What godless means

[Polymath257]

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

Well, if that is what it means to them, then they don't understand the meaning of the words.

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

Which an atheist doesn't believe in.

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.

You said godless. That means those without gods. And to be without gods means the lack of belief in agencies that are identified with the supernatural. It has NOTHING to do with values or morality, in spite of what theists want to claim. To support goodness is not the same as 'having a god'.

You don't get to redefine terms in that way.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

...or maybe you mean that I cannot use the derogatory term godless because all atheists are immaculate saints, so none of them deserves to be called that. For the record: I apply the term godless to theists, most of the times.
Am I right? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, if that is what it means to them, then they don't understand the meaning of the words.

Which an atheist doesn't believe in.

You said godless. That means those without gods. And to be without gods means the lack of belief in agencies that are identified with the supernatural. It has NOTHING to do with values or morality, in spite of what theists want to claim. To support goodness is not the same as 'having a god'.

You don't get to redefine terms in that way.

Atheists are not a monolith.

 

[Polymath257]

Atheists are not a monolith.

True. But the issue is the concept of 'godless', not of 'atheist'. You don't get to redefine all values as being gods.

 

[Polymath257]

...or maybe you mean that I cannot use the derogatory term godless because all atheists are immaculate saints, so none of them deserves to be called that. For the record: I apply the term godless to theists, most of the times.
Am I right? Correct me if I am wrong.

It seems to me that you are wrong. Godless simply means to be without gods. And values are not gods.

Nobody is claiming that atheists are immaculate saints. But atheists don't usually consider the term 'godless' to be an insult or to be derogatory (except as used by theists), but rather to be descriptive of not believing in a god.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

OK, so that just means you are misusing the term. if they believe in God, they are not godless. If they don't believe in God, they are.

Now, they may very well be hypocritical theists, saying they believe one way while acting or actually believing another.

Being good is not the opposite of being godless. Nor does being godless imply that someone isn't good.

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

And if he was an atheist, he was godless. To believe he was an angel is already something atheists might well object to saying.

 

[YmirGF]

Yet another person attempting to use their opinion as justification for their opinion.

All opinions matter? Not!

 

[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.

No, that is NOT what it means to be godless. To be godless means to be without gods. it really is that simple.

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.

Yes.

But godlessness is the rejection of all the positive values theists associate with deities.

No, it is not.

And trust me, there are theists who are godless, because they think religion is just a cultural figment.

And how would an atheist that believes in art, creativity, fairness, knowledge, justice, and peace, that ALSO believes that religion is a cultural figment be classified?

You see, this article makes the fundamental error of thinking that anyone that is good must 'have a god' or be religious.

Read this
The godless person is not a person who has no god, for everyone has gods, including the atheist. A god is simply that which a person elevates to the position of greatest importance and significance. For some people this is the One True God or some pagan god, and for others it may be family, wealth, prestige, scientific materialism, or personal autonomy. Everyone has gods, even the godless, but only believers in Christ know and revere the One True God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Source What does it mean to be godless? | GotQuestions.org

OK, I have read it. I think it is badly wrong in several ways.

First, a god is NOT simply that which a person elevates to the position of 'greatest importance and significance'. That is a misuse of the word since many things of great value have no personality or agency and thereby are not gods.

This is a propaganda ploy designed to make those of us who do not believe in gods as necessarily evil. But, it conflates values and deities and thereby misuses the word 'godless'.

 

[Polymath257]

I did underline many times atheism is not godlessness.

Yes, you did. You allowed that atheists can be good people with good values. The problem arises in saying that those values are gods and that only godless people are without those values. This is a misuse of the word.

But this is a typical theist ploy: attempt to redefine things to the place that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil. It is propaganda and little else.

 

[Estro Felino]

But this is a typical theist ploy: attempt to redefine things to the place that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil. It is propaganda and little else.

Call it ploy, it doesn't matter.
I have the right to do that.

Because as I said, I deeply respect atheism since God is something unprovable. It's impossible to demonstrate His existence, so I love atheists and I respect their choice.

But what I don't respect is deliberate evil.
For example: if a person A tells me that they are disposed to get richer and richer, even at cost of the neighbor's poverty, in my opinion these people have no soul. They are soulless.
If people are disposed to kill to obtain economic advantages, yes, they are godless.
And they will never repent. Whether they are theists or atheists, I don't care. They're usually theists.

 

[Alien826]

I have decided that the word "meat" should be expanded to include all food. I use this to argue that vegetarians and vegans eat meat.

Now I just have to persuade enough people to use the word in that way and my point is made.

 

[Revoltingest]

...or maybe you mean that I cannot use the derogatory term godless because all atheists are immaculate saints, so none of them deserves to be called that. For the record: I apply the term godless to theists, most of the times.
Am I right? Correct me if I am wrong.

You can use whatever terms you want (within the rules).
I only offer criticism when you use them badly.

 

[EconGuy]

godless means to believe in nothing.

What does that even mean? I hold lots beliefs.

To believe life is meaningless.

Why do you believe that I think life is meaningless?

That this life is just pleasure

I pursue a lot more than pleasure.

and that the fittest shall prevail.

First, few know what "fitness" means in this context, but that's a different subject. That said, fitness is a question of nature, but believing that we must be blindly lead by this idea is at best a strawman of your understanding of the position of others. Actually, that' what your entire post appears to do.

But godlessness is the rejection of all the positive values theists associate with deities.

Why not just list the values your associate with deities and I'll tell you if I reject them. That way you don't have to create another strawman.

So godless doesn't mean necessarily atheist.

Actually, that is the definition of atheism, but I think what your saying is that not everyone who claims to believe in god does in a way that you think fulfills the requirements of belief.

Now, if you could just point out those people before they do something that's inconsistent with your faith rather than after.

 

[Estro Felino]

You can use whatever terms you want (within the rules).
I only offer criticism when you use them badly.

For instance, if I asked you a straightforward question about your opinion on godlessness, would you answer?

 

[Revoltingest]

For instance, if I asked you a straightforward question about your opinion on godlessness, would you answer?

So it wasn't rhetorical, eh.
I can't answer a question addressing your intent.
They aren't knowable except to you.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have decided that the word "meat" should be expanded to include all food. I use this to argue that vegetarians and vegans eat meat.

Now I just have to persuade enough people to use the word in that way and my point is made.

The adjective godless is born to condemn bad Christians. Bad theists.
It's pure semantics.

The particle -less means to be devoid of something.
As childless means to be devoid of children.

If atheists believe there is no God, how can they be devoid of something that doesn't exist?
You understand that it's a contradiction.


I use godless to define those Christians who believe in God's existence, but have no God in their own heart.

 

[Estro Felino]

So it wasn't rhetorical, eh.
I can't answer a question about your intentions.
They aren't knowable except to you.

Too many times you plead the fifth whenever you debate with me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too many times you plead the fifth whenever you debate with me.

You asked a very specific question about how you apply the term.

For the record: I apply the term godless to theists, most of the times.
Am I right?

Now if you'd asked if you applied the
term correctly, I'd have answered "no".

Sometimes (as I repeatedly point out)
one's language poorly reflects one's
intent. Cure that. Don't defend it.

 

[Polymath257]

Call it ploy, it doesn't matter.
I have the right to do that.

Because as I said, I deeply respect atheism since God is something unprovable. It's impossible to demonstrate His existence, so I love atheists and I respect their choice.

But what I don't respect is deliberate evil.
For example: if a person A tells me that they are disposed to get richer and richer, even at cost of the neighbor's poverty, in my opinion these people have no soul. They are soulless.
If people are disposed to kill to obtain economic advantages, yes, they are godless.
And they will never repent. Whether they are theists or atheists, I don't care. They're usually theists.

And I would simply say that such a person is self-centered or, potentially, evil.

To call them godless is the abuse of language. Having a soul has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see.

And this is what bothers me: the use of religious language (godless, soul) to describe aspects of human psychology that have nothing to do with religion per se. These people are self-centered, egotistical, and lack compassion for others. THAT is the problem, not a lack of gods.

 

[Polymath257]

The adjective godless is born to condemn bad Christians. Bad theists.
It's pure semantics.

The particle -less means to be devoid of something.
As childless means to be devoid of children.

If atheists believe there is no God, how can they be devoid of something that doesn't exist?
You understand that it's a contradiction.

On the contrary, it is a necessity. We are *always* devoid of those things that don't exist.

I use godless to define those Christians who believe in God's existence, but have no God in their own heart.

I would just say that they are hypocritical.