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.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #179]

I think we both agree that the shape of the earth is objective, right?

The existence of the earth/universe is objective. How it is seen and experienced is subjective.

The human form is objective. How it is experienced is subjective.

Im suggesting there are two generally understood and accepted senses of subjective/objective.

Both understanding and accepting are subjective attributes. That in itself does not mean they are true even if generally accepted as it may be a case of misuse of language.

Are you suggesting that there are two two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?

I have not argued for the existence of objective morality here. I have argued that atheism doesnt rationally account for objective morality, if it existed.

Which would be another way of saying that atheism doesn't rationally account for God, if God existed. (no surprises there), unless you have other examples of objective morality which can be accounted for without God.

[TRANSPONDER]

He is persisting with the same mistaken argument. There is (arguable) no objective morality even with a god, as it is that god's opinion, hust as mundane morality is ours.

Even worse, if it is Biblegod, human morality these days seems better than Biblegod's ever was.

And of course the dogma they can't ever shake, that unless there is some kind of Cosmic law of Morality it isn't valid. And we know the problem wit 'Only God's moraloty is valid'.

I happened on a site yesternight. '5 churches to avoid'. I though that worth a click, and the first crack out of the box, it seemed was any church with tolerance towards recent social easing of gender restrictions. They seemed to part of the ongoing religious fight against social progress, which is one reason why 'God's morality' (or Biblical) failed long ago.

At best we can have cherry - picked NT 'play nice' ethics, but that is merely taking human morality and claiming it for Jesus.

[The Tanager]

The existence of the earth/universe is objective. How it is seen and experienced is subjective.

The human form is objective. How it is experienced is subjective.

Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical? Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesnt mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.

Are you suggesting that there are two two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?

Yes, Im suggesting that there are two senses of both terms that are often used. Otherwise, you couldnt say that the shape of the earth is an objective fact that we subjectively experience.

Which would be another way of saying that atheism doesn't rationally account for God, if God existed. (no surprises there), unless you have other examples of objective morality which can be accounted for without God.

First, of course atheism doesnt rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesnt exist. Second, arguing that atheism doesnt account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.

[Diogenes]

First, of course atheism doesnt rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesnt exist. Second, arguing that atheism doesnt account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.

Admittedly this is not central to your argument, but I find myself annoyed by the almost incessant use of the words "atheist" and "atheism." "Atheist" was (and is) an insult coined by Christians who assumed THEIR belief in "theism" was the standard, the default belief. Use of the word 'atheist' continues this falsehood about the 'truth' of theism.

I suggest "naturalist" is a better term. The naturalist simply believes in what is fairly and objectively observed. "Gods" are as irrelevant as Fairies. Naturalists (and 'atheists' if you insist) not only do not 'account for God,' they don't acknowledge 'Him' as any more pertinent than freaks and fairies, ghosts and goblins, demons and angels.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #183]

Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical?

No.

Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesnt mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.

None of us experience the actual shape of the earth. The closest we might come to doing so is within the space station circling the planet, or through an OOBE.

Are you suggesting that there are two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?

Yes, Im suggesting that there are two senses of both terms that are often used.

So there are two generally understood and accepted senses/terms/meanings for both subjective and objective? Two for each? (you don't say what these are).

Otherwise, you couldnt say that the shape of the earth is an objective fact that we subjectively experience.

I can't say that as I do not subjectively experience the shape of the earth. I have not objectively experienced the shape of the earth.

First, of course atheism doesnt rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesnt exist.

It is the lack of belief in God(s). That is all it is.

The asserting - while from that position - is extra to simply lacking belief.
The asserting may come from a variety of positions, such as anti-Christian, anti theist, materialism, some types of naturalism...where is is usual to have a lack of belief in Gods + (whatever else spurs one one in that direction.)

Second, arguing that atheism doesnt account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.

As has been pointed out, morality is subjective, even if there is a God and even if human morality derives from said God.

[TRANSPONDER]

The existence of the earth/universe is objective. How it is seen and experienced is subjective.

The human form is objective. How it is experienced is subjective.

Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical? Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesnt mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.

Are you suggesting that there are two two generally understood and accepted senses for each, or one for each?

Yes, Im suggesting that there are two senses of both terms that are often used. Otherwise, you couldnt say that the shape of the earth is an objective fact that we subjectively experience.

Which would be another way of saying that atheism doesn't rationally account for God, if God existed. (no surprises there), unless you have other examples of objective morality which can be accounted for without God.

First, of course atheism doesnt rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesnt exist. Second, arguing that atheism doesnt account for objective morality is not an argument for God because it is possible that morality could be subjective.

I agree, but would say that Atheism in fact, does rationally account for God, just as Christianity accounts for all those other gods - they are human inventions.

I also agree that 'subjective' can be use to mean something just fantasised by humans, OR something that is real (a round earth) but which we don't realise or see.

I would prefer to not use the 2nd sense, though and it would imply that unknown facts were subjective, when of course they are literally not. So the term is best used for human imagination, which may or may not turn out to be right.

The subjectivity or factuality is of course, modified by verification, and we all knew tat including Theists, who use the 'poling up of circumstantial ecvidence' atgument to validate faithclaims.

That is, the theist apologists know the principle, but misuse it, as more verified circumstantial evidence does make an unproven more probable, as with relativity, Black holes and the Higgs - Boson before experiment validated them. Theist apologetics piles up a load of unverified claims and pretends they make for a verified claim.

But they never really got how logic works.

[The Tanager]

He is persisting with the same mistaken argument. There is (arguable) no objective morality even with a god, as it is that god's opinion, hust as mundane morality is ours.

If God exists and is omniscient, then it would also be his belief that the earth is spherical instead of flat. That doesnt make physical shape a subjective feature of reality, though. If God exists and created the world, then he is responsible for the physical shape the earth has. God would be responsible for an objective fact because of how he wanted to create that thing. It would be the same with objective morality, not because of Gods opinion but because of Gods act of creation.

I agree, but would say that Atheism in fact, does rationally account for God, just as Christianity accounts for all those other gods - they are human inventions.

I understood William to mean it in a different sense since. In your sense, I completely agree that atheism accounts for God.

[The Tanager]

Admittedly this is not central to your argument, but I find myself annoyed by the almost incessant use of the words "atheist" and "atheism." "Atheist" was (and is) an insult coined by Christians who assumed THEIR belief in "theism" was the standard, the default belief. Use of the word 'atheist' continues this falsehood about the 'truth' of theism.

I suggest "naturalist" is a better term.

The early Christians were accused of being atheists themselves because they wouldnt support the deities of the state, so I dont think Christians coined the term. Im sure (sadly) that many Christians have used that term as an insult since then. Christians arent immune to being jerks. But many terms start as insults and then are embraced by the ones insulted. Christian was apparently an insult coined by Romans.

In the time and culture that atheism came to be used, theism was the standard stated designation (whether it was their actual belief is another issue and one I'm not claiming to know). Many atheists throughout history have had no problem with the term, as well, as it is an apt term to describe their view, just as Christian is for mine. Using that term today says nothing about the truth of theism.

Having said all of that, since you take offense at it and 'naturalism' is (probably at least) as good a term to use (if that causes problems later, we can change it to something else), I'm fine with changing it in our discussion. I will try my best, but ask for grace if I slip back into it. I meant no disrespect and ask your forgiveness for not thinking through that it could be received in that way.

[The Tanager]

Do you agree that all humans (subjectively) experience the shape of the earth as spherical?

No.

Yes, they may believe the earth is flat, but that doesnt mean they experience the shape of the earth itself as flat.

None of us experience the actual shape of the earth. The closest we might come to doing so is within the space station circling the planet, or through an OOBE.

I can understand your confusion on what I meant. Sorry I wasnt clearer. We do experience the actual shape of the earth, in the sense that if we travel around the globe we dont, for example, fall off a flat edge, among many other ways. Thats the kind of thing I meant.

Would you agree that we all objectively experience the facts that come from the actual shape being what it is? Or do you think some people actually experience it as flat and, for instance, could fall off the edge?

So there are two generally understood and accepted senses/terms/meanings for both subjective and objective? Two for each? (you don't say what these are).

I did say them, but obviously not clearly. I agree with you that all of our experiences are subjective in the sense that we are the one having them with our mix of perceptions, feelings, etc. We are the subjects experiencing reality. Thats one sense. In this sense, an objective experience of reality seems a logical impossibility.

But we also experience subjective and objective truths of reality. The shape of the earth is the same to both of us. The taste of Brown Butter Bourbon Truffle ice cream may be different between us. Subjective, in this sense, means something like the definition bge offered earlier.

First, of course atheism doesnt rationally account for God; it is the assertion that God doesnt exist.

It is the lack of belief in God(s). That is all it is.

The asserting - while from that position - is extra to simply lacking belief.
The asserting may come from a variety of positions, such as anti-Christian, anti theist, materialism, some types of naturalism...where is is usual to have a lack of belief in Gods + (whatever else spurs one one in that direction.)

I was using the term in its traditional philosophical sense. The "lack of belief" is a relatively new use of the term. That doesnt make it wrong; Im just clarifying my terms so that you dont equivocate between the two.

As has been pointed out, morality is subjective, even if there is a God and even if human morality derives from said God.

As I said to Transponder: If God exists and is omniscient, then it would also be his belief that the earth is spherical instead of flat. That doesnt make physical shape a subjective feature of reality, though. If God exists and created the world, then he is responsible for the physical shape the earth has. God would be responsible for an objective fact because of how he wanted to create that thing. It would be the same with objective morality, not because of Gods opinion but because of Gods act of creation.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #189]

I can understand your confusion on what I meant. Sorry I wasnt clearer. We do experience the actual shape of the earth, in the sense that if we travel around the globe we dont, for example, fall off a flat edge, among many other ways. Thats the kind of thing I meant.

Would you agree that we all objectively experience the facts that come from the actual shape being what it is? Or do you think some people actually experience it as flat and, for instance, could fall off the edge?

How would I know?
More importantly, it does not matter to me what the shape of earth (or the biblical God) might be, because knowing such does not answer whether I exist within a created thing or not.

The experience of the thing is subjective and the thing is undeniable for that.

I agree with you that all of our experiences are subjective in the sense that we are the one having them with our mix of perceptions, feelings, etc. We are the subjects experiencing reality. Thats one sense. In this sense, an objective experience of reality seems a logical impossibility.

Indeed.

But we also experience subjective and objective truths of reality. The shape of the earth is the same to both of us. The taste of Brown Butter Bourbon Truffle ice cream may be different between us.

I cannot agree that the shape of the earth is an objective truth of reality which is the same for both of us. How can we know and even if we can know, how is that not subjective knowledge about what we perceive (as individuals) of an objective experience?

Subjective, in this sense, means something like the definition bge offered earlier.

What was bge's definition offered earlier?

I was using the term in its traditional philosophical sense.

What sense is that then?

If God exists and is omniscient, then it would also be his belief that the earth is spherical instead of flat.

Why would it be God's belief? Wouldn't it be God's knowledge? Why confuse things by injecting the conflation of words which have their particular separate meanings?

That doesnt make physical shape a subjective feature of reality, though. If God exists and created the world, then he is responsible for the physical shape the earth has. God would be responsible for an objective fact because of how he wanted to create that thing. It would be the same with objective morality, not because of Gods opinion but because of Gods act of creation.

We exist in an experience which allows for us to do whatever we want in relation to that which is being experience (subjectively) so the act of creation re the thing created and being experienced allowing for that, appears to contradict your assertion that morality is within the"act" of creating the "thing".
Rather, it appears that what we do with our experience in the thing, is governed by collective humanity who learn through experience the best way to do things (or not) and what helps us to decide will have something to do with the created thing.
Is that what you a trying to portray re "because of Gods act of creation" that within the creation being experience, consequence is learned?

Even so, all of this only requires subjectivity re the object (thing) created whether in its parts (how we experience the planet) or as a whole (how God might experience a planet.)

Morality also doesn't appear to be able to assist in my knowing whether we exist within a created thing, or not.