Cultural Christians.

[William]

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

"While Im not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise I would say Im probably a cultural Christian," the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. "Theres 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 Im actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think theyre 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.

[TRANSPONDER]

But the point was that human preference is the only measure we have. It is a logical error or fallacy to assume any kind of obgetive rule or standard for good or bad, let alone an arbitrary ruling handed down by a god, name your own, anyway.j
Do you see how human consensus, based on instinct (if anything) and agreed by arguing it out. is the evidential, practical and apparently tru situation we have regarding morality, and the idea of a god - given objective morality, or any other kind, is not an argument or valid apologetic, and hasn't been for decades.

I havent been arguing about what the true position on morality is. Ive been pressing you on a possible incoherence in your view of what is the true position. Accepting your view as described above, no moral position (or overall system) is "better" than the other; they are just different with one view being the majority and the rest being the minority. Do you agree with that specific point? If not, why not?

No, because you seem to be unable to grasp my position, which is that what is 'better' is what contributes, according to experience and reason) to individual and collective well - being is 'better'. This is why I talk of science and technology, art and sports; the 'majority' view isn't what validates it, but what makes it work. This (like morality) can be done better and can be done worse; the results validate the majority view, not the numbers.

We know what this is - co - operation rather than conflict. We know what we shoul;d be doing, but we find is difficult. And that plays into the hands of those who declare that the way is religious morality and the spurious or simplistic claim that we just have to follow the religion and we will have perfect morality.

That has never worked, but there we get the excuse that it isn't because 'religious morality' doesn't work, but we aren't doing it properly. I think my position represents what is right and practical, but what you call 'incoherence' is that it isn't the claimed (and spurious) 'Perfection' god - morality ought to have. It doesn't, neither in historical practice, nor the Bible.

The proof being that Bible apologists constantly judge the Bible according to human morality and have to excuse and deny what is bad in the Bible - according to human morality, not God's, which would be whatever God does or says.

[The Tanager]

No, because you seem to be unable to grasp my position, which is that what is 'better' is what contributes, according to experience and reason) to individual and collective well - being is 'better'. This is why I talk of science and technology, art and sports; the 'majority' view isn't what validates it, but what makes it work. This (like morality) can be done better and can be done worse; the results validate the majority view, not the numbers.

We know what this is - co - operation rather than conflict.

This is just a preference with which many would disagree with in specific moral instances. To say we judge different preferences by the results of how closely it comes to preference A (cooperation over conflict) is to beg the question. Why preference A?

[TRANSPONDER]

No, because you seem to be unable to grasp my position, which is that what is 'better' is what contributes, according to experience and reason) to individual and collective well - being is 'better'. This is why I talk of science and technology, art and sports; the 'majority' view isn't what validates it, but what makes it work. This (like morality) can be done better and can be done worse; the results validate the majority view, not the numbers.

We know what this is - co - operation rather than conflict.

This is just a preference with which many would disagree with in specific moral instances. To say we judge different preferences by the results of how closely it comes to preference A (cooperation over conflict) is to beg the question. Why preference A?

Spevific, yes. which is why it does not work as a perfect or reliable moral code, just by appealing to religion.

Yet the fact is that it Works, as everyone as a whole is approving Democracy, freedom and equality or pretending they do.

And it has taken a long time of pushing for it against the reactionary forces of authoritarianism, regression and religious reactionism.

[The Tanager]

Spevific, yes. which is why it does not work as a perfect or reliable moral code, just by appealing to religion.

Yet the fact is that it Works, as everyone as a whole is approving Democracy, freedom and equality or pretending they do.

How is this not judging the results by majority preference?

[TRANSPONDER]

Spevific, yes. which is why it does not work as a perfect or reliable moral code, just by appealing to religion.

Yet the fact is that it Works, as everyone as a whole is approving Democracy, freedom and equality or pretending they do.

How is this not judging the results by majority preference?

In the same way as 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. Results, not how many agree what is good and what is bad.

If it supposedly works in the Bible, it is because it also works outside it.

[The Tanager]

In the same way as 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. Results, not how many agree what is good and what is bad.

If it supposedly works in the Bible, it is because it also works outside it.

Whether this is how it works in the Bible or not is irrelevant to the point. You said it works "as everyone as a whole is approving Democracy, freedom and equality or pretending they do". If "everyone" didn't approve Democracy, freedom and equality, would it work? If so, you need to change what you said to explain that "it works".

[TRANSPONDER]

In the same way as 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. Results, not how many agree what is good and what is bad.

If it supposedly works in the Bible, it is because it also works outside it.

Whether this is how it works in the Bible or not is irrelevant to the point. You said it works "as everyone as a whole is approving Democracy, freedom and equality or pretending they do". If "everyone" didn't approve Democracy, freedom and equality, would it work? If so, you need to change what you said to explain that "it works".

No. You need to understand that procedures devised by humans have to work by consensus but are still valid (Art, sports, music, literature) even if there is no objective law of physics or divine diktat to back it up.

[The Tanager]

No. You need to understand that procedures devised by humans have to work by consensus but are still valid (Art, sports, music, literature) even if there is no objective law of physics or divine diktat to back it up.

What makes it "valid"? It sounds like you are saying something like "because it works when a majority prefer and, therefore, play along". But you've said it's not about a majority preference. So, what are you saying actually makes it valid?

[Purple Knight]

procedures devised by humans have to work by consensus but are still valid (Art, sports, music, literature) even if there is no objective law of physics or divine diktat to back it up.

So is there never any case where you'd say, "Those horrid people over there, gosh they made a functional society but I've never seen anything so immoral, it just has to be stopped."? Maybe the Nazis kill all their Jews off and they really do get a renaissance. Or maybe the people who believe in CRT kill off all their white people and oppression does actually disappear. Maybe it boggles everyone's mind because BOTH of these things happen.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. You need to understand that procedures devised by humans have to work by consensus but are still valid (Art, sports, music, literature) even if there is no objective law of physics or divine diktat to back it up.

What makes it "valid"? It sounds like you are saying something like "because it works when a majority prefer and, therefore, play along". But you've said it's not about a majority preference. So, what are you saying actually makes it valid?

It's functionality. Its' usefulness and how it benefits us (and yes, we judge that, as if not us, whom?).

Technology, writing, art, and sports, cooking, music and medicine, transport, society. We all evolved or discovered that ourselves, and discovery is itself an evolutionary process.

Knowing what seems to be true is better to human judgement - than believing what is now disproved. We laugh at flat earthists; we ought to laugh at creationists, and religions are now being understood to be myths or tall tales.

This does change as evolution (in every sense) makes for validity, not unbending Dogma. That just makes people who will not admit they are doing it wrong.

I think the theists can understand the process and working of humanist society, but must find it difficult to accept the validity of it because it is an ongoing process and is far from finished, if it can ever be perfect.

They have this belief that it ought to be perfect, as their father is perfect.

Except that I and other doubters of religion know that both are delusionary and unhelpful claims and beliefs.