want to play? You and I want a fair game; not everyone else does.

Because it is nothing to do with the Rules that we devise to play the game and choose the rules that make it work.

That was the point.

You want to talk about the game, point tics, music, sport, crime and law, fine, but try to understand the analogy or or you will have no contribution to make.,

If anyone thinks my analogy is flawed, I invite comment, but I don't think it is, only your lack of understanding of it.

p.s Here's what I think the problem is; Theist apologists do not grasp concepts; they do not want to and cannot afford to (keyword exegesis) Instead of understanding the argument (which is d fatal to their beliefs) they pock on anything and contest it without regard to whether it is relevant or not.

Come on now, isn't that what you were doing?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #162]

I’m sorry I haven’t been able to understand it. As far as I know, it’s not because I don’t want to understand. I want to follow truth wherever it leads. So, I’ll still try to understand as much as your compassion allows. I'll share how my mind is seeing things so that you have something to go off of to better help me grasp my error. Here is how I would basically structure the analogy:

(1) Area :: Music (or sport, morality, game, etc.)
(2) Game :: Classical music or folk music, etc. (or our general morality, the invaders' morality, etc.)
(3) Rules :: How best to play classical music (or folk music, or live cooperatively with all people, etc.)

If this isn't how you mean the analogy, then could you clarify the differences?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #162]

I’m sorry I haven’t been able to understand it. As far as I know, it’s not because I don’t want to understand. I want to follow truth wherever it leads. So, I’ll still try to understand as much as your compassion allows. I'll share how my mind is seeing things so that you have something to go off of to better help me grasp my error. Here is how I would basically structure the analogy:

(1) Area :: Music (or sport, morality, game, etc.)
(2) Game :: Classical music or folk music, etc. (or our general morality, the invaders' morality, etc.)
(3) Rules :: How best to play classical music (or folk music, or live cooperatively with all people, etc.)

If this isn't how you mean the analogy, then could you clarify the differences?

Ok. Maybe I fell into the trap of thinking because it was clear to me, it was clear to everyone.

The basic is instinct, of course. That (evolution) is the only Objective basis we have, well being, individual (survival) pack, tribe and then, with increased complexity (farming, towns, nations) a game - play had to be worked out to enable us to get along. Thus we got law codes and authority to implement and enforce them.

That is the dame we play - society; and law codes are the rules we devised to get the best and fairest result we can. As an analogy I point to art, music, literature and indeed games and sports. There is little doubt these are things humans invented and had to devise and agree rules so they worked. I can tell you with music, the breaking of musical rules can even be regarded as a moral transgression. The atonality riots of the 1920's were beyond belief.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #164]

I still have the same kind of questions I've been asking, so perhaps you still haven't made it clear. Our societal wishes differ from the invaders’ societal wishes. They don’t want everyone to get along. They don’t want it to be fair for everyone. They want it to be beneficial to them and don’t care if it’s beneficial to us. That’s the “music” they want to create. Why are our wishes better than theirs?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #164]

I still have the same kind of questions I've been asking, so perhaps you still haven't made it clear. Our societal wishes differ from the invaders’ societal wishes. They don’t want everyone to get along. They don’t want it to be fair for everyone. They want it to be beneficial to them and don’t care if it’s beneficial to us. That’s the “music” they want to create. Why are our wishes better than theirs?

This is dealt with by consensus morality. Reciprocity means that the invader does not itself like to be invaded (just ask the Russians now Ukraine pushed into Kursk), and so NOT invading is clear to be seen as an undesirable, by any side.

It is known that border disputes would be better solved by discussion. Even if the side that loses out may refuse to accept the decision, the idea is known to be preferable. To pretend there is no human moral preference and it is valid, if not easily workable, is invalid and shortsighted. I reckon it will not get an argument far to pretend this ideal does not exist or is somehow invalid.

[The Tanager]

This is dealt with by consensus morality. Reciprocity means that the invader does not itself like to be invaded (just ask the Russians now Ukraine pushed into Kursk), and so NOT invading is clear to be seen as an undesirable, by any side.

It is known that border disputes would be better solved by discussion. Even if the side that loses out may refuse to accept the decision, the idea is known to be preferable. To pretend there is no human moral preference and it is valid, if not easily workable, is invalid and shortsighted. I reckon it will not get an argument far to pretend this ideal does not exist or is somehow invalid.

I agree that invaders hating being invaded means something, but in the logic of an atheistic worldview that logically doesn’t make it invalid. Yes, this situation you describe exists, but to call it ‘valid’ or 'invalid' is logical nonsense. Atheism leads to “might is right”, which is exactly what you are rebranding as “consensus”. We just hope that those who love to invade (which is a separate issue than being invaded and can't be lumped together) don’t have the most might. No good/evil, no better/worse, just different preferences as I’ve been saying about atheistic worldviews all along. I'm not making any comparative judgment here, saying that objective moralities are better, or anything like that, just stating the fact. If something within you wants to buck against this and still fight for moral 'validity', then that's betraying your desire for objective morality not mine.

[William]

This is dealt with by consensus morality. Reciprocity means that the invader does not itself like to be invaded (just ask the Russians now Ukraine pushed into Kursk), and so NOT invading is clear to be seen as an undesirable, by any side.

It is known that border disputes would be better solved by discussion. Even if the side that loses out may refuse to accept the decision, the idea is known to be preferable. To pretend there is no human moral preference and it is valid, if not easily workable, is invalid and shortsighted. I reckon it will not get an argument far to pretend this ideal does not exist or is somehow invalid.

I agree that invaders hating being invaded means something, but in the logic of an atheistic worldview that logically doesn’t make it invalid. Yes, this situation you describe exists, but to call it ‘valid’ or 'invalid' is logical nonsense. Atheism leads to “might is right”, which is exactly what you are rebranding as “consensus”. We just hope that those who love to invade (which is a separate issue than being invaded and can't be lumped together) don’t have the most might. No good/evil, no better/worse, just different preferences as I’ve been saying about atheistic worldviews all along. I'm not making any comparative judgment here, saying that objective moralities are better, or anything like that, just stating the fact. If something within you wants to buck against this and still fight for moral 'validity', then that's betraying your desire for objective morality not mine.

Re Objective Morality.
Instead of framing it along the lines of "an inherent belief in objective morality," it might be more accurate to describe it as a "Subjective process of objectifying morality" — where individuals or societies take their subjective moral experiences and project them outward, aiming to make these beliefs a shared or universal standard within the broader environment.

By doing so, this perspective recognizes that even what we consider "objective morals" are rooted in human subjectivity, but they become "objective" when they are established as norms or principles that exist outside of individual minds and are recognized or enforced by a broader community or society.

Essentially, it acknowledges the truth regarding this dynamic process of transforming subjective moral beliefs into something that is treated as objective within a shared context.

[bluegreenearth]

I agree that invaders hating being invaded means something, but in the logic of an atheistic worldview that logically doesn’t make it invalid. Yes, this situation you describe exists, but to call it ‘valid’ or 'invalid' is logical nonsense. Atheism leads to “might is right”, which is exactly what you are rebranding as “consensus”. We just hope that those who love to invade (which is a separate issue than being invaded and can't be lumped together) don’t have the most might. No good/evil, no better/worse, just different preferences as I’ve been saying about atheistic worldviews all along. I'm not making any comparative judgment here, saying that objective moralities are better, or anything like that, just stating the fact. If something within you wants to buck against this and still fight for moral 'validity', then that's betraying your desire for objective morality not mine.

According to Wikipedia:

• Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience). If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.

• Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.

Do you agree to the widely accepted definitions above, or do you have proprietary definitions for those terms? If you have proprietary definitions, please provide them for clarification. Thanks.

[The Tanager]

Do you agree to the widely accepted definitions above, or do you have proprietary definitions for those terms? If you have proprietary definitions, please prove them for clarification. Thanks.

Those are good enough starting points, although I think they leave room for misunderstandings.