What godless means

[LuisDantas]

He was an atheist.

Apparently so is believed. I wonder if we have any evidence. You literally could not tell from what he actually did.

That's the problem.

Really? I think we have established that it is anything but the problem.

I as a theist acknowledge that there are bad people and good people within my category.

I expect atheists to acknowledge there are good people and bad people within their category, as well.

We are well aware of that. We were before looking into the matter even.

Because these replies are making me understand that atheists believe all atheists are saints and perfect.

That... does not reflect well on your ability to read what we post.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think quite the opposite takes place.
That theists and atheists share so many values, like the common welfare. The well-being of everyone.

People do. Theists tend to deviate, though, particularly when they take their theism too seriously.

 

[LuisDantas]

For example:
I am totally sure you believe the Manhattan Project was something holy and that Oppenheimer was a hero and a saint.
On the contrary I think he was a godless person. He even admits it: I am become death.

Uh, what? How on Earth would that even suggest that he was in any way "godless"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Once again, I think we have to resist trying to lump together morals with religious belief or non-belief. I do not think they are well connected. However, as I have suggested, zealotry of belief (which an atheist is very unlikely to have) can lead to actions that are inimical to the well-being of those who don't share those beliefs.

They are well connected.

Negatively.

A harsh thing to say, sure.. But also inescapable if we are being honest with the facts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not quite, since the OP itself points out how atheists can be morally better than theists themselves.

Routinely. Even as a matter of course.

 

[Estro Felino]

Uh, what? How on Earth would that even suggest that he was in any way "godless"?

I consider him godless.
Without conscience, without empathy. A soulless person.

 

[Estro Felino]

Apparently so is believed. I wonder if we have any evidence. You literally could not tell from what he actually did.

Plenty. All his articles about the non-existence of God.
Just think that once he defied God at a Socialist Congress.
If God exists, may He strike me with lightning within 5 minutes. Didn't happen.
Many socialists were atheists at that time.

That... does not reflect well on your ability to read what we post.

Besides criticisms on the poster...
where are the criticisms on the substance of the debate?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok...I'll give you an example.

Let's say a Pagan religion revolves around causing chaos and turmoil in a society.

Do I have the right to call them wicked and profane...or not?

That's NOT an example based on your OP and linked article in post #4.

However, I have no issue with anyone pointing out wicked behaviour.
So...let's take your example one step further...this hypothetical pagan religion that causes chaos and turmoil is wicked, right?
And godless?
And atheists are...what?

Think about it from my view, for a moment, given that it is my group...including me...you are making claim on.

Am I godless, and therefore wicked based on your OP and post 4?
Or do I have a god, which is obviously not the One True God (per your OP and post #4), and either unable to recognise this, or trying to decieve you.

Because I don't see what else fits with your OP and post #4.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Here we all express opinions. They are not truths. They are opinions.

Atheists are free (and I defend their right to do that) say that we theists are fanciful, fantasist, gullible...etc...etc...
I think theists are much more used to self-criticism.

You might want to defend the rights of atheists to call all theists as fanciful, fantasist, gullible, etc, but I wouldn't. That's a ridiculous assertion.

As for the latter point, atheists haven't traditionally needed to criticise themselves. There has been a whole coterie of outsiders willing to do it for us. That notwithstanding, it's not criticism that frustrates me. It's ridiculous assertions about atheists writ large.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

Nope.

If people are saying things about all theists, you should contradict them.
If, on the other hand, they are saying things about particular beliefs, that is a different story and the argument should be judged on its merits.

For example, you can call me godless, and I'd have no issue
You can call Stalin a godless mass murderer and I'd have no issue.
You can call Stalinism an atheistic cult of personality responsible for millions of deaths, and I'd have no issue.

But if you say 'atheists are wicked and godless, they are murderers who are responsible for ethnic cleansing in Russia' I'd be forced to intercede.

Because it's about as relevant as me saying that theists launched the Fourth Crusade to a room full of Jains.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Maybe we atheists have a sacred
book, but no one ever told us?

Apparently. Which is a shame, because I'm not much a fan of dogma. I'll have to stop believing in not believing, I guess.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's NOT an example based on your OP and linked article in post #4.

However, I have no issue with anyone pointing out wicked behaviour.
So...let's take your example one step further...this hypothetical pagan religion that causes chaos and turmoil is wicked, right?
And godless?
And atheists are...what?

Think about it from my view, for a moment, given that it is my group...including me...you are making claim on.

Am I godless, and therefore wicked based on your OP and post 4?
Or do I have a god, which is obviously not the One True God (per your OP and post #4), and either unable to recognise this, or trying to decieve you.

Because I don't see what else fits with your OP and post #4.

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

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Honestly, if they're doing terrible things, you can, but for their deeds. I wouldn't factor in Paganism unless their beliefs are doing things like causing them to torture people or otherwise be bigoted.

Exactly!!!!!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

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

You're correct that I don't understand the above, and I may watch the video when I have the time. However, I also can't help but feel there's a certain vagueness going on, where if one spelled out exactly what we're supposed to be looking at in regards to godless, we can figure it out.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're correct that I don't understand the above, and I may watch the video when I have the time. However, I also can't help but feel there's a certain vagueness going on, where if one spelled out exactly what we're supposed to be looking at in regards to godless, we can figure it out.

It's just 2 minutes.

 

[wellwisher]

I was taught that the harm done onto others is infinitely more grave than the sin that might be done on oneself.

If you read the teachings of Jesus, he never preached harm to others. That behavior is not Christian, but is blamed on Christians, by those who lower their bar. In reality, it came from a godless element in the Church, who sought the glory of their own ego. They lowered the bar, so they could play god on earth in their own time.

In modern times, aliens and UFO's have taken the place of God; modern mythology. These too would be defined as higher forms of life, that if encountered, would allow humans to raise their own bar and learn from them. If you think this is all imaginary, since there is no hard data, then the bar lowers, and all you have is the ego in an egocentric culture; rat race, where people define worth through materialism, money and power.

There is also celebrity worship, where people of talent are placed on a pedestal. The bar is raised and many people try to model themselves on them. But that is temporal and more for the ego and not the inner self. Celebrities come and go, with their moments in the sun, which may define a generation, and then disappear. The images of God in the various religion last, since they set the bar high enough to transcend time.

 

[ChristineM]

Being godless means to fight against the sense of good and the sense of justice, regardless of being either theists or atheists.

No it didn't, it means not having a god

Good and justice do not need a god to tell you how yo behave. What they do need is humanity and conscience.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am saddened.
I am saddened by the fact that you haven't noted how much I praised atheists in the OP.

Praising atheists is ridiculous. We are just people. Some of us are complete ********, some of us are decent. Some are liars, some are trustworthy. Some are kiddy fiddlers, some are amongst the best teachers on the planet. Praising us is as ridiculous as denigrating us.

I am saddened by the fact that it just needed to be read thoroughly in order not to misinterpreted.
I am saddened by the fact that despite all that, you think this thread is against atheists.
I am sad.

I'm saddened by the fact that you see my irritation as a reason to not engage with the points I've put forth, and instead simply posting your emotion. I will guarantee I read the OP and listened to the video, and thoroughly read post 4. I will also guarantee that my reading comprehension is solid. And finally, I would ask what you think the opinion of those two sources (Jedediah Bila and gotquestions.org) and ask yourself if they'd agree that when they talk about godlessness being problematic it is not a denigration of atheists.

From gotquestions.org

Every human being knows, because of the way God designed human nature, that there is a God who must be worshiped, a God who requires submission and dependence. But the atheist refuses to submit to God and therefore rejects God. He hides his rebellion with the lie—to himself and others—that there is no God. Atheism is not disbelief in God but the rejection of God.

Is atheism actually a religion? The answer is “yes.” The atheist worships—he cannot help it—because God designed the necessity to worship into human nature. The atheist, like all who reject the one true God, creates an idol—in his case, it is an idol of himself to satisfy both the inner knowledge that there is a God and the inner necessity to worship that God. The atheist creates a religion of trust in himself that meets one or more of the above definitions of religion.

 

[Estro Felino]

Praising atheists is ridiculous. We are just people. Some of us are complete ********, some of us are decent. Some are liars, some are trustworthy. Some are kiddy fiddlers, some are amongst the best teachers on the planet. Praising us is as ridiculous as denigrating us.

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".

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".

I'm saddened by the fact that you see my irritation as a reason to not engage with the points I've put forth, and instead simply posting your emotion. I will guarantee I read the OP and listened to the video, and thoroughly read post 4. I will also guarantee that my reading comprehension is solid. And finally, I would ask what you think the opinion of those two sources (Jedediah Bila and gotquestions.org) and ask yourself if they'd agree that when they talk about godlessness being problematic it is not a denigration of atheists.

From gotquestions.org

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

 

[Revoltingest]

I am totally sure you believe the Manhattan Project was something holy....

You are sure of things imagined.
This is the path to error.