Religious Exclamations

[Davin]

Yes, literally the words appeal to a non-existent god just as literally the bible is filled to the brim with contradictions and lies. So which is it? Do you accept that not every statement must be taken literally or do you accept a blatantly contradictory bible?

I'd like to thank you!  Finally you accept that these words appeal to a non-existent god.  So to appeal to something non-existent is illogical and more profoundly so, from a person that would claim Atheism and thus, superior intelligence.  The matter of you saying the bible is filled with contradictions and lies bears no relevance on the FACT that to insist on using these appeals, is to appeal to something non-existent.

Yes, if taken/meant literally, which no one I know does. So do you accept that not every statement is taken literally or do you accept a blatantly contradictory bible?

You've just, again, further cemented my position/point on this matter.

Only as long as the bible is further cemented as being contradictory and full of lies. This point only stands if all statements are to be taken literally.

Because I'm showing you how illogical your position is, I'm giving certain terms special consideration? Who is saying that anyone should not have to think? Please respond to what I say, not some seemingly random idea that pops into your head. When someone uses an exclamation they are likely not being logical. They are also not likely being literal. This goes against your statement saying that uttering religious exclamations is contrary to atheist beliefs. You're also wrong on the count that you can't use "atheist beliefs" any more than I can blame you for what theistic Native Americans believe.

Name one Native American god I use in cursing or swearing at someone...and you've established your point otherwise you've really threatened me with nothing.

My point is that atheists are just as diverse as theists, which you seem to be missing when you keep trying to hastily generalize us all together.

When I'm exclaming and at random a religious term pops up in my head to add to the string of words, you think I should think about it, give it special consideration as a religious term, and then refrain from using it because it is a religious term. I don't give religious terms special consideration.

Yes, I think you should THINK about it.

I do, I give no terms any special consideration in regards to exclamations.

and has been demonstrated to hold several illogical positions and present invalid arguments. To hold this position is to be illogical because the logic does not follow to this conclusion. So your irrational conclusion is meaningless.

Logically, the Atheist would not appeal to a non-existent god.  It is irrational to do so given their Atheism stance.  It's quite a simple concept that it seems escapes even the most intelligent...save for one.

Aye, an atheist appealing to a non-existent god would be inconsistent. But an atheist making a non-literal exclamation and even a sarcastic exclamation like "god damn it!" is not an atheist appealing to a god. There are several other possible meanings and intentions behind an atheist saying "god damn it!" that do not involve appealing to a god.

The words can be demonstrated to not literally do as they state they do. Remember there is a lack of damned things, let alone the lack of evidence for a god to damn them.

LOL...exactly my point.  The words don't literally damn things and there are no [seen] damned things around...and the lack of a god TO damn things...all put together means it is illogical to utter those words together if one does not believe in any god(s).  Can you not see the point?  Twice in one post, you've establised my point...and all the while trying to establish YOUR point against mine.  I can't help but chuckle.

Then why did you say that the words actually do? Which is your position or do you just keep changing your position based on what I say?

To continue to argue FOR using these regardless, simply makes the opposite statement as the words literally do as they state they do.

LOL...exactly my point.  The words don't literally damn things and there are no [seen] damned things around...and the lack of a god TO damn things...

Your point this post goes against your point in the previous post. Why are you arguing with yourself?

Maybe you should read my statement again because you seem to be having some comprehension problems: "I don't give religious terms special consideration." I said nothing about not thinking about what I say.

Again...you establish my point.  I'm not saying you must give them special consideration, but you do in that you are insisting on using them regardless that they do appeal to a "non-existent god".  You did mention thinking about what you say...you said I think you should think...look above.

Aye, and it was another good example of your poor logic, this is what is known as taking someone out of context. Your continued use of dishonest argument tactics does not help your argument.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes, if taken/meant literally, which no one I know does. So do you accept that not every statement is taken literally or do you accept a blatantly contradictory bible?

Both.  The Bible is seemingly contradictory when viewed through unseeing eyes as you've proclaimed you cannot see.  Of course you don't MEAN it literally...you don't hold a belief in God.  Question; Then why appeal to a non-existent god to exclaim?  What is it about "God" and/or "God damning", "Jesus Christ!" that substanciates anger, frustration, rage, amazement...??

Only as long as the bible is further cemented as being contradictory and full of lies. This point only stands if all statements are to be taken literally.

See reply above.

My point is that atheists are just as diverse as theists, which you seem to be missing when you keep trying to hastily generalize us all together.

Who are they that generalize a people by their beliefs?  The point is that there is no Native American god that anyone uses for religious exclamations as a general rule.  Therefore, to use this as "ammunition" against is of no relevance here.  Atheists ARE a diverse people, but a people, if they label themselves as "Atheist", united on the no god point.  Therefore to use "god" in exclaiming is illogical.

I do, I give no terms any special consideration in regards to exclamations.

I know...thank you...except of course those you must argue TO use.

Aye, an atheist appealing to a non-existent god would be inconsistent.

Inconsistent and therefore illogical.  Thanks AGAIN.

But an atheist making a non-literal exclamation and even a sarcastic exclamation like "god damn it!" is not an atheist appealing to a god.

No, because they are not thinking as you suggested earlier.  However the words themselves do appeal to a non-existent God..."I don't know. ---  Third Base!"

There are several other possible meanings and intentions behind an atheist saying "god damn it!" that do not involve appealing to a god.

If so, why not empoly them instead and remain a logical Atheist?  Logic would say the more intelligent person could easily, without any forethought, do so.

Then why did you say that the words actually do? Which is your position or do you just keep changing your position based on what I say?

To continue to argue FOR using these regardless, simply makes the opposite statement as the words literally do as they state they do.

LOL...exactly my point.  The words don't literally damn things and there are no [seen] damned things around...and the lack of a god TO damn things...

Your point this post goes against your point in the previous post. Why are you arguing with yourself?

Because, it's quite logical if you would take the time to THINK about it.  The words actually appeal to a non-existent god, however the WORDS THEMSELVES do not do any damning.  The words appeal, God damns.  Is it so difficult?  Again, you show you're not thinking.  Whether or not God does damn is irrelevant.  You've not lived in the past prior to your birth and you'll not live past your death in the future, so to conclude that God does not damn is a guess at best on your part.

Aye, and it was another good example of your poor logic, this is what is known as taking someone out of context. Your continued use of dishonest argument tactics does not help your argument.

Didn't you say you thought that I think you should think more when using these words (or not to use them)?  All I said is, yes, you should think more.  See your own words.

[TheWilliam]

Because I'm used to it.
Because I can.

Pray for me.

[Davin]

Yes, if taken/meant literally, which no one I know does. So do you accept that not every statement is taken literally or do you accept a blatantly contradictory bible?

Both.  The Bible is seemingly contradictory when viewed through unseeing eyes as you've proclaimed you cannot see.

The bible is contradictory when taken literally. We don't take everything literally, so statements that may literally be appealing to a god are not appealing to a god because they aren't literal statements.

Of course you don't MEAN it literally...you don't hold a belief in God.

Exactly, we're done talking about it being taken literally.

Question; Then why appeal to a non-existent god to exclaim?

Because it's not appealing to a god becuase it's not a literal statement and using religious terms don't matter, so when religious terms randomly come up as something to use, there is no reason not to use them. If there were no religious terms used around me, I wouldn't be using them because I wouldn't know about them and be just fine.

What is it about "God" and/or "God damning", "Jesus Christ!" that substanciates anger, frustration, rage, amazement...??

I really have no idea, it doesn't substantiate anger, frustration, rage and/or amazement any more or any less than any other terms for me.

[spoiler:pj0ap0lb]

My point is that atheists are just as diverse as theists, which you seem to be missing when you keep trying to hastily generalize us all together.

Who are they that generalize a people by their beliefs?  The point is that there is no Native American god that anyone uses for religious exclamations as a general rule.  Therefore, to use this as "ammunition" against is of no relevance here.  Atheists ARE a diverse people, but a people, if they label themselves as "Atheist", united on the no god point.  Therefore to use "god" in exclaiming is illogical.

Aye, an atheist appealing to a non-existent god would be inconsistent.

Inconsistent and therefore illogical.  Thanks AGAIN.

But an atheist making a non-literal exclamation and even a sarcastic exclamation like "god damn it!" is not an atheist appealing to a god.

No, because they are not thinking as you suggested earlier.  However the words themselves do appeal to a non-existent God..."I don't know. ---  Third Base!"

There are several other possible meanings and intentions behind an atheist saying "god damn it!" that do not involve appealing to a god.

If so, why not empoly them instead and remain a logical Atheist?  Logic would say the more intelligent person could easily, without any forethought, do so.

Then why did you say that the words actually do? Which is your position or do you just keep changing your position based on what I say?

To continue to argue FOR using these regardless, simply makes the opposite statement as the words literally do as they state they do.

LOL...exactly my point.  The words don't literally damn things and there are no [seen] damned things around...and the lack of a god TO damn things...

Your point this post goes against your point in the previous post. Why are you arguing with yourself?

Because, it's quite logical if you would take the time to THINK about it.  The words actually appeal to a non-existent god, however the WORDS THEMSELVES do not do any damning.  The words appeal, God damns.  Is it so difficult?  Again, you show you're not thinking.  Whether or not God does damn is irrelevant.  You've not lived in the past prior to your birth and you'll not live past your death in the future, so to conclude that God does not damn is a guess at best on your part.

[/spoiler:pj0ap0lb]

Of course you don't MEAN it literally...

I do, I give no terms any special consideration in regards to exclamations.

I know...thank you...except of course those you must argue TO use.

No, just showing you where your logic does not follow.

Aye, and it was another good example of your poor logic, this is what is known as taking someone out of context. Your continued use of dishonest argument tactics does not help your argument.

Didn't you say you thought that I think you should think more when using these words (or not to use them)?  All I said is, yes, you should think more.  See your own words.

While missing the entire point of whole sentence by responding to a small portion of it and changing the meaning of it. Very dishonest.

[AnimatedDirt]

While missing the entire point of whole sentence by responding to a small portion of it and changing the meaning of it. Very dishonest.

Here's the bottomline and the real dishonesty;

"God damn it!"  -  The exclamation and the words themselves put together in that fashion appeal to God.  The words don't damn and there is nothing that we can see that has been damned that can be proven in modern times.  God does claim the ability to damn.  Uttering these words and/or "God" or "Jesus Christ" and the like, are all words that people use to exclaim their feelings be it anger, happiness, amazement or rage.  These words/groups of words together convey their feelings.  This is a fact.  Since they do, one must ask the Atheist why he/she appeals to God to convey and/or establish their feelings?

This is fact and to do so flys contrary to labeling oneself as an Atheist.  Therefore it is illogical for any Atheist to exclaim any emotion by using "God" to qualify their feeling(s) or state of emotion. (unless of course the Atheist is cursing AT God and not at another human or personal situation apart from God)

[Davin]

While missing the entire point of whole sentence by responding to a small portion of it and changing the meaning of it. Very dishonest.

Here's the bottomline and the real dishonesty;

"God damn it!"  -  The exclamation and the words themselves put together in that fashion appeal to God.  The words don't damn and there is nothing that we can see that has been damned that can be proven in modern times.  God does claim the ability to damn.  Uttering these words and/or "God" or "Jesus Christ" and the like, are all words that people use to exclaim their feelings be it anger, happiness, amazement or rage.  These words/groups of words together convey their feelings.  This is a fact.  Since they do, one must ask the Atheist why he/she appeals to God to convey and/or establish their feelings?

This is fact and to do so flys contrary to labeling oneself as an Atheist.  Therefore it is illogical for any Atheist to exclaim any emotion by using "God" to qualify their feeling(s) or state of emotion. (unless of course the Atheist is cursing AT God and not at another human or personal situation apart from God)

Yes I agree, this argument is dishonest.

[AnimatedDirt]

Here's the bottomline and the real dishonesty;

"God damn it!"  -  The exclamation and the words themselves put together in that fashion appeal to God.  The words don't damn and there is nothing that we can see that has been damned that can be proven in modern times.  God does claim the ability to damn.  Uttering these words and/or "God" or "Jesus Christ" and the like, are all words that people use to exclaim their feelings be it anger, happiness, amazement or rage.  These words/groups of words together convey their feelings.  This is a fact.  Since they do, one must ask the Atheist why he/she appeals to God to convey and/or establish their feelings?

This is fact and to do so flys contrary to labeling oneself as an Atheist.  Therefore it is illogical for any Atheist to exclaim any emotion by using "God" to qualify their feeling(s) or state of emotion. (unless of course the Atheist is cursing AT God and not at another human or personal situation apart from God)

Yes I agree, this argument is dishonest.

Heh, touche'.  (you know what I meant.)

[Davin]

Heh, touche'.  (you know what I meant.)

You already agreed that the statements are not literal, so to continue to argue that the statements mean what they literally say, is dishonest.