What godless means

[Stevicus]

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.

That could be, since there appears to be some in the U.S. who are obsessed with Assange and want him extradited, indicating the presence of corruption within the U.S. government.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

I give you an example. I think that godless cardinals killed Pope John Paul I in 1978.

And you will tell me: but cardinals are theists!
And I will answer: they have no God or goodness, or mercy in their heart. So they are godless.

John Lennon was very spiritual, very good. He has been an angel passing through Earth. I would never call him godless.

 

[Estro Felino]

That could be, since there appears to be some in the U.S. who are obsessed with Assange and want him extradited, indicating the presence of corruption within the U.S. government.

They won't tell us what he did to deserve such treatment.
His crime is that he said the truth about Hillary's genial policies in the Middle East?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. Serious question.

There's one or more deities that promote sacrificing young virgins.
There's one or more deities that condone slavery.
There's one or more deities that promote homofobia.
There's one or more deities that promote thought crime.
There's one or more deities that promote mysogeny
Etc..

What planet do you live on?

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

Let's analyze the term godless.
It means god-less. Without God.
It means not having God within.

Since we Christians think that God is within people...whether they are theists or atheists, it doesn't matter,
being an atheist or a theist is irrelevant.

It's a thread from a Christian perspective, of course.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Let's analyze the term godless.
It means god-less. Without God.
It means not having God within.

Since we Christians think that God is within people...whether they are theists or atheists, it doesn't matter,
being wither an atheist or a theist is irrelevant.

It's a thread from a Christian perspective, of course.

Do you believe some atheists have God within?

If so... interesting.

I just think of it as, "morality".

Also, I will say that for what it's worth, almost no Christian I've met in the US shares your view, so it may not be that common.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nihilism is the philosophical transposition of godlessness.

Repeating it doesn't make it so.
It doesn't matter anyway.

You are using the words synonymously and they are not synonymous.
You should stop trying to label people in dishonest ways.

Atheism and nihilism are not the same thing.
Neither is "godless".

So stop pretending that it is.

I also note you completely ignored the rest of the post, where I actually provide hard evidence against the claims of the clip.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I think that may be due to a certain adversarial process (practiced in politics and law) which dictates the style of how political debates often go. Instead of arguing in good faith to have a true meeting of the minds to find out where the other side is coming from, it turns more into something resembling the sniping banter between boxers right before a match.

Of course, ad hominems and other minor logical fallacies are bound to happen, along with spelling/grammar errors, which some people might leap on and play "gotcha." Some people are inclined to overlook stuff like that to keep the discussion moving.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I give you an example. I think that godless cardinals killed Pope John Paul I in 1978.

And you will tell me: but cardinals are theists!
And I will answer: they have no God or goodness, or mercy in their heart. So they are godless.

John Lennon was very spiritual, very good. He has been an angel passing through Earth. I would never call him godless.

The words to use here are words like "moral", "immoral" or "righteous".

By using the word "godless", you are adding an enormous amount of theistic baggage which only serves as some species of poisoning the well.
It is fundamentally a dishonest tactic.

It is a pathetic attempt at sneaking in by implication the notion that one can not be moral unless when adheres to religious philosophy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's analyze the term godless.
It means god-less. Without God.
It means not having God within.

Since we Christians think that God is within people...whether they are theists or atheists, it doesn't matter,
being an atheist or a theist is irrelevant.

It's a thread from a Christian perspective, of course.

Stop trying to shove your religious ideas into language by loading up words with its baggage while pretending them to be synonymous with other words.

It's just silly.
We have perfectly appropriate words for the supposed examples you have given.
These words are "moral/immoral", "nihilism", "righteous", etc.

They are more appropriate and don't attempt to sneak in extra baggage that doesn't belong.

 

[Stevicus]

I give you an example. I think that godless cardinals killed Pope John Paul I in 1978.

And you will tell me: but cardinals are theists!
And I will answer: they have no God or goodness, or mercy in their heart. So they are godless.

John Lennon was very spiritual, very good. He has been an angel passing through Earth. I would never call him godless.

Well, I suppose one could look at an individual or individuals who committed evil, criminal acts and consider them to be "godless" on that basis, regardless of what they might claim to believe.

But on the other hand, the cardinals might get off on a technicality, if it went down as you say it did. They could go to the new pope, confess their sins, and the new pope could make them do some kind of light penance to gain absolution.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, I suppose one could look at an individual or individuals who committed evil, criminal acts and consider them to be "godless" on that basis, regardless of what they might claim to believe.

Indeed.

But on the other hand, the cardinals might get off on a technicality, if it went down as you say it did. They could go to the new pope, confess their sins, and the new pope could make them do some kind of light penance to gain absolution.

Of course I am not sure what cardinal did that...
If it deals with that cardinal....I don't think he repented, knowing what he did to the last days of his life.
But I like your interpretation.

 

[Estro Felino]

Stop trying to shove your religious ideas into language by loading up words with its baggage while pretending them to be synonymous with other words.

It's a religious thread.
So religious ideas are used to express philosophical concepts.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you believe some atheists have God within?

If so... interesting.

I just think of it as, "morality".

Also, I will say that for what it's worth, almost no Christian I've met in the US shares your view, so it may not be that common.

Yes. Many atheists have God within.
Unfortunately much more often than theists. Since religion can be detrimental, at times.

 

[Stevicus]

They won't tell us what he did to deserve such treatment.
His crime is that he said the truth about Hillary's genial policies in the Middle East?

There's been a lot of people who have said and/or alleged some things about the U.S. government and ruling class which might be considered critical or damaging. Most of the time, the government just lets it go or ignores it. It mainly depends on what it is, who is saying it, and from what political faction it emanates. It's when the government does respond that might cause one to sit up and take notice, such as the government's response to the Pentagon Papers when that story broke.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From what I can perceive, in the US atheists are still looked down upon, unfortunately.

Yes, you are correct, but that is evolving. When my parents were born, a teacher was successfully prosecuted for teaching evolution in a public school. When I was born (America, mid-20th century), known atheists couldn't teach, adopt, coach, give expert testimony, or sit on juries, In God We Trust first appeared on the money, and "one nation, under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance. Today, that's all reversing. Atheism is becoming more respectable and the theists who have gone on the defense now.

It seems to me that debate looks and sounds like a traumatic, devastating experience to an American.

Interesting observation. I hadn't noticed that Americans were different there, but perhaps you are correct.

if he's extradited to US, they will kill him in prison and then say it was a suicide.

Another interesting observation, and certainly not without merit.

I think that debating in a religion thread implies being interested in religion.

I love debating in religious threads, but my interest in religion is really an interest in psychology. I'm interested in how religion affects its adherents, and these threads are ideal for observing a large spectrum of types of people in a large spectrum of denominations over a protracted period, with the atheistic humanists serving as the control group.

Let's analyze the term godless. It means god-less. Without God. It means not having God within.

That's not what the term means to this atheist, and you probably know that, so why use the definition you do when in discussion with unbelievers? You've seen the negative effect your use of the word has had. Is that what you're going for? If not, you might want to consider rethinking your definitions and your word choices. Or not.

I don't think nihilist is that common.

Maybe you use the word differently than I do. I call myself a nihilist because I don't believe that life exists for a purpose or has any meaning or other than what we give it, which is likely the position of a large number of atheists.

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.

Another interesting observation. This medium is also useful for getting an international perspective not readily apparent from within the culture. Even living abroad, I don't get this input. Most non-American immigrants in Mexico are Canadian, and they're too polite to tell us what they think of America without being asked.

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?

For starters, your English and use of language seem above average to me. For me, the essence of debate goes beyond "I disagree." It includes not just what I believe instead, but also the reason why I disagree. Debate begins when rebuttal occurs, that is, making arguments to support contradicting positions, and it becomes a debate when both parties are doing that, which doesn't happen much in religious discussions even when they appear in debate forums. Dialectic is the academic art of resolving differences in opinion through rebuttal, which I can't emphasize enough is not mere disagreement with or without what one believes instead, but the argument that, if sound, falsifies the claim rebutted. This ought to be a cooperative process. It requires that both parties be experienced and informed critical thinkers. And the "loser" is actually the winner. He has learned something and is grateful for that.

 

[Polymath257]

[
I need to define what godless means first :
godless means to believe in nothing. To believe life is meaningless. That this life is just pleasure, instinct, and that the fittest shall prevail.
Many atheists believe in something, which can be wisdom, art, creativity, fairness, cooperation, knowledge, justice, peace.
They pursue these things, and their life is filled with meaning.

But those are NOT gods. They are values, or goals. To be a god requires an agency that those things do not have.

Ultimately, this is trying to redefine 'godless' to make it so that everyone believes in a god. That is a rather disrespectful debate tactic.

But godlessness is the rejection of all the positive values theists associate with deities. And trust me, there are theists who are godless, because they think religion is just a cultural figment.

No. Godless means the disbelief in all gods. And, like I pointed out, those values are not deities (gods).

So godless doesn't mean necessarily atheist.

Again, this is simply an attempt to redefine the concepts in such a way that the other side doesn't exist.

Sorry, you (or the author of that article) doesn't get to redefine words like that.

 

[Polymath257]

So godless is just a synonym of atheist?

Like difference is a synonym of distinction?

Godless=without gods.

Atheist: no gods.

What do you think?

 

[Estro Felino]

Godless=without gods.

Atheist: no gods.

What do you think?

Exactly.
But since it's a religious thread, I am explaining what godless means to a religious person.

To me an atheist person can have God within. God is not a person. It's a Force. It's an Energy.

And on the other hand, there can be theists who are godless because they lack God within.

If I had meant atheists, I would have said atheists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's analyze the term godless.
It means god-less. Without God.
It means not having God within.

Since we Christians think that God is within people...whether they are theists or atheists, it doesn't matter,
being an atheist or a theist is irrelevant.

It's a thread from a Christian perspective, of course.

Perhaps even worse than "godless" being used
to demonize atheists is using it as the "no true
Scotsman" argument to deny Christians' evil.