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]

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.

Yes. But that's ethical and social evolution. What was morally ok in the Bible is now not, which is why slavery is always such a fun debate topic. The old conquests have created cultures that we might now accept, like the total Iberian influence in S America and the still contentious USA and the original inhabitants sidelined, so can one really blame the Malays for a system that politically favors Malays?

At one time, genetic engineering was considered a good idea. Now it is (officially) regarded as undervaluing the less than perfect. Is the practice of having competitive sports with no winners good because it stops people being sad because they lost or daft because there is then no point in doing it?

Startrek was great in the Prime directive, where not to intervene was good because it is interference in the development of a culture. But sometimes something so bad is going on that we should intervene. And we do all the time, even when a country doesn't ask for help.

This isn't perfect and may never be, but it is better than it once was, even though ignorance and denial obscured this, And the Theist argument that it isn't perfect or is invalid because it isn't based on a cosmic or divine set of rules, only ours, is at best wrong - headed, and at worst trying to fool us to peddle their various religious myths.

There are those who want to beat up on the UK because it did the conquests that others tried but did it better than anyone else. I posted a long time ago on a board far, far away "If it hadn't been for the British conquest of India, there might be no Hinduism left today - don't thank us, you never have, so why start now?" I smiled at the inadvertent humor in an episode of 'Citizen Khan', where the loudmouth Pakistani girl berated the dude who had an Indian pot on his shelf for stealing from India. Yet her people invaded the continent and were still doing it when the British arrived. But there. it was {ersian cuisine that created what is 'Indian food' today.

So while i accept the Brits had no right to conquer India, nor Spain S America, nor Russia Mongolia, there is no point in being made to feel guilty much less Guilt being used to extract belated compensation. Though this is arguable, like whether the museums should return everything it got from abroad.

Yes, the ethics are not perfect and are still evolving. So it doesn't help to point to the Iconic Nasties and ...what was it again? An immoral system. Of course, which is how we socially evolve.

Listen carefully, I'm going to say this only once, because the thing is contentious and highly inflammatory, but while trafficcking of women is wrong, sex work is work, and deserves respect and rights, including the right to find work abroad. The divide being consent. So 'They should not be allowed to do this' is wrong, not moral. And we are totally messed up in the head about sex and are not yet fit to judge these matters, and that is all I'm going to say about it, and only mentioned it as a sore need for a lot of social evolution yet.

[Purple Knight]

Startrek was great in the Prime directive, where not to intervene was good because it is interference in the development of a culture. But sometimes something so bad is going on that we should intervene. And we do all the time, even when a country doesn't ask for help.

If you really believe in the Prime Directive, you have to have enough mutual respect for the Nazis to leave them alone if they leave you alone, though if they invade someone you can help then. I just watched a video where Richard Dawkins is not exactly berating (he's British and too polite for that) but definitely taking a stance against killing abortion doctors. I can't find myself agreeing with him because he's saying people shouldn't take the law into their own hands like that, and I know there's a point where he'd have that same, "Well, this is obviously evil, let's oppose it with force," moment. To be meaningfully different from the religious person, you have to say, "Alright then I'd actually never do that, no matter how wrong I thought it was."

Modern morality is very religious in nature, despite trying to wash its hands of that and seem secular. It is very strongly inclined to believe in divine righteousness: That these things are simply wrong and they're so wrong that we're justified in making them stop with force, even if they're not hurting anybody. They will say a town that wants to be all-white is bad, and should be prevented. I can't agree, because every white person in that town is putting themselves where they cannot oppress anyone. They will have no illegal Mexicans to do their dishes, no Black people to refuse to hire and keep poor until they commit crimes. If you're just coming at it from logic, everybody wins. (And if you really believe in modern morality that town will fail anyway.)

It's a religiousness I don't share. I want as many instances of mutual respect and you-leave-me-alone-I-leave-you-alone that I can get. I love animals, and this is probably what I feel most strongly about, but if somebody wants to hurt or kill their own animal, I do not believe I have the right or the righteousness to prevent it. I recognise my morality as entirely my own opinion, and if I can live where everyone recognises that, it will be a better world for me and them. I would like to ban Santeria and Kosher Judaism (religions with rather barbaric animal sacrifice) but I don't think I have the right to do that. Even if someone made me dictator, and I then am the legitimate government and the People gave me that right, I would not make such a ban without making reasonably sure people who wanted to do those things, ended up somewhere they could (...away from me).

Yes, the ethics are not perfect and are still evolving. So it doesn't help to point to the Iconic Nasties and ...what was it again? An immoral system. Of course, which is how we socially evolve.

Well, we move. We change. I don't know if we can say it's evolving or going forward, unless things become better for everyone. Some of this new stuff is not helping us; it's objectively hurting everyone for the supposed purpose of becoming more moral. The point is that if we want any right to say someone else is backward, or objectively wrong, we have to admit we're just like the religious person, because we've made the same claim of divine right. We've also said, that's awful, that's evil, that's wrong it just is, you're just wrong. Except instead of "because god says" we say "because I say."

Listen carefully, I'm going to say this only once, because the thing is contentious and highly inflammatory, but while trafficcking of women is wrong, sex work is work, and deserves respect and rights, including the right to find work abroad. The divide being consent. So 'They should not be allowed to do this' is wrong, not moral. And we are totally messed up in the head about sex and are not yet fit to judge these matters, and that is all I'm going to say about it, and only mentioned it as a sore need for a lot of social evolution yet.

I think we first need to rationally contract the definition of consent. So someone who pays $1000 for a single chicken egg either because he thinks it's a dodo egg, or because he thinks it is worth that and is unaware he can buy one at the Safeway down the street for twenty cents, that is not true consent, because it is not informed. This is already the way it is done with medical risks, just not with anything financial. So someone who has given consent to be trafficked had better not be in debt and working for pennies out of the $350 she gets for a job. If that happens it means the pimp is gatekeeping somehow. If he is gatekeeping information that is not consent. If he charged her $10,000 for ticket to the US, that is not consent because that is not what that's worth. Someone who overpays for a candy bar or a soda at a convenience store can tell you that it's cheaper at the grocery store and he's paying for the convenience. That is consent.

[The Tanager]

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

How is this not judging morality as "better" by majority preference? If the majority (in power) preferred other moral actions, those would lead to more functionality as judged by the "us" that have the power.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

How is this not judging morality as "better" by majority preference? If the majority (in power) preferred other moral actions, those would lead to more functionality as judged by the "us" that have the power.

By result. Science and technology do not take a vote on what apparently works, let alone allow public opinion to decide.

Laws and ethics, like art, music and sports are a bit trickier of course because we invented them, not discovered existing physical principles. But Reciprocity works and we all benefit. Conflic doesn't and we all suffer.

We know this, but how to get us all doing co - operation and trade instead of conflict and war is the problem.

[The Tanager]

By result. Science and technology do not take a vote on what apparently works, let alone allow public opinion to decide.

Laws and ethics, like art, music and sports are a bit trickier of course because we invented them, not discovered existing physical principles. But Reciprocity works and we all benefit. Conflic doesn't and we all suffer.

We know this, but how to get us all doing co - operation and trade instead of conflict and war is the problem.

Could you explain what you mean "by result" in more detail? Use a specific moral example perhaps?

[TRANSPONDER]

By result. Science and technology do not take a vote on what apparently works, let alone allow public opinion to decide.

Laws and ethics, like art, music and sports are a bit trickier of course because we invented them, not discovered existing physical principles. But Reciprocity works and we all benefit. Conflic doesn't and we all suffer.

We know this, but how to get us all doing co - operation and trade instead of conflict and war is the problem.

Could you explain what you mean "by result" in more detail? Use a specific moral example perhaps?

An obvious one is having negotiations rather than invasions. It suits the invader, if they win, but is bad for the people.

Also do we have police or let bandit gangs operate. The consensus always opts for some kind of police force and it's hard to deny the results have shown that to be the case.

Similarly going to law in a dispute rather than the old time feuds we used to have. The results are better.

So a system of law codes rather than letting mayhem ensue is the better social option based on results.

Now, it's fine to ask questions of matters that are often taken for granted, as though they popped out of the ground or are handed down by a god, but we must beware of asking questions of known situations, hoping to somehow invalidate what we do or try to do, in hopes that we must appeal to God and the Bible as a some sort of objective authority.

The point being that human constructs,, subjective though they may be, and with the human well - being instinct the best you will get for Objectivity, are valid and always have been, and attempts to wish them away in hopes to replace them with a religious legal system (which by Results has not done too well), will not in the end, do much to make a case for God, the Bible or religion. Secularism, humanism and Democracy is the way we do things, or pretend we do (with for the people, when it isn't, or for the integrity of the Motherland when it's one man's dreams of empire) shows it to be the preferred option, whether on results, consensus or preference of numbers.

[The Tanager]

An obvious one is having negotiations rather than invasions. It suits the invader, if they win, but is bad for the people.

But how does the result (the invaders win) judge that it was a bad thing because it was bad for the people?

Also do we have police or let bandit gangs operate. The consensus always opts for some kind of police force and it's hard to deny the results have shown that to be the case.

You are talking about the thoughts of those who dont like being under the bandits power, though. The bandit gangs themselves prefer to run things, not a police force.

Similarly going to law in a dispute rather than the old time feuds we used to have. The results are better.

Why? If Johnny could get more benefit through the old time feud method, why is following the law a better result?

Now, it's fine to ask questions of matters that are often taken for granted, as though they popped out of the ground or are handed down by a god, but we must beware of asking questions of known situations, hoping to somehow invalidate what we do or try to do, in hopes that we must appeal to God and the Bible as a some sort of objective authority.

The point being that human constructs,, subjective though they may be, and with the human well - being instinct the best you will get for Objectivity, are valid and always have been, and attempts to wish them away in hopes to replace them with a religious legal system (which by Results has not done too well), will not in the end, do much to make a case for God, the Bible or religion. Secularism, humanism and Democracy is the way we do things, or pretend we do (with for the people, when it isn't, or for the integrity of the Motherland when it's one man's dreams of empire) shows it to be the preferred option, whether on results, consensus or preference of numbers.

If what we do (make moral judgments and try to act on those) has no rational basis, its perfectly fine to invalidate that. Whether some other framework brings sense into the situation or also fails is irrelevant.

[TRANSPONDER]

An obvious one is having negotiations rather than invasions. It suits the invader, if they win, but is bad for the people.

But how does the result (the invaders win) judge that it was a bad thing because it was bad for the people?

Also do we have police or let bandit gangs operate. The consensus always opts for some kind of police force and it's hard to deny the results have shown that to be the case.

You are talking about the thoughts of those who dont like being under the bandits power, though. The bandit gangs themselves prefer to run things, not a police force.

Similarly going to law in a dispute rather than the old time feuds we used to have. The results are better.

Why? If Johnny could get more benefit through the old time feud method, why is following the law a better result?

Now, it's fine to ask questions of matters that are often taken for granted, as though they popped out of the ground or are handed down by a god, but we must beware of asking questions of known situations, hoping to somehow invalidate what we do or try to do, in hopes that we must appeal to God and the Bible as a some sort of objective authority.

The point being that human constructs,, subjective though they may be, and with the human well - being instinct the best you will get for Objectivity, are valid and always have been, and attempts to wish them away in hopes to replace them with a religious legal system (which by Results has not done too well), will not in the end, do much to make a case for God, the Bible or religion. Secularism, humanism and Democracy is the way we do things, or pretend we do (with for the people, when it isn't, or for the integrity of the Motherland when it's one man's dreams of empire) shows it to be the preferred option, whether on results, consensus or preference of numbers.

If what we do (make moral judgments and try to act on those) has no rational basis, its perfectly fine to invalidate that. Whether some other framework brings sense into the situation or also fails is irrelevant.

Because people don't like to by subjected to the power of invaders, bandits or feuds, You are probably thinking this is just majority opinion, but consensus counts, in subjective matters, with no more objective basis than instinctive dislike for things that we dislike. Presumably as they tend to be harmful.

To reject this is to make another Vulcanic error - to reject games of amusement because they serve no purpose. Human likes and dislikes are valid without any further justification. It is not perfectly fine to propose that as invalid, never mind suggesting invalidating it. I trust that was not really what you thought was a valid option. That would truly be immoral.

[The Tanager]

Because people don't like to by subjected to the power of invaders, bandits or feuds, You are probably thinking this is just majority opinion, but consensus counts, in subjective matters, with no more objective basis than instinctive dislike for things that we dislike. Presumably as they tend to be harmful.

To reject this is to make another Vulcanic error - to reject games of amusement because they serve no purpose. Human likes and dislikes are valid without any further justification. It is not perfectly fine to propose that as invalid, never mind suggesting invalidating it. I trust that was not really what you thought was a valid option. That would truly be immoral.

I have not rejected subjective morality because (like a game of amusement) it serves no purpose. Subjective games do serve a purpose and so does subjective morality. That's not the issue. The issue we are discussing is, analogically, whether one proposed game is better than the other.

If human likes and dislikes are valid without any further justification, then the desire to invade, rob, terrorize, control, etc. (since they are also human likes) are valid without any further justification. If its about instincts, they are following instincts as well. If its about what is harmful, youve just booted the question back another term because thats really just synonymous with saying it is bad. The invader thinks it's harmful that he and his people don't have that piece of land and its resources. If it's about 'consensus' and this is something different than 'majority view', then what do you see as the difference?

[TRANSPONDER]

Because people don't like to by subjected to the power of invaders, bandits or feuds, You are probably thinking this is just majority opinion, but consensus counts, in subjective matters, with no more objective basis than instinctive dislike for things that we dislike. Presumably as they tend to be harmful.

To reject this is to make another Vulcanic error - to reject games of amusement because they serve no purpose. Human likes and dislikes are valid without any further justification. It is not perfectly fine to propose that as invalid, never mind suggesting invalidating it. I trust that was not really what you thought was a valid option. That would truly be immoral.

I have not rejected subjective morality because (like a game of amusement) it serves no purpose. Subjective games do serve a purpose and so does subjective morality. That's not the issue. The issue we are discussing is, analogically, whether one proposed game is better than the other.

If human likes and dislikes are valid without any further justification, then the desire to invade, rob, terrorize, control, etc. (since they are also human likes) are valid without any further justification. If its about instincts, they are following instincts as well. If its about what is harmful, youve just booted the question back another term because thats really just synonymous with saying it is bad. The invader thinks it's harmful that he and his people don't have that piece of land and its resources. If it's about 'consensus' and this is something different than 'majority view', then what do you see as the difference?

No, no, no. Or you may have not meant what you said. It isn't about which game is the better, but which Rules are the better (for the game to work at all, and hopefully, fairly).

You have to clarify that before we go on.

Which, you still don't get, because the rules, if they are valid in making the game work, because we all want it to be fair (to us) and therefore (reciprocity) are needed, and it must be fair to all sides, that, given some will stoutly play by the rules, making game play a moral issue, or will try to bend the rules, which gives them a win, we have laws and penalties to stop them doing this, because the other side wants an equal deal (1).

This idea is so universal that I can hardly credit that you seem unable to get it, or maybe you compartmentalise anything that falls into the religion debate into a box where what you know doesn't apply.

But game play, and social rules expand in the world of politics, where the right of one to invade another if it's ok with them, which you seem to be saying is what the situation is without a god (which is a non starter anyway as invaders claim God approves their invasion) while secularists and humanists recognise the rights of everyone, and that the temptation to cheat is always there, so we try to devise judges, made up of everyone (UN) and that shows a universal awareness to have rules in the game of morals, individual, social and political.

For you to pretend there is no such, or that it isn't valid, either means you have no moral sense, or are willing to put it aside in order to make some kind of case for Theism, and frankly, I don't know which of the two is worse.

listen carefully, I will say this only once..again. No matter the swanning around pretending to be so holy and pious and Good, religion (at worst -some are good people) is not only immoral, crafty, ignorant, greedy, denialist and divisive, it is dangerous, and we knew it, but tried to deny it (oh, those wars...that was just men) but we never saw it more clear than we do now, where even Republicans are beginning to see that the GOP has been taken over by a dangerous and denialist cult of dictatorship. But even now they cannot and will not see that Christian fundamentalism was at the bottom of it, all the time, from Creationism through the tea party to Maga. Same cult, different packaging.

(1) explain, because not many get this, as they take for granted what they had to learn - reciprocity (golden rule), is an instinct, which puts you in the place of the other. I don't want that to be done to me, so I shouldn't do it to him.

but you'd be better off if you do.

"No, that wouldn't be right" (play by the rule - the Golden rule).

"I'll just do whatever I want. If you're famous, they let you do it"

"Gocha, my lad, you're nicked" Says the law and public opinion, or let's hope so.