What godless means

[Revoltingest]

The funny thing is that there must be hundreds of threads against theists and I haven't prevented any atheist from expressing their views.
I have never contradicted them. Not even once.

This is just telling, isn't it?

Not really. It's RF. Can't prevent it.
People criticize each other's beliefs.

 

[Estro Felino]

I suspect that’s a large part of the response to your OP.
When I read it all I could think was, umm no, that’s nihilism and hedonism.

In English that makes more sense because English is very intense as a language and it can be very specific. So casually redefining words is confusing and not readily accepted.
Words are instead redefined over a long period of time.

And do not forget that religious communities have long tried to paint so called “godless heathens” (including folks of other religions) as hedonistic ne’er do wells. It’s probably better to use another word, because the word “godless” has way too sordid a history lol

Just think that an Italian writer wrote a book against the Vatican and he used the expression "godless lodges within the Vatican".
And you will tell me: "what? Aren't they all Catholics?"...

 

[Estro Felino]

Not really. It's RF. Can't prevent it.
People criticize each other's beliefs.

Then why can't I use the term godless?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just think that an Italian writer wrote a book against the Vatican and he used the expression "godless lodges within the Vatican".
And you will tell me: "what? Aren't they all Catholics?"...

Atheists in the Vatican?
Sounds like improvement!

 

[Revoltingest]

Then why can't I use the term godless?

You can & do use it.
But you can expect criticism.

 

[Estro Felino]

Atheists in the Vatican?
Sounds like improvement!

They are not atheists. They are Catholics. Yet godless.

 

[SomeRandom]

Just think that an Italian writer wrote a book against the Vatican and he used the expression "godless lodges within the Vatican".
And you will tell me: "what? Aren't they all Catholics?"...

Actually I would say they are “grifters.”
It’s become something of an internet slang term for folks who espouse messages (often religious in nature but not necessarily) to a crowd for their own benefit. Typically one that is monetary in nature. But power is also a motivator

Like I said, English is an intense and specific language

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Then why can't I use the term godless?

I'd just say that the term has a lot of baggage to it, so people assume things. And it's also confusing, as the dual meaning here shows:

 

[Estro Felino]

You can & do use it.
But you can expect criticism.

Criticism on what the OP says. On what the video says.
Not on the term.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Criticism on what the OP says. On what the video says.
Not on the term.

I think there has been criticism of the term, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are not atheists. They are Catholics. Yet godless.

I'm optimistic they're atheists.
Subversion from within....
End child molestation!
Protect abortion rights!
Open the coffers to spread money to the poor!
(I get 10%.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Criticism on what the OP says. On what the video says.
Not on the term.

The term if fair game.

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually I would say they are “grifters.”
It’s become something of an internet slang term for folks who espouse messages (often religious in nature but not necessarily) to a crowd for their own benefit. Typically one that is monetary in nature. But power is also a motivator

Like I said, English is an intense and specific language

If I had meant atheists, I would have said "an atheistic society".

An atheistic society would be a positive thing, since there would be no religions, as John Lennon said, and people would be more united and less divided over religious matters.

Lennon was not a godless person. I don't understand why you don't get what I want to convey.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

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 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.

So godless doesn't mean necessarily atheist.

I think a better way of wording the OP might have been to say something like:

"I'm going to try to define what godless means to me. I see godless in a sense of believing in nothing, and I also see it as having a certain tone of believing life may be meaningless."

And I'd continue, then later on I'd say about atheists:

"Many atheists don't subscribe to life as meaningless. They find meaning in art...." (Continued)

Then in the next paragraph, I'd say something like:

"There are some positive values that come with deities. Humans have some of them as well. There are actually some theists who don't display these values. Some theists also believe in more of a cultural sense in regards to their religion, rather than subscribe to a real belief in God."

"It's also important to note that not all atheists are according to my definition of godless."

Then, as @SomeRandom said, you might face a little bit of push-back about defining terms still, but to get past it might also require understanding terms like "nihilism" and "social darwinism" and using them instead.

I also apologize if I misunderstood your posts a bit initially, myself.

 

[SomeRandom]

If I had meant atheists, I would have said "an atheistic society".

An atheistic society would be a positive thing, since there would be no religions, as John Lennon said, and people would be more united and less divided over religious matters.

Lennon was not a godless person. I don't understand why you don't get what I want to convey.

Whilst a very nice notion, ehhh I have a hard time believing that an atheist society would be ideal. Maybe better, depending on the version of atheism I suppose

I would have believed that an atheist society would be better than a religious one at one time. But quite honestly I have seen just as much division and hate from atheists (not all, obviously.)
Humans are tribalistic by nature. There will always be divides. Man made or “religiously justified” it doesn’t matter. The really unfortunate thing about society, athiest or otherwise, is that there will be those who exploit this tribalism to create rifts. Divides can be overcome, rifts are a bit more tricky.
At least that my personal view

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Whilst a very nice notion, ehhh I have a hard time believing that an atheist society would be ideal. Maybe better, depending on the version of atheism I suppose

I would have believed that an atheist society would be better than a religious one at one time. But quite honestly I have seen just as much division and hate from atheists (not all, obviously.)
Humans are tribalistic by nature. There will always be divides. Man made or “religiously justified” it doesn’t matter. The really unfortunate thing about society, athiest or otherwise, is that there will be those who exploit this tribalism to create rifts. Divides can be overcome, rifts are a bit more tricky.
At least that my personal view

I agree that a society might not look much different that didn't have theists. Not like all atheists subscribe to humanism.

 

[SomeRandom]

I agree that a society might not look much different that didn't have theists. Not like all atheists subscribe to humanism.

I will admit that perhaps my judgement has some bias to it, as it is based on my experiences with various atheists over the years online

Years ago, I would watch a movement of atheists who broadly challenged the then rather prominent creationist arguments surfacing in public (mostly American but it did pop up in many other western countries.)
These figures broadly encouraged healthy skepticism in their audiences and I thought they supported progressive policies, as they actively argued against harming and seemingly supported equality for minorities, women and the alphabet soup community.

Long story short, these same folks who legitimately taught younger me to have healthy skepticism and push for inclusivity turned heel very hard, argued against progressive values and overall just seemed to promote hate and anger.

But to be fair, a number of atheists arose to counter these messages. And a few of the “OGs” either turned over a new leaf or put into motion their espoused views of inclusivity and progressivism.

It was……interesting to watch unfold in real time, ngl

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I will admit that perhaps my judgement has some bias to it, as it is based on my experiences with various atheists over the years online

Years ago, I would watch a movement of atheists who broadly challenged the then rather prominent creationist arguments surfacing in public (mostly American but it did pop up in many other western countries.)
These figures broadly encouraged healthy skepticism in their audiences and I thought they supported progressive policies, as they actively argued against harming and seemingly supported equality for minorities, women and the alphabet soup community.

Long story short, these same folks who legitimately taught younger me to have healthy skepticism and push for inclusivity turned heel very hard, argued against progressive values and overall just seemed to promote hate and anger.

But to be fair, a number of atheists arose to counter these messages. And a few of the “OGs” either turned over a new leaf or put into motion their espoused views of inclusivity and progressivism.

It was……interesting to watch unfold in real time, ngl

If given enough atheists, I have this theory that a lot of different ideas would be given weight that aren't given much weight right now. As an example, I even picture ideologies popping up that are antithetical to humanism, and far more than one atheist subscribing to it.

 

[SomeRandom]

If given enough atheists, I have this theory that a lot of different ideas would be given weight that aren't given much weight right now. As an example, I even picture ideologies popping up that are antithetical to humanism, and far more than one atheist subscribing to it.

I would be inclined to agree with you.

There are a number of philosophical schools that aren’t exactly the most humanist now, that a lot of atheists have seemingly adopted

Hell I’ve seen atheists subscribe to various conspiracy theories even. Some more….interesting than others, let’s just put it that way

 

[YmirGF]

@Soandso

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

@Estro Felino I don't think you intended it, but the piece above is insulting to my intelligence. The above doesn't even work from an allegorical or metaphorical stance, either. It's emotional reasoning and not worth the time it took to read.

That said, I somewhat sympathize with the speaker, but do not agree with her premise. Replace the word, "godless" with "spirituality" and I might agree. One of the things I see, constantly, in my work with the guys, is that they do all have a disconnect from their connection to something greater than themselves. Most are like little gods, warts and all. We try to ease them out of that standpoint with empathy and some solid body slams.