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.

[Purple Knight]

Okay, but it's still the case that if you've looked for a blue animal for a long time and never found one, you're going to have to decide there probably aren't any.

Absolutely. But if someone is saying "here is some evidence for a blue animal" and you respond back something like "but since all the other evidence Ive seen says there arent blue animals, I must reject that", thats not rational. That was the point I was making.

There is a point at which people do that. They maybe shouldn't do it that harshly, but even the best of us will become, if not dismissive, at the very least, not very hopeful. I get that you should not automatically reject anything. But especially if you're living right and not rejecting things, you are going to reach a point where you reasonably know, from experience, that there aren't blue swans. That can be true at the same time as "you shouldn't dismiss people who say they've found a blue swan" is true.

So if Jesus had done exactly what he had done, tipped the tables, protested something which was wrong, been sentenced to death, but never had any powers and didn't rise from the dead, you'd still worship him? Not just go with his teachings, but worship him? Because lots of people without powers die as martyrs. The singular reason Jesus is so venerated above those others does seem to be that he had powers.

We were talking about why trust what Jesus taught, now you are asking about believing Jesus was God or not. Those are two different issues. The resurrection from the dead is a good reason to believe Jesus is who he said he was. It's not, alone, a good reason to side with his moral stance.

Whether Jesus was divine and whether he taught good, valid morality, are indeed two separate issues and I'm trying to get you to see that maybe you don't, but most people, including the ones who taught you to believe as you do in all likelihood, worship him because he was divine and not because of what he taught.

[The Tanager]

There is a point at which people do that. They maybe shouldn't do it that harshly, but even the best of us will become, if not dismissive, at the very least, not very hopeful. I get that you should not automatically reject anything. But especially if you're living right and not rejecting things, you are going to reach a point where you reasonably know, from experience, that there aren't blue swans. That can be true at the same time as "you shouldn't dismiss people who say they've found a blue swan" is true.

I agree it is rational to say you arent holding your breath until you see a blue swan. I am very skeptical of claims of "magic happening" myself. Yes, I do think "magic happened" in that tomb over two thousand years ago, but Im laying that aside for my point here. I dont see the logic in discounting miracle claims solely on the basis of our previous experience of non-miraculous events, even if that is all weve ever experienced. Yes, that should cause us to be skeptical, but not to say "therefore, miracle X probably didnt happen". A rational response, it seems to me, would have to include both the previous experience and the specific supposed evidence in the specific case.

[Purple Knight]

There is a point at which people do that. They maybe shouldn't do it that harshly, but even the best of us will become, if not dismissive, at the very least, not very hopeful. I get that you should not automatically reject anything. But especially if you're living right and not rejecting things, you are going to reach a point where you reasonably know, from experience, that there aren't blue swans. That can be true at the same time as "you shouldn't dismiss people who say they've found a blue swan" is true.

I agree it is rational to say you arent holding your breath until you see a blue swan. I am very skeptical of claims of "magic happening" myself. Yes, I do think "magic happened" in that tomb over two thousand years ago, but Im laying that aside for my point here. I dont see the logic in discounting miracle claims solely on the basis of our previous experience of non-miraculous events, even if that is all weve ever experienced. Yes, that should cause us to be skeptical, but not to say "therefore, miracle X probably didnt happen". A rational response, it seems to me, would have to include both the previous experience and the specific supposed evidence in the specific case.

I'm also skeptical of magic but I admit it could have happened. I'm almost more skeptical of the hardline skeptics who say it cannot. My experience is a single lifetime and I don't assume I'll see everything. But if I were to bet I'd bet on there being no blue swans, even if someone says they have one. If that sack really has a blue swan in it, I'd lose that bet. It's not about winning every time. It's about forming a reasonable working picture of what reality contains and what it doesn't. At some point you have to say blue swans don't exist, even if you're not 100% certain. You can't be 100% certain of anything. There still must be a point at which personal experience will outweigh any but photographic-level evidence.

I do not think that point is reached for magic. There is too much left unexplained. But as far as blue swans, people look at swans all the time. I'll say they don't exist.

Here's an example of when I'd have bet on the wrong thing. I see the picture and it actually looks somewhat real. You can see the ghost markings in the pink colour meaning it is part of the cat's coat and there's a good chance it wasn't dyed. Also, if it was dyed, the base colour can't reasonably be anything but cream or colourpoint. Now, if the cat was cream, it would have stronger ghost markings. It could be colourpoint, but then the body should not have any ghost markings at all, unless it was a lynx point.

https://designyoutrust.com/2011/07/real ... g_rewarded

[TRANSPONDER]

'Better' is what contributes to our survival and well being.

Okay, what does well-being consist of?

I'll have a stab of that before loking up definitions.

What is good for us, as an individual, group, society and species.

We have to survive, we have to live together; and we are battling the evolutionary instinct of combat with rivals to make that work in a complex society.

And well - being also covers pleasure and satisfaction, as the Better Book says 'Man cannot live by bread alone, They -them sometimes need a little honey on it".

Our life is better than it ever was. To deny that is ignorance and denial and i won't go into that yet again.

well-being
/wlbi/
noun
the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.
"an improvement in the patient's well-being"

What is the purpose of Life?

Survive, eat, reproduce. That's the hand evolution dealt us, and with the absence of a plan by any god, we are free to pick a card, any card. What makes us human? I say, curiosity. I think it is a natural instinct not intended to fill libraries or provide informative videos on dinosaurs, black holes or the wonders of the Deep - the real ones, not the mythology of the OT.

But we like it, and in my mumblety - seven years, I have seen discovery after discovery. And have the leisure, cash and (until recently health to enjoy it all.

That's well being, and to any who prefer the vale of tears theory and an afterlife - claim peddled to them by the deluded or deluders, when they don't know which religion has the heavenly concession anyway, does not deserve the cosmic lottery - win we - yall landed.

Now you you know. Let they with ears to hear, hear.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #132]

I agree.

[The Tanager]

quote]Okay, what does well-being consist of?"

I'll have a stab of that before loking up definitions.

What is good for us, as an individual, group, society and species.

We have to survive, we have to live together; and we are battling the evolutionary instinct of combat with rivals to make that work in a complex society.

And well - being also covers pleasure and satisfaction, as the Better Book says 'Man cannot live by bread alone, They -them sometimes need a little honey on it".

Our life is better than it ever was. To deny that is ignorance and denial and i won't go into that yet again.[/quote]

Its more in line with your personal preferences, but thats not "better". To say any disagreement is "ignorance and denial" so that you don't even need to defend your claim is to dodge your burden. Defend your claim. Show that your preferences are better than those who disagree with you both now and in the past.

Survive, eat, reproduce. That's the hand evolution dealt us, and with the absence of a plan by any god, we are free to pick a card, any card.

People pick different cards though. You and I pick the card to not imprison, beat, berate, kill, control people in the LGBTQIA+ community (we could talk about any moral issue). Other people prefer a different card there. If evolution has equally created both groups of people, then we are just different from each other, not one better than the other.

[TRANSPONDER]

quote]Okay, what does well-being consist of?"

I'll have a stab of that before loking up definitions.

What is good for us, as an individual, group, society and species.

We have to survive, we have to live together; and we are battling the evolutionary instinct of combat with rivals to make that work in a complex society.

And well - being also covers pleasure and satisfaction, as the Better Book says 'Man cannot live by bread alone, They -them sometimes need a little honey on it".

Our life is better than it ever was. To deny that is ignorance and denial and i won't go into that yet again.

Its more in line with your personal preferences, but thats not "better". To say any disagreement is "ignorance and denial" so that you don't even need to defend your claim is to dodge your burden. Defend your claim. Show that your preferences are better than those who disagree with you both now and in the past.

TRANSPONDER post_id=1154621 time=1723573399 user_id=15510]Survive, eat, reproduce. That's the hand evolution dealt us, and with the absence of a plan by any god, we are free to pick a card, any card.

People pick different cards though. You and I pick the card to not imprison, beat, berate, kill, control people in the LGBTQIA+ community (we could talk about any moral issue). Other people prefer a different card there. If evolution has equally created both groups of people, then we are just different from each other, not one better than the other.

You are again missing the point about morality. Evolution did not create art, music, dance or sport. Humans devised those. The rules of morality are devised by us, even though the basic aim is evolutionary (survival).

Just as we have rock and classical we have different ideas about morality. I have a foot in both camps and I am surprised at how many Biden - hating Maga enthusiasts I agree with on the horrors done to film franchises. Yet they agree with me that the Alphabet community should have the same rights as others. That is as Liberal as anyone could ask.

The point is that we all seem to agree on a fair whack for all, and only the extremists On Both Sides - Maga and Woke - want to steamroller the rights of others.

So I'd argue that we do generally play the game the same way, even if we are on different teams, and only the ones who damn the rules so long as they win, are doing it wrong, and wrong means we sling them off the pitch, even though we, and not a cosmic mind, invented the game.'

[The Tanager]

The point is that we all seem to agree on a fair whack for all, and only the extremists On Both Sides - Maga and Woke - want to steamroller the rights of others.

So I'd argue that we do generally play the game the same way, even if we are on different teams, and only the ones who damn the rules so long as they win, are doing it wrong, and wrong means we sling them off the pitch, even though we, and not a cosmic mind, invented the game.'

Thats describing a current majority preference, not "better".

[TRANSPONDER]

The point is that we all seem to agree on a fair whack for all, and only the extremists On Both Sides - Maga and Woke - want to steamroller the rights of others.

So I'd argue that we do generally play the game the same way, even if we are on different teams, and only the ones who damn the rules so long as they win, are doing it wrong, and wrong means we sling them off the pitch, even though we, and not a cosmic mind, invented the game.'

Thats describing a current majority preference, not "better".

I just wrote a long responre to that but it went mechanically missing, the way 'thanks' seems to have gone.

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.

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 noy an argument or valid apologetic, and hasn't been for decades.

How, odd...the Thanks reappeared. I sometimes wonder whether I really am living in a computer simulation...designed to muck me about

[The Tanager]

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.

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 noy 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?