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 William in post #36]

Unlikely but sure - feel free to show this "sneaking" is actually happening. Both Richard and Elon appear to be upfront about what it is they are expressing into the society they exist within.

Is being a Cultural Christian somehow more acceptable in this society than being a Cultural Something Else?

According to Sir Richard, he would rather be living in a Cultural Christian society than any other, so it is more acceptable to him.
Elon also seems to be thriving...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #41]

According to Sir Richard, he would rather be living in a Cultural Christian society than any other, so it is more acceptable to him.
Elon also seems to be thriving...

...because of a society which is "culturally Christian", or because of a society which allows a small number of individuals to become obscenely wealthy and many to starve?

[Purple Knight]

I can only think they have made mistakes as a child ...

Then they are not perfect.

I don't entirely accept that. When I put myself in those shoes, I think, I probably did things as a baby that were wrong, but if I had no way to know they were wrong, if I'm a different person entirely, if I don't even remember doing those things, I find it difficult to take ownership of them and apologise genuinely. Something about apologising for that feels disingenuous. And if I tried to hold someone else accountable for what they did as a baby or small child, I'd find it impossible to take myself seriously.

Then this is essentially a mythical being you claim exists.

Anecdotal yes. Mythical no.

I have never met anybody that claims to be perfect, nor anyone that has never needed to apologise for anything. You admit you cannot actually verify your belief such a person exists, so why should anyone, that does not share your faith based belief accept your claim as being factual?

Why should anyone share your faith-based claim that everybody makes mistakes?

Atheists always say that a positive claim needs more evidence than a negative one, but I never bought that. Positive and negative sometimes boil down to phrasing. These are both positives that need evidence:
A) Every person has made at least one mistake.
B) At least one person exists who has not made a mistake.

Here is another set of claims that are both quite assertive and need evidence (but not perfectly exclusive):
A) God (Jehovah) exists.
B) Of all the things that exist, none of them can be rightly called a god.

See why most atheists are wrong about this? We know ducks exist. We know there are tens of thousands of them. If I tell you, no duck is black, that is an extraordinary claim.

[JehovahsWitness]

I can only think they have made mistakes as a child ...

Then they are not perfect.

I don't entirely accept that.

What part of perfect involves making mistakes?

Then this is essentially a mythical being you claim exists.

Anecdotal yes. Mythical no.

No mythical! Someone that has never gotten a single thing wrong is mythical.

are you claiming that the person you have in mind actually stated "I am perfect and I have never made a mistake or needed to apologised" or have his family and aquaintences gone on record to make such a claim? If they did, would the world not view them as delusional?

The expression "Nobody's perfect" exists for a reason.

[Purple Knight]

No mythical! Someone that has never gotten a single thing wrong is mythical.

We should probably unpack this because we're talking about like six things here, all of which are correctly called mistakes.

1. Giving in to temptation. In other words, doing something you very well know is wrong, because you want to.
2. Making an error in judgment or having a false belief about right and wrong. See 5, 6, and 7 for subtypes.
3. Making a clerical error of some sort. Addition, subtraction, typos, that sort of thing.
4. Failing a skill check. Such as throwing the basketball at the hoop and missing.
5. Doing something you think is right, when you were mistaken and it was in fact wrong, while having given the matter thorough consideration.
6. Doing something you think is right, when you were mistaken and it was in fact wrong, while not having considered the matter much, if at all.
7. Doing something that you knew might be wrong, and it was, while having considered the matter but not having any, or many, alternatives that seemed to be any more right than the one you chose.

To be completely frank, if I put myself in God's shoes, I can't call myself fair or righteous if I hold anybody responsible for anything except 1. I would like to hold people responsible for 6, but I can only do that if the person was educated about being mindful until they understood it implicitly, and then they just didn't feel like it, in which case it becomes 1. However I often make errors in judgment and I feel responsible for those too. So to be honest, I can't quite put my finger on whether perfection would include no 2's, though the people I have watched on suspicion of perfection, I have watched them for 2's and they haven't committed any.

I don't think people are responsible for 3's and 4's, especially if they do their due diligence (proofread for example) and a typo slips through.

We probably agree that people are responsible for 1's. Possibly 6's.

It's 2's that are the head-scratchers. Do you agree?

are you claiming that the person you have in mind actually stated "I am perfect and I have never made a mistake or needed to apologised" or have his family and aquaintences gone on record to make such a claim? If they did would the world not view them as delusional?

Here we run into the humility paradox, which I reject. I don't think people are charged with being humble, because if they actually are perfect (or even extremely able or good at something) this essentially charges them with lying. People would be considered delusional by society at large, if they claimed to be perfect. What I have met, is someone who says things like, well, if you just do the right thing, never get lazy or careless, you never have to apologise, that's how I live my life.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #41]

According to Sir Richard, he would rather be living in a Cultural Christian society than any other, so it is more acceptable to him.
Elon also seems to be thriving...

...because of a society which is "culturally Christian", or because of a society which allows a small number of individuals to become obscenely wealthy and many to starve?

Which do you think it is and why?

Also, which would you rather it be?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #41]

According to Sir Richard, he would rather be living in a Cultural Christian society than any other, so it is more acceptable to him.
Elon also seems to be thriving...

...because of a society which is "culturally Christian", or because of a society which allows a small number of individuals to become obscenely wealthy and many to starve?

Which do you think it is and why?

Also, which would you rather it be?

Yes. This happens in many societies (the complex ones rather than small where people aren't overlooked). That is not what Cultural Christianity is about, but it is a bout cultural identity and it is as much patriotism/nationalism as about religion. In fact the religion often become subsumed, and indeed hi - jacked by the patriotism/Nationalism, when things become a bit fraught. God's Will is the final trump card to be played as an excuse to not be reasonable.

[TRANSPONDER]

I can only think they have made mistakes as a child ...

Then they are not perfect.

I don't entirely accept that. When I put myself in those shoes, I think, I probably did things as a baby that were wrong, but if I had no way to know they were wrong, if I'm a different person entirely, if I don't even remember doing those things, I find it difficult to take ownership of them and apologise genuinely. Something about apologising for that feels disingenuous. And if I tried to hold someone else accountable for what they did as a baby or small child, I'd find it impossible to take myself seriously.

Then this is essentially a mythical being you claim exists.

Anecdotal yes. Mythical no.

I have never met anybody that claims to be perfect, nor anyone that has never needed to apologise for anything. You admit you cannot actually verify your belief such a person exists, so why should anyone, that does not share your faith based belief accept your claim as being factual?

Why should anyone share your faith-based claim that everybody makes mistakes?

Atheists always say that a positive claim needs more evidence than a negative one, but I never bought that. Positive and negative sometimes boil down to phrasing. These are both positives that need evidence:
A) Every person has made at least one mistake.
B) At least one person exists who has not made a mistake.

Here is another set of claims that are both quite assertive and need evidence (but not perfectly exclusive):
A) God (Jehovah) exists.
B) Of all the things that exist, none of them can be rightly called a god.

See why most atheists are wrong about this? We know ducks exist. We know there are tens of thousands of them. If I tell you, no duck is black, that is an extraordinary claim.

Just to clarify, the black swan fallacy is to show that a claim that goes against the general evidence has not equal weight, but that the general evidence is not 100% proof (white swans were the norm, but black swans existed even though we knew about them, but a claim there were black swans was not a credible one until verified, just as a claim that blue or red swans exist is valid). This means that appeal to unknowns or unverified undisprovables have no validity.

'Extraordinary claim' is not what is going on here, The mental message being conveyed is particular, especially as it is explaining a logical position, so the clice of wording matters.

An extraordinary claim is not really une that is unprovable. If I claim that Kamala Harris has a pet dog, that is a claim that is unverified, but not improbable. But if I claim she has a pet dragon, that is extraordinary. This is why Jesus being Crucified is not an extraordinary claim, but rising from the dead is, even if both are in the same book. This is why "Miracles don't happen" is valid as part of the discussion, but is not total disproof.

Undisprovables can still be highly improbables.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #46]

Which do you think it is and why?

Also, which would you rather it be?

This is definitely the latter kind of society. The proof is everywhere.

I would rather no particular religion be exclusively credited with whatever beneficence there is in the culture.

[JehovahsWitness]

No mythical! Someone that has never gotten a single thing wrong is mythical.

We should probably unpack this because we're talking about like six things here, all of which are correctly called mistakes.

And you are claiming you have met (not just one, but a few) who have never made any of the listed mistakes since the day they were born.

Anyway, since you admit such a claim is a guess on your part and cannot be verified or corroborated, I cannot see how this can be the basis of a logical debate.


JW