What godless means

[Truthseeker]

Until there is a god who appears before us and starts running society, we will be a godless society by default. That's what we've always had, it seems. The existence of religion and/or religious believers does not make us not a godless society, and in fact, it leads to more people who are vain, with no sense of humility, and an inflated sense of power (just like the speaker in the video says) - all because they believe they have the "right" religion. Religion causes tremendous egos which leads to the situation described by the speaker in the video.

It depends on the person. I think those religious people with big egos have a greater presence in the media because they want to be in the news because they have big egos. Same with private people not in the media. Those who quietly live good lives because of their religious beliefs are generally overlooked. This doesn't address the point head on, but violent outbursts of of clashing religious groups get the publicity, because that is the nature of the news business. Interfaith groups who work to create harmony don't get publicity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The existence of a God (and acknowledging His existence) is irrelevant.
Values are cultural, not religious.
They depend on what westerners consider "sense of good", "sense of justice", how they developed them.
Being godless means to fight against the sense of good and the sense of justice, regardless of being either theists or atheists.

Since I guess I will never be understood here, I can suggest you to watch Cardinal Pell's answer about the issue. At 2_30

I watched that episode of Q&A back when it was first aired, but watched the clip again to refresh my memory.

They talk about atheists, whether Christianity is required to live a good life, etc.
Pell basicallys says it's not required but it helps. Totally makes sense that a Christian would have that view, and that seems completely fine.

No mention of 'godless' meaning 'wicked'.

 

[Truthseeker]

It's not my fault. It's theists' fault, it's them who devalue it.
In politics there are lots of theists who proclaim themselves believers of God, and then they lie, cheat, defraud the American people.
That's what godlessness is.
You can believe in the existence of a God, but your life can be completely devoid of Godliness.
Does that make sense?

It does to me, but the trouble is terminology. You are using the word "godless" in a way that other people use other words for approximately the same thing. The trouble is communication in their terms. There is a lot of semantics disagreement here.

 

[Estro Felino]

I watched that episode of Q&A back when it was first aired, but watched the clip again to refresh my memory.

They talk about atheists, whether Christianity is required to live a good life, etc.
Pell basicallys says it's not required but it helps. Totally makes sense that a Christian would have that view, and that seems completely fine.

No mention of 'godless' meaning 'wicked'.

Yes, he does mention godlessness, when he describes the pre-Christian society: 40% were slaves, infanticide, people mauled to death in the arenas and circuses by lions.
But in other parts of the debate, he implicitly mentions that it's not "theism" that makes a person godly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, he does mention godlessness, when he describes the pre-Christian society: 40% were slaves, infanticide, people mauled to death in the arenas and circuses by lions.
But in other parts of the debate, he implicitly mentions that it's not "theism" that makes a person godly.

No, that's simply not true. He mentions 'pagan' Rome...not 'godless' Rome.
He goes on later to say that a person can be good without Christianity, he just thinks Christianity helps. I have no problem with anything he said in this clip.

Feel free to point out where he mentions that theism is not what makes a person 'godly' though, be it in this clip (although it's not) or in the larger debate.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't think he was referring to transgenderism. I think he was referring to altering the gender one was born with using modern technological advancements.

Transgender is a general term that describes people whose gender identity, or their internal sense of being male, female, or something else, does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. By contrast, the term cisgender describes people whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.

What Is Transgender?

Find out how gender identity is defined and what it means to be transgender.

www.webmd.com

He mentions transgender in the post you quoted. Case closed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was referring to those atheists who do harm. Who do unspeakable things.
There have been such atheists throughout history. I don't need to say their names.
I guess I have the right to call them godless.
I pointed out I will never call good atheists "godless".

Those atheists are godless. Like all atheists. Being godless is not proof of being 'good' nor of being 'bad'. And I am godless.

I as a theist do acknowledge that there are bad people and good people among them.
It seems to me that some people here want to state that "since all atheists are immaculate saints, the OP doesn't have the right to use the term godless".

Some people? Can we stick to what I've suggested? Have I, at any stage, on this site, suggested that atheists are 'good people', far less immaculate?
No. Absolutely not.

I can agree with a website author on a sentence.
And completely disagree with them on another sentence.

Of course. But if you disagree with them about a topic...for example, atheism...and select parts of their words to make it sound like you have agreement, it's quote mining.

Given that you posted a link to a page that basically contradicted your OP, I'm not really suggsting you are quote mining. But at the same time, your link doesn't support your argument. Neither does your video in the OP. I've looked for a long form of the monologue in the OP and been unable to find it, so feel free to link me to it if it's the long form that is better aligned with this unusual way you are using 'godless'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That might describe me, I guess. I'm not convinced that reality has any message or plot, as if it was a movie or a novel. It just is.



Yes. I'm not an atheist (though I probably am in your sense) but I am inclined to think that whatever meaning and purpose our individual lives have (or our societies collectively) are meanings and purposes that we ourselves give them.

That being said, I don't believe that all meanings and purposes are equally valid or good. In my native San Francisco many people seem to believe that fentanyl gives them meaning and purpose, as they turn themselves into living zombies. (With the loving aid of a government which seems to favor them doing it by enabling it.)

In my own case, I guess that philosophy gives me meaning and purpose. My purpose is to try to penetrate the mysteries (in full knowledge that nobody has and that I never will). Others find their meaning and purpose in love and personal relationships. Others find it in art or adventure. Probably most people pursue some combination.

I'm not convinced that there is any objective truth to which one we should ideally choose, though the fentanyl example illustrates that some choices are more functional than others.



Sociologists call that condition anomie. It's the erosion of any sense or morals and values, along with growing social alienation and breakdown of social bonds. My own opinion is that Western society is currently experiencing rapidly growing anomie, which explains everything from growing drug abuse, through skyrocketing crime, to angry and hostile political division, to the failure of schools to teach basics. It's social breakdown, pure and simple.


I think that societies can only function if shared things that draw people together are stronger than the divisive forces that push them apart. That's true even if the cohesive forces are largely mythical. In the past, and in some parts of the world even today, religion played that role. Other places a common culture played that role, common language, traditions, assumptions and shared sense of identity, all shared with one's neighbors.

And I think that our contemporary sense of cultural unraveling is due to all those cohesive cultural elements being under relentless attack.

A thoughtful post.

*tips hat*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Honestly I think language can be molded and shaped, in philosophy.
Philosophers invent so many words that become commonly used by the people.

Godless isn't a word you've invented. You are using it in an uncommon fashion.
It has baggage.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Godlessness" also triggers a hostile reaction to theists from many atheists.

True enough. It's not generally offered to us without judgement.

I'm godless. But I could count on one hand the number of times a theist has called me such without it being negative and judgemental. I've most often been called godless when either being told why 'my people' are untrustworthy, or when being told that I'm destined for damnation.

 

[F1fan]

In this thread, you both devalue the term "god" for theists and force the term "god" down atheists' throats. I see nothing productive in defining "godless" is such a fashion.

Correct. It's like throwing gasoline on everything and everyone just to hurt the few atheists. It's like murder/suicide. Talk about someone who values nothing, unlike the rest of us.

 

[Estro Felino]

True enough. It's not generally offered to us without judgement.

I'm godless. But I could count on one hand the number of times a theist has called me such without it being negative and judgemental. I've most often been called godless when either being told why 'my people' are untrustworthy, or when being told that I'm destined for damnation.

Godless is always used as a derogatory term.
No question.
It's a given.

I believe that godlessness has nothing to do with atheism. Since many atheists are good and can be godly, and some theists are evil and godless.
Within the Vatican there are godless people, I can promise you that. And it deals with Italian high prelates.
You can't even imagine the horrors that the Vatican walls conceal. There is no God in the hearts of those people.
So the fact that they call themselves Catholics is irrelevant.

Secondly: language is a tool that needs to express philosophical and theological notions. It's a tool. Metaphorical meaning of words is needed. Literal meaning of words stifles freedom of speech. It stifles the philosophical afflatus. It stifles debate.

 

[Estro Felino]

Correct. It's like throwing gasoline on everything and everyone just to hurt the few atheists. It's like murder/suicide. Talk about someone who values nothing, unlike the rest of us.

Socratic method is based upon debate by the upheaval of one's own certainties.
One must always challenge oneself and cast doubts on one's own certainties.
Always.
Otherwise the ego is nurtured too much and the person will live according to the dogma: I am always right, the others are always wrong.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Secondly: language is a tool that needs to express philosophical and theological notions. It's a tool. Metaphorical meaning of words is needed. Literal meaning of words stifles freedom of speech. It stifles the philosophical afflatus. It stifles debate.

Metaphors can be useful for creating vivid imagery, or expressing complex ideas, or adding emotional appeal to your writing or speech. However, metaphorical language can also be confusing and not particularly good for debates, especially when you want to make clear and logical arguments. Metaphors can be good for some discussions, but also runs the risk at times of being ambiguous and (overly) subjective, at times exaggerative, and sometimes distracting for debates. One example of distraction: If I say "the economy is a balloon", I invite questions or comments about the size, shape, color, or material of the balloon, instead of focusing on the economic situation.

I'm not saying never to use metaphor, but in debates, I can see how too much of it could become confusing very quickly.

 

[Estro Felino]

Godless isn't a word you've invented. You are using it in an uncommon fashion.
It has baggage.

Surely. I am using it in a fashion that is very common in my country.
In my country we use it as a derogatory term.
It doesn't mean atheist. Because if I meant atheists, I would say atheists.

 

[Estro Felino]

Metaphors can be useful for creating vivid imagery, or expressing complex ideas, or adding emotional appeal to your writing or speech. However, metaphorical language can also be confusing and not particularly good for debates, especially when you want to make clear and logical arguments. Metaphors can be good for some discussions, but also runs the risk at times of being ambiguous and (overly) subjective, at times exaggerative, and sometimes distracting for debates. One example of distraction: If I say "the economy is a balloon", I invite questions or comments about the size, shape, color, or material of the balloon, instead of focusing on the economic situation.

I'm not saying never to use metaphor, but in debates, I can see how too much of it could become confusing very quickly.

Could you say the name of a celebrity, a politician that you know they are theists?
Thank you.

 

[ppp]

Transgender is another example. It is part of a godless world, since this is based on technology advancements, by man and not natural evolution.

1. You are ignorant of human history. Willingly so, no doubt. The erasure of societies with nonbinary gender came with the rape and pillage of non Christian societies by Christians. IOW, colonization.
2. Nature is not a moral standard. If it were then you would be anti-medicine and pro-parasite. Appealing to natural evolution is a false appeal to a standard that you do not remotely accept.
3. It has always been a godless world. The people who claim not to be godless have yet to support an adequate standard for morality.
4. You are currently wallowing nose deep in technical advancements by man while simultaneously trying to denounce technical advancements by man.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Could you say the name of a celebrity, a politician that you know they are theists?
Thank you.

I actually suspect you and I might have a different idea of theists as I consider anyone who identifies as a theist, and doesn't raise very extraordinary doubt that they belong to their faith, as one.

(Even in cases of doubt, that doubt has more to do with whether they do things like follow the customs correctly - not necessarily based on their morality.)

But, okay. Here are some examples in my eyes . Natalie Portman is Jewish. Trump is Christian, although certain things, like holding the Bible upside down, may possibly bring it into question. The band Paramore was very interested in Christianity for awhile, but appears to be dipping out of that interest. The lead singer of Flyleaf is Christian. Obama is a Democrat Protestant Christian.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Correct. It's like throwing gasoline on everything and everyone just to hurt the few atheists. It's like murder/suicide. Talk about someone who values nothing, unlike the rest of us.

I also agree with the other edge of @SalixIncendium's point, though. Comparing the godliness of an actual religious believer to how some people workship money in a colloquial sense is also insulting to the believer.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I also agree with the other edge of @SalixIncendium's point, though. Comparing the godliness of an actual religious believer to how some people workship money in a colloquial sense is also insulting to the believer.

I'd probably agree if I looked at the post again, but one thing I did want to add is that there are a few Christians out there who believe the mark of the antiChrist is money. (I'm not saying the OP does, though).