What godless means

[PoetPhilosopher]

@Estro Felino - Despite me being an American, and English being my native language, my English skills were actually really poor when I joined RF. It's a wonder that I even passed High School English. During my first year here, I wanted to define some of my own terms, like I wanted to use the term "Christian atheist" and apply a definition to it that I now know is the definition of "cultural Christian". I tried to justify this term based on stuff I read online, not realizing that for every idea you have, good or bad, you'll probably find something connected to it on Google, where you can "try to back it up" or justify it.

Someone on RF kind of pressed and challenged me to use more exact terms. I didn't want to and had a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but I decided to follow their advice anyway. I won't say that I speak like an expert at English now, but after following their advice, it seems I've stopped having whole threads get lost in translation. There are still times when people may insert their own meaning into something I say if I speak too vaguely, or where I get a bit lazy with my writing skills, but I try to at least pay slightly better attention these days, and I try to use more concrete terms where I can.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

All my friends are atheists.
It's nearly impossible to find a theist in a juridical environment (like law school), or in a highly intellectual environment, in Italy.
I can promise you that.

And by that I am dissing the cultural level of theists here, I am aware of that.

But they do agree with me. That impiousness or wickedness brings atheists and theists together,
as much as goodness brings atheists and theists together.

Here in the US, I feel we have some interesting problems as well. There seems to be every type of theist, and some theists seem to look like polar opposites of other theists. Not to mention all the different Protestant branches, and different beliefs in each branch.

 

[Estro Felino]

Here in the US, I feel we have some interesting problems as well. There seems to be every type of theist, and some theists seem to look like polar opposites of other theists. Not to mention all the different Protestant branches, and different beliefs in each branch.

From what I can perceive, in the US atheists are still looked down upon, unfortunately. Especially in the Bible Belt.
I may be wrong...but that's what Europeans perceive.

In Europe, especially in Western Europe, atheists are highly respected.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Estro Felino - Despite me being an American, and English being my native language, my English skills were actually really poor when I joined RF. It's a wonder that I even passed High School English. During my first year here, I wanted to define some of my own terms, like I wanted to use the term "Christian atheist" and apply a definition to it that I now know is the definition of "cultural Christian". I tried to justify this term based on stuff I read online, not realizing that for every idea you have, good or bad, you'll probably find something connected to it on Google, where you can "try to back it up" or justify it.

Someone on RF kind of pressed and challenged me to use more exact terms. I didn't want to and had a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but I decided to follow their advice anyway. I won't say that I speak like an expert at English now, but after following their advice, it seems I've stopped having whole threads get lost in translation. There are still times when people may insert their own meaning into something I say if I speak too vaguely, or where I get a bit lazy with my writing skills, but I try to at least pay slightly better attention these days, and I try to use more concrete terms where I can.

I posted a video in the OP to understand what people here think of that YouTuber.
Is she judgmental?
Is she too harsh on atheists?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I posted a video in the OP to understand what people here think of that YouTuber.
Is she judgmental?
Is she too harsh on atheists?

I felt she had a really kind voice, but that what came out of her mouth didn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I need to define what godless means first :
godless means to believe in nothing. To believe life is meaningless.

There's a better more accurate word for that view. It's called nihilism.
It has nothing to do with believing (or not) in god(s).


For example, I don't believe in any gods and I am not a nihilist.
In fact, I personally don't know a single nihilist and the vast majority of my fairly large social network is atheist.

I don't think nihilist is that common.
In any case, you and the woman in the video, are seriously confusing atheism with nihilism.

You just have to look at for example societal health stats of scandinavian countries. These are nations with very low levels of religiosity.
These cultures are not amoral / immoral. Crime is not high, in fact it is low.

In general, almost as a rule, the societal health indexes of secular democracies countries with low religiosity levels, are very high.
Look at these same stats in the USA, which is (supposed to be) a secular country and it has very high levels of religiosity.
It also has very high crime rates, lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, more violence, etc.

I won't say that high religiosity is the cause of this, but it is nevertheless a correlation that disproves the claim in the video.
If those claims are correct, then we would have to see the exact opposite in the stats. But we don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are there any deities that promote negative values?

Are you joking?
Is this a serious question?

 

[Estro Felino]

Are you joking?
Is this a serious question?

Yes. Serious question.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Estro Felino - Despite me being an American, and English being my native language, my English skills were actually really poor when I joined RF. It's a wonder that I even passed High School English. During my first year here, I wanted to define some of my own terms, like I wanted to use the term "Christian atheist" and apply a definition to it that I now know is the definition of "cultural Christian". I tried to justify this term based on stuff I read online, not realizing that for every idea you have, good or bad, you'll probably find something connected to it on Google, where you can "try to back it up" or justify it.

Someone on RF kind of pressed and challenged me to use more exact terms. I didn't want to and had a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but I decided to follow their advice anyway. I won't say that I speak like an expert at English now, but after following their advice, it seems I've stopped having whole threads get lost in translation. There are still times when people may insert their own meaning into something I say if I speak too vaguely, or where I get a bit lazy with my writing skills, but I try to at least pay slightly better attention these days, and I try to use more concrete terms where I can.

The issue is that Italians are very laid-back when they deal with debating.
They are much more relaxed and chill out...

It seems to me that debate looks and sounds like a traumatic, devastating experience to an American.
If you said that theists believe in a deity because they have a genetic predisposition to believe in a fantastic and imaginative world, I would respect such opinion. I would never consider it offensive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Surely. I am using it in a fashion that is very common in my country.

Well, we know what Italians are like.
They're a very godly people.
("Godly" is a pejorative term here.)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The issue is that Italians are very laid-back when they deal with debating.
They are much more relaxed and chill out...

I can understand that. I think I first learned about debate fallacies very well before High School.

Honestly I think Americans tend to be very insecure about their certainties...if a term like godless stirs up such reaction.

I think sometimes, we may get into a rhythm of using logic, then be ready to pounce on something where formal logic doesn't apply.

If you said that theists believe in a deity because they have a genetic predisposition to believe in a fantastic and imaginative world, I would respect such opinion. I would never consider it offensive.

Some others might find such a statement offensive depending on how it's worded, though.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think sometimes, we may get into a rhythm of using logic, then be ready to pounce on something where formal logic doesn't apply.

This thread is in the Religion section. Theology prevails, of course and uses moral philosophy, and ethics.
I think that debating in a religion thread implies being interested in religion.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, we know what Italians are like.
They're a very godly people.
("Godly" is a pejorative term here.)

Very godly.
We are fighting to get Assange political asylum in Italy, so he can be safe.
Because if he's extradited to US, they will kill him in prison and then say it was a suicide.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This thread is in the Religion section. Theology prevails, of course and uses moral philosophy, and ethics.
I think that debating in a religion thread implies being interested in religion.

Still, if one doesn't use Logic in the debate sections, what then separates debate from discussion, other than just being able to say "I disagree" in the debates?

 

[Estro Felino]

Still, if one doesn't use Logic in the debate sections, what then separates debate from discussion, other than just being able to say "I disagree" in the debates?

Religion not always uses the brain, but the heart, the feelings to understand particular dynamics.
Logic is the main tool, but it's not sufficient.

Also because if I need to debate Christ's resurrection in a religious thread, you can tell me it's illogical.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Religion not always uses the brain, but the heart, the feelings to understand particular dynamics.

To me, it actually comes down to what the particular poster wants a person to use and whether they are clear at spelling out how they want the debate to go, which admittedly, may require some mastery of the English language such that points can be clearly specified and outlined. As is, my emotional intelligence isn't generally good enough to look at words on a screen of someone else without the body language, and determine whether they want me to use my head or my heart when responding to their message. Just sayin'.

 

[Stevicus]

The issue is that Italians are very laid-back when they deal with debating.
They are much more relaxed and chill out...

It seems to me that debate looks and sounds like a traumatic, devastating experience to an American.
Honestly I think Americans tend to be very insecure about their certainties...if a term like godless stirs up such reaction.

If you said that theists believe in a deity because they have a genetic predisposition to believe in a fantastic and imaginative world, I would respect such opinion. I would never consider it offensive.

In America, the term "godless" has often been used with the phrase "godless communist," which is considered a pejorative label.

Overall, many Americans seem to embrace a style of debate which involves labeling people, rather than discussing ideas or principles. Once they believe they've successfully labeled or pigeonholed someone, that's the end of the debate in many people's minds. No need for critical thinking or discussing any issues in depth when one takes the hit-and-run, throwaway one-liner approach, where they think it's a "waste of time" to actually explain themselves or elaborate on their views. It's a pretty standard tactic.

 

[Estro Felino]

There's a better more accurate word for that view. It's called nihilism.
It has nothing to do with believing (or not) in god(s).

Nihilism is the philosophical transposition of godlessness.

 

[Estro Felino]

In America, the term "godless" has often been used with the phrase "godless communist," which is considered a pejorative label.

Overall, many Americans seem to embrace a style of debate which involves labeling people, rather than discussing ideas or principles. Once they believe they've successfully labeled or pigeonholed someone, that's the end of the debate in many people's minds. No need for critical thinking or discussing any issues in depth when one takes the hit-and-run, throwaway one-liner approach, where they think it's a "waste of time" to actually explain themselves or elaborate on their views. It's a pretty standard tactic.

Unfortunately I remarked it on TV.
Debates entirely revolve around the debaters. The debaters accuse each other of being wrong, biased, uninformed, gullible.
And the points are hardly discussed or questioned.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Unfortunately I remarked it on TV.
Debates entirely revolve around the debaters. The debaters accuse each other of being wrong, biased, uninformed, gullible.
And the points are hardly discussed or questioned.

This is where it gets a little murky, because some believe that every comment on the person is an ad hominem, while some debaters, including some of the more skilled ones I've met, use a definition of ad hominem where only certain very very specific comments on the debater are actually considered to be ad hominem and fallacious, whereas some comments are technically game in a debating sense. Which admittedly, does allow debaters the freedom to do things like show off, and in some cases, even gloat to the crowd, in a debate sense that is.