What godless means

[Estro Felino]

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.

With all due respect...but in a religious debate section, you will see religious language applied to psychology. All the time.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

This reasoning doesn't add up.
We are always devoid of those things that do not exist.
Since you believe God doesn't exist, you should call me godless too, even if I am a theist.
Because you do believe that I can't have any deity, since deities don't exist.

For example. I don't believe Zeus exists. But I won't call myself zeusless.
I think (my personal opinion based upon semantics) atheists shouldn't use that term (godless) to define themselves.
There is the specific term: it can be atheist, agnostic, deist, non-theist, non-religious.

 

[Yazata]

You said godless. That means those without gods.

So what's a 'god'? Estro Felino seems to be defining the word to refer to whatever an individual/community takes to be ultimate -- in the metaphysical sense of most real, in the moral sense of most valuable, and in a more psychological sense as most fulfilling in the eudaimonia sense of the highest human good.

I think that there's both value and historical precedent for thinking that way.

God and Other Ultimates (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

If people think that Estro Felino is misusing the word God, then perhaps those people should be proposing their own alternative definitions and arguing for why their definition should be accepted, not only by atheists but by theists as well.

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'.

I think that most/all religions would say that their paths aren't just matters of assent to the proposition 'God exists'. Religions are about self-transformation. Theists see this as self-transformation in response to God's revelation or God's presence in all of reality, or whatever it happens to be.

That's why God has traditionally been decribed in terms of perfections: Perfect goodness, perfect ability, perfect knowledge etc. Because people should be striving towards perfection. They might always be "sinners" because they will inevitably fall short, but perfection is the goal, the ideal, even if it's unattainably distant here in this Earthly condition.

So it's quite reasonable for Estro Felino to observe that many ostensible "theists" are nowhere close to being in the proper relationship to God/ultimate value, and shouldn't think that they are merely because they agree with the truth of the proposition 'God exists'. All of the great religious traditions will agree that there's a lot more to it than that.

And equally, many people who insist that the proposition 'God exists' is false (our atheists, at least before they started redefining words) might be closer to perfection, closer to the ultimate, than many of the so-called theists. Even if our atheists disagree with the theistic proposition, they will still have their personal paths with values, metaphysical beliefs and ideals of human flourishing, and perhaps something about how to move towards attaining them.

 

[Polymath257]

This reasoning doesn't add up.
We are always devoid of those things that do not exist.
Since you believe God doesn't exist, you should call me godless too, even if I am a theist.

Usually, it has to do with *belief* in deities. But yes.

Because you do believe that I can't have any deity, since deities don't exist.

For example. I don't believe Zeus exists. But I won't call myself zeusless.

And yet, you are. You are without Zeus.

I think (my personal opinion based upon semantics) atheists shouldn't use that term (godless) to define themselves.
There is the specific term: it can be atheist, agnostic, deist, non-theist, non-religious.

Well, it is usually the theists that label us as godless and use it as a pejorative. We adopt it in a way similar to how those who label themselves as 'queer' did. The pejorative term was adopted and used as a positive label in the community.

 

[F1fan]

With all due respect...but in a religious debate section, you will see religious language applied to psychology. All the time.

And it is done so in non-rational and non-scientific ways. I see more contempt from the religious about psychology than I do any support.

 

[F1fan]

This reasoning doesn't add up.
We are always devoid of those things that do not exist.

This includes the many Gods that humans think exist. That we believe the Toothy Fairy is why our teeth are replaced with money as we sleep does not mean that it isn't really our parents. So the truth is that we are Tooth Fairlyless despite being pretty damn sure it is what causes that exchange of teeth for money.

Since you believe God doesn't exist,

Does he? Did he say he "believes God doesn't exist"? Or are you misrepresenting his doubt that Gods exist? This is a common deceptive trick that believers try to pull on non-believers. Notice: non-believers.

you should call me godless too, even if I am a theist.

That you believe in some version of God doesn't force a God into existence, nor force it into your presence. It only means you have decided one version of God or another is true, despite the serious lack of evidence for these extraordinary claims.

Because you do believe that I can't have any deity, since deities don't exist.

You own your deities, like a pet? No one can take away your God any more than they can take away your imaginary friends.

For example. I don't believe Zeus exists. But I won't call myself zeusless.

Yet that is what you are trying to do with some other version of god. You can't have it both ways.

I think (my personal opinion based upon semantics) atheists shouldn't use that term (godless) to define themselves.

I agree, because as far any anyone can tell all of us are without any actual God. We are all godless.

There is the specific term: it can be atheist, agnostic, deist, non-theist, non-religious.

Sure, as long as all terms have agreed upon definitions and meanings.

 

[Estro Felino]

And yet, you are. You are without Zeus.

Since God doesn't exist either, I am godless too.

 

[Estro Felino]

This includes the many Gods that humans think exist. That we believe the Toothy Fairy is why our teeth are replaced with money as we sleep does not mean that it isn't really our parents. So the truth is that we are Tooth Fairlyless despite being pretty damn sure it is what causes that exchange of teeth for money.

Does he? Did he say he "believes God doesn't exist"? Or are you misrepresenting his doubt that Gods exist? This is a common deceptive trick that believers try to pull on non-believers. Notice: non-believers.

That you believe in some version of God doesn't force a God into existence, nor force it into your presence. It only means you have decided one version of God or another is true, despite the serious lack of evidence for these extraordinary claims.

You own your deities, like a pet? No one can take away your God any more than they can take away your imaginary friends.

Yet that is what you are trying to do with some other version of god. You can't have it both ways.

I agree, because as far any anyone can tell all of us are without any actual God. We are all godless.

Sure, as long as all terms have agreed upon definitions and meanings.

All right.
Let's say the person A believes God exists and Jesus existed.
But he hates them.
The person A hates them and wants to destroy the values system they created.

What do you call this person?

PS: You can't call him atheist, since he believes God does exist, so he is a theist.

 

[Estro Felino]

And it is done so in non-rational and non-scientific ways. I see more contempt from the religious about psychology than I do any support.

If you are interested in secular psychology, there is the specific forum section.

 

[Estro Felino]

So what's a 'god'? Estro Felino seems to be defining the word to refer to whatever an individual/community takes to be ultimate -- in the metaphysical sense of most real, in the moral sense of most valuable, and in a more psychological sense as most fulfilling in the eudaimonia sense of the highest human good.

I think that there's both value and historical precedent for thinking that way.

God and Other Ultimates (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

If people think that Estro Felino is misusing the word God, then perhaps those people should be proposing their own alternative definitions and arguing for why their definition should be accepted, not only by atheists but by theists as well.


I think that most/all religions would say that their paths aren't just matters of assent to the proposition 'God exists'. Religions are about self-transformation. Theists see this as self-transformation in response to God's revelation or God's presence in all of reality, or whatever it happens to be.

That's why God has traditionally been decribed in terms of perfections: Perfect goodness, perfect ability, perfect knowledge etc. Because people should be striving towards perfection. They might always be "sinners" because they will inevitably fall short, but perfection is the goal, the ideal, even if it's unattainably distant here in this Earthly condition.

So it's quite reasonable for Estro Felino to observe that many ostensible "theists" are nowhere close to being in the proper relationship to God/ultimate value, and shouldn't think that they are merely because they agree with the truth of the proposition 'God exists'. All of the great religious traditions will agree that there's a lot more to it than that.

And equally, many people who insist that the proposition 'God exists' is false (our atheists, at least before they started redefining words) might be closer to perfection, closer to the ultimate, than many of the so-called theists. Even if our atheists disagree with the theistic proposition, they will still have their personal paths with values, metaphysical beliefs and ideals of human flourishing, and perhaps something about how to move towards attaining them.

Exactly.
Very few people have clarified what God they mean whenever they mean godless.
They need to define God, first.

I did specify it.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

All right.
Let's say the person A believes God exists and Jesus existed.
But he hates them.
The person A hates them and wants to destroy the values system they created.

What do you call this person?

You call them "misotheist", I guess.

 

[Estro Felino]

You call them "misotheist", I guess.

I like this definition.
But godless too will do.

First, as @Yazata pointed out, you need to define what God is to you.... you can't deny something you don't define first.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I like this definition.
But godless too will do.

First, as @Yazata pointed out, you need to define what God is to you.... you can't deny something you don't define first.

I see. I mean, I guess that does make sense.

 

[Estro Felino]

I see. I mean, I guess that does make sense.

So you are admitting I am free to use the term godless because it refers to what I think God is?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So you are admitting I am free to use the term godless because it refers to what I think God is?

On the one hand, I'd say I'm still undecided on the exact way you're using it.

On the other, I think that if you set up the use of the term better before using it, which wasn't done in the OP, but that you are now doing, that it could work well. The hard part is remembering to set up the term and usage enough times that whenever you bring it up, people know what you're talking about. For example and what I mean - people may read what you meant in one thread, but when you use the term in another, people who didn't read that last thread still may not know what you meant. Seems a lot of work though.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So you are admitting I am free to use the term godless because it refers to what I think God is?

(Continued...)

But I will still stress that I think it's bad form, and that it doesn't lead to a better understanding of English.

 

[Estro Felino]

On the one hand, I'd say I'm still undecided on the exact way you're using it.

On the other, I think that if you set up the use of the term better before using it, which wasn't done in the OP, but that you are now doing, that it could work well. The hard part is remembering to set up the term and usage enough times that whenever you bring it up, people know what you're talking about. For example and what I mean - people may read what you meant in one thread, but when you use the term in another, people who didn't read that last thread still may not know what you meant. Seems a lot of work though.

But I won't ever prevent anyone from using the term God however they like .

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But I won't ever prevent anyone from using the term God however they like .

The term God is pretty abstract as it is, admittedly.

 

[F1fan]

All right.
Let's say the person A believes God exists and Jesus existed.
But he hates them.
The person A hates them and wants to destroy the values system they created.

What do you call this person?

An evangelical Christian.

PS: You can't call him atheist, since he believes God does exist, so he is a theist.

I have to question anyone who hates characters they believe exist. Believers tend to believe in beings that are what they like, and that benefits their status in life. The beliefs in negative characters like satan are part of the positive belief in the matching God.

 

[F1fan]

If you are interested in secular psychology, there is the specific forum section.

Psychology is secular by default. There is a small percentage of therapists that include religion in their practice. I have mixed feelings about this but if some are being helped with this approach then that’s a positive.