Happy Atheist Forum

Assuming that you don't believe in a god and/or not part of a religion:
Do you use religious exclamations ("Jesus Christ!", "Good God!", etc)  when you talk? Or say "Bless You" when someone sneezes?
If no, does it come naturally or are you making an effort to keep them out of your day-to-day vocabulary?

I would never say good god.
Jesus works well as an exclamation, it can benefit from a few more words for emphasis.

Nearly at 50 posts Leo, in one day. Jeez you have been busy.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Nearly at 50 posts Leo, in one day. Jeez you have been busy.

Yes  :pop:

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"...Jeez...

And this was a good example too  

Ya, I use them quite a bit.  I would like to stop using them so much, but eh, whatever.

I use them, but am trying not to. As I've been thinking about atheism more lately, I've realized how much I do it.

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"Assuming that you don't believe in a god and/or not part of a religion:
Do you use religious exclamations ("Jesus Christ!", "Good God!", etc)  when you talk? Or say "Bless You" when someone sneezes?
If no, does it come naturally or are you making an effort to keep them out of your day-to-day vocabulary?

This is a great question.  One I've brought up before in a thread.

The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power.  If the Atheist denies God (or any god), then why, by using these as such, do *you continue to "shoot yourself in the foot"?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"Assuming that you don't believe in a god and/or not part of a religion:
Do you use religious exclamations ("Jesus Christ!", "Good God!", etc)  when you talk? Or say "Bless You" when someone sneezes?
If no, does it come naturally or are you making an effort to keep them out of your day-to-day vocabulary?

This is a great question.  One I've brought up before in a thread.

The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power.  If the Atheist denies God (or any god), then why, by using these as such, do *you continue to "shoot yourself in the foot"?

They're just words, unless you think saying "Jesus Christ" all the time will actually make Jesus Christ exist. I suppose we could substitute "god" with "science" like; "science damn it!" and "oh my science!"

Though all kidding aside, I'm sure you don't mean that kind of power, because that's like incantations, summonings and dark magic. In the other kind of power of words, I think it hurts the religious more to say things like "god damn it!", "Jesus Fucking Christ on on a stick!", "god fucking sideways!" and "Pig fucking Jesus Christ!" Because a lot of religious people tend to get offended even though the person saying it may not have their same belief. On Penn & Teller's: Bullshit (I think one in season 2), there was a lady that said that people should substitute the word "god" with the word "Buddha" because they didn't believe in Buddha so it wasn't bad. Hilarious how hypocritical some of the more extreme religious can get without ever seeing it.

I use "χρισÏ,,έ μοÏ..." (my jesus!) and παναγία μοÏ... (virgin mary!!) when Im annoyed and θκιάολε!! (a cypriot accent of devil-satan) when I am really pissed off - makes my friends angry when they hear me use that
I dont think when before swearing, and to be honest I don;t think I want to remove those from my vocabulary. Other swear words we use had other meanings in the past (for example, a word we use now for "shut the duck up" is "φάοÏ...σα" which used to be a very bad deadly disease). so by using religious names/words as swearwords, I am just using them the same way I use all the other words.

Quote from: "Davin"They're just words, unless you think saying "Jesus Christ" all the time will actually make Jesus Christ exist. I suppose we could substitute "god" with "science" like; "science damn it!" and "oh my science!"

Though all kidding aside, I'm sure you don't mean that kind of power, because that's like incantations, summonings and dark magic. In the other kind of power of words, I think it hurts the religious more to say things like "god damn it!", "Jesus Fucking Christ on on a stick!", "god fucking sideways!" and "Pig fucking Jesus Christ!" Because a lot of religious people tend to get offended even though the person saying it may not have their same belief. On Penn & Teller's: Bullshit (I think one in season 2), there was a lady that said that people should substitute the word "god" with the word "Buddha" because they didn't believe in Buddha so it wasn't bad. Hilarious how hypocritical some of the more extreme religious can get without ever seeing it.

You're right.  Saying these words will not make Jesus magically exist.

So what you're saying, then, is that you use these words to hurt people and/or to offend them.  Which part of your morals allows you to belittle others for being different?  I don't suggest substituting Buddha in place of God or Jesus Christ, but I would suggest using something more consistent with your ideology.  For a Christian to use God in cursing or swearing is wrong!  In context, however, it is consistent with Christian beliefs.

At the core, what is the basis of swearing and/or cursing at someone?  Is it not based on the belief that saying "God damn it/you" that God has the power to damn you?  Again...an Atheist using these terms, in their thoughts denying God, but in their actions affirming the power God has.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power.  If the Atheist denies God (or any god), then why, by using these as such, do *you continue to "shoot yourself in the foot"?

I agree with you that it may *sound* strange coming from an atheist but I think you are taking this a little bit too far. At least, this is not a real hypocrisy. The way I see it, we all say things that are not intended in their original meanings. At work, if I hire a freelance designer, I hardly expect a "sell sword". Or I don't even notice a boxing ring is square and I don't blame the organizers for not correcting it. However, I humbly think that as atheists we should not use those exclamations, it just doesn't sound right.

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power.  If the Atheist denies God (or any god), then why, by using these as such, do *you continue to "shoot yourself in the foot"?

I agree with you that it may *sound* strange coming from an atheist but I think you are taking this a little bit too far. At least, this is not a real hypocrisy.

In general, I would agree.  It's not a huge deal.  The problem lies in your next sentence.

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"The way I see it, we all say things that are not intended in their original meanings.

I disagree.  Take "God damn you/it"...what then is the real intention IF NOT its original and specific meaning?  Take the exclamation, "Jesus Christ!!".  Why call out to, cry to, call on, a "non-existent" god at all?  It would be similar to me (or anyone) exclaiming, "Great Spaghetti Monster!!".  The exclamation is evident and it does the same, but which name REALLY speaks to the exclamation?

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"However, I humbly think that as atheists we should not use those exclamations, it just doesn't sound right.

I'm in agreement with you.  It doesn't "sound" right, it is not consistent nor logical.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So what you're saying, then, is that you use these words to hurt people and/or to offend them.

Uh, no.

QuoteWhich part of your morals allows you to belittle others for being different?

Because that's clearly what we're doing.

QuoteI don't suggest substituting Buddha in place of God or Jesus Christ, but I would suggest using something more consistent with your ideology.

Which ideology would you be referring to here?

QuoteFor a Christian to use God in cursing or swearing is wrong!  In context, however, it is consistent with Christian beliefs.

Using a simple expression is also consistent with my beliefs.

QuoteAt the core, what is the basis of swearing and/or cursing at someone?

Why does it have to be "at someone"? Most of the time when I swear I'm not actually directing it another human being, and almost always when I am it's jokingly.

QuoteIs it not based on the belief that saying "God damn it/you" that God has the power to damn you?

Isn't the phrase "good luck" based on the belief that luck exists?

QuoteAgain...an Atheist using these terms, in their thoughts denying God, but in their actions affirming the power God has.

And saying good luck affirms that luck exists.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I disagree.  Take "God damn you/it"...what then is the real intention IF NOT its original and specific meaning?

It's simply something to say when you're mad.

QuoteTake the exclamation, "Jesus Christ!!".  Why call out to, cry to, call on, a "non-existent" god at all?

Once again, it's something to say.

QuoteIt would be similar to me (or anyone) exclaiming, "Great Spaghetti Monster!!".  The exclamation is evident and it does the same, but which name REALLY speaks to the exclamation?

"Jesus Christ!" is something a lot of people say. "Great Spaghetti Monster!" isn't. People pick up on the expressions of others.

Quote

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"However, I humbly think that as atheists we should not use those exclamations, it just doesn't sound right.

I'm in agreement with you.  It doesn't "sound" right, it is not consistent nor logical.

I use them because I want to, and I don't give a goddamn if you think they're not "logical" for me to use.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I use them because I want to, and I don't give a goddamn if you think they're not "logical" for me to use.

Thank you so much, LS for this excellent exclamation.  It makes my point for me.

What is it about goddamn that makes your point more?

Why didn't you just say, "...don't give a damn if you..."

What is it about "goddamn" that makes your statement MORE and with MORE emphasis and meaning?

Whether or not I THINK it's logical is of no consequence...the point is that it isn't logical.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteAt the core, what is the basis of swearing and/or cursing at someone?

Why does it have to be "at someone"? Most of the time when I swear I'm not actually directing it another human being, and almost always when I am it's jokingly.

Yep. I usually use "Jesus" or "Mother-fucker" in similar situations, such as burning my hand, stubbing a toe, or having someone cut me off in traffic. Doesn't mean I want someone having their way with my mom. It's just habit based on today's standard swears/curses.

Mind you, now that I've noticed, I've greatly reduced the religious swears. There are plenty that aren't religious

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So what you're saying, then, is that you use these words to hurt people and/or to offend them.

Uh, no.

This is not your question to answer as it was not your words I was referring to.

jesus h. w. Titty-fucking christ this is a goddamn fucking stupid thing to be arguing about.

When I want to be crude and offensive (typically trying to amuse) I use crude and offensive terms. It hurts nobody. My foot is not self-shot because the word jesus or christ is included. It just wouldn't be as fun if I used Joseph H.W. Titty-fucking Smith. It simply doesn't have the same feel to it... Ya know?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"They're just words, unless you think saying "Jesus Christ" all the time will actually make Jesus Christ exist. I suppose we could substitute "god" with "science" like; "science damn it!" and "oh my science!"

Though all kidding aside, I'm sure you don't mean that kind of power, because that's like incantations, summonings and dark magic. In the other kind of power of words, I think it hurts the religious more to say things like "god damn it!", "Jesus Fucking Christ on on a stick!", "god fucking sideways!" and "Pig fucking Jesus Christ!" Because a lot of religious people tend to get offended even though the person saying it may not have their same belief. On Penn & Teller's: Bullshit (I think one in season 2), there was a lady that said that people should substitute the word "god" with the word "Buddha" because they didn't believe in Buddha so it wasn't bad. Hilarious how hypocritical some of the more extreme religious can get without ever seeing it.

You're right.  Saying these words will not make Jesus magically exist.

So what you're saying, then, is that you use these words to hurt people and/or to offend them.

No, I didn't say that at all.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Which part of your morals allows you to belittle others for being different?

I belittle all the time, I don't see any harm in it. My family is very close and I give them shit all the time, I also give my friends shit all the time and both my friends and family in turn give me shit. It's quite funny most of the time even when done to me. We make fun of beliefs, things we like and pretty much everything. I think it's much better to be able to take someone making fun of you without any negative effects than to go around getting offended for no reasonable reason.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I don't suggest substituting Buddha in place of God or Jesus Christ, but I would suggest using something more consistent with your ideology.  For a Christian to use God in cursing or swearing is wrong!  In context, however, it is consistent with Christian beliefs.

I'm sure most people wouldn't suggest replacing their word for god with another religions word for god.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"At the core, what is the basis of swearing and/or cursing at someone?  Is it not based on the belief that saying "God damn it/you" that God has the power to damn you?  Again...an Atheist using these terms, in their thoughts denying God, but in their actions affirming the power God has.

The things I mentioned don't have to be curses at someone, like if I drop a box of tools on my foot I yell "Jesus, fucking, goats, in a shed!" There is no affirming of power either, it more shows that god can't damn anything, more an affirmation of how weak god is than gods power.

Swear words tend to not make sense. I use them, sure. But, they don't have literal meaning.

Animated Dirt, this is definitely a talking point for you, and you have a refined argument, as I've read your posts on several occasions where you've brought it up. I try to not use any religious slurs when I'm in mixed company so as not to offend. However, a good solid "goddammit" (like one might witness on It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia, to me, is just funnier than a simple "dammit".

Side note: I actually prefer to write a 'damn it' as 'dammit'. Much the same as a 'son of a bitch' is a 'sunuvabitch'. It makes them in to separate words when written, though when spoken they still carry the original overtones.

I am not sure, but I would imagine that these particular curses are and English only issue, and perhaps even an American English issue. Other languages probably have their own idioms that make little to no sense. Just look at some of the American English "pet names" for a significant other- honey (sticky sugary syrup), dear (the animal or the greeting of a letter), babe (an infant or the baseball player). From my sixth grade French courses, I seem to remember a French pet name which translated to "rabbit".

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I use them because I want to, and I don't give a goddamn if you think they're not "logical" for me to use.

Thank you so much, LS for this excellent exclamation.  It makes my point for me.

What is it about goddamn that makes your point more?

Because that's the way it is. That's the way it has evolved.

QuoteWhy didn't you just say, "...don't give a damn if you..."

Because adding "god" gives it more oomph.

QuoteWhat is it about "goddamn" that makes your statement MORE and with MORE emphasis and meaning?

Again, that's just the way it evolved.

QuoteWhether or not I THINK it's logical is of no consequence...the point is that it isn't logical.

The English language isn't logical.

Quote from: "hismikeness"Swear words tend to not make sense. I use them, sure. But, they don't have literal meaning.

...

I am not sure, but I would imagine that these particular curses are and English only issue, and perhaps even an American English issue. Other languages probably have their own idioms that make little to no sense. Just look at some of the American English "pet names" for a significant other- honey (sticky sugary syrup), dear (the animal or the greeting of a letter), babe (an infant or the baseball player). From my sixth grade French courses, I seem to remember a French pet name which translated to "rabbit".

^This.

OK...how about this for an answer...people swear, defane some magical sky-daddy's name, and there ain't a goddamn lot you can do about it. It's really that simple.

Personally, in today's culture, I find I can't get away from it, and it is indeed ground into my head on a daily basis. I stub my toe I usually say something along the lines of "Jesus fucking shit eating Christ on a rotting cross" while hopping on one foot. When I fuck my boyfriend, I say alot of things along the lines of "Oh God"...I use it alot, Why? It's been ground into my head...do I particularly care? No. DO I say it to hurt, offend, or annoy people? It really depends on the person and what they are doing to hurt, offend or annoy me. As a Gay Atheist Activist...aka GayTheist...I get alot of talk from alot of people that try to silence me, and try to take away my rights. I find that shit really very fucking annoying. It also happens to be largely people who follow some magical sky-daddy and that call themselves Christian that do these things. So...I guess I do hurt, offend and annoy them. Sorry, don't give a rat's ass.

Sorry for the rant, but, wait, no I'm not, I think this needed saying.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"don't give a rat's ass

Do you literally mean you do not give the hind parts of rodents?  

Or, more likely, is this just another example of crazy English expressions?

Quote from: "GAYtheist":brick: OK...how about this for an answer...people swear, defane some magical sky-daddy's name, and there ain't a goddamn lot you can do about it. It's really that simple.

There's not.  It is of comedic value, however, that *you seem to think it bothers me.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Personally, in today's culture, I find I can't get away from it, and it is indeed ground into my head on a daily basis. I stub my toe I usually say something along the lines of "Jesus fucking shit eating Christ on a rotting cross" while hopping on one foot. When I fuck my boyfriend, I say alot of things along the lines of "Oh God"...I use it alot, Why? It's been ground into my head...do I particularly care? No.

Well...so was/is belief in God...yet you've shed that weight off your shoulders.  It's not a BIG point of hypocrisy that I mention it, it is a point of logic as it goes against *your held belief or disbelief.  To invoke God in exclamation is to give the name power, and thus God.  LS, just above says,

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Because adding "god" gives it more oomph.

How, if god is non existent, is invoking God more "oomph"?  It is not logically possible to invoke anymore oomph than yelling out, "Unicorn!"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"DO I say it to hurt, offend, or annoy people? It really depends on the person and what they are doing to hurt, offend or annoy me. As a Gay Atheist Activist...aka GayTheist...I get alot of talk from alot of people that try to silence me, and try to take away my rights. I find that shit really very fucking annoying. It also happens to be largely people who follow some magical sky-daddy and that call themselves Christian that do these things.

I feel your frustration on this too, btw.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"So...I guess I do hurt, offend and annoy them. Sorry, don't give a rat's ass.

I would guess you do care.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Sorry for the rant, but, wait, no I'm not, I think this needed saying.

I respect your input, but happen to disagree with the "logic" in doing so.

Quote from: "hismikeness"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"don't give a rat's ass

Do you literally mean you do not give the hind parts of rodents?  

Or, more likely, is this just another example of crazy English expressions?

It literally means GAYtheist wouldn't give a rat's ass...literally.  That's what it means.  It's not worth a rat's ass.  It's not a "crazy English" expression as I'm sure many languages have similar expressions.  How much is a rat's ass worth?  Therein lies the true meaning of the expression...and my whole point, again illustrated so finely.

Edit:  I just thought about this...What about, "Aw Hell!", or "For Heaven's sake!"??  Not just God, but allusions to the existence of God.

We need a facepalm emote... Really, it would add a lot...

Quote from: "GAYtheist"We need a facepalm emote... Really, it would add a lot...

This is your reply?  Heh...ok.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist":brick: OK...how about this for an answer...people swear, defane some magical sky-daddy's name, and there ain't a goddamn lot you can do about it. It's really that simple.

There's not.  It is of comedic value, however, that *you seem to think it bothers me.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Personally, in today's culture, I find I can't get away from it, and it is indeed ground into my head on a daily basis. I stub my toe I usually say something along the lines of "Jesus fucking shit eating Christ on a rotting cross" while hopping on one foot. When I fuck my boyfriend, I say alot of things along the lines of "Oh God"...I use it alot, Why? It's been ground into my head...do I particularly care? No.

Well...so was/is belief in God...yet you've shed that weight off your shoulders.  It's not a BIG point of hypocrisy that I mention it, it is a point of logic as it goes against *your held belief or disbelief.  To invoke God in exclamation is to give the name power, and thus God.  LS, just above says,

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Because adding "god" gives it more oomph.

How, if god is non existent, is invoking God more "oomph"?  It is not logically possible to invoke anymore oomph than yelling out, "Unicorn!"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"DO I say it to hurt, offend, or annoy people? It really depends on the person and what they are doing to hurt, offend or annoy me. As a Gay Atheist Activist...aka GayTheist...I get alot of talk from alot of people that try to silence me, and try to take away my rights. I find that shit really very fucking annoying. It also happens to be largely people who follow some magical sky-daddy and that call themselves Christian that do these things.

I feel your frustration on this too, btw.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"So...I guess I do hurt, offend and annoy them. Sorry, don't give a rat's ass.

I would guess you do care.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Sorry for the rant, but, wait, no I'm not, I think this needed saying.

I respect your input, but happen to disagree with the "logic" in doing so.

Actually...I didn't type that to anyone, I just type it as I thought some things needed saying. Personally, I don't feel that mentioning some magical sky-daddy in with my swearing adds anything to it.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Personally, I don't feel that mentioning some magical sky-daddy in with my swearing adds anything to it.

If this is true, then why mention sky-daddy at all? (in exclamations)

Personally, I feel if an Atheist can come out of Christianity, shed all the pseudo-beliefs/faith in a non-existent God, I would say this person is also more capable of removing sky-daddy from all his/her expressions that empower a non-existent, made-up, fairy-tale, entity.  A tiny step, really, in the scheme of things considering the lengths some people go through or take to "come out".

If one wasn't a Christian prior...even easier.  It shouldn't even be present.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Personally, I don't feel that mentioning some magical sky-daddy in with my swearing adds anything to it.

If this is true, then why mention sky-daddy at all? (in exclamations)

Personally, I feel if an Atheist can come out of Christianity, shed all the pseudo-beliefs/faith in a non-existent God, I would say this person is also more capable of removing sky-daddy from all his/her expressions that empower a non-existent, made-up, fairy-tale, entity.  A tiny step, really, in the scheme of things considering the lengths some people go through or take to "come out".

If one wasn't a Christian prior...even easier.  It shouldn't even be present.

OK, let's take this one step further. Using said name in vain is a sin, correct? Therefore, me not being Christian would be able to use it without fear of reprisal. Whereas a Christian using it would actually be counter productive to their goals of attaining a seat with the magical sky-daddy. So it actually makes a lot more sense for Atheists to be using said word than Christians as we have no need to fear using it.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Personally, I don't feel that mentioning some magical sky-daddy in with my swearing adds anything to it.

If this is true, then why mention sky-daddy at all? (in exclamations)

Personally, I feel if an Atheist can come out of Christianity, shed all the pseudo-beliefs/faith in a non-existent God, I would say this person is also more capable of removing sky-daddy from all his/her expressions that empower a non-existent, made-up, fairy-tale, entity.  A tiny step, really, in the scheme of things considering the lengths some people go through or take to "come out".

If one wasn't a Christian prior...even easier.  It shouldn't even be present.

OK, let's take this one step further. Using said name in vain is a sin, correct? Therefore, me not being Christian would be able to use it without fear of reprisal. Whereas a Christian using it would actually be counter productive to their goals of attaining a seat with the magical sky-daddy. So it actually makes a lot more sense for Atheists to be using said word than Christians as we have no need to fear using it.

True on both points.  Atheists have no "fear" in using the name.  This, however, is not the question/point.

The question/point is; Logically, why does using a name invoking the Christian God (because it's not invoking Triton, Zeus...or any other god as they have specific names AND the fact that the expressions include "hell", "heaven", "Jesus Christ" "Mother of God".) put more "oomph" in an expression and what logical reason is there for an Atheist, one who does not believe in any god, of this sort, exists, to use them as such?  If "God" puts more "oomph", then there must be some power in the name of GOD.  Why would *you, on one hand deny the existence of, and on the other invoke the power of said God/something of complete and utter nonsense to put that "oomph" into your speech?

Is this not acknowledging some sort of power this God has to "damn" or "damn to hell" or an exclamation swearing on a non-existent place?

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"Do you use religious exclamations ("Jesus Christ!", "Good God!", etc)  when you talk?

"Holy crap" on a rare occasion. "Hell and a thousand devils" every now and then. Considering that my mouth is a cesspool, I use very little religious exclamations or religiously inspired profanity percent-wise.

QuoteOr say "Bless You" when someone sneezes?

If they are at it for a time, I tend to say "Oh, shut UP!" - in a good-natured enough way not to offend (...not to offend too many sneezers, at least).

QuoteIf no, does it come naturally or are you making an effort to keep them out of your day-to-day vocabulary?

It comes naturally.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The question/point is; Logically, why does using a name invoking the Christian God (because it's not invoking Triton, Zeus...or any other god as they have specific names AND the fact that the expressions include "hell", "heaven", "Jesus Christ" "Mother of God".) put more "oomph" in an expression and what logical reason is there for an Atheist, one who does not believe in any god, of this sort, exists, to use them as such?  If "God" puts more "oomph", then there must be some power in the name of GOD.  Why would *you, on one hand deny the existence of, and on the other invoke the power of said God/something of complete and utter nonsense to put that "oomph" into your speech?

Is this not acknowledging some sort of power this God has to "damn" or "damn to hell" or an exclamation swearing on a non-existent place?

You almost got me to reply seriously to this! Well done sir, well done

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"True on both points.  Atheists have no "fear" in using the name.  This, however, is not the question/point.

The question/point is; Logically, why does using a name invoking the Christian God (because it's not invoking Triton, Zeus...or any other god as they have specific names AND the fact that the expressions include "hell", "heaven", "Jesus Christ" "Mother of God".) put more "oomph" in an expression and what logical reason is there for an Atheist, one who does not believe in any god, of this sort, exists, to use them as such?  If "God" puts more "oomph", then there must be some power in the name of GOD.  Why would *you, on one hand deny the existence of, and on the other invoke the power of said God/something of complete and utter nonsense to put that "oomph" into your speech?

Is this not acknowledging some sort of power this God has to "damn" or "damn to hell" or an exclamation swearing on a non-existent place?

No. It is not acknowledging anything about some sugar daddy in space. It is simply saying that the person you're talking to is making an idiot out of themselves, or you don't like them or what they're doing/have done. Really it is that simple.

Quote from: "BadPoison" You almost got me to reply seriously to this! Well done sir, well done

Yeah, I think I've had enough of AnimatedDirt's semantics arguments (as well as the rest of his arguments, for that matter).

By the way, I haven't ignored your PM, don't worry.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The question/point is; Logically, why does using a name invoking the Christian God ... put more "oomph" in an expression and what logical reason is there for an Atheist, one who does not believe in any god, of this sort, exists, to use them as such?

I don't think "goddammit" has more "oomph" necessarily, and there is no logical reason for an atheist to use any phrase which houses within it a religious word, except that they are common if not accepted idioms of the English language. I don't think any atheist who says "God damn it/you" really is demanding that God damns someone/something anymore than an Atheist who says "God bless you" really thinks that God will bless the sneezer. It's a phrase, no more, no less.

Quote from: "Animated Dirt"Is this not acknowledging some sort of power this God has to "damn" or "damn to hell" or an exclamation swearing on a non-existent place?

I don't think it is. The phrase "God damn you" sounds like a command, and God being the dude he claims to be in the Bible probably doesn't take to kindly to being commanded to do anything...  


AD... out of curiosity, what's with the asterisk in front of 'you'? I've seen that in your posts a couple of times. Like below... what's the meaning?

Quote from: "Animated Dirt"*you

Quote from: "hismikeness"AD... out of curiosity, what's with the asterisk in front of 'you'? I've seen that in your posts a couple of times. Like below... what's the meaning?

Quote from: "Animated Dirt"*you

I think he's using it to denote that he's using it in a third-person sense, not talking directly to anyone person.

Quote from: "BadPoison"lol You almost got me to reply seriously to this! Well done sir, well done

This is probably because at the end of the day, you know these "idioms" mean exactly what they say and infer.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"No. It is not acknowledging anything about some sugar daddy in space. It is simply saying that the person you're talking to is making an idiot out of themselves, or you don't like them or what they're doing/have done. Really it is that simple.

Then there's really no need to qualify it with "God", is there.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah, I think I've had enough of AnimatedDirt's semantics arguments (as well as the rest of his arguments, for that matter).

It's definitely a true argument of semantics...no doubt about that.  Thanks, LS

Quote from: "hismikeness"I don't think "goddammit" has more "oomph" necessarily, and there is no logical reason for an atheist to use any phrase which houses within it a religious word, except that they are common if not accepted idioms of the English language. I don't think any atheist who says "God damn it/you" really is demanding that God damns someone/something anymore than an Atheist who says "God bless you" really thinks that God will bless the sneezer. It's a phrase, no more, no less.

I agree, they are accepted expressions...funny thing though, I haven't found it listed as an Idiom on a few sites.  But that isn't necessarily proof it's not an idiom.
According to Urban Dictionary god damnit (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=god%20damnit) literally means to damn to hell.
Literally, these terms are a curse to a thing or a person.

Quote from: "hismikeness"AD... out of curiosity, what's with the asterisk in front of 'you'? I've seen that in your posts a couple of times. Like below... what's the meaning?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I think he's using it to denote that he's using it in a third-person sense, not talking directly to anyone person.

LS has this correct.

JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST! What’s all the arguing about? FUCK!  If I use Jesus or God in a curse word it’s not because I want to offend a Christian. It’s just my way of saying to myself that I fear no God or “sky daddy”. Christians should'nt worry about atheist using God’s name in vain. They should worry about other Christians saying it. If you think it's so wrong to say god's name in vain then don't say it, but don't tell other people do the same. Because I have used God's name in vain with so much pleasure and nothing bad has ever happened to me!  

Quote from: "father nicetouch"JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST! What’s all the arguing about? FUCK!  If I use Jesus or God in a curse word it’s not because I want to offend a Christian. It’s just my way of saying to myself that I fear no God or “sky daddy”. Christians should'nt worry about atheist using God’s name in vain. They should worry about other Christians saying it. If you think it's so wrong to say god's name in vain then don't say it, but don't tell other people do the same. Because I have used God's name in vain with so much pleasure and nothing bad has ever happened to me!  :D  

[youtube:3ithk22b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSFy8RK-MFg[/youtube:3ithk22b]

and

[youtube:3ithk22b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwYVqMj5i6k[/youtube:3ithk22b]

Already been done on a previous thread, but screw it, worth watching again IMO.

Quote from: "father nicetouch"JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST! What’s all the arguing about? FUCK!  If I use Jesus or God in a curse word it’s not because I want to offend a Christian. It’s just my way of saying to myself that I fear no God or “sky daddy”. Christians should'nt worry about atheist using God’s name in vain. They should worry about other Christians saying it. If you think it's so wrong to say god's name in vain then don't say it, but don't tell other people do the same. Because I have used God's name in vain with so much pleasure and nothing bad has ever happened to me!  

You've not even read the thread.  It's not about Christians being offended or about whether or not you fear God or a god.  This does nothing more to add to the discussion and in fact simply establishes my point even better since you rightly see these words as a curse.

Thanks for your input.

Gotta ask you this animated dirt...

Does holy cow or holy shit count? Is it ok for me to use those? I mean, some eastern religions might not like having me use the first one because throwing their bovine deity in the mix gives more power to my curse.

But holy shit... I need to know, am I invoking the power of your god's fecal matter to give my words power, or is it the all encompassing power of the collective deities' Hershey-squirts that adds power to my curse words. Cause I'd like to think I'm invoking the power of the dump of Thor. I mean, holy shit, can you imagine the size of the loaf he'd produce? Now that's power!

Oh, and is any of this really worth arguing? I mean, holy fucking bloody mother of jesus this seems to be such a lame topic to argue about and get fired up over.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Gotta ask you this animated dirt...

Does holy cow or holy shit count? Is it ok for me to use those? I mean, some eastern religions might not like having me use the first one because throwing their bovine deity in the mix gives more power to my curse.

But holy shit... I need to know, am I invoking the power of your god's fecal matter to give my words power, or is it the all encompassing power of the collective deities' Hershey-squirts that adds power to my curse words. Cause I'd like to think I'm invoking the power of the dump of Thor. I mean, holy shit, can you imagine the size of the loaf he'd produce? Now that's power!

Whether you find this amusing or not, the point still stands as valid and the answer to your question is this;  When you say "Holy shit/cow", what are you meaning by "holy"?  Nothing can be holy unless God (or a god) makes it holy.  So...the question is...and the point I'm making/asking, is, what is the point of saying "Holy shit/cow"?  What makes using the word "holy" more of an "oomph", as has been suggested?  On what basis does any Atheist invoke the power of God or a god in their exclamations?  One would assume the true Atheist would not use "God" words to "empower" their speech.  Screaming out "Unicorn Damn It!!" is just as powerful isn't it?

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Oh, and is any of this really worth arguing? I mean, holy fucking bloody mother of jesus this seems to be such a lame topic to argue about and get fired up over.

There you go...case in point.  Another Atheist makes my point for me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Gotta ask you this animated dirt...

Does holy cow or holy shit count? Is it ok for me to use those? I mean, some eastern religions might not like having me use the first one because throwing their bovine deity in the mix gives more power to my curse.

But holy shit... I need to know, am I invoking the power of your god's fecal matter to give my words power, or is it the all encompassing power of the collective deities' Hershey-squirts that adds power to my curse words. Cause I'd like to think I'm invoking the power of the dump of Thor. I mean, holy shit, can you imagine the size of the loaf he'd produce? Now that's power!

Whether you find this amusing or not, the point still stands as valid and the answer to your question is this;  When you say "Holy shit/cow", what are you meaning by "holy"?  Nothing can be holy unless God (or a god) makes it holy.  So...the question is...and the point I'm making/asking, is, what is the point of saying "Holy shit/cow"?  What makes using the word "holy" more of an "oomph", as has been suggested?  On what basis does any Atheist invoke the power of God or a god in their exclamations?  One would assume the true Atheist would not use "God" words to "empower" their speech.  Screaming out "Unicorn Damn It!!" is just as powerful isn't it?

I say things like that a lot when talking with my friends and family. Even "oh my science!" Sometimes I even yell "Kirk Hammett!" Am I invoking the power of Metallica when making that exclamation? Because I'll put the power of Kirk Hammett up against the power of your god any day, we'll see with one can drink a beer the fastest, which one can rip a piece of paper faster, which one has evidence for their existence, and to be fair, I'll even see which one can appear on toast the fastest (gotta give god at least one gimme). This notion that atheists are invoking some non-existent being to... I'm not sure what you're think an atheist is invoking something they don't believe in to do when using a religious term as an exclamation.

To be more to the point: your god is not the only thing I use as an exclamation, also my exclamations take many forms not limited to deities and irrationally labeled "foul language". Even if this god existed, using religious terms as exclamations does not change it into a state that is indistinguishable from not existing.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Gotta ask you this animated dirt...

Does holy cow or holy shit count? Is it ok for me to use those? I mean, some eastern religions might not like having me use the first one because throwing their bovine deity in the mix gives more power to my curse.

But holy shit... I need to know, am I invoking the power of your god's fecal matter to give my words power, or is it the all encompassing power of the collective deities' Hershey-squirts that adds power to my curse words. Cause I'd like to think I'm invoking the power of the dump of Thor. I mean, holy shit, can you imagine the size of the loaf he'd produce? Now that's power!

Whether you find this amusing or not, the point still stands as valid and the answer to your question is this;  When you say "Holy shit/cow", what are you meaning by "holy"?  Nothing can be holy unless God (or a god) makes it holy.  So...the question is...and the point I'm making/asking, is, what is the point of saying "Holy shit/cow"?  What makes using the word "holy" more of an "oomph", as has been suggested?  On what basis does any Atheist invoke the power of God or a god in their exclamations?  One would assume the true Atheist would not use "God" words to "empower" their speech.  Screaming out "Unicorn Damn It!!" is just as powerful isn't it?

I say things like that a lot when talking with my friends and family. Even "oh my science!" Sometimes I even yell "Kirk Hammett!" Am I invoking the power of Metallica when making that exclamation? Because I'll put the power of Kirk Hammett up against the power of your god any day, we'll see with one can drink a beer the fastest, which one can rip a piece of paper faster, which one has evidence for their existence, and to be fair, I'll even see which one can appear on toast the fastest (gotta give god at least one gimme). This notion that atheists are invoking some non-existent being to... I'm not sure what you're think an atheist is invoking something they don't believe in to do when using a religious term as an exclamation.

To be more to the point: your god is not the only thing I use as an exclamation, also my exclamations take many forms not limited to deities and irrationally labeled "foul language". Even if this god existed, using religious terms as exclamations does not change it into a state that is indistinguishable from not existing.

So you're saying that using Kirk's name does the same?  Let's see.

Kirk Hammentt Damn it! ...  Nope.  It makes me chuckle.

God Damn it!!  ...  Nope, that definitely doesn't make me chuckle and laugh at the hearing of a person exclaiming it.

I'm not speaking of simple "foul" language, but exclamations invoking God...specifically.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I say things like that a lot when talking with my friends and family. Even "oh my science!" Sometimes I even yell "Kirk Hammett!" Am I invoking the power of Metallica when making that exclamation? Because I'll put the power of Kirk Hammett up against the power of your god any day, we'll see with one can drink a beer the fastest, which one can rip a piece of paper faster, which one has evidence for their existence, and to be fair, I'll even see which one can appear on toast the fastest (gotta give god at least one gimme). This notion that atheists are invoking some non-existent being to... I'm not sure what you're think an atheist is invoking something they don't believe in to do when using a religious term as an exclamation.

To be more to the point: your god is not the only thing I use as an exclamation, also my exclamations take many forms not limited to deities and irrationally labeled "foul language". Even if this god existed, using religious terms as exclamations does not change it into a state that is indistinguishable from not existing.

So you're saying that using Kirk's name does the same?  Let's see.

No, I was asking you if it worked the same.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Kirk Hammentt Damn it! ...  Nope.  It makes me chuckle.

God Damn it!!  ...  Nope, that definitely doesn't make me chuckle and laugh at the hearing of a person exclaiming it.

They both work the same for me. There is no difference to me which exclamation I or anyone else chooses to use, except maybe in the case of making a humorous exclamation vs. not humorous. But other than how funny an exclamation is and the context it is used in, there is no difference.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I'm not speaking of simple "foul" language, but exclamations invoking God...specifically.

I made one tiny mention of foul language and you ignore all my other points to address that?

What kind of "power" are you talking about?

Quote from: "Davin"No, I was asking you if it worked the same.

You tell me.  So far, at least a few Atheists have made my point for me.

Quote from: "Davin"They both work the same for me. There is no difference to me which exclamation I or anyone else chooses to use, except maybe in the case of making a humorous exclamation vs. not humorous. But other than how funny an exclamation is and the context it is used in, there is no difference.

In theory, they do.  But in practice...you're outnumbered.  The vast majority seems to think a "God", "holy", "Jesus" makes a better exclamation.  Your point above, then, fails.

Quote from: "Davin"I made one tiny mention of foul language and you ignore all my other points to address that?

Oh ok.  Sorry.  Let me address whether drinking a beer fastest makes one superior to another or the ripping of a piece of paper...ok.
Oh...and the toast test.  Yes, let's throw that one in.  

Quote from: "Davin"What kind of "power" are you talking about?

You tell me...what makes adding "God" to an exclamation give it more "oomph"?

I would argue most people would think adding Fuck to an exclamation gives it more "oomph" than adding "god." The word Fuck definitely tends to be seen as more shocking. Therefore, Fuck is a better god.

Quote from: "BadPoison"I would argue most people would think adding Fuck to an exclamation gives it more "oomph" than adding "god." The word Fuck definitely tends to be seen as more shocking. Therefore, Fuck is a better god.

There...see...another Atheist giving a word God-like qualities in order to attempt to bring God down.  In fact you left God exactly in the place of God and instead lifted a word to make it seem equal in power.  In short, you gave God power by giving a word god-like personification.

Thanks to you also, BadPoison.  My point keeps being made by those opposing it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In short, you gave God power by giving a word god-like personification.

Thanks to you also, BadPoison.  My point keeps being made by those opposing it.

Your point being that men give ideas god-like power? I couldn't agree more.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In short, you gave God power by giving a word god-like personification.
Thanks to you also, BadPoison.  My point keeps being made by those opposing it.

Your point being that men give ideas god-like power? I couldn't agree more.

Not at all...it's men giving words power equal to God.  Their use of "God" when they don't even believe in God.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"No, I was asking you if it worked the same.

You tell me.  So far, at least a few Atheists have made my point for me.

I've explained several times now why it works the same, so really, you should just answer the question instead of avoiding it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"They both work the same for me. There is no difference to me which exclamation I or anyone else chooses to use, except maybe in the case of making a humorous exclamation vs. not humorous. But other than how funny an exclamation is and the context it is used in, there is no difference.

In theory, they do.  But in practice...you're outnumbered.  The vast majority seems to think a "God", "holy", "Jesus" makes a better exclamation.  Your point above, then, fails.

My point fails because of an appeal to majority? Seriously though, my point doesn't fail because of your logical failure.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I made one tiny mention of foul language and you ignore all my other points to address that?

Oh ok.  Sorry.  Let me address whether drinking a beer fastest makes one superior to another or the ripping of a piece of paper...ok.
Oh...and the toast test.  Yes, let's throw that one in.

Ok, let's talk about them, at least those points were more prevalent than the one tiny mention of "foul language."

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"What kind of "power" are you talking about?

You tell me...what makes adding "God" to an exclamation give it more "oomph"?

Why would I tell you what kind of power it is that you're talking about? Alright, I'll tell you what kind of power you're talking about; you're talking about the power to shoot rainbows out of our belly buttons. I think that is very ridiculous because as many times as I've heard people use religious exclamations, I've never seen a single person shoot rainbows from their belly button.

Quote from: "Animated Dirt"According to Urban Dictionary god damnit literally means to damn to hell.

This is from a page back (I must've missed it...). However, I don't know if citing the Urban Dictionary as a source is going to lend credence to your argument. Afterall, it lists things like the Mexican Flapjack and Chinese Finger Cuffs on its site.

I won't provide direct links to either of those, because they are NSFW as well as extremely crude, but they prove the point of the overall immaturity of the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/). Look them up as you please, but don't blame me!  

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"No, I was asking you if it worked the same.

You tell me.  So far, at least a few Atheists have made my point for me.

I've explained several times now why it works the same, so really, you should just answer the question instead of avoiding it.

Whether it works the same?  I answered in the quote you quote below.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"They both work the same for me. There is no difference to me which exclamation I or anyone else chooses to use, except maybe in the case of making a humorous exclamation vs. not humorous. But other than how funny an exclamation is and the context it is used in, there is no difference.

In theory, they do.  But in practice...you're outnumbered.  The vast majority seems to think a "God", "holy", "Jesus" makes a better exclamation.  Your point above, then, fails.

My point fails because of an appeal to majority? Seriously though, my point doesn't fail because of your logical failure.

It fails on the majority of *YOUR peers.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I made one tiny mention of foul language and you ignore all my other points to address that?

Oh ok.  Sorry.  Let me address whether drinking a beer fastest makes one superior to another or the ripping of a piece of paper...ok.
Oh...and the toast test.  Yes, let's throw that one in.

Ok, let's talk about them, at least those points were more prevalent than the one tiny mention of "foul language."

My answer still stands.  Paper tearing and beer drinking are the litmus tests of superiority.  You win.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"What kind of "power" are you talking about?

You tell me...what makes adding "God" to an exclamation give it more "oomph"?

Why would I tell you what kind of power it is that you're talking about? Alright, I'll tell you what kind of power you're talking about; you're talking about the power to shoot rainbows out of our belly buttons. I think that is very ridiculous because as many times as I've heard people use religious exclamations, I've never seen a single person shoot rainbows from their belly button.

Really?  Where is there record of rainbows being shot out of belly buttons?  You're obviously skewed ideas are making you believe something is shooting rainbows out of a belly button(s).

Quote from: "hismikeness"

Quote from: "Animated Dirt"According to Urban Dictionary god damnit literally means to damn to hell.

This is from a page back (I must've missed it...). However, I don't know if citing the Urban Dictionary as a source is going to lend credence to your argument. Afterall, it lists things like the Mexican Flapjack and Chinese Finger Cuffs on its site.

I won't provide direct links to either of those, because they are NSFW as well as extremely crude, but they prove the point of the overall immaturity of the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/). Look them up as you please, but don't blame me!  

The internet is full of oddities...are you saying we shouldn't be looking at the internet because it also has somethings in it that are not 100% true?  I simply gave the UD as a source.  Being UD, doesn't make it wrong.
See also Damnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnation)

Animated Dirt...judging from what I've seen in your posts, and the fact that you are focusing on what you want to see instead of what we're saying...you're annoying, and I've decided that I'm not going to be responding to you anymore. 'bye.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Animated Dirt...judging from what I've seen in your posts, and the fact that you are focusing on what you want to see instead of what we're saying...you're annoying, and I've decided that I'm not going to be responding to you anymore. 'bye.

Best wishes to you.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I've explained several times now why it works the same, so really, you should just answer the question instead of avoiding it.

Whether it works the same?  I answered in the quote you quote below.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In theory, they do.  But in practice...you're outnumbered.  The vast majority seems to think a "God", "holy", "Jesus" makes a better exclamation.  Your point above, then, fails.

My point fails because of an appeal to majority? Seriously though, my point doesn't fail because of your logical failure.

It fails on the majority of *YOUR peers.

It doesn't really matter which majority you appeal to: it's still an appeal to majority, still a fallacy and still not a valid point.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"My answer still stands.  Paper tearing and beer drinking are the litmus tests of superiority.  You win.

No, Kirk Hammett wins.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"What kind of "power" are you talking about?

You tell me...what makes adding "God" to an exclamation give it more "oomph"?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Why would I tell you what kind of power it is that you're talking about? Alright, I'll tell you what kind of power you're talking about; you're talking about the power to shoot rainbows out of our belly buttons. I think that is very ridiculous because as many times as I've heard people use religious exclamations, I've never seen a single person shoot rainbows from their belly button.

Really?  Where is there record of rainbows being shot out of belly buttons?  You're obviously skewed ideas are making you believe something is shooting rainbows out of a belly button(s).

I will not defend your crazy beliefs. You asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about. I asked you what kind of power you were talking about, you asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about, so I told you what kind of power you were talking about. Of course you could just say what kind of power saying "Jesus fucking Mary and Joseph sideways" has. You claimed that it gives the words power, I just want to know what kind of power it is that you're claiming it gives.

Quote from: "Davin"I will not defend your crazy beliefs. You asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about. I asked you what kind of power you were talking about, you asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about, so I told you what kind of power you were talking about. Of course you could just say what kind of power saying "Jesus fucking Mary and Joseph sideways" has.

I have not defended rainbows exiting from a belly button.  Please refrain from making rediculous made up claims on my part.

I'm not trying to say what kind of power, I'm asking what power does the Atheist invoke on "God" when he/she uses exclamations that call on "God" and/or qualities/abilities that belong only to the Christian God?

Quote from: "Davin"You claimed that it gives the words power, I just want to know what kind of power it is that you're claiming it gives.

Well, I know why I think they are used as such, but the OP is of a different question.  THAT is the question.  Why do Atheists keep using these words as exclamations if there is no power in the word(s)...excluding "God" and replacing with "Unicorn", for instance.

The question is, why is "God" more effective?  My use of such exclamation(s) is based on my held belief...the question then is what is *your basis for use?

If "God" is non-existent or *you reject belief in...what makes "God damn it!" more expressive/an exclamation than "Unicorn Damn it!" (Or insert your god of preference.) and why?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I will not defend your crazy beliefs. You asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about. I asked you what kind of power you were talking about, you asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about, so I told you what kind of power you were talking about. Of course you could just say what kind of power saying "Jesus fucking Mary and Joseph sideways" has.

I have not defended rainbows exiting from a belly button.  Please refrain from making rediculous made up claims on my part.

I'm not trying to say what kind of power, I'm asking what power does the Atheist invoke on "God" when he/she uses exclamations that call on "God" and/or qualities/abilities that belong only to the Christian God?

Quote from: "Davin"You claimed that it gives the words power, I just want to know what kind of power it is that you're claiming it gives.

Well, I know why I think they are used as such, but the OP is of a different question.  THAT is the question.  Why do Atheists keep using these words as exclamations if there is no power in the word(s)...excluding "God" and replacing with "Unicorn", for instance.

The question is, why is "God" more effective?  My use of such exclamation(s) is based on my held belief...the question then is what is *your basis for use?

If "God" is non-existent or *you reject belief in...what makes "God damn it!" more expressive/an exclamation than "Unicorn Damn it!" (Or insert your god of preference.) and why?

Hey, buddy, how are you doing? Look, we don’t use these “curse” words because we really think they “curse”. That is what society calls them. (There not politically correct or whatever the fuck!) And for what I have read we atheist all use them for different reasons. You have read mine. Now you say that the word “God” gives the curse word power instead of using some other word other than God and I see what you are saying there. You are right for some reason using Gods name in vain just feels better, but other than that it has no power! If I say “Jesus crucified backwards!” it has no power other than the pleasure it gives me in saying it. Because I used to be so afraid of this “loving God” while I was growing up and now I’m free of that fear!

But I have a question for you. Why do most Christians fine some type of meaning in everything? Why can’t you just see it as it is? The “word” only has power if you are pissed off or offended by it.

Oh, just a side note. Can you take those bandages off doctor house’s mouth? I think he want’s to saying something to.

This is a very amusing thread. I'm quite enjoying it. At first I was annoyed by dirt's arguing about everything, but now it just gives me a good laugh. Reminds me of a little kid who'll argue about anything without really knowing what they're arguing.

Thanks dirt. You amuse me, gosh dang you you gosh darned rascal.

I found I used to use those words a lot when I was a Christian, now I simply say "Atheismo damn it!", or "Oh my Ayeesha", now that I have converted.
Ever since I started praying to the wonderful Lord and Lady Atheismo and Ayeesha, I've refrained from saying "God" anything,.

Atheismo bless you, and may you walk forever with Ayeesha in the hallowed halls of Eternity.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"This is a very amusing thread. I'm quite enjoying it. At first I was annoyed by dirt's arguing about everything, but now it just gives me a good laugh. Reminds me of a little kid who'll argue about anything without really knowing what they're arguing.

Thanks dirt. You amuse me, gosh dang you you gosh darned rascal.

I'm glad to amuse you.

The sad thing here is that no Atheist has been able to give an answer that one might say fits well within the non-belief in God.

The point remains, as made by Atheists on this thread, that "God" does make it better and gives it more "oomph".  Why?

If "God" does not exist, what is the point of using "God" (again see the post in regard to the meaning behind God damn, holy, Jesus...) and why has the Atheist, as a group, not adopted using something different or not using a "qualifier" that invokes the power of a non-existent "God"?

IMHO, the best thing an Atheist can do on this subject is to discontinue using this language UNLESS it is purposely uttered at a Christian or someone it would offend.  (which it does neither to me).

Quote from: "skwurll"I found I used to use those words a lot when I was a Christian, now I simply say "Atheismo damn it!", or "Oh my Ayeesha", now that I have converted.
Ever since I started praying to the wonderful Lord and Lady Atheismo and Ayeesha, I've refrained from saying "God" anything,.

Atheismo bless you, and may you walk forever with Ayeesha in the hallowed halls of Eternity.

Chalk up another for my argument.

Replacing one "non-existent deity" and creating another personification of a "non-existent deity" to qualify their words.

Thanks skwurll

Why do your words have to be qualified by a god?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Replacing one "non-existent deity" and creating another personification of a "non-existent deity" to qualify their words.

Thanks skwurll

Why do your words have to be qualified by a god?

Although my post was equal parts sarcasm and hilariously amusing wit, (And that's being modest) I would have to say it's a learned habit.
That's how I've heard people express emotion while I was growing up, I guess I've learned to emulate their speech, sort of like a region-specific dialect or accent.
For example, if I had never been exposed to saying "God" as a qualifier for cursing, I doubt I'd use it in normal speech.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I will not defend your crazy beliefs. You asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about. I asked you what kind of power you were talking about, you asked me to tell you what kind of power you were talking about, so I told you what kind of power you were talking about. Of course you could just say what kind of power saying "Jesus fucking Mary and Joseph sideways" has.

I have not defended rainbows exiting from a belly button.  Please refrain from making rediculous made up claims on my part.

Then don't ask me to tell you what kind of power you're talking about when using religious exclamations. You could make your own claim, but you asked me to, so I did.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I'm not trying to say what kind of power, I'm asking what power does the Atheist invoke on "God" when he/she uses exclamations that call on "God" and/or qualities/abilities that belong only to the Christian God?

I've told you, if anything it has a negative effect on the god due to showing that the abilities of the god are matched only by non existence.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You claimed that it gives the words power, I just want to know what kind of power it is that you're claiming it gives.

Well, I know why I think they are used as such, but the OP is of a different question.  THAT is the question.  Why do Atheists keep using these words as exclamations if there is no power in the word(s)...excluding "God" and replacing with "Unicorn", for instance.

The question is, why is "God" more effective?  My use of such exclamation(s) is based on my held belief...the question then is what is *your basis for use?

If "God" is non-existent or *you reject belief in...what makes "God damn it!" more expressive/an exclamation than "Unicorn Damn it!" (Or insert your god of preference.) and why?

Are we not talking about religious exclamations? We're still on topic here. I've answered that question, now please answer my question that I've been asking since you posted this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7094#p105991) on page one:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power. If the Atheist denies God (or any god), then why, by using these as such, do *you continue to "shoot yourself in the foot"?

What kind of power are you talking about?

Quote from: "skwurll"Although my post was equal parts sarcasm and hilariously amusing wit, (And that's being modest) I would have to say it's a learned habit.
That's how I've heard people express emotion while I was growing up, I guess I've learned to emulate their speech, sort of like a region-specific dialect or accent.
For example, if I had never been exposed to saying "God" as a qualifier for cursing, I doubt I'd use it in normal speech.

The fact remains...you have labeled yourself an Atheist and have no belief in "God".  Many here attest to their choosing Atheism AFTER having been Christian as a child or having been raised by parents of some religious belief.  You have freely chosen to leave religious beliefs behind.
The fact remains...you do understand the meaning behind the words...yet you refuse to leave religious words and qualifiers behind.

Why?  It matters not one iota that it is "accepted", "learned", or "region-specific dialect".
Religion is accepted, learned and also region specific.  *You've been able to put it aside...why not simple words?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Why?  It matters not one iota that it is "accepted", "learned", or "region-specific dialect".
Religion is accepted, learned and also region specific.  *You've been able to put it aside...why not simple words?

I'll just put it bluntly, I do not know.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"This is a very amusing thread. I'm quite enjoying it. At first I was annoyed by dirt's arguing about everything, but now it just gives me a good laugh. Reminds me of a little kid who'll argue about anything without really knowing what they're arguing.

Thanks dirt. You amuse me, gosh dang you you gosh darned rascal.

I'm glad to amuse you.

The sad thing here is that no Atheist has been able to give an answer that one might say fits well within the non-belief in God.

The point remains, as made by Atheists on this thread, that "God" does make it better and gives it more "oomph".  Why?

If "God" does not exist, what is the point of using "God" (again see the post in regard to the meaning behind God damn, holy, Jesus...) and why has the Atheist, as a group, not adopted using something different or not using a "qualifier" that invokes the power of a non-existent "God"?

IMHO, the best thing an Atheist can do on this subject is to discontinue using this language UNLESS it is purposely uttered at a Christian or someone it would offend.  (which it does neither to me).

My question, and this is in all honesty, is why do you care so much what words we use?

I use fuck you quite often (joking more often than not) but I'm not literally telling the person that I'm going to put my penis in them forcefully. Or using go fuck yourself, I'm not literally instructing the person to masturbate. So why should using god damn you, or jesus conworthy fucking christ be any different. Honestly, until you started this thread, I never thought about the fact that god or jesus is used in so many "curse words" and I didn't care. Still don't give a flying fuck, and no.... I'm not talking about not giving you a fuck while in a flying airplane. That would just be ridiculous.

Quote from: "Davin"Then don't ask me to tell you what kind of power you're talking about when using religious exclamations. You could make your own claim, but you asked me to, so I did.

God does not spew rainbows from His belly button.  I'm not certain why you'd again make such an assertion if it does nothing to answer why or what power there is in using "God" to qualify exclamations.  I leave it to you to sort out.

Quote from: "Davin"I've told you, if anything it has a negative effect on the god due to showing that the abilities of the god are matched only by non existence.

Negative effect?  How so if "God damn" qualifies a curse uttered to another?  It would seem it rather enhances the curse rather than negatively affects it.  To "negatively" curse at someone is to yell something that has no power...or something like "Feather you!"  A feather has the unique ability in a word to hardly promote a curse or pain of any sort.  So to yell "Feather you!" at someone is counter-productive if a curse is what is needed/wanted to convey.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You claimed that it gives the words power, I just want to know what kind of power it is that you're claiming it gives.

Well, I know why I think they are used as such, but the OP is of a different question.  THAT is the question.  Why do Atheists keep using these words as exclamations if there is no power in the word(s)...excluding "God" and replacing with "Unicorn", for instance.

The question is, why is "God" more effective?  My use of such exclamation(s) is based on my held belief...the question then is what is *your basis for use?

If "God" is non-existent or *you reject belief in...what makes "God damn it!" more expressive/an exclamation than "Unicorn Damn it!" (Or insert your god of preference.) and why?

Are we not talking about religious exclamations? We're still on topic here. I've answered that question, now please answer my question that I've been asking since you posted this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7094#p105991) on page one:

I'm probably not understanding, but I don't see a question in that post at all.  Maybe it would be best for you to simply re-ask it.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power. If the Atheist denies God (or any god), then why, by using these as such, do *you continue to "shoot yourself in the foot"?

What kind of power are you talking about?

That is the question to the Atheist.  I've already given you why it is so for me.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"My question, and this is in all honesty, is why do you care so much what words we use?

As I mentioned to Davin above; to yell at someone and say, "Feather you!"is no curse at all.  To yell, "God damn you!" is to invoke the power of God to damn...one must not only invoke the power of God TO damn, but to believe in God is to understand what it is to DAMN a person.  So, since the Atheist denies the existence of God (or any gods), what then is it about "God" and "Damn" that invokes a curse if neither exists?  It is a moot curse on the part of the Atheist that employs it because he/she does not even believe in God.  One might as well yell out "Unicorn you!" and it SHOULD be the same curse and meaning behind such an utterance in the Atheist community.  But as evidenced by this thread and the many times the Atheists have gone to qualifying their utterances with God or a god-like character..."God" still qualifies the curse.  Why is this so and how is this logical coming from a freethinking, logically-minded, and non-deluded person as the Atheist promotes him/herself to be?

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I use fuck you quite often (joking more often than not) but I'm not literally telling the person that I'm going to put my penis in them forcefully. Or using go fuck yourself, I'm not literally instructing the person to masturbate. So why should using god damn you, or jesus conworthy fucking christ be any different. Honestly, until you started this thread, I never thought about the fact that god or jesus is used in so many "curse words" and I didn't care. Still don't give a flying fuck, and no.... I'm not talking about not giving you a fuck while in a flying airplane. That would just be ridiculous.

The F word has the ability to stand alone in cursing be it meant in a sexual connotation, or a pain-inflicting connotation (among many others).  When you use "I don't give a flying fuck", you are not invoking God, so I have no problem with it.  The literal meaning of it is not based on the existence of God, whereas the literal meaning of "God damn you", "Jesus Christ!", "Holy fuck!"...and the like, DO invoke a power that God alone has that Unicorn, for example, does not have.

Check out the word fuck in wikepedia.  Very interesting.

Quote from: "skwurll"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Why?  It matters not one iota that it is "accepted", "learned", or "region-specific dialect".
Religion is accepted, learned and also region specific.  *You've been able to put it aside...why not simple words?

I'll just put it bluntly, I do not know.

An honest answer.  Appreciated.  However we are still left with the question and the appeal to better logic.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Then don't ask me to tell you what kind of power you're talking about when using religious exclamations. You could make your own claim, but you asked me to, so I did.

God does not spew rainbows from His belly button.  I'm not certain why you'd again make such an assertion if it does nothing to answer why or what power there is in using "God" to qualify exclamations.  I leave it to you to sort out.

Again, I don't think it's my responsibility to tell you what you mean.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"What kind of "power" are you talking about?

You tell me...what makes adding "God" to an exclamation give it more "oomph"?

I asked you what kind of power you were talking about, to which you asked me to tell you. So I told you what kind of power you were talking about. I'm sure you get it by now. It was a humorous attempt to show how you avoided the question and continue to avoid the question.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I've told you, if anything it has a negative effect on the god due to showing that the abilities of the god are matched only by non existence.

Negative effect?  How so if "God damn" qualifies a curse uttered to another?  It would seem it rather enhances the curse rather than negatively affects it.  To "negatively" curse at someone is to yell something that has no power...or something like "Feather you!"  A feather has the unique ability in a word to hardly promote a curse or pain of any sort.  So to yell "Feather you!" at someone is counter-productive if a curse is what is needed/wanted to convey.

"Unicorn damn you" and "god damn you" are equal statements in that both a unicorn and a god do not exist.

In the interests of being lazy, instead of reiterating in yet another way what my position is, I'll just link and quote what I've already stated in this thread:
[spoiler:vy4nn1xo]Here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7094#p106002)

Quote from: "Davin"They're just words, unless you think saying "Jesus Christ" all the time will actually make Jesus Christ exist. I suppose we could substitute "god" with "science" like; "science damn it!" and "oh my science!"

Though all kidding aside, I'm sure you don't mean that kind of power, because that's like incantations, summonings and dark magic. In the other kind of power of words, I think it hurts the religious more to say things like "god damn it!", "Jesus Fucking Christ on on a stick!", "god fucking sideways!" and "Pig fucking Jesus Christ!" Because a lot of religious people tend to get offended even though the person saying it may not have their same belief. On Penn & Teller's: Bullshit (I think one in season 2), there was a lady that said that people should substitute the word "god" with the word "Buddha" because they didn't believe in Buddha so it wasn't bad. Hilarious how hypocritical some of the more extreme religious can get without ever seeing it.

Here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7094&start=15#p106019)

Quote from: "Davin"The things I mentioned don't have to be curses at someone, like if I drop a box of tools on my foot I yell "Jesus, fucking, goats, in a shed!" There is no affirming of power either, it more shows that god can't damn anything, more an affirmation of how weak god is than gods power.

Here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7094&start=30#p106372)

Quote from: "Davin"I say things like that a lot when talking with my friends and family. Even "oh my science!" Sometimes I even yell "Kirk Hammett!" Am I invoking the power of Metallica when making that exclamation? Because I'll put the power of Kirk Hammett up against the power of your god any day, we'll see with one can drink a beer the fastest, which one can rip a piece of paper faster, which one has evidence for their existence, and to be fair, I'll even see which one can appear on toast the fastest (gotta give god at least one gimme). This notion that atheists are invoking some non-existent being to... I'm not sure what you're think an atheist is invoking something they don't believe in to do when using a religious term as an exclamation.

To be more to the point: your god is not the only thing I use as an exclamation, also my exclamations take many forms not limited to deities and irrationally labeled "foul language". Even if this god existed, using religious terms as exclamations does not change it into a state that is indistinguishable from not existing.

Here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7094&start=45#p106378)

Quote from: "Davin"They both work the same for me. There is no difference to me which exclamation I or anyone else chooses to use, except maybe in the case of making a humorous exclamation vs. not humorous. But other than how funny an exclamation is and the context it is used in, there is no difference.

[/spoiler:vy4nn1xo]

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Are we not talking about religious exclamations? We're still on topic here. I've answered that question, now please answer my question that I've been asking since you posted this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7094#p105991) on page one:

I'm probably not understanding, but I don't see a question in that post at all.  Maybe it would be best for you to simply re-ask it.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power. If the Atheist denies God (or any god), then why, by using these as such, do *you continue to "shoot yourself in the foot"?

What kind of power are you talking about?

That is the question to the Atheist.  I've already given you why it is so for me.

No, that is my question to you. You've yet to answer the question.

Quote from: "Davin"I asked you what kind of power you were talking about, to which you asked me to tell you. So I told you what kind of power you were talking about. I'm sure you get it by now. It was a humorous attempt to show how you avoided the question and continue to avoid the question.

The OP is not directed at the Theist...it's directed at the Atheist.  I already told you why ME using these curses is more appropriate as I believe in God.  *You don't.  So...the question remains.

Quote from: "Davin""Unicorn damn you" and "god damn you" are equal statements in that both a unicorn and a god do not exist.

I agree...from the Atheist point of view.  THE QUESTION THEN REMAINS, why does the Atheist continue to use "God" instead of employing something with more logical meaning to the Atheist?

Quote from: "Davin"No, that is my question to you. You've yet to answer the question.

And just above, I've given the answer for at least the third time.
Now it's your turn to answer WHAT "God" does to qualify the curse(s)?  What power is there in the word, "God" that makes it more meaningful to the Atheist in that he/she continues to invoke power to something non-existent??
My answer:
[spoiler:39npxqzp]I believe in God.
Make that 4 times I've answered.[/spoiler:39npxqzp]

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"gosh dang you you gosh darned rascal.

That made me almost spit out my drink  

(Almost at 50 posts! weeehawww)

A swear word has to sound and feel good when uttered in extremus.
A god to be successful needs a name that can be shouted in appeal.
So I think a god's name is likely to make a good profanity.
Ah Vishnu, I've burnt the toast!

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"A swear word has to sound and feel good when uttered in extremus.
A god to be successful needs a name that can be shouted in appeal.
So I think a god's name is likely to make a good profanity.
Ah Vishnu, I've burnt the toast!

Another Atheist that appeals to a god to make "good profanity".

The humorous thing to me is that  using "God damn it/you", "Oh God", "Jesus Christ", "Christ Almighty"...and the like, is an appeal to the Christian God...the very one most Atheists are against and abhor the most.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I asked you what kind of power you were talking about, to which you asked me to tell you. So I told you what kind of power you were talking about. I'm sure you get it by now. It was a humorous attempt to show how you avoided the question and continue to avoid the question.

The OP is not directed at the Theist...it's directed at the Atheist.  I already told you why ME using these curses is more appropriate as I believe in God.  *You don't.  So...the question remains.

I'm not the OP. Conversations would be way too limited if they were restricted to only the OP. This is a public board. I'm remaining on topic. You're avoiding answering a question. Just say you don't want to answer it or that you can't answer it, but just avoiding it is useless.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin""Unicorn damn you" and "god damn you" are equal statements in that both a unicorn and a god do not exist.

I agree...from the Atheist point of view.  THE QUESTION THEN REMAINS, why does the Atheist continue to use "God" instead of employing something with more logical meaning to the Atheist?

Exclamations are emotional. And to answer your question again, so that the question no longer remains: They're just words, there is no reason to restrict ones exclamations to everything but god just because one is an atheist, theists certainly don't make only religious exclamations.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"No, that is my question to you. You've yet to answer the question.

And just above, I've given the answer for at least the third time.
Now it's your turn to answer WHAT "God" does to qualify the curse(s)?  What power is there in the word, "God" that makes it more meaningful to the Atheist in that he/she continues to invoke power to something non-existent??
My answer:
[spoiler:38z4893j]I believe in God.
Make that 4 times I've answered.[/spoiler:38z4893j]

The power that you're talking about that is given when someone uses religious exclamations is: "I believe in God."

Do you see how that makes no sense? That is not an answer to the question. That's like:

Q) Hey, how long until dinner is ready?
A) Tomato juice.

Quote from: "Davin"The power that you're talking about that is given when someone uses religious exclamations is: "I believe in God."

Do you see how that makes no sense? That is not an answer to the question. That's like:

Q) Hey, how long until dinner is ready?
A) Tomato juice.

WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?

You stated:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power.

What kind of power are you talking about?

I thought it would have been clear by now, since I've asked the question since you stated that on page 1.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power.

What kind of power are you talking about?

I thought it would have been clear by now, since I've asked the question since you stated that on page 1.

Ok...here is the answer YET AGAIN (5th time).  I THOUGHT it was clear by now after repeating myself almost a half-dozen times.

As a Christian, it is clear I believe in God, SO to use these curses/exclamations is LOGICALLY CORRECT from the standpoint of belief IN God.  What "power"?... is of no consequence in the grand scheme of the question...but to be specific on one curse, "God damn you/it", it is specifically the power to damn (see Damnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnation)).

So in contrast, and as I've questioned throughout this thread, WHAT power is it that the Atheist invokes in using these curses/exclamations?  It has already been established that "God" gives more "oomph" and that even if the Atheist replaces "God", then he/she does so with another god.  WHY?  If "God" does not exist, why doesn't a rational, free thinking, logically-minded, superior in thought, philosophy, science,...much more intelligent mind shed this primitive thinking already, once and for all, like he/she did with the notion of "God" and/or religion?  If the Atheist is able to shed the blinders of Christianity and ultimately the belief in the Abrahamic God by intelligence superior to that of the believing man...why do *you invoke God's power (the Abrahamic God) to qualify *your speech, *your curses, *your exclamations of amazement, wonder, anger, happiness...?

Did you get the answer this time?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point being that to use these words as exclamations, as curses, as swear...is to give these words/names power.

What kind of power are you talking about?

I thought it would have been clear by now, since I've asked the question since you stated that on page 1.

Ok...here is the answer YET AGAIN (5th time).  I THOUGHT it was clear by now after repeating myself almost a half-dozen times.

As a Christian, it is clear I believe in God, SO to use these curses/exclamations is LOGICALLY CORRECT from the standpoint of belief IN God.  What "power"?... is of no consequence in the grand scheme of the question...but to be specific on one curse, "God damn you/it", it is specifically the power to damn (see Damnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnation)).

Being that no one gets damned, I'd think you see that there is no damnation power in the words. So against your original statement, using the words does not give them power, they'd only have power if god were real and the person making the exclamation believed in the god. Even if this god were real, it seems that it going around damning everything people commanded it to, goes against the concept. Which still means that saying "god damn you" has no power. That is unless you think that this god is to serve at mans request.

This however does not answer what kind of power an atheist gives the words by using them as exclamations.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So in contrast, and as I've questioned throughout this thread, WHAT power is it that the Atheist invokes in using these curses/exclamations?

As I have answered throughout this thread: I just don't limit my exclamations by excluding all religious terms. It's that simple. Jesus means no more to me than Sekhmet. Pretas has no more meaning to me than elves. God is equal to dancing waffles. They're all not real, they're all fair game, they're all powerless words.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It has already been established that "God" gives more "oomph" and that even if the Atheist replaces "God", then he/she does so with another god.

Established by whom? Not by me. Even if I were to accept an opinion presented by someone else, as far as I've seen, the "oomph" is no different than "fuck", "shit", "bitch", etc... So if you're going to use that as your "established" point, you must take the whole thing, not just the bit of it you like. Which means it was equally "established" that god means no more than "fuck", "shit", "bitch", etc...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"WHY?  If "God" does not exist, why doesn't a rational, free thinking, logically-minded, superior in thought, philosophy, science,...much more intelligent mind shed this primitive thinking already, once and for all, like he/she did with the notion of "God" and/or religion?

Why should anyone treat this notion of "god" and/or religion any more special than any other mythology or just any other words? I see no reason to give religious exclamations any special consideration either for using them or against using them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If the Atheist is able to shed the blinders of Christianity and ultimately the belief in the Abrahamic God by intelligence superior to that of the believing man...why do *you invoke God's power (the Abrahamic God) to qualify *your speech, *your curses, *your exclamations of amazement, wonder, anger, happiness...?

Putting aside your snide remarks, there is no invoking of power going on. If I say "Jesus slap this goat!", the goat is not going to be slapped by Jesus, showing there is no power in the words. Power in the words would mean that the words would be able to do something, like a spell. Of course nothing happens no matter how much I say things, thus demonstrating the absence of power in the words.

I'm not sure how I can be more clear. An atheist using religious exclamations are invoking nothing. It appears that you're implying that by me saying "god damn it" that I'm some how thinking that a god is actually going to damn it. Nothing can be further from reality. Those are just words with no more power than any other words. I've said several times that there is no power in them and that there is no invocation going on. The reason why I use the words is because I don't exclude things from my vernacular. I don't put any extra effort into selecting religious terms and I don't put any extra effort into not using them. They get no special consideration from me, because to me, they are not special. If I went out of my way to avoid using the terms, that would mean that I consider the words special in some way because I would be giving them consideration that I don't give other words. I use religious exclamations the same way I use non-religious exclamations, there is no difference to me which word(s) I select.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Did you get the answer this time?

This time being the first time you've answered the question? Yes.

Quote from: "Davin"Being that no one gets damned, I'd think you see that there is no damnation power in the words.

And your absolute proof against this is...?  Likewise, you would say I have no absolute proof of God.  So we stand on equal ground.  Your claim is that God is equal to, "Sekhmet, Pretas,...[and] elves" YET you don't employ the use of THESE words to dignify or establish meaning behind such exclamations.  In fact, you're arguing TO use them...odd isn't it considering your world view.?

Quote from: "Davin"So against your original statement, using the words does not give them power, they'd only have power if god were real and the person making the exclamation believed in the god.

Again...says the Atheist with no absolute proof.

Quote from: "Davin"Even if this god were real, it seems that it going around damning everything people commanded it to, goes against the concept. Which still means that saying "god damn you" has no power. That is unless you think that this god is to serve at mans request.

You're right.  God does not damn everything His created wishes be damned.  The POWER is in that God (if he exists as you even admit to not being sure) does have the power to do so if His will deems it.

Quote from: "Davin"This however does not answer what kind of power an atheist gives the words by using them as exclamations.

I think you've answered very well and have established the power an Atheist directly OR indirectly invokes in using such exclamations.

Quote from: "Davin"As I have answered throughout this thread: I just don't limit my exclamations by excluding all religious terms.

Yet *you've been intelligent enough to deem God and/or religion "of the delusional"?

Quote from: "Davin"It's that simple. Jesus means no more to me than Sekhmet. Pretas has no more meaning to me than elves. God is equal to dancing waffles. They're all not real, they're all fair game, they're all powerless words.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  You say one thing, but do the opposite.

Quote from: "Davin"Established by whom? Not by me. Even if I were to accept an opinion presented by someone else, as far as I've seen, the "oomph" is no different than "fuck", "shit", "bitch", etc... So if you're going to use that as your "established" point, you must take the whole thing, not just the bit of it you like. Which means it was equally "established" that god means no more than "fuck", "shit", "bitch", etc...

You're quite right again, but only if the exclamations are limited to those and God isn't invoked.  This, however, is not true.

Quote from: "Davin"Why should anyone treat this notion of "god" and/or religion any more special than any other mythology or just any other words? I see no reason to give religious exclamations any special consideration either for using them or against using them.

Do you see reason to give God any special consideration?  The fact is that you do so by the continued use, and worse, the arguing TO CONTINUE to invoke a non-existent God's non-existent power.  Be it to damn, or by name to exclaim importance.

Quote from: "Davin"Putting aside your snide remarks, there is no invoking of power going on.

So YOU say.  The fact that you don't use "Sekhmet, Pretas,...[and] elves" to make exclamations but instead INSIST on the Christian God to do the "work" instead is proof you do invoke His power.  Snide remarks?  Apparently you deny all the times on this forum that Atheists claim superior thinking skills, free thinking?  Heck Stevil in this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=106706#p106650) suggests we (Christians) don't think for ourselves.  Snide remarks?  Simply stating the truth as evidenced by the majority on this forum.

Quote from: "Davin"If I say "Jesus slap this goat!", the goat is not going to be slapped by Jesus, showing there is no power in the words. Power in the words would mean that the words would be able to do something, like a spell. Of course nothing happens no matter how much I say things, thus demonstrating the absence of power in the words.

It's not in the literal actions that the power lies, but in the potential action that the power lies.  God (if He exists) can slap the goat.  Will He is a different question all together.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not sure how I can be more clear. An atheist using religious exclamations are invoking nothing.

Contrary to your disagreement, we've established by many more Atheists that have added to this discussion that they do, by substituting "God" for another "god" when they don't believe in either.

Quote from: "Davin"It appears that you're implying that by me saying "god damn it" that I'm some how thinking that a god is actually going to damn it. Nothing can be further from reality.

We agree!  But then that is not the point.  The point is that the person uttering these curses/exclamations is uttering a curse hoping/wishing that they be damned.

Quote from: "Davin"Those are just words with no more power than any other words. I've said several times that there is no power in them and that there is no invocation going on. The reason why I use the words is because I don't exclude things from my vernacular. I don't put any extra effort into selecting religious terms and I don't put any extra effort into not using them.

You do exclude religion in practice, don't you?  You do convey on the believer that he/she must be deluded, or brainwashed, don't *you?  I know *you do...simply read the Troll thread.

Quote from: "Davin"They get no special consideration from me, because to me, they are not special.

Prove this by selecting among the many other "god" available...even the ones made up to ridicule the believer!

Quote from: "Davin"If I went out of my way to avoid using the terms, that would mean that I consider the words special in some way because I would be giving them consideration that I don't give other words. I use religious exclamations the same way I use non-religious exclamations, there is no difference to me which word(s) I select.

I disagree.  You avoid religion and its beliefs.  By your own words, you do so because you do consider it special in some way?
And we're back at square one.  Why not do as you do in religious practice?  Avoid religious practice.  Your practice is inconsistent and illogical based on your beliefs (non) and standing.

Quote from: "Davin"This time being the first time you've answered the question? Yes.

Several times.  Read back.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Being that no one gets damned, I'd think you see that there is no damnation power in the words.

And your absolute proof against this is...?  Likewise, you would say I have no absolute proof of God.  So we stand on equal ground.  Your claim is that God is equal to, "Sekhmet, Pretas,...[and] elves" YET you don't employ the use of THESE words to dignify or establish meaning behind such exclamations.  In fact, you're arguing TO use them...odd isn't it considering your world view.?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Again...says the Atheist with no absolute proof.

I don't need any more proof for this claim than I need for my claim that things do not fly away from the earth without being propelled. If you think that I'm arguing for using the words, then you're not really seeing my point. My point is that the words are no more significant that any other choice of words. Neither for choosing to use them or choosing not to use them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You're right.  God does not damn everything His created wishes be damned.  The POWER is in that God (if he exists as you even admit to not being sure) does have the power to do so if His will deems it.

Exactly my point, there is no power in the words even if there were a god.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I think you've answered very well and have established the power an Atheist directly OR indirectly invokes in using such exclamations.

So do I; that there is no power in them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yet *you've been intelligent enough to deem God and/or religion "of the delusional"?

I have not, do not attribute the words of someone else to me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Established by whom? Not by me. Even if I were to accept an opinion presented by someone else, as far as I've seen, the "oomph" is no different than "fuck", "shit", "bitch", etc... So if you're going to use that as your "established" point, you must take the whole thing, not just the bit of it you like. Which means it was equally "established" that god means no more than "fuck", "shit", "bitch", etc...

You're quite right again, but only if the exclamations are limited to those and God isn't invoked.  This, however, is not true.

You can't say I'm right when saying that "god" has an equal "oomph" to "fuck", "shit" and "bitch" then say that it is only so if "god" is not said. This is a contradiction: either they are equal or they are not.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Do you see reason to give God any special consideration?  The fact is that you do so by the continued use, and worse, the arguing TO CONTINUE to invoke a non-existent God's non-existent power.  Be it to damn, or by name to exclaim importance.

No, I do not see any reason to give any god or any religious terms special consideration over any other words or terms.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So YOU say.  The fact that you don't use "Sekhmet, Pretas,...[and] elves" to make exclamations but instead INSIST on the Christian God to do the "work" instead is proof you do invoke His power.

The fact is that I do use Sekhmet, Pretas, elves, Santa Claus, Kevin Bacon, Tom York, b.b. gun, aardvark, Kirk Hammett, sandwich and any other seemingly random concept that pops into my head at the time I'm going to use an exclamation. The point I'm making is that I don't use religious exclamations exclusively, nor even as a majority of my exclamations.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Snide remarks?  Apparently you deny all the times on this forum that Atheists claim superior thinking skills, free thinking?  Heck Stevil in this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=106706#p106650) suggests we (Christians) don't think for ourselves.  Snide remarks?  Simply stating the truth as evidenced by the majority on this forum.

I'm not here to defend any opinion, idea, concept or anything else that someone else brought up, only my own. If you want to discuss the ideals of other people, discuss it with them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If I say "Jesus slap this goat!", the goat is not going to be slapped by Jesus, showing there is no power in the words. Power in the words would mean that the words would be able to do something, like a spell. Of course nothing happens no matter how much I say things, thus demonstrating the absence of power in the words.

It's not in the literal actions that the power lies, but in the potential action that the power lies.  God (if He exists) can slap the goat.  Will He is a different question all together.

Then there is no power in the statement. If the action doesn't rely on the statement, then the statement is useless. I'd bet $282,560,012 that even if all the people on earth said "Jesus slap this goat" a thousand times each, that the goat would not be slapped by Jesus. So where is the power in the words?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Contrary to your disagreement, we've established by many more Atheists that have added to this discussion that they do, by substituting "God" for another "god" when they don't believe in either.

Again, I'm not going to defend what anyone else said, only what I say.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"It appears that you're implying that by me saying "god damn it" that I'm some how thinking that a god is actually going to damn it. Nothing can be further from reality.

We agree!  But then that is not the point.  The point is that the person uttering these curses/exclamations is uttering a curse hoping/wishing that they be damned.

I don't, I say it sometimes because it's funny, sometimes because not saying anything doesn't let others around me know that I am frustrated and sometimes because I feel like saying something seemingly random. Never because I actually want something damned. Most of the time I say "<whatever or excluded> damn you" in jest to family and friends.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Those are just words with no more power than any other words. I've said several times that there is no power in them and that there is no invocation going on. The reason why I use the words is because I don't exclude things from my vernacular. I don't put any extra effort into selecting religious terms and I don't put any extra effort into not using them.

You do exclude religion in practice, don't you?

In the same way I don't play the tuba in practice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You do convey on the believer that he/she must be deluded, or brainwashed, don't *you?

No, I don't.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I know *you do...simply read the Troll thread.

You do not know I do because I've never said such a thing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"They get no special consideration from me, because to me, they are not special.

Prove this by selecting among the many other "god" available...even the ones made up to ridicule the believer!

And any other term/word.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If I went out of my way to avoid using the terms, that would mean that I consider the words special in some way because I would be giving them consideration that I don't give other words. I use religious exclamations the same way I use non-religious exclamations, there is no difference to me which word(s) I select.

I disagree.  You avoid religion and its beliefs.

In the same way I avoid modern country music.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"By your own words, you do so because you do consider it special in some way?

No, I do not consider it in some special way. Those are my own words.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"And we're back at square one.  Why not do as you do in religious practice?  Avoid religious practice.  Your practice is inconsistent and illogical based on your beliefs (non) and standing.

Demonstrate this. I do not go to churches because they do not offer anything I need/want. I don't avoid churches or religion, there is just no reason to go to them. I treat religion and churches the same way I treat everything else. I don't avoid religious practices, I just don't perform them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"This time being the first time you've answered the question? Yes.

Several times.  Read back.

I have read back, this was the first time you've answered my question. From the first time you avoided it, I had been making comments about you avoiding it, until you finally answered it.

Is the growing length of this thread proof that swear words do have power?  

I can't remember if I ever responded but I don't use religious exclamations....it was almost not even a habit other than "oh god" and I think I have taken that one out of my vocabulary (don't remember using it recently) because 1) I reminds me of high school students 2) it doesn't make sense since I'm not trying to appeal to one

But I also try to generally avoid swear words and only save them when I need to add emphasis in the proper context...otherwise they lose their impact (that and those who swear all the time are perceived as being less intelligent and I prefer to be viewed as intelligent)

When using a religious exclamation, the atheist is merely showing his unconcern with religious niceties and a patronising attitude toward the religious.

This, I thoroughly approve of.

Extropian

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"A swear word has to sound and feel good when uttered in extremus.
A god to be successful needs a name that can be shouted in appeal.
So I think a god's name is likely to make a good profanity.
Ah Vishnu, I've burnt the toast!

Another Atheist that appeals to a god to make "good profanity".

The humorous thing to me is that  using "God damn it/you", "Oh God", "Jesus Christ", "Christ Almighty"...and the like, is an appeal to the Christian God...the very one most Atheists are against and abhor the most.

Ye right, and if I say "Stone the crows, the dingoes have eaten me didgeridoo" I'm literally calling for a culling of crows.
I'm not likely to have occasion to say that though.

As for the odd atheist sending subliminal messages of faith when his curses call upon divine authority.............

In the past the first reaction of the theist has been, BLASPHEMY!.......followed closely by dire threats of fire and brimstone for one who used god's name in vain. Christian doctine now seems to be not only accommodating to this blasphemy but is contriving to brand it involuntary piety!

Which leads to the question; When the theist, confronted with a bunch of unruly kids chasing balls into his beautifully manicured broccoli patch, mutters through gritted teeth, "Jeeezus bloody christ!" and then bellows, "You kids get out of there, come on, no playing in the vegie garden."

................Is that blasphemy or is it involuntary piety?

Extropian

I would challenge that the word used in swearing doesn't matter, whether it's fuck, god or gosh. It's the intent that matters. Ever see one of those orbit gum commercials?

Words are just words. Their meanings change over time. Saying something with the intent of insulting someone or using a particular deity's name in vain doesn't. Intent remains the same.

Quote from: "Whitney"...context...

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"...literally ...

Quote from: "Extropian"...subliminal messages...

Quote from: "terranus"...intent...

Come one now... it seems none of those well reasoned points matter much, because this here argument (for the last 6 pages) has solely been about semantics.  

By Poseidon's salty balls, this thread has gone on longer than I thought it would.

Quote from: "hismikeness"

Quote from: "Whitney"...context...

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"...literally ...

Quote from: "Extropian"...subliminal messages...

Quote from: "terranus"...intent...

Come one now... it seems none of those well reasoned points matter much, because this here argument (for the last 6 pages) has solely been about semantics.  

There really wasn't that much argument, just some desperate attempts to interpret a mention of deity as a latent recognition of the greatness of dog.

I don't know if this happens elsewhere, but round these parts as an expression of surprise a gent may say "well bugger me"
This should not, in the absence of other "deviant" behaviour be seen as an invitation to sodomites.

Quote from: "Whitney"Is the growing length of this thread proof that swear words do have power?  

It is the question on the table which seems to have been answered 'yes' by more than one "Atheist".  

Quote from: "Whitney"I can't remember if I ever responded but I don't use religious exclamations....it was almost not even a habit other than "oh god" and I think I have taken that one out of my vocabulary (don't remember using it recently) because 1) I reminds me of high school students 2) it doesn't make sense since I'm not trying to appeal to one

Music to my ears.  The point is NOT that an Atheist can't use these words, it's exactly the point Whitney makes in the last 12 words above.  Whether or not *you admit it, these words make an appeal, and therefore, an appeal to the power of "God"...and in most (if not all) cases, it is an appeal to the Christian/Abrahamic God.

Quote from: "Whitney"But I also try to generally avoid swear words and only save them when I need to add emphasis in the proper context...otherwise they lose their impact (that and those who swear all the time are perceived as being less intelligent and I prefer to be viewed as intelligent)

I do the same (or attempt to anyway).

Quote from: "Extropian"When using a religious exclamation, the atheist is merely showing his unconcern with religious niceties and a patronising attitude toward the religious.

Exclamations and knee-jerk reactions in the form of words is not in this context.  If it were simply teasing, then that MAY BE a different matter.  But these are not in teasing.  They are everyday uses of which the Atheist is not ignorant to and fully capable of ridding him/herself (as Whitney has done/is her norm) of these that DO "appeal to one." [God/god].

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Ye right, and if I say "Stone the crows, the dingoes have eaten me didgeridoo" I'm literally calling for a culling of crows.
I'm not likely to have occasion to say that though.

This is not invoking God or a "god" is it now...

Quote from: "Extropian"As for the odd atheist sending subliminal messages of faith when his curses call upon divine authority.............

In the past the first reaction of the theist has been, BLASPHEMY!.......followed closely by dire threats of fire and brimstone for one who used god's name in vain. Christian doctine now seems to be not only accommodating to this blasphemy but is contriving to brand it involuntary piety!

Which leads to the question; When the theist, confronted with a bunch of unruly kids chasing balls into his beautifully manicured broccoli patch, mutters through gritted teeth, "Jeeezus bloody christ!" and then bellows, "You kids get out of there, come on, no playing in the vegie garden."

................Is that blasphemy or is it involuntary piety?

First the answer:  Both are blasphemy.

Where the "involuntary piety" fits in, is in the fact that these words call upon a higher power of which the Atheist (specifically) has no belief in...YET cannot seem, for the most part, to rid him/herself of the deluded habit.  The interesting thing is that the Atheist has been able to separate from the religious in all other aspects, but cannot in controling one's speech?  Where is the logic, the greater intelligence, the superior notions of not being deluded or brainwashed?  If God is fake, why keep calling for Him?

So far only Whitney has shown the truest position of an Atheist on the matter.  I'm sure she also believes these are just words, but words with some implication of power beyond which she believes exists.

Quote from: "terranus"I would challenge that the word used in swearing doesn't matter, whether it's fuck, god or gosh. It's the intent that matters. Ever see one of those orbit gum commercials?

Words are just words. Their meanings change over time. Saying something with the intent of insulting someone or using a particular deity's name in vain doesn't. Intent remains the same.

The word "God" in the context of these curses, exclamations, will always refer to the Christian God as long as there are Christians.  Intent remains the same?  Of course it does.  This is the whole point!  "God" and "damn" haven't changed.

Quote from: "terranus"Words are just words.

Words hold the power of communication.

Well, Jesus titty fucking Christ it’s my fiftieth post! God damn it Look at me! I’m going to go and make me a grilled cheese after this. (Not really that was just an exclamation.) But this is a fun thread! I can’t believe that Animateddirt and Davin went at it this far.  :yay:  that is in a figure of speech I do not want you asking me why I’m a yelling at god I do not believe is there. But any way this is fun. Has given me a good laugh! You guys discuss everything.  

It would appear Hismikeness, exercising his considerable talent for dealing in gross generalities, would rather tar everyone with the same brush than expose his meagre ability to discriminate.

My post revealed the poverty of the tactic of accusing atheists of subliminal piety. It laid bare the dishonest contriving of the religious doctrine of blasphemy into a secret yearning for the sacerdotal.

Obviously the reasoning I employed was of such a level as to attract his confusion and frustration rather than a perceptive assessment of the argument therein.

Being a newbie here, I hardly expected a hearty hail-fellow-well-met welcome with bacchanalian wassail and dancing in the streets to songs of gladsome joy and hymnal melodies of devotional praise.

But to have heaped upon me the odium of semantic is beyond the pale.

Extropian

Quote from: "father nicetouch"Well, Jesus titty fucking Christ it’s my fiftieth post! God damn it Look at me! I’m going to go and make me a grilled cheese after this. (Not really that was just an exclamation.) But this is a fun thread! I can’t believe that Animateddirt and Davin went at it this far.  

...and yet another one places more truth to the point I'm making.

Just an exclamation?  It's the whole point of the thread.  Thanks though.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "father nicetouch"Well, Jesus titty fucking Christ it’s my fiftieth post! God damn it Look at me! I’m going to go and make me a grilled cheese after this. (Not really that was just an exclamation.) But this is a fun thread! I can’t believe that Animateddirt and Davin went at it this far.  :P

So, if I hurt my finger and yelled, "Jesus Christ!" What would you call that? other than blasfemy! I know the point that you are making. That why are we yelling to a god we do not believe in. i understand where you are coming from. But you have to understand our side as well! We really do not find power in these words. I have told you why i use them. i'm not saying you are wrong. Because you make a good point. But i really do not see it as i'm really claming to a god or anything else that i might yell out.

Quote from: "father nicetouch"So, if I hurt my finger and yelled, "Jesus Christ!" What would you call that? other than blasfemy! I know the point that you are making. That why are we yelling to a god we do not believe in. i understand where you are coming from.

If you understand, pull yourself out of being brainwashed into thinking it means nothing.  It literally means something!

Quote from: "father nicetouch"But you have to understand our side as well! We really do not find power in these words. I have told you why i use them. i'm not saying you are wrong. Because you make a good point. But i really do not see it as i'm really claming to a god or anything else that i might yell out.

You don't find power in the words, may be true.  The fact of the matter is that the words do call upon one that DOES have power...one that *you say doesn't exist.

If *you really feel this way, why are we not experiencing a change in the thinking and actions of the Atheist community?  Why are we not hearing exclamations to Unicorns, Great Spaghetti Monsters, Elves...the list is endless, yet we find only one name called upon.

Reflect back on the words posted by Whitney.  Again, her position is the truest Atheist position on this matter.  It literally is.

Extropian wrote:
When using a religious exclamation, the atheist is merely showing his unconcern with religious niceties and a patronising attitude toward the religious.

Animated Dirt replies Exclamations and knee-jerk reactions in the form of words is not in this context. If it were simply teasing, then that MAY BE a different matter. But these are not in teasing. They are everyday uses of which the Atheist is not ignorant to and fully capable of ridding him/herself (as Whitney has done/is her norm) of these that DO "appeal to one." [God/god].

My admiration for Whitney has no bounds........let her praises be sung throughout the land.

I, however, am disinclined to allow you the prerogative of proclaiming upon my motives for religious exclaiming. Blasphemy is an enculturated trait not confined the the christian divinities. All theistic figures have attacted their equivalent abuse. For nigh on 2000 years the Judeochristian blasphemer has coloured the language of religion, his braggadocio frequently leading him into the most dire of consequences.

Atheism on the other hand has had a numerically worthy presence no longer than one tenth of the time occupied by christianity. The enculturation has been a powerful one and obviously will take longer to eradicate in the wretched atheist.
While I am guilty sometimes of involuntarily exclaiming with blasphemy in my life away from discussion groups, I am fully seized of the need to exclaim atheistically in discussion groups. I have led by example elsewhere in this.

But I would advise you that, religiously exclaiming or not, this atheist is profoundly indifferent to your outrage and will continue to curse as he pleases, as colourfully as he pleases, where he pleases and when he pleases. But I do admit to being choosy as to these conditions in order that as many theists as possible are brought to high dudgeon at any given time.

I am in good christian company here, with such luminaries of tolerance and loving fellowship as Geo.W.Bush, Cardinal George Pell ["Big George" to his youthful charges], Archbishop Dr.Peter Jensen and that odious octagenarian Carol Wojtyla.

So, please, I beg of you, indulge the frailties of the wretched atheist and heap not upon him any more burden than his doughty spirit can bear. Be assured most definitely he is aware that christians in their generosity of love and kindness eschewed the torture chamber, the stake, the drawing & quartering some years ago and expresses his profound gratitude that you resist heroically their re-introduction to modern society against all clamouring among your more enthusiastic bretheren.

Extropian

Quote from: "Extropian"But I would advise you that, religiously exclaiming or not, this atheist is profoundly indifferent to your outrage and will continue to curse as he pleases, as colourfully as he pleases, where he pleases and when he pleases.

I'm hardly outraged.  Simply a point of logic (or illogic) which is lost, apparently, as you seem adamant to continue in displaying your folly, in light of your world view and claims therein.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Extropian"But I would advise you that, religiously exclaiming or not, this atheist is profoundly indifferent to your outrage and will continue to curse as he pleases, as colourfully as he pleases, where he pleases and when he pleases.

I'm hardly outraged.  Simply a point of logic (or illogic) which is lost, apparently, as you seem adamant to continue in displaying your folly, in light of your world view and claims therein.

It is lost because your point of logic is ineffably inconsequential in the mounting struggle of atheists to elevate logic, reason and rationality to their rightfully paramount position in human intellectual activity.

Adamant I am. Though what you see as folly, I see as a recognition that the most useful purpose for the divine, the supernatural and the fantastic is a kaleidoscope of blasphemic expression.

What you witness but fail to see is the atheist contempt for your impenetrable theism. There is pejorative intent in every word of blasphemy. You suffer the delusion that an atheist would call upon the benevolent power invested in a figment of your foetid imagination. Such self-indulgent twaddle!!!

He is cursing and deriding a decrepit collection of gods, ghosts, spirits, angels and demons, utterly uncaring of your theistic "logic".

The exclamation.........JEEEEEZUZ BLOODY CHRIST!!! has never been accepted as words praising the holy trinity among any christians of my acquaintance.

Will your next contrived annoyance be the declaration that atheism is a religion? I confess to an unseemly frisson of anticipation at the prospect.

Extropian

Quote from: "Extropian"He is cursing and deriding a decrepit collection of gods, ghosts, spirits, angels and demons, utterly uncaring of your theistic "logic".

"He" is not.  Simply knowing the origin of the exclamations would suffice to de-credit the above.

Quote from: "Extropian"The exclamation.........JEEEEEZUZ BLOODY CHRIST!!! has never been accepted as words praising the holy trinity among any christians of my acquaintance.

Praise?  No.  I agree.  You are correct here.

It astounds me how easy the point is missed and the "logic" of illogic is proclaimed.

I'm moving this thread out of the lounge as it is obviously no longer a "laid back" topic.  Please keep in mind that while I can't think of a cuss word in the book that would break the forum rules (other than racist ones); that regardless of the thread subject or opinions of what others think that this need to be kept civil....it's definately tipping over the edge at this point and needs to be reeled back in.

Btw, AD...in my circle of friends there are a few who do replace god in swears and exclaimations with the FSM or IPU to be funny.  But I'm thinking you are probably referring to curse words said in anger when arguing your view.  

To clarify my comment about curse words having power...I think the power actually comes from the anger in that it sets off the empathy triggers (or anger triggers) of those around us.  But I'm sure you are well aware I didn't mean power in the supernatural sense.

Some people seem to think it helps the atheist cause to make religious curse words common usage or no big deal...I'm not sure I see that point.  If people say them so what but I personally just felt weird about it after I had settled into my nonbeleif.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm moving this thread out of the lounge as it is obviously no longer a "laid back" topic.  Please keep in mind that while I can't think of a cuss word in the book that would break the forum rules (other than racist ones); that regardless of the thread subject or opinions of what others think that this need to be kept civil....it's definately tipping over the edge at this point and needs to be reeled back in.

Btw, AD...in my circle of friends there are a few who do replace god in swears and exclaimations with the FSM or IPU to be funny.  But I'm thinking you are probably referring to curse words said in anger when arguing your view.  

To clarify my comment about curse words having power...I think the power actually comes from the anger in that it sets off the empathy triggers (or anger triggers) of those around us.  But I'm sure you are well aware I didn't mean power in the supernatural sense.

Some people seem to think it helps the atheist cause to make religious curse words common usage or no big deal...I'm not sure I see that point.  If people say them so what but I personally just felt weird about it after I had settled into my nonbeleif.

Apologies all around on my part in the tipping.

Whitney I appreciate your input and while I see your point of these words coming from anger and from that the power, I also applaud you as, again I mention, that your position of the use of these, whatever the reason is, is the most logical position considering, as you put it, your non-belief.

Again...this is not to say Atheists cannot use these, by all means continue, the point is that BY using these, you appeal to something you don't believe in.  If *you are comfortable in this, that in my opinion and that of many, goes totally opposite of *your world view and all claims therein, then please continue.

It is simply A point of being illogical, and therefore on the same plane as those many call "deluded, crazy, needing a crutch, not able to think for themselves".

In reality, this should be an "A-ha" moment for the Atheist...IMHO.

I was trying to find an example of humorous ways for an atheist to use religious exclaimations by listening to brother sam videos...and he does say god damn a lot (especially during live shows...actually kinda creepy because the audience starts responding back like an evangelical crowd saying god damn rather than amen; all in fun but...still...)  Anyway...I give you Brother Sam's view on atheists pretending to pray:
[youtube:1usqxqfu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCNTfzepmbU[/youtube:1usqxqfu]

I wonder if he would think, for similar reasons for why he doesn't bow his head out of respect, that religious swear words should be avoided when not using them as part of a comedy show.  I'll ask him next time I'm around him when he's not in character (might be a while, he doesn't live here).

AnimatedDirt writes; It astounds me how easy the point is missed and the "logic" of illogic is proclaimed.

Then you are astounded by trivialities. Your point is so easily missed because it stems from typical theistic superficiality.

Your claiming of special status for the objects of theist derision carries an air of desperation with it by now for the claim has been refuted from several directions by those whom you accuse.

There is a kind of childish ingenuousness in asserting your figments have special powers and then assert in addition that atheists involuntarily appeal to those powers when using them as figures of derision.

Both assertions are unsupported, they carry no credibility. Atheists by definition are convinced your figments have no special powers, are convinced that these figments exist only in your imagination and the imaginations of others of your ilk.

By blaspheming, atheists demonstrate your figments to be powerless, the emptiness of your theological compulsion soon will draw derision down on you.

You may assert as you have until you are black in the face, for the rest of your life, and nothing more will emerge than an unsubstantiated statement of belief/faith. It's a condition you can never escape from no matter the constancy of your belief or faith.

There's no doubt you can see the indefensibility of your position. It is obvious from the fact that you repeat your stance over and over with nothing to support it. Your irrational beliefs prevent you from admitting it. Thay's what I meant when I said "........you can mever escape........."

Extropian

I try to avoid saying religious based swear words. Not out of fear of committing sin. I have have no sin, and cannot commit sin for I have no god and hence cannot sin against said god.

The reason I don't swear religiously is because I know it has an influence on people. We all are influenced by each other and are able to easily pick up bad habbits. If I swear using God or Jesus Christ, i know there is a chance that a Christian may hear me and that their brain may subconsciously store that performance away and then later when they bang their finger or something which provokes an immeadiatly auto verbal response, then they might find themselves doing it. They would then feel all guilty and have to go to confession. Take two hail maries and hope god forgives them in the morning.

So, really, out of respect for Christians, I do try to avoid it.

I had a boss once who was very sarcastic all the time. After a while I find myself acting that way, so I quit my job and moved on. So I know how it feels to pick up bad habbits.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Again...this is not to say Atheists cannot use these, by all means continue, the point is that BY using these, you appeal to something you don't believe in.  If *you are comfortable in this, that in my opinion and that of many, goes totally opposite of *your world view and all claims therein, then please continue.

I will, thank you.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moloth.com%2Fpics%2FReligion%2FJesus%2Fsweet_zombie_jesus.jpeg&hash=fe5e702295a5337c3e0b5fe525c2cf9faa6f7cf6)

If the religious can use exclamations such as "Oh my god" which borders on using the god word in vain why can't I use it too?

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"If the religious can use exclamations such as "Oh my god" which borders on using the god word in vain why can't I use it too?

You can.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"If the religious can use exclamations such as "Oh my god" which borders on using the god word in vain why can't I use it too? :D

The religious aspect is one I hardly ever even think about, when using phrases like OMG, 'go to hell' 'heaven on Earth' and that sort of thing. I even use the word angel on occasion, not that I mean a supernatural being when I use it. Those things are purely semantically adopted phrases that are already circling around.

I guess some religious people take slight opposition to their usage just as some atheists don't really like the words 'spirituality', and 'soul' I guess, and see them as overly loaded words.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The religious aspect is one I hardly ever even think about, when using phrases like OMG, 'go to hell' 'heaven on Earth' and that sort of thing. I even use the word angel on occasion, not that I mean a supernatural being when I use it. Those things are purely semantically adopted phrases that are already circling around.

The question/point remains;  If it is true that the Atheist/Free Thinkers are of higher intelligence (and it is what *you all promote), why do *you lower yourself to the use of "sematically adopted phrases" that are a call to a higher power?  Why would the higher intelligence adopt phrases from the lower intelligence?  Using these puts *you on the same deluded and brainwashed plane as those that *you put down.  It's like *you can't grow up and all the while poking fun at others just like *you.  Is it that those of higher intelligence cannot conceive of exclamations that do not include the fairy tale God?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The religious aspect is one I hardly ever even think about, when using phrases like OMG, 'go to hell' 'heaven on Earth' and that sort of thing. I even use the word angel on occasion, not that I mean a supernatural being when I use it. Those things are purely semantically adopted phrases that are already circling around.

The question/point remains;  If it is true that the Atheist/Free Thinkers are of higher intelligence (and it is what *you all promote), why do *you lower yourself to the use of "sematically adopted phrases" that are a call to a higher power?  Why would the higher intelligence adopt phrases from the lower intelligence?  Using these puts *you on the same deluded and brainwashed plane as those that *you put down.  It's like *you can't grow up and all the while poking fun at others just like *you.  Is it that those of higher intelligence cannot conceive of exclamations that do not include the fairy tale God?

Because I'm a stupid idiot that has to stoop to your level when I speak, clearly.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Because I'm a stupid idiot that has to stoop to your level when I speak, clearly.

It is as you say...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The question/point remains;  If it is true that the Atheist/Free Thinkers are of higher intelligence (and it is what *you all promote), why do *you lower yourself to the use of "sematically adopted phrases" that are a call to a higher power?  Why would the higher intelligence adopt phrases from the lower intelligence?  Using these puts *you on the same deluded and brainwashed plane as those that *you put down.  It's like *you can't grow up and all the while poking fun at others just like *you.  Is it that those of higher intelligence cannot conceive of exclamations that do not include the fairy tale God?

What is your point here? That smarter people shouldn't use phrases that lesser intelligent people use? Could you please just get your point and reasoning out?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The question/point remains;  If it is true that the Atheist/Free Thinkers are of higher intelligence (and it is what *you all promote), why do *you lower yourself to the use of "sematically adopted phrases" that are a call to a higher power?  Why would the higher intelligence adopt phrases from the lower intelligence?  Using these puts *you on the same deluded and brainwashed plane as those that *you put down.  It's like *you can't grow up and all the while poking fun at others just like *you.  Is it that those of higher intelligence cannot conceive of exclamations that do not include the fairy tale God?

What is your point here? That smarter people shouldn't use phrases that lesser intelligent people use? Could you please just get your point and reasoning out?

You tell me.  I thought I had.

Whitney's position is correct and the logical position for her stance/worldview.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The question/point remains;  If it is true that the Atheist/Free Thinkers are of higher intelligence (and it is what *you all promote), why do *you lower yourself to the use of "sematically adopted phrases" that are a call to a higher power?  Why would the higher intelligence adopt phrases from the lower intelligence?  Using these puts *you on the same deluded and brainwashed plane as those that *you put down.  It's like *you can't grow up and all the while poking fun at others just like *you.  Is it that those of higher intelligence cannot conceive of exclamations that do not include the fairy tale God?

What is your point here? That smarter people shouldn't use phrases that lesser intelligent people use? Could you please just get your point and reasoning out?

You tell me.

Smarter people shouldn't use phrases that lesser intelligent people use? That is a question to you because you said it, so you tell me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I thought I had.

Not sure you did, you stopped responding to me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Whitney's position is correct and the logical position for her stance/worldview.

So is mine where I don't care what the exclamation is in the same way I don't care about religion. Logical position: I don't care about religion or language, so I don't care what I or other people use for exclamations.

Quote from: "Davin"Smarter people shouldn't use phrases that lesser intelligent people use? That is a question to you because you said it, so you tell me.

The point is exactly as stated.

Quote from: "Davin"Not sure you did, you stopped responding to me.

I'm not sure what you're speaking of here.

Quote from: "Davin"So is mine where I don't care what the exclamation is in the same way I don't care about religion. Logical position: I don't care about religion or language, so I don't care what I or other people use for exclamations.

So you believe in the Abrahamic God, that He exists and does have omni-powers, that He is the Creator of this universe...?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Smarter people shouldn't use phrases that lesser intelligent people use? That is a question to you because you said it, so you tell me.

The point is exactly as stated.

Is there any logical reasoning behind why smart people shouldn't use phrases that people who aren't as smart as them use?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Not sure you did, you stopped responding to me.

I'm not sure what you're speaking of here.

I'm speaking about this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7094&start=75#p106726).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So is mine where I don't care what the exclamation is in the same way I don't care about religion. Logical position: I don't care about religion or language, so I don't care what I or other people use for exclamations.

So you believe in the Abrahamic God, that He exists and does have omni-powers, that He is the Creator of this universe...?

No. Where did that question come from? How does not believing in any god or gods make my position any less logical?

Quote from: "Davin"Is there any logical reasoning behind why smart people shouldn't use phrases that people who aren't as smart as them use?

In the context of invoking God to damn something, yes.  If you have no belief in God, why invoke Him to damn something.  What is the point of OMG if there is no God?  What logic is there in using the exclamation?  The logical reason is exactly the reason Whitney states as why she doesn't (or avoids) using these exclamations.

Quote from: "Whitney"it doesn't make sense since I'm not trying to appeal to one

Quote from: "Davin"I'm speaking about this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7094&start=75#p106726).

Seems like you're rehashing it here and I'm responding.

Quote from: "Davin"So is mine where I don't care what the exclamation is in the same way I don't care about religion. Logical position: I don't care about religion or language, so I don't care what I or other people use for exclamations.

No. Where did that question come from? How does not believing in any god or gods make my position any less logical?

Because you appeal to God when you use these exclamations.  It's not logical to appeal to something that doesn't exist.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Is there any logical reasoning behind why smart people shouldn't use phrases that people who aren't as smart as them use?

In the context of invoking God to damn something, yes.  If you have no belief in God, why invoke Him to damn something.

What is being invoked?

If I say "god damn it!" I'm not actuall invoking a god to damn something, any more than I'm invoking a shit to fuck or damn something when I say "shit, fuck, damn it!" To me they're equal statements of which I'm not appealing to shit or a god. So demonstrate what is being invoked, because as many times as I've "invoked" a god (or shit) to damn something, I've yet to see anything get damned.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"What is the point of OMG if there is no God?  What logic is there in using the exclamation?  The logical reason is exactly the reason Whitney states as why she doesn't (or avoids) using these exclamations.

Quote from: "Whitney"it doesn't make sense since I'm not trying to appeal to one

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I'm speaking about this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7094&start=75#p106726).

Seems like you're rehashing it here and I'm responding.

Yes I am, you just said you didn't know what I was talking about so I linked you the post that you ignored/missed.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So is mine where I don't care what the exclamation is in the same way I don't care about religion. Logical position: I don't care about religion or language, so I don't care what I or other people use for exclamations.

No. Where did that question come from? How does not believing in any god or gods make my position any less logical?

Because you appeal to God when you use these exclamations.  It's not logical to appeal to something that doesn't exist.

If I do use the word "god" when I use exclamations, I'm not appealing to it, it is just a word. Demosntrate how just saying the word "god" is appealing to your (and not Muslims, Jews, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. god/s) god.

Quote from: "Davin"If I say "god damn it!" I'm not actuall invoking a god to damn something,

You're not?  A simple look at the words proves you wrong and illogical.

Quote from: "Davin"any more than I'm invoking a shit to fuck or damn something when I say "shit, fuck, damn it!" To me they're equal statements of which I'm not appealing to shit or a god.

When you say, "Shit damn it" or "Fuck damn it", you're not invoking God.  You are correct.  When you say "Shit!" or "Fuck!", you're not invoking God.  you are correct.  However, when you exclaim, "God damn it!" or "god damn it!" you are invoking God or god and something to which you hold no belief exists.

Quote from: "Davin"So demonstrate what is being invoked, because as many times as I've "invoked" a god (or shit) to damn something, I've yet to see anything get damned.

This is hardly the point.  You don't say, "Unicorn damn it!" and you've never seen any unicorns damn anything either.  So why God?  Where's the logic?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Seems like you're rehashing it here and I'm responding.

Yes I am, you just said you didn't know what I was talking about so I linked you the post that you ignored/missed.

Like I said, seems like your rehashing/revisiting these points here and I am responding now.  (sigh)

Quote from: "Davin"If I do use the word "god" when I use exclamations, I'm not appealing to it, it is just a word.

Again, see the beginning of this post.

Quote from: "Davin"Demosntrate how just saying the word "god" is appealing to your (and not Muslims, Jews, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. god/s) god.

While I think it does specifically invoke the power of my God, the point is you don't believe in God or gods.  So why invoke ANY?  Where's the logic in this when *you have been able to thwart the delusion and brainwashing of a belief in God?  *You're superior intelligence is able to discern the inexistence of God, but yet *you claim this God's power in speech.  *You can poke fun at us lesser intelligent, deluded and brainwashed for believing in God, but *you can't even stop using some simple words?  If they don't MEAN anything to you, why INSIST on using the speech of one who believes or is brainwashed?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If I say "god damn it!" I'm not actuall invoking a god to damn something,

You're not?  A simple look at the words proves you wrong and illogical.

Congratulations, you've shown an inability to understand expressions.

I used to think you weren't an idiot, AD, but after watching this thread develop, I'm not so sure.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The religious aspect is one I hardly ever even think about, when using phrases like OMG, 'go to hell' 'heaven on Earth' and that sort of thing. I even use the word angel on occasion, not that I mean a supernatural being when I use it. Those things are purely semantically adopted phrases that are already circling around.

The question/point remains;  If it is true that the Atheist/Free Thinkers are of higher intelligence (and it is what *you all promote), why do *you lower yourself to the use of "sematically adopted phrases" that are a call to a higher power?  Why would the higher intelligence adopt phrases from the lower intelligence?  Using these puts *you on the same deluded and brainwashed plane as those that *you put down.  It's like *you can't grow up and all the while poking fun at others just like *you.  Is it that those of higher intelligence cannot conceive of exclamations that do not include the fairy tale God?

I use those phrases because I want to, they've already got meanings and people whether religious (of any religion) or not will understand me when I say something like: Jesus Christ! Talking about blowing something out of proportion here!

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"I use those phrases because I want to, they've already got meanings and people whether religious (of any religion) or not will understand me when I say something like: Jesus Christ! Talking about blowing something out of proportion here!

Thank you.  We're not discussing this.  Maybe you should take a few moments and read the topic.  We are way passed this.
Plus you've already shot yourself in the foot with the above.

Moving along.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If I say "god damn it!" I'm not actuall invoking a god to damn something,

You're not?  A simple look at the words proves you wrong and illogical.

Exclamations are often illogical. Like someone saying "damn you hammer!" when it was the person's fault the hammer hurt them, how logical is it for a person to be angry at an inanimate object when it was their fault. What is illogical is to suppose that one must be invoking a god to damn a hammer when they say "god damn you hammer!" without demonstrating that a god actually damn things.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"any more than I'm invoking a shit to fuck or damn something when I say "shit, fuck, damn it!" To me they're equal statements of which I'm not appealing to shit or a god.

When you say, "Shit damn it" or "Fuck damn it", you're not invoking God.  You are correct.  When you say "Shit!" or "Fuck!", you're not invoking God.  you are correct.  However, when you exclaim, "God damn it!" or "god damn it!" you are invoking God or god and something to which you hold no belief exists.

If I'm not invoking shit when I say "shit, fuck damn it!", then I'm also not invoking god when I say "god, fuck damn it!" They are equal statements. So either you believe that people are invoking shit, fuck, bitch, the man, dancing waffles, Kirk Hammet, German sports cars, etc. when they use other exclamations, or you agree that referencing a word does not necessarily mean the person is invoking or appealling to the term. I guess another option is for you to be inconsistent.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So demonstrate what is being invoked, because as many times as I've "invoked" a god (or shit) to damn something, I've yet to see anything get damned.

This is hardly the point.  You don't say, "Unicorn damn it!" and you've never seen any unicorns damn anything either.  So why God?  Where's the logic?

But I do, like I've said many times before, I use unicorn, leprechaun, bb gun, waffles, Kirk Hammet, Kevin Bacon, and a huge variety of other terms. In this post that you're responding to I've used "shit, fuck damn it" and I've yet to see shit damn anything. Nor do I expect or in anyway think that this will damn anything. This is because I'm not actually invoking or appealling to shit or god. I don't hold hold religious terms any more special than Saturday morning cartoon characters or shit. Because I don't hold anything more special than anything else, I do not have to describe "why god?", you making a special case for god, must answer "why god?"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Seems like you're rehashing it here and I'm responding.

Yes I am, you just said you didn't know what I was talking about so I linked you the post that you ignored/missed.

Like I said, seems like your rehashing/revisiting these points here and I am responding now.  (sigh)

Like I said, yes.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If I do use the word "god" when I use exclamations, I'm not appealing to it, it is just a word.

Again, see the beginning of this post.

I have, you're claiming it's more than just a word and must demonstrate that it is.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Demosntrate how just saying the word "god" is appealing to your (and not Muslims, Jews, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. god/s) god.

While I think it does specifically invoke the power of my God, the point is you don't believe in God or gods.  So why invoke ANY?

I'm not invoking any.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Where's the logic in this when *you have been able to thwart the delusion and brainwashing of a belief in God?  *You're superior intelligence is able to discern the inexistence of God, but yet *you claim this God's power in speech.  *You can poke fun at us lesser intelligent, deluded and brainwashed for believing in God,[...]

I do none of these things, nor am I of the opinion that religious people are less intelligent than I. If you have an issue with something someone else said, then take it up with them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"but *you can't even stop using some simple words?

I could if I had reason to, there's no reason to so I don't discriminate. If I had a reason to discriminate then I could explain why I would refrain from using the terms. But because they're just words, there is no reason to limit my vernacular. You must explain why I should put limits on my word choice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If they don't MEAN anything to you, why INSIST on using the speech of one who believes or is brainwashed?

I don't insist, I just see no reason abridge my speech. You're the one who is insisting that I must restrict my speech because I'm an atheist. You must explain why I must make an effort to select non-religious terms, when at current I do not.

Maybe (almost) everyone should agree to disagree with Dirt. Is it not clear that he is set on his point being the correct one, and nobody is going to be able to get him to accept their point of view on this topic?
Personally, I think this thread should be merged with the one that Whitney renamed to show how pointless the argument is.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Maybe (almost) everyone should agree to disagree with Dirt. Is it not clear that he is set on his point being the correct one, and nobody is going to be able to get him to accept their point of view on this topic?
Personally, I think this thread should be merged with the one that Whitney renamed to show how pointless the argument is.

I think this is the longest any thread has remained on topic (when there was a topic to begin with), and you want to just take that all away?

@ AnimatedDirt

Must everything be taken literally?  Cannot a word or phrase be used figuratively?  

The phrase "god damn" something has evolved into meaning more than an invocation of a god.  Its morphed into a catch all explicative for most people including the religious has it not?

When I say "Your eyes sparkle," do I mean that your eyeballs have been replaced with tiny disco balls or is it just an expression?
When I say "You're as fucked up as a nine eyed baby," do I mean that I have some actual experience with nine eyed babies that I can use to compare you with (not you personally mind, but a figurative someone) or is this merely a creative use of words that invokes, if anything, the idea that a person to whom this phrased is directed towards is quite fucked up?

You also keep using the phrase "superior intelligence."  

One could say that the ability to view language as more a string of words to be interpreted literally as a lack of intelligence, or at the very least a lack of creativity.

Quote from: "Davin"Exclamations are often illogical. Like someone saying "damn you hammer!" when it was the person's fault the hammer hurt them, how logical is it for a person to be angry at an inanimate object when it was their fault. What is illogical is to suppose that one must be invoking a god to damn a hammer when they say "god damn you hammer!" without demonstrating that a god actually damn things.

Because the Abrahamic God does claim the ability, hence the term(s).  The question then is; why does a non-believer insist on defending their use of said term when it directly invokes the power of the Abrahamic God to do so?  The point is not that the Atheist MUST refrain from using such terms, the question is on the logical position of the Atheist to self-train to not use these.  Can the Atheist use them?  Yes, certainly he/she can.  Should he/she?  Logically?  Therein lies my point.  Logically, he/she shouldn't be using them...in the least he/she should be making every effort not to use them.  

Quote from: "Davin"If I'm not invoking shit when I say "shit, fuck damn it!", then I'm also not invoking god when I say "god, fuck damn it!" They are equal statements. So either you believe that people are invoking shit, fuck, bitch, the man, dancing waffles, Kirk Hammet, German sports cars, etc. when they use other exclamations, or you agree that referencing a word does not necessarily mean the person is invoking or appealling to the term. I guess another option is for you to be inconsistent.

There is no set of books that has an entity in it called "Shit" or "Fuck" that claims power to damn anything.  So again, you're correct.  Using these does not invoke their power as there is no power and no claim to power, neither do the rest of your waffles, the man... only God does.  Only God claims power in His name and in Him.

Quote from: "Davin"But I do, like I've said many times before, I use unicorn, leprechaun, bb gun, waffles, Kirk Hammet, Kevin Bacon, and a huge variety of other terms. In this post that you're responding to I've used "shit, fuck damn it" and I've yet to see shit damn anything. Nor do I expect or in anyway think that this will damn anything. This is because I'm not actually invoking or appealling to shit or god. I don't hold hold religious terms any more special than Saturday morning cartoon characters or shit. Because I don't hold anything more special than anything else, I do not have to describe "why god?", you making a special case for god, must answer "why god?"

I have, you're claiming it's more than just a word and must demonstrate that it is.

I just did above...

Quote from: "Davin"I do none of these things, nor am I of the opinion that religious people are less intelligent than I. If you have an issue with something someone else said, then take it up with them.

Hence the *you.  YOU may not, but the majority of Atheists do.  Simply read around some of the threads and images posted here at HAF.

Quote from: "Davin"I could if I had reason to, there's no reason to so I don't discriminate. If I had a reason to discriminate then I could explain why I would refrain from using the terms. But because they're just words, there is no reason to limit my vernacular. You must explain why I should put limits on my word choice.

It's the logical position an Atheist should hold.

Quote from: "Davin"I don't insist, I just see no reason abridge my speech. You're the one who is insisting that I must restrict my speech because I'm an atheist. You must explain why I must make an effort to select non-religious terms, when at current I do not.

I'm not asking you to abridge your speech or insisting you restrict it.
I'm simply stating it is the logical position to take given a certain stance.  Furthermore, that those who don't are acting outside of logic by choice and/or ignorance.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Must everything be taken literally?  Cannot a word or phrase be used figuratively?

Explain the figurative use of "God damn you/it!", "Oh my God/god!", "Holy shit!", "God!",...

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"The phrase "god damn" something has evolved into meaning more than an invocation of a god.  Its morphed into a catch all explicative for most people including the religious has it not?

I agree that more than just the "religious" use the term(s).  However, explain how it doesn't invoke God?  Davin claims to use many other names in place of God, but it's not the norm.  It is as you say, "Its morphed into a catch all..."  Just because it's morphed, doesn't remove the fact of the term(s) being exactly as they mean when put into that sequence.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"When I say "Your eyes sparkle," do I mean that your eyeballs have been replaced with tiny disco balls or is it just an expression?

It's a term used to mean that there is a sparkle in the eye...not dead.  Do you know why artists and photographers purposely put the "sparkle" in the eye(s) of their subject?  (the white or shine, I think "glint" is a term graphic artists use...at least the graphic artists I know)

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"When I say "You're as fucked up as a nine eyed baby," do I mean that I have some actual experience with nine eyed babies that I can use to compare you with (not you personally mind, but a figurative someone) or is this merely a creative use of words that invokes, if anything, the idea that a person to whom this phrased is directed towards is quite fucked up?

Would not the thought of birthing a nine-eyed baby, in a society where two is the norm, one on occasion, is "fucked up"?  The "power" is in the nine eyes being odd.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"You also keep using the phrase "superior intelligence."

This is because most outspoken Atheists believe themselves to be of superior intelligence.  At least above that of the deluded, brainwashed Christian.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"One could say that the ability to view language as more a string of words to be interpreted literally as a lack of intelligence, or at the very least a lack of creativity.

No argument.  The point, as I've stated numerous times, is that there is only ONE GOD that claims the power to damn, damn to hell...from where all of these terms take their root.  They are a string of words, no doubt.  But they are a string of words with meaning and meaning only when one believes "God" can damn.  Why would an Atheist EVER invoke "God" for anything at all other than when discussing or debating against one who believes?  Why does the Atheist from one side of their mouth denounce God and from the other promote God?  What logic is being employed here?

That is why I say, It is illogical for an Atheist to use these terms.  At the very least, the Atheist should acknowledge he/she is being illogical in not attempting to change their speech to the more logical position...hence they are being illogical.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Exclamations are often illogical. Like someone saying "damn you hammer!" when it was the person's fault the hammer hurt them, how logical is it for a person to be angry at an inanimate object when it was their fault. What is illogical is to suppose that one must be invoking a god to damn a hammer when they say "god damn you hammer!" without demonstrating that a god actually damn things.

Because the Abrahamic God does claim the ability, hence the term(s).  The question then is; why does a non-believer insist on defending their use of said term when it directly invokes the power of the Abrahamic God to do so?  The point is not that the Atheist MUST refrain from using such terms, the question is on the logical position of the Atheist to self-train to not use these.  Can the Atheist use them?  Yes, certainly he/she can.  Should he/she?  Logically?  Therein lies my point.  Logically, he/she shouldn't be using them...in the least he/she should be making every effort not to use them.

Why should one choose to make religious terms something special enough to make an effort to not use them? There is no logical reason for a person to treat religious terms differently than any other terms if they're not religious.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If I'm not invoking shit when I say "shit, fuck damn it!", then I'm also not invoking god when I say "god, fuck damn it!" They are equal statements. So either you believe that people are invoking shit, fuck, bitch, the man, dancing waffles, Kirk Hammet, German sports cars, etc. when they use other exclamations, or you agree that referencing a word does not necessarily mean the person is invoking or appealling to the term. I guess another option is for you to be inconsistent.

There is no set of books that has an entity in it called "Shit" or "Fuck" that claims power to damn anything.  So again, you're correct.  Using these does not invoke their power as there is no power and no claim to power, neither do the rest of your waffles, the man... only God does.  Only God claims power in His name and in Him.

But saying "Magneto bend it!" is invoking Magneto to bend something? I suppose if I say "Kirk Hammet!" I'll invoke his power to rock out.

Because nothing gets damned no matter how oftern people exclaim "god damn it!" there is no reason to suppose that anything is being invoked and/or that religious terms should be treated differently than any other terms merely because they're religious.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"But I do, like I've said many times before, I use unicorn, leprechaun, bb gun, waffles, Kirk Hammet, Kevin Bacon, and a huge variety of other terms. In this post that you're responding to I've used "shit, fuck damn it" and I've yet to see shit damn anything. Nor do I expect or in anyway think that this will damn anything. This is because I'm not actually invoking or appealling to shit or god. I don't hold hold religious terms any more special than Saturday morning cartoon characters or shit. Because I don't hold anything more special than anything else, I do not have to describe "why god?", you making a special case for god, must answer "why god?"

I have, you're claiming it's more than just a word and must demonstrate that it is.

I just did above...

You have not demonstrated that "god" is more than just a word, merely asserted things. While I've shown that the lack of damned things points to the word being nothing more than a word that does not actually invoke anything.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I do none of these things, nor am I of the opinion that religious people are less intelligent than I. If you have an issue with something someone else said, then take it up with them.

Hence the *you.  YOU may not, but the majority of Atheists do.  Simply read around some of the threads and images posted here at HAF.

Because I've never said anything like what you have said in that paragraph, I do not see why you posted it in response to me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I could if I had reason to, there's no reason to so I don't discriminate. If I had a reason to discriminate then I could explain why I would refrain from using the terms. But because they're just words, there is no reason to limit my vernacular. You must explain why I should put limits on my word choice.

It's the logical position an Atheist should hold.

You can't just put out words like "logical" and expect people to just agree with you. So far you've used logic that does not follow to support why you think that it is the logical position an atheist should hold. Which means that you have no support for claiming that it is the logical position an atheist should hold.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I don't insist, I just see no reason abridge my speech. You're the one who is insisting that I must restrict my speech because I'm an atheist. You must explain why I must make an effort to select non-religious terms, when at current I do not.

I'm not asking you to abridge your speech or insisting you restrict it.
I'm simply stating it is the logical position to take given a certain stance.  Furthermore, that those who don't are acting outside of logic by choice and/or ignorance.

Exclamations, as I've stated many times before, are not logical. It's not required that everything that comes out of someones mouth be logical to be a logical person.

And again: just stating that something is logical/illogical, does not make it so. Your logic does not follow to this conclusion.

Quote from: "Davin"And again: just stating that something is logical/illogical, does not make it so. Your logic does not follow to this conclusion.

The fact that you, of a higher more intelligent position of Atheism (as promoted by most Atheism) is continuing to debate this shows there is merit.

Fact:  These "God" exclamations invoke the Abrhamic God.  The base use/initial use proves this.  These come from a belief in God.  The claims of God are plainly written in scripture.  There is no argument here.  This is fact.

The use of these terms, while one may want to generalize and/or "morph into a catch-all", does not remove this fact and even if not intended to do so, do appeal to God.

Anyone that uses these terms is making an appeal to this God that makes these claims of ability.  Anyone that holds to a belief in this God logically uses these as they have meaning.  Those that hold no belief in this God illogically use these terms as there is no perceived power to do as the appeal suggests.

Therefore it is illogical for an Atheist to use these terms and should logically abstain to the best of their ability to not use them as this would be the most logical position to take in regard to these terms.  The point is not that the Atheist can't use them.  The point is the Atheist shouldn't, by any logic, want to use them BECAUSE it is NOT LOGICAL.

Quote from: "Davin"Exclamations, as I've stated many times before, are not logical. It's not required that everything that comes out of someones mouth be logical to be a logical person.

Yep. Languages, especially the English one, aren't logical. I don't care if what I say is "logical" -- if it makes sense and other people can understand it, then it makes sense and other people can understand it. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

And regarding "atheists are smarter than the religious" -- I myself do not claim that. I think that atheists are likely to be of higher intelligence than a believer, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are super smart and all people of faith are dumb as rocks.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And again: just stating that something is logical/illogical, does not make it so. Your logic does not follow to this conclusion.

The fact that you, of a higher more intelligent position of Atheism (as promoted by most Atheism) is continuing to debate this shows there is merit.

I do not think that a position a person holds increases or decreases a persons intelligence. As positions go, none are intelligent. Are you saying that merely because we're discussing it, that your argument has merit? This logic also doesn't follow.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Fact:  These "God" exclamations invoke the Abrhamic God.  The base use/initial use proves this.  These come from a belief in God.  The claims of God are plainly written in scripture.  There is no argument here.  This is fact.

It is not a fact the there is any invocation going on, and due to the lack of things which are damned, there is a good case that it is a fact that it's not invocation. It is not a fact that the scriptures contain the claims of god, only that some dudes claimed that they are god claims. How do I even know that the bible was meant to be taken seriously? Maybe the original authors of the books were just writing fictional stories and some other people took that way too far. It has happened, the Cult of Cthulhu (http://www.cultofcthulhu.net/) comes to mind.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The use of these terms, while one may want to generalize and/or "morph into a catch-all", does not remove this fact and even if not intended to do so, do appeal to God.

Because what you stated before is not a fact, this point also fails and does not follow.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Anyone that uses these terms is making an appeal to this God that makes these claims of ability.  Anyone that holds to a belief in this God logically uses these as they have meaning.  Those that hold no belief in this God illogically use these terms as there is no perceived power to do as the appeal suggests.

I'm making claims of abilities even if I'm very clear that the I do not seriously consider the abilities to real? Even if I were to say that nothing gets damned, I'm making a claim that things get damned? This is why you can't appeal to logic. You can't appeal to logic when your argument's logic does not follow.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Therefore it is illogical for an Atheist to use these terms and should logically abstain to the best of their ability to not use them as this would be the most logical position to take in regard to these terms.

This conclusion does not follow from your logic as explained earlier. It would be illogical to maintain this position without supporting the conclusion with valid logic.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point is not that the Atheist can't use them.  The point is the Atheist shouldn't, by any logic, want to use them BECAUSE it is NOT LOGICAL.

I don't want to use them, just as I don't want to refrain from using them. It would be illogical to limit ones vernacular without a rational reason to do so.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Davin"Exclamations, as I've stated many times before, are not logical. It's not required that everything that comes out of someones mouth be logical to be a logical person.

Yep. Languages, especially the English one, aren't logical. I don't care if what I say is "logical" -- if it makes sense and other people can understand it, then it makes sense and other people can understand it. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

And regarding "atheists are smarter than the religious" -- I myself do not claim that. I think that atheists are likely to be of higher intelligence than a believer, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are super smart and all people of faith are dumb as rocks.

I have heard that statistically atheists tend to be more intelligent, however because of my lack of interest in it, I have yet to research if it's true or just a widely accepted myth.

Anyway, I also do not hold that being an atheist somehow magically makes one more intelligent than every single theist somehow. I do not know why AnimatedDirt keeps bringing it up.

These term(s), God damn it, God, Oh God are terms based on the Biblical God.  They invoke this God.  No other as no other god claims the ability to damn.

Fuck...does anyone give a rat's ass anymore?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"These term(s), God damn it, God, Oh God are terms based on the Biblical God.  They invoke this God.  No other as no other god claims the ability to damn.

The idiom "break a leg" was based on the superstition that wishing someone good luck is actually bad luck. Does this mean everyone who says it believes in superstition and luck, and that they invoke the "power of luck" when they use it?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"These term(s), God damn it, God, Oh God are terms based on the Biblical God.  They invoke this God.  No other as no other god claims the ability to damn.

And Magneto claims the ability to control metal, yet saying "Magneto bend this!" is not an invocation of Magneto to bend something. If asked of anyone who uses these exclamations, I'm sure that most and/or most of the time they are not actually wishing a god to damn things. They're just exclamations to express emotions, not invocations appealing to a god. Much like the term "you're in my heart" is not saying that a person resides in ones heart, but a much more poetic way to say that one loves another and is thought about frequently in fondness.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Fuck...does anyone give a rat's ass anymore?

I don't know, I don't care that much and I certainly wouldn't give ay of my precious asses of rats for it. But it is something to talk about without getting heated. However people's reasons for considering certain terms vulgar, lewd or foul is of interest to me as I can't seem to find any rational reasons to consider some terms in themselves as such.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"These term(s), God damn it, God, Oh God are terms based on the Biblical God.  They invoke this God.  No other as no other god claims the ability to damn.

The idiom "break a leg" was based on the superstition that wishing someone good luck is actually bad luck. Does this mean everyone who says it believes in superstition and luck, and that they invoke the "power of luck" when they use it?

I think this is a good point, most of the time I'm sure it's merely someone expressing their wishes that a person does well and not an invocation of the power of luck. At least with me, I use it to express my wishes that a person does well.

QuoteIf it is true that the Atheist/Free Thinkers are of higher intelligence (and it is what *you all promote), why do *you lower yourself to the use of "sematically adopted phrases" that are a call to a higher power?

Language, in terms of intelligence, functions sort of like "backwards compatibility" with xBox/Playstation video games. While the newest, most advanced systems (xBox360/PS3) can almost always play the less advanced, older PS2/xBox games, the older less advanced systems (PS2/xBox) can never play the newer, more advanced PS3/xBox360 games. Get what I'm saying?

Quote from: "Davin"And Magneto claims the ability to control metal, yet saying "Magneto bend this!" is not an invocation of Magneto to bend something.

It's not?  Seems pretty straight forward to me.  Logic says that's exactly what they are invoking.

Quote from: "Davin"If asked of anyone who uses these exclamations, I'm sure that most and/or most of the time they are not actually wishing a god to damn things. They're just exclamations to express emotions, not invocations appealing to a god. Much like the term "you're in my heart" is not saying that a person resides in ones heart, but a much more poetic way to say that one loves another and is thought about frequently in fondness.

I can agree to some extent here, however, simply because they aren't LITERALLY wishing a god to damn something, doesn't remove the fact that the words do exactly that.  It has nothing to do with the "You're in my heart" thing.  There's no one that claims the ability to literally be in someone's heart.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Fuck...does anyone give a rat's ass anymore?

Apparently, yes.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The idiom "break a leg" was based on the superstition that wishing someone good luck is actually bad luck. Does this mean everyone who says it believes in superstition and luck, and that they invoke the "power of luck" when they use it?

I think this is a good point, most of the time I'm sure it's merely someone expressing their wishes that a person does well and not an invocation of the power of luck. At least with me, I use it to express my wishes that a person does well.

It does exactly as you say it does.  It invokes the power of luck or the belief in luck, whichever way you want to think of it.  It does exactly as one wishes it does.  It invokes luck.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And Magneto claims the ability to control metal, yet saying "Magneto bend this!" is not an invocation of Magneto to bend something.

It's not?  Seems pretty straight forward to me.  Logic says that's exactly what they are invoking.

No, logic says: because there is no evidence of invocation, it cannot be considered that someting is being invoked.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If asked of anyone who uses these exclamations, I'm sure that most and/or most of the time they are not actually wishing a god to damn things. They're just exclamations to express emotions, not invocations appealing to a god. Much like the term "you're in my heart" is not saying that a person resides in ones heart, but a much more poetic way to say that one loves another and is thought about frequently in fondness.

I can agree to some extent here, however, simply because they aren't LITERALLY wishing a god to damn something, doesn't remove the fact that the words do exactly that.

Then you'll also agree with my following example.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It has nothing to do with the "You're in my heart" thing.  There's no one that claims the ability to literally be in someone's heart.

What? "god damn it" must be considered literally while "you're in my hear" is not considered literally? Merely becuase some book written by people says that a god will damn things on command? Also no one literally claims the ability to damn things. So you can remain inconsistent, or apply equal judgment to both statements.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The idiom "break a leg" was based on the superstition that wishing someone good luck is actually bad luck. Does this mean everyone who says it believes in superstition and luck, and that they invoke the "power of luck" when they use it?

I think this is a good point, most of the time I'm sure it's merely someone expressing their wishes that a person does well and not an invocation of the power of luck. At least with me, I use it to express my wishes that a person does well.

It does exactly as you say it does.  It invokes the power of luck or the belief in luck, whichever way you want to think of it.  It does exactly as one wishes it does.  It invokes luck.

How does the statement break legs?

I very much appears to me that you're telling me that every mention of "god" or any religious term must always be taken literally. Is this your point?

If not, then just tell me why must any exclamations with religious terms be taken literally, and get treated differently than other exclamations.

I may remember a few more examples later on, but when you use the word "disaster", for instance, do you have to believe in astrology and that good or ill fortune is based on the alignment of stars to be allowed to use it without seeming self contradictory?

The word means misaligned (dis) astros (stars or cosmic bodies).

From my standpoint, the same goes with religious exclamations. I'm not invoking a god when I say OMG, I adopted the meaning for what it's currently understood to be and give it just as much thought as I do when using the word "disaster".

And btw, the god concept means different things to different people. Atheistic pantheists use the word 'god' even though their beliefs on it's nature are very different from a theist's.

*Edited for clarity.

Quote from: "Davin"No, logic says: because there is no evidence of invocation, it cannot be considered that someting is being invoked.

Wrong again.  Because I don't present evidence hardly means evidence does not exist.  G00gle is full of evidence.  You simply dismiss it.

Quote from: "Davin"What? "god damn it" must be considered literally while "you're in my hear" is not considered literally? Merely becuase some book written by people says that a god will damn things on command? Also no one literally claims the ability to damn things. So you can remain inconsistent, or apply equal judgment to both statements.

Again, you dismiss what you refuse to see.  It is not one book, but a collection of books written over a couple thousand years that are consistent in their teaching and claims made of the higher power that says He inspired the writers.  No such claim for anyone claiming to "be in a heart".  It just doesn't fit.  Sorry.

Quote from: "Davin"How does the statement break legs?

I think Legendary Sandwich gave the explanation for you.

Quote from: "Davin"I very much appears to me that you're telling me that every mention of "god" or any religious term must always be taken literally. Is this your point?

Put up examples.  But for the most part, yes.  Any mention of "Davin" invokes you, doesn't it?  In the least, it invokes anyone named "Davin".  If you're the only "Davin" that claims power to damn something to hell, then anytime someone utters, "Davin damn you!", they invoke your claimed power to damn...the only "Davin" that does so.  It's quite logical and simple.

Quote from: "Davin"If not, then just tell me why must any exclamations with religious terms be taken literally, and get treated differently than other exclamations.

No one said they are to be taken literally, but that the terms LITERALLY invoke/appeal to the Abrahamic God...an entity you claim does not exist.

Again, the question then is this;  Why does the highly-educated community of Atheists not attempt to exclude remarks or sayings/idioms that directly appeal to something they claim is non-existent?  It is the logical stance to take given the stance of Atheism.  In the least, they (Atheism and all that hold the same thinking) should endeavor to never make such an illogical, deluded, and brainwashed remark as to invoke or appeal to the power of something that does not exist.  It is not logical to do so.

AnimatedDirt claims: When you say "break a leg", you want a person to break their leg.

And you say we're being illogical here. Goddamn. Oh, whoops. I just invoked the power of a god I don't believe in. Guess I'm not an atheist.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"AnimatedDirt claims: When you say "break a leg", you want a person to break their leg.

And you say we're being illogical here. Goddamn. Oh, whoops. I just invoked the power of a god I don't believe in. Guess I'm not an atheist.

That's not illogical, this is illogical.
I blame my self for all of the earth quakes that have happened lately.
When I was a kid I carefully avoided stepping on cracks on the way to school, unless my mother had seriously pissed me off.
I now see that this empowered the cracks, enabling them to wreak the havoc we now see.
Sorry.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"These term(s), God damn it, God, Oh God are terms based on the Biblical God.

The arrogance of Christians invokes war.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"They invoke this God.  

The Christain God is simply a concept, an abstract class if you will.
It is impossible to invoke or instantiate an instance of the God abstract class. Although the God Exclaimation sub classes can and often are invoked, much to the humor of the Atheist and the dismay of the Christian.

Quote from: "Stevil"The Christain God is simply a concept, an abstract class if you will.
It is impossible to invoke or instantiate an instance of the God abstract class. Although the God Exclaimation sub classes can and often are invoked, much to the humor of the Atheist and the dismay of the Christian.

Call God a concept, call God abstract, call God humor, just don't call ON God if He doesn't exist.

To do so is illogical.

This, and most other Christians of lower intelligence are not dismayed, but find humor and inconsistency on the part of the "higher intelligence" that is Atheism.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This, and most other Christians of lower intelligence are not dismayed, but find humor and inconsistency on the part of the "higher intelligence" that is Atheism.

No, I think you're the only one making this argument.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This, and most other Christians of lower intelligence are not dismayed, but find humor and inconsistency on the part of the "higher intelligence" that is Atheism.

No, I think you're the only one making this argument.

Look around you...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"No, logic says: because there is no evidence of invocation, it cannot be considered that someting is being invoked.

Wrong again.  Because I don't present evidence hardly means evidence does not exist.  G00gle is full of evidence.  You simply dismiss it.

There is a great amount of evidence that shows that invocation is just as effective as not doing anything. I simply dismiss mere assertions and logic that does not follow, I don't just dismiss evidence out of hand.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"What? "god damn it" must be considered literally while "you're in my hear" is not considered literally? Merely becuase some book written by people says that a god will damn things on command? Also no one literally claims the ability to damn things. So you can remain inconsistent, or apply equal judgment to both statements.

Again, you dismiss what you refuse to see.  It is not one book, but a collection of books written over a couple thousand years that are consistent in their teaching and claims made of the higher power that says He inspired the writers.  No such claim for anyone claiming to "be in a heart".  It just doesn't fit.  Sorry.

So your choice is to be inconsistent.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"How does the statement break legs?

I think Legendary Sandwich gave the explanation for you.

If you accept that "break a leg" may not actually mean a person wishing for someone to break a leg, then you must also accept that "god damn it" may not actually mean that someone wants a god to damn something. "Break a leg" is LITERALLY a person telling someone to break a leg. "you're in my heart" is LITERALLY a person telling another that they're inside their heart. If you accept that these terms do not always mean what they LITERALLY mean, then you must also accept that "god damn it" does not always mean what it LITERALLY means. If you do not, you're not being rational.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I very much appears to me that you're telling me that every mention of "god" or any religious term must always be taken literally. Is this your point?

Put up examples.  But for the most part, yes.  Any mention of "Davin" invokes you, doesn't it?  In the least, it invokes anyone named "Davin".  If you're the only "Davin" that claims power to damn something to hell, then anytime someone utters, "Davin damn you!", they invoke your claimed power to damn...the only "Davin" that does so.  It's quite logical and simple.

No, it's quite illogical to suppose and attempt to enforce on everyone that when they use religious terms they must be speaking literally. You do not get to tell other people what they mean, it's very illogical for you to say that you can.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If not, then just tell me why must any exclamations with religious terms be taken literally, and get treated differently than other exclamations.

No one said they are to be taken literally, but that the terms LITERALLY invoke/appeal to the Abrahamic God...an entity you claim does not exist.

Again, the question then is this;  Why does the highly-educated community of Atheists not attempt to exclude remarks or sayings/idioms that directly appeal to something they claim is non-existent?

I've answered this many times already, I'll try again: Because they're merely words and there is no reason to treat them special by making an effort to not use them. Once again, I don't treat any terms special enough to refrain from their use or to use more frequently than others. If you think I should treat certains terms special enough to exclude from my word choice, then you're going to have to give me a reason to do so. I really don't think non-existence is a reason to not use terms.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It is the logical stance to take given the stance of Atheism.  In the least, they (Atheism and all that hold the same thinking) should endeavor to never make such an illogical, deluded, and brainwashed remark as to invoke or appeal to the power of something that does not exist.  It is not logical to do so.

Again, your poor logic leaves you without an effective call to logic. Once your statements are no longer illogical, one might be able to accept your claims of what is illogical. Because your logic does not follow to this conclusion, it is an illogical position to hold.

Quote from: "Davin"There is a great amount of evidence that shows that invocation is just as effective as not doing anything. I simply dismiss mere assertions and logic that does not follow, I don't just dismiss evidence out of hand.

You dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit your worldview.  Thus, you dismiss evidence.

Quote from: "Davin"So your choice is to be inconsistent.

I don't care either way.  The point is that the Atheist is being inconsistent and illogical.

Quote from: "Davin"If you accept that "break a leg" may not actually mean a person wishing for someone to break a leg, then you must also accept that "god damn it" may not actually mean that someone wants a god to damn something. "Break a leg" is LITERALLY a person telling someone to break a leg. "you're in my heart" is LITERALLY a person telling another that they're inside their heart. If you accept that these terms do not always mean what they LITERALLY mean, then you must also accept that "god damn it" does not always mean what it LITERALLY means. If you do not, you're not being rational.

You're right.  I do accept "break a leg".  Do you know why?  Because legs exist.  Broken legs exist.  Bones that break exist.  I also accept (to some degree) "You're in my heart".  Do you know why?  Because "you" exists and "my heart" exists.  These are then logical, consistent EXPRESSIONS.  In no regard is it irrational to accept these expressions and more so, it's not illogical to use them by any believer of any worldview...unless of course *your worldview is Alimbism or Acardist (I have no clue what either would be called) then we'd be speaking specifically on those terms.

Quote from: "Davin"No, it's quite illogical to suppose and attempt to enforce on everyone that when they use religious terms they must be speaking literally. You do not get to tell other people what they mean, it's very illogical for you to say that you can.

Again, you simply and easily miss the point.  You're right again, *you're not speaking literally when you say, "God damn you!" and it's not my point to force you not to use the term(s).  I realize it is an expression...an expression based on something non-existent and the WHOLE POINT of this HAF Forum.  My point, then, is that holding a certain world view and then invoking something non-existent to damn something/someone else is illogical ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT WORLD VIEW CLAIMS AT ITS BASIS THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Quote from: "Davin"I've answered this many times already, I'll try again: Because they're merely words and there is no reason to treat them special by making an effort to not use them. Once again, I don't treat any terms special enough to refrain from their use or to use more frequently than others. If you think I should treat certains terms special enough to exclude from my word choice, then you're going to have to give me a reason to do so. I really don't think non-existence is a reason to not use terms.

If they are merely words, then why argue TO USE that which invokes something *you claim, as a world view, a belief, from that of higher intelligence, free thinking, does not exist?

Was it you that said you do use other forms of this term?  Using anything but "God" becomes statement of humor, however when it is used in anger, it is a call for God to damn.

Quote from: "Davin"There is no reason to treat them special...

Do you not see that by arguing TO use them, you're treating them special?  In fact *you treat the Great Spaghettin Monster more special in that *you don't use the GSM to damn.  One might ask, why, if they are equal.  Wouldn't uttering, "GSM damn you!" do the same as "God damn you!"?  The GSM invokes laughter.  A joke.  Humor.  God invokes His power to damn and thus it invokes anger, seriousness...  There's a reason people use God's name.  It's the same idea as when one sibling says to the other, "Mom said...or Dad said..."  Mom and Dad have power.  What Mom and Dad say, goes.  Even as adults, for the most part, we value our parents and their opinions/thoughts.  Remember the old TV commercial about E.F. Hutton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Hutton_%26_Co.)?  If E.F. Hutton doesn't exist or better, if EFH is the worst brokerage company, what is the point of stopping to listen to E.F. Hutton?

Where's the logic?  There is no logic in doing so within the Atheist worldview.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"To do so is illogical.

The entire Christian belief system is illogical IMHO. e.g. God is Love and yet god kills millions indescriminately in a flood, kills a woman for look at the town of Sodom, teases Abraham by making him decide to kill his son and then saying "just kidding, ha ha ha" just before the knife comes down (you could imagine how bad the father son relationship was after that "funny" game, ruins Job's life by betting on him with the devil. God existing and yet not having substance to exist, God being all powerful and yet being unable to sin. Knowing everything and yet making mistakes like the great flood.
So it seems that Christians don't have a problem with the illogical.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This, and most other Christians of lower intelligence are not dismayed, but find humor and inconsistency on the part of the "higher intelligence" that is Atheism.

So if Christians find humor rather than dismay with regards to non Christian use of God Exclamations, then what is the problem? It seems everyone is having a good laugh.

BTW people say "God damn!" not "YHWH damn!". Christians don't own the "god" noun, just because Christians prefer to arrogantly refer to their god by the noun rather than the name. I think they have realised that there isn't an instance of god but merely a concept, hence noun rather than name.

I am sure if YHWH came to you and addressed you as "human" rather than your actual name, you would feel disappointed and not special. Although of course, you would be the first person (not counting fictional characters of the bible) in the history of human existence that a god has actually interacted with.
You just had better hope that YHWH doesn't ask you to kill your child or your mother or something equally as awful. If that happens to a non Christan the non Christian will either ignore it or take drugs to suppress the voices whereas the Christian will go on a god fuelled killing spree.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit your worldview.  Thus, you dismiss evidence.

Really? You're going to tell me what and why I do something? Do tell, where do you receive this knowledge of me?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So your choice is to be inconsistent.

I don't care either way.  The point is that the Atheist is being inconsistent and illogical.

I had a baseless assertion that you don't care about being consistent, however your admission is much better than merely assuming. I've shown you that your logic leading to the conclusion of atheists being inconsistent and illogical in this instance is support by faulty logic. Do you also not care if you're being logical?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If you accept that "break a leg" may not actually mean a person wishing for someone to break a leg, then you must also accept that "god damn it" may not actually mean that someone wants a god to damn something. "Break a leg" is LITERALLY a person telling someone to break a leg. "you're in my heart" is LITERALLY a person telling another that they're inside their heart. If you accept that these terms do not always mean what they LITERALLY mean, then you must also accept that "god damn it" does not always mean what it LITERALLY means. If you do not, you're not being rational.

You're right.  I do accept "break a leg".  Do you know why?  Because legs exist.  Broken legs exist.  Bones that break exist.  I also accept (to some degree) "You're in my heart".  Do you know why?  Because "you" exists and "my heart" exists.  These are then logical, consistent EXPRESSIONS.  In no regard is it irrational to accept these expressions and more so, it's not illogical to use them by any believer of any worldview...unless of course *your worldview is Alimbism or Acardist (I have no clue what either would be called) then we'd be speaking specifically on those terms.

It is inconsistent to accept that those statements are not literal, while holding onto saying that any exclamation using religious terms can only be taken literally. That is what is inconsistent and is special pleading. Your using a fallacy which means that your logic is flawed.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"No, it's quite illogical to suppose and attempt to enforce on everyone that when they use religious terms they must be speaking literally. You do not get to tell other people what they mean, it's very illogical for you to say that you can.

Again, you simply and easily miss the point.  You're right again, *you're not speaking literally when you say, "God damn you!" and it's not my point to force you not to use the term(s).  I realize it is an expression...an expression based on something non-existent and the WHOLE POINT of this HAF Forum.  My point, then, is that holding a certain world view and then invoking something non-existent to damn something/someone else is illogical ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT WORLD VIEW CLAIMS AT ITS BASIS THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Like I've said before at least twice: exclamations are not always logical, and there is no requirement for a person to always use logical terms in order to be a logical person. Secondly, your point does not follow: it is not illogical to make no special considerations for things that do not exist, the basis of my world view is not the claim that a god does not exist and you cannot invoke something that does not exist. All of these points are equally fatal to whatever point you're trying to make here.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I've answered this many times already, I'll try again: Because they're merely words and there is no reason to treat them special by making an effort to not use them. Once again, I don't treat any terms special enough to refrain from their use or to use more frequently than others. If you think I should treat certains terms special enough to exclude from my word choice, then you're going to have to give me a reason to do so. I really don't think non-existence is a reason to not use terms.

If they are merely words, then why argue TO USE that which invokes something *you claim, as a world view, a belief, from that of higher intelligence, free thinking, does not exist?

Was it you that said you do use other forms of this term?  Using anything but "God" becomes statement of humor, however when it is used in anger, it is a call for God to damn.

Quote from: "Davin"There is no reason to treat them special...

Do you not see that by arguing TO use them, you're treating them special?

I'm not arguing TO USE the terms, I'm arguing that THERE IS NO REASON TO TREAT THESE TERMS SPECIAL ENOUGH TO REFRAIN FROM USING THEM. If you misrepresent my position again, I'm not even sure it is possible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In fact *you treat the Great Spaghettin Monster more special in that *you don't use the GSM to damn.

I do, in fact I use all sorts of terms from fictional to real people to inanimate objects as I have stated to you several times before and have even given examples of. So to continue saying that I do not, is to perpuate an untrue position. To do so after this point is to knowngly represent a false position, which is a lie.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"One might ask, why, if they are equal.  Wouldn't uttering, "GSM damn you!" do the same as "God damn you!"?

It does the same nothing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The GSM invokes laughter.

A non-existent creature invokes nothing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"A joke.  Humor.  God invokes His power to damn and thus it invokes anger, seriousness...

A non-existent creature invokes nothing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"There's a reason people use God's name.  It's the same idea as when one sibling says to the other, "Mom said...or Dad said..."  Mom and Dad have power.  What Mom and Dad say, goes.  Even as adults, for the most part, we value our parents and their opinions/thoughts.  Remember the old TV commercial about E.F. Hutton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Hutton_%26_Co.)?  If E.F. Hutton doesn't exist or better, if EFH is the worst brokerage company, what is the point of stopping to listen to E.F. Hutton?

I not familiar with any of these analogies.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Where's the logic?  There is no logic in doing so within the Atheist worldview.

You have failed to support this conclusion with valid logic, making this position illogical to maintain.

Quote from: "Stevil"The entire Christian belief system is illogical IMHO. e.g. God is Love and yet god kills millions indescriminately in a flood, kills a woman for look at the town of Sodom, teases Abraham by making him decide to kill his son and then saying "just kidding, ha ha ha" just before the knife comes down (you could imagine how bad the father son relationship was after that "funny" game, ruins Job's life by betting on him with the devil. God existing and yet not having substance to exist, God being all powerful and yet being unable to sin. Knowing everything and yet making mistakes like the great flood.
So it seems that Christians don't have a problem with the illogical.

Seek the true meaning behind what happened in those situations other than jumping to conclusions and listing "Christian inconsistencies" you found on the internetz.  The Atheist should make an effort to show "higher intelligence" other than simply asserting something  without basis.

Otherwise, I don't mind you thinking I'm illogical.  In fact, it is illogical if taken as you assert it is.  I can freely admit that without any fear.  *You already think of the Christian as brainwashed, deluded, less intelligent...what's illogical going to ADD to that?  
So if Christians find humor rather than dismay with regards to non Christian use of God Exclamations, then what is the problem? It seems everyone is having a good laugh.

Quote from: "Stevil"BTW people say "God damn!" not "YHWH damn!". Christians don't own the "god" noun, just because Christians prefer to arrogantly refer to their god by the noun rather than the name. I think they have realised that there isn't an instance of god but merely a concept, hence noun rather than name.

Again...The Atheist should go do some educational research and find out why some came to say "God" rather than utter "YHWH".

Quote from: "Stevil"I am sure if YHWH came to you and addressed you as "human" rather than your actual name, you would feel disappointed and not special. Although of course, you would be the first person (not counting fictional characters of the bible) in the history of human existence that a god has actually interacted with.

So you claim.  And your absolute proof of this?

Quote from: "Stevil"You just had better hope that YHWH doesn't ask you to kill your child or your mother or something equally as awful. If that happens to a non Christan the non Christian will either ignore it or take drugs to suppress the voices whereas the Christian will go on a god fuelled killing spree.

Obviously one not knowing what God would and wouldn't ask...and certainly if He did, it wouldn't be to literally do the act as evidenced in the scripture.

Quote from: "Davin"Really? You're going to tell me what and why I do something? Do tell, where do you receive this knowledge of me?

If you dismiss historical and archaeological evidence, then you dismiss evidence.  Simple.

Quote from: "Davin"I had a baseless assertion that you don't care about being consistent, however your admission is much better than merely assuming. I've shown you that your logic leading to the conclusion of atheists being inconsistent and illogical in this instance is support by faulty logic. Do you also not care if you're being logical?

I don't have a problem with being labeled illogical.  The Atheist already labels me, brainwashed, deluded, ... what's one more?  I don't care.  BUT, to those that claim being of higher intelligence than we of weak mind, it means all the world.  Take this topic for instance..........

Quote from: "Davin"It is inconsistent to accept that those statements are not literal, while holding onto saying that any exclamation using religious terms can only be taken literally. That is what is inconsistent and is special pleading. Your using a fallacy which means that your logic is flawed.

Special pleading is quite correct!  I can hardly fathom you stating your own failed logic.  The SPECIAL is God.  Arm, legs, and hearts are not "special" in that everyone has one.  We both acknowledge that these exists.  So to use expressions that play to these, is not illogical, but simply EXPRESSIONS.  To invoke God, however, in an expresson of anger, hate and the like, has no meaning when you substitute the GSM for God.  It becomes humor and almost meaningless.  It certainly is a special pleading...LOL...but hardly inconsistent.

Quote from: "Davin"Like I've said before at least twice: exclamations are not always logical, and there is no requirement for a person to always use logical terms in order to be a logical person.

I disagree...and THIS IS THE POINT of this whole conversation.  The Atheist IS BEING inconsistent and illogical in using GOD to substanciate his/her anger or feeling.  Whitney said it best and is the only Atheist here (so far) at HAF to be of the most logical position concerning the use of these terms.

Quote from: "Davin"Secondly, your point does not follow: it is not illogical to make no special considerations for things that do not exist, the basis of my world view is not the claim that a god does not exist and you cannot invoke something that does not exist. All of these points are equally fatal to whatever point you're trying to make here.

I'm all a-giggle right now.  The point you are making here and thus shooting yourself in the foot, is that all this time your devoting TO make special consideration of an exclamation.  An exclamation that when uttered, does exactly as it reads.  It invokes that which your worldview claims does not exist...yet you still want to argue with me on the reason you should be free to use it.  I don't argue your freedom to use it.  Use it, by all means, use it.  However, logically, it is illogical to do so when *you make the claim that God does not exist.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not arguing TO USE the terms, I'm arguing that THERE IS NO REASON TO TREAT THESE TERMS SPECIAL ENOUGH TO REFRAIN FROM USING THEM. If you misrepresent my position again, I'm not even sure it is possible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Believe me...I see your position and find that the argument for using these terms "as not special enough to refrain from using" is illogical GIVEN YOUR WORLDVIEW.  I've already substanciated the point that *you don't use, "GSM damn you!", why?  Because to do so would invoke not a GSM as we both agree doesn't exist, but that it invokes laughter, humor, even perplexity.

Try this little experiment:  Walk up to a random person and exclaim, "GSM damn you!"  Then walk up to another random person and exclaim, "God damn you!"  The difference in their reaction is the basis of my point.  There is power in the name of God and no power in the name of the GSM.  The fact that you're arguing TO USE and/or not to regard as special enough...makes your argument almost silly.  On one hand you're arguing that it is not special, but on the other because you insist on using God, you make "God" special.

Quote from: "Davin"I do, in fact I use all sorts of terms from fictional to real people to inanimate objects as I have stated to you several times before and have even given examples of. So to continue saying that I do not, is to perpuate an untrue position. To do so after this point is to knowngly represent a false position, which is a lie.

Here again...you're not understanding.  I already acknowledged that you claim you do.  Fine.  You do.  However, the point being is that when one makes the exclamation of "[insert god of choice here] damn you?" it becomes a joke rather than an exclamation of anger and/or threat.

Quote from: "Davin"A non-existent creature invokes nothing.

You've not tried my experiment...it invokes humor or in the least perplexity.  It certainly wouldn't bring fear to the person, other than thinking you're crazy, but not fear of threat by God OR by you.

AND...if a non-existent creature invokes nothing...why exclaim, "God" damn you?  Where's the logic?  By definition, an exclamation exclaims....

Quote from: "Davin"I not familiar with any of these analogies.

How convenient.  That's why I included the link

Quote from: "Davin"You have failed to support this conclusion with valid logic, making this position illogical to maintain.

On the contrary, I've supported it plenty.  It is a logical stance.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Really? You're going to tell me what and why I do something? Do tell, where do you receive this knowledge of me?

If you dismiss historical and archaeological evidence, then you dismiss evidence.  Simple.

I do dismiss evidence, I've never denied that, I was simply asking how you know that I, "[...]dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit [my] worldview." So do tell me how you've acquired this information about me: what my world view is and that I dismiss evidence because it doesn't match my world view.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I had a baseless assertion that you don't care about being consistent, however your admission is much better than merely assuming. I've shown you that your logic leading to the conclusion of atheists being inconsistent and illogical in this instance is support by faulty logic. Do you also not care if you're being logical?

I don't have a problem with being labeled illogical.  The Atheist already labels me, brainwashed, deluded, ... what's one more?  I don't care.  BUT, to those that claim being of higher intelligence than we of weak mind, it means all the world.  Take this topic for instance..........

I don't know who The Atheist is, but I do not care what he or she calls you, if you want to talk about what The Atheist says about you, then discuss it with him or her. Please explain why you're bringing stuff up in response to my posts when I've said nothing even close to the topic you're rambling about here, because it looks like you're just avoiding the question.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"It is inconsistent to accept that those statements are not literal, while holding onto saying that any exclamation using religious terms can only be taken literally. That is what is inconsistent and is special pleading. Your using a fallacy which means that your logic is flawed.

Special pleading is quite correct!  I can hardly fathom you stating your own failed logic.  The SPECIAL is God.  Arm, legs, and hearts are not "special" in that everyone has one.  We both acknowledge that these exists.  So to use expressions that play to these, is not illogical, but simply EXPRESSIONS.  To invoke God, however, in an expresson of anger, hate and the like, has no meaning when you substitute the GSM for God.  It becomes humor and almost meaningless.  It certainly is a special pleading...LOL...but hardly inconsistent.

Maybe you should read up on the special pleading fallacy. You're making a special case for religious exclamations by taking religious exclamations literally and all other kinds of exclamations figuratively. It's special pleading because you're not applying the same rationale to religious exclamations that you apply to all other kinds of exclamations for no logical reason.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Like I've said before at least twice: exclamations are not always logical, and there is no requirement for a person to always use logical terms in order to be a logical person.

I disagree...and THIS IS THE POINT of this whole conversation.  The Atheist IS BEING inconsistent and illogical in using GOD to substanciate his/her anger or feeling.  Whitney said it best and is the only Atheist here (so far) at HAF to be of the most logical position concerning the use of these terms.

Coming from someone who's yet to demonstrate their argument without fallacies, your point of one person having the only logical position doesn't mean much. Let alone it's a red herring so that you will yet again avoid the point I made.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Secondly, your point does not follow: it is not illogical to make no special considerations for things that do not exist, the basis of my world view is not the claim that a god does not exist and you cannot invoke something that does not exist. All of these points are equally fatal to whatever point you're trying to make here.

I'm all a-giggle right now.  The point you are making here and thus shooting yourself in the foot, is that all this time your devoting TO make special consideration of an exclamation.  An exclamation that when uttered, does exactly as it reads.  It invokes that which your worldview claims does not exist...yet you still want to argue with me on the reason you should be free to use it.  I don't argue your freedom to use it.  Use it, by all means, use it.  However, logically, it is illogical to do so when *you make the claim that God does not exist.

Want to try again? Logically, it is illogical to say that something is illogical with an illogcial argument. Go ahead, I'll wait until you actually address my points.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not arguing TO USE the terms, I'm arguing that THERE IS NO REASON TO TREAT THESE TERMS SPECIAL ENOUGH TO REFRAIN FROM USING THEM. If you misrepresent my position again, I'm not even sure it is possible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Believe me...I see your position and find that the argument for using these terms "as not special enough to refrain from using" is illogical GIVEN YOUR WORLDVIEW.

Do tell me, what is my world view?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I've already substanciated the point that *you don't use, "GSM damn you!", why?  Because to do so would invoke not a GSM as we both agree doesn't exist, but that it invokes laughter, humor, even perplexity.

But I have used "GSM damn you!" on several occasions.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Try this little experiment:  Walk up to a random person and exclaim, "GSM damn you!"  Then walk up to another random person and exclaim, "God damn you!"  The difference in their reaction is the basis of my point.  There is power in the name of God and no power in the name of the GSM.  The fact that you're arguing TO USE and/or not to regard as special enough...makes your argument almost silly.  On one hand you're arguing that it is not special, but on the other because you insist on using God, you make "God" special.

Why would I commit some kind of appeal to majority fallacy? But I will do that this afternoon and see which one of my exclamations works best.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I do, in fact I use all sorts of terms from fictional to real people to inanimate objects as I have stated to you several times before and have even given examples of. So to continue saying that I do not, is to perpuate an untrue position. To do so after this point is to knowngly represent a false position, which is a lie.

Here again...you're not understanding.  I already acknowledged that you claim you do.  Fine.  You do.

Like in the previous paragraph when you stated, "[...]*you don't use, "GSM damn you!"[...]" Please stop lying. Can't we just have an honest discussion?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"However, the point being is that when one makes the exclamation of "[insert god of choice here] damn you?" it becomes a joke rather than an exclamation of anger and/or threat.

Why can it not be both a joke as well as an exclamation of anger and/or threat?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"A non-existent creature invokes nothing.

You've not tried my experiment...it invokes humor or in the least perplexity.  It certainly wouldn't bring fear to the person, other than thinking you're crazy, but not fear of threat by God OR by you.

Everytime I say "god damn you!" to my friends and family, they don't get all fearful of being damned by god. Maybe it has something to do with the frequency of people saying "god damn you" and the lack of any damned people. Like I said, a non-existent creature invokes nothing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"AND...if a non-existent creature invokes nothing...why exclaim, "God" damn you?  Where's the logic?  By definition, an exclamation exclaims....

Because if I drop something on my foot and it hurts, then I'll likely say any number of things, one of the things I might say might be religous, because I see no reason to exclude anything from my exclamations.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I not familiar with any of these analogies.

How convenient.  That's why I included the link

I did not see how that link had anything to do with the conversation.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You have failed to support this conclusion with valid logic, making this position illogical to maintain.

On the contrary, I've supported it plenty.  It is a logical stance.

It's not a logical stance as I've demonstrated by your use of fallacies.

Quote from: "Davin"I do dismiss evidence, I've never denied that, I was simply asking how you know that I, "[...]dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit [my] worldview." So do tell me how you've acquired this information about me: what my world view is and that I dismiss evidence because it doesn't match my world view.

You just acknowledged you dismiss evidence.  Point ended.  You dismiss it because of your worldview.  If you've searched out all available evidence, then you're world view is more established, but if you have yet to search out some evidence, you don't because of your world view.  In other words, you don't care, so you don't search.  Get it?

Quote from: "Davin"I don't know who The Atheist is, but I do not care what he or she calls you, if you want to talk about what The Atheist says about you, then discuss it with him or her. Please explain why you're bringing stuff up in response to my posts when I've said nothing even close to the topic you're rambling about here, because it looks like you're just avoiding the question.

Avoiding the question?  I answered it directly.  Let me put it more plainly.

Quote from: "Davin"I've shown you that your logic leading to the conclusion of atheists being inconsistent and illogical in this instance is support by faulty logic. Do you also not care if you're being logical?

I DON"T CARE IF YOU LABEL WHAT I STATE IS ILLOGICAL...I'M ALREADY LABELED OTHER THINGS OF THE LIKE.  Which part of the previous was not understood in answering your question?  Although you claim my point is inconsistent and illogical, It is quite consistent and logical considering my world view.  Your insistance to use it (while in one aspect you are free to do so) is illogical because you don't believe there is a God to damn...in fact you don't know of anyone that has been damned...hence it being illogical.  I can't count how many times you've tripped over your own "logic"...it astounds me.  People break legs.  It is a fact.  So AT LEAST on this one, there is no reason to claim it non-logical.  On the "You're in my heart" line, it is a line given to someone *you like and not given in anger, frustration.  Further more, it is not an exclamation.  It is a statement of love for another.

Quote from: "Davin"Maybe you should read up on the special pleading fallacy. You're making a special case for religious exclamations by taking religious exclamations literally and all other kinds of exclamations figuratively. It's special pleading because you're not applying the same rationale to religious exclamations that you apply to all other kinds of exclamations for no logical reason.

Maybe you should look more closely at what you're wanting to "protect".  Name other exclamations that fall under this discussion and we can go over them one by one to show you they don't have the same meaning as the "God" exclamations (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclamation).

Quote from: "Davin"Coming from someone who's yet to demonstrate their argument without fallacies, your point of one person having the only logical position doesn't mean much. Let alone it's a red herring so that you will yet again avoid the point I made.

My point stands without fallacy.  I need only to establish disbelief in God and then the point is made all on its own, that to invoke God to damn anything is to be illogical when God is non-existent...as it is in your worldview.  Nothing more is needed.  There is no "fallacy" other than the Fallacy of Stance which you hold.

Quote from: "Davin"Want to try again? Logically, it is illogical to say that something is illogical with an illogcial argument. Go ahead, I'll wait until you actually address my points.

Don't need to try again.  I've addressed your points.  If you feel I've missed one or avoided one.  State it plainly.  Maybe my lower intelligence missed it.  Don't just say, "I'll wait until you actually address my points." and cross your arms.  What good is that if you're wanting to discuss?

Quote from: "Davin"Do tell me, what is my world view?

Your worldview is your worldview.  What complaint do you have now about your worldview?  What is the difference in our points here?  Your worldview differs from mine.  I thought it would be plain what your worldview is.  Maybe I'm wrong and you believe God exists...if so, then your use of religious exclamations stands without any "complaint" on my part.  We've just wasted a few pages and a few moments in life.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I've already substanciated the point that *you don't use, "GSM damn you!", why?  Because to do so would invoke not a GSM as we both agree doesn't exist, but that it invokes laughter, humor, even perplexity.

But I have used "GSM damn you!" on several occasions.

Yes...thank you.  For establishing this many times.  Hence the "*you"

Quote from: "Davin"Why would I commit some kind of appeal to majority fallacy? But I will do that this afternoon and see which one of my exclamations works best.

I hardly hold my breath to think you'd do this experiment in the logical fashion.

Why would you "commit some kind of appeal to majority fallacy?".  Again, I giggle a bit at the humor.  Because the whole point is that any human you address by yelling angrily, "Unicorn damn you!" will be met with a different reaction that if you yell angrily, "God damn you!"  It is because of this reason, most people use "God" instead of "Unicorn" or "GSM".  The latter produce laughter and/or a state of perplextion.  It is the whole point...it's not a fallacy.  (I've noticed the Atheist has made up names for all kinds of "fallacies" simply to disregard ideas.  It's comical at times.)

Quote from: "Davin"Like in the previous paragraph when you stated, "[...]*you don't use, "GSM damn you!"[...]" Please stop lying. Can't we just have an honest discussion?

Notice the *.  Which is speaking to the majority and thus to the worldview.  

Quote from: "Davin"Why can it not be both a joke as well as an exclamation of anger and/or threat?

I acknowledge in some instances it can.  The point being that when the exclamation is uttered in anger, frustration, rage, belligerence, wrath, it directly calls on God to damn.  When used among friends it is not in anger, rage...  The whole context in this discussion has been the context of anger, rage, cussing and so on.  Not the language of friends or lovers.

Quote from: "Davin"Everytime I say "god damn you!" to my friends and family, they don't get all fearful of being damned by god.

I think I've touched on this just above.

Quote from: "Davin"Maybe it has something to do with the frequency of people saying "god damn you" and the lack of any damned people.

Again...if there's a lack of damned people, what is the point, what is the logic is calling upon God to damn?

Quote from: "Davin"Like I said, a non-existent creature invokes nothing.

You are so wrong, it's not even funny anymore.  It invokes *you to call upon Him to damn.  It invokes God's power TO damn.  

Quote from: "Davin"Because if I drop something on my foot and it hurts, then I'll likely say any number of things, one of the things I might say might be religous, because I see no reason to exclude anything from my exclamations.

Right, I agree.  You don't see the reason.  But the reason is there nonetheless.  You seemingly believe religion is bad and you apparently also hold no belief that God exists, yet you call on God to damn.  I think I see your logic now... (it's illogical logic)

Quote from: "Davin"I did not see how that link had anything to do with the conversation.

I can see you're not seeing a lot of things.  No worries, I suppose only me, in my state of lower intelligence, sees it.

Quote from: "Davin"It's not a logical stance as I've demonstrated by your use of fallacies.

Fallacies-Schmellacies.  The Atheist doesn't believe God exists, but *you call on God to damn.  Is that not some sort of fallacy?  Let's see if we can come up with a new name for that fallacy.  Of course, I'm too dumb to figure it out so I'll leave that up to those with higher intelligence.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Seek the true meaning behind what happened in those situations other than jumping to conclusions and listing "Christian inconsistencies" you found on the internetz.  The Atheist should make an effort to show "higher intelligence" other than simply asserting something  without basis.

I judge based on actions, not absurd self assertions. I will not accept that an action can be Good because the bible asserts that your god is Good. If your god kills millions of people then I take this to be absurd, grotesque, inhumane, unloving and appallingly bad. There is no justification for this behaviour. I do not need to read the bible cover to cover as well as spend years of my life trying to interperet and decipher the actual meaning behind these primitive scribblings, decide what is literal and what is not, decide why the god performs an action when the bible does not go into enough detail as to explain the why. There is absolutely no justification for the mass murder of these people. There is absolutely no justification to unleash a he bear on a group of young children for taunting a bald man about his shiny bald head.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"*You already think of the Christian as brainwashed, deluded, less intelligent..

Hmm, I have never said or implied that Christians are less intelligent. I don't think religious belief has anything to do with intelligence.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Again...The Atheist should go do some educational research and find out why some came to say "God" rather than utter "YHWH".

It is pure arrogance. I do not need to research this. The Christian concept is that there is one true god and that god is YHWH. Stating God assuming it is the Christian god is a slap in the face to all non Christian theists. This is an intentional act to drive this assertion into common understanding. It is aggressive, arrogant an non tollerant.
It also goes with the ongoing viral insistence of Christians to spread the disease of their belief system onto others.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"I am sure if YHWH came to you and addressed you as "human" rather than your actual name, you would feel disappointed and not special. Although of course, you would be the first person (not counting fictional characters of the bible) in the history of human existence that a god has actually interacted with.

So you claim.  And your absolute proof of this?

Again the burden of proof issue. Come up with an abstract unprovable concept and leave it to others to disprove rather than your own issue to prove your own concept. Proper science publications don't allow this type of deceitful behavior.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Obviously one not knowing what God would and wouldn't ask

You conveniently ignore the example I provided. As described in the bible the Christian god has a history of demanding that a father kill his son. There is no reason to suggest that the Christian god would not demand something similar, the Christian god clearly does not value or respect human life. Simply demands to be obeyed at all costs.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"...and certainly if He did, it wouldn't be to literally do the act as evidenced in the scripture.

If that is what you get from the Abraham story then your god failed at getting the message through to you. Your god demands total subservience, total obedience, if your god demands you kill a loved one, a family member then you must take this demand seriously, you must obey, you must not question. This is the message and it is very clear for all.
I would hope in if this situation arises that you would then ask yourself, can i be sure that the one demanding this of me is in fact the god of the bible. Can I be sure that the bible is the truth, can I be sure that the god described in the bible is always good, is always loving and is not the demon that its actions make it out to be. (I guess the most important question for the devoted Christian would be) Can I be sure that if I carry out this act that I will be personally rewarded with a place in heaven. (and obviously avoid any thoughts about your poor victim).

Quote from: "Stevil"[...]If that is what you get from the Abraham story then your god failed at getting the message through to you. Your god demands total subservience, total obedience, if your god demands you kill a loved one, a family member then you must take this demand seriously, you must obey, you must not question. This is the message and it is very clear for all.

Ignoring the rest of what you posted to simply acknowledge this.

If this is the extent of your study on Christianity, the Abrahamic God and thus a conclusion...then delusion runs both on the Christian and the Atheist alike.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Of course, I'm too dumb to figure it out so I'll leave that up to those with higher intelligence.

It is as you say...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Call God a concept, call God abstract, call God humor, just don't call ON God if He doesn't exist.

To do so is illogical.

This, and most other Christians of lower intelligence are not dismayed, but find humor and inconsistency on the part of the "higher intelligence" that is Atheism.

We aren't calling on god, we are not "invoking" god.

Invoke:
1) Summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by magic
2) Cite as an authority; resort to
3) Request earnestly (something from somebody); ask for aid or protection

I'm not doing any of these things if I use "god" as an exclamation.
I would be uncomfortable using "Lord" as in "lord help me" it implies subservience whereas god is just a cultural anachronism.

I don't think you should always expect to find logic in humour, oddly twisted logic or none at all often works.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I do dismiss evidence, I've never denied that, I was simply asking how you know that I, "[...]dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit [my] worldview." So do tell me how you've acquired this information about me: what my world view is and that I dismiss evidence because it doesn't match my world view.

You just acknowledged you dismiss evidence.  Point ended.  You dismiss it because of your worldview.  If you've searched out all available evidence, then you're world view is more established, but if you have yet to search out some evidence, you don't because of your world view.  In other words, you don't care, so you don't search.  Get it?

Of course I dismiss evidence, I know of no one that doesn't. I would like to know where you're getting all the other information about me, because it is very wrong.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I don't know who The Atheist is, but I do not care what he or she calls you, if you want to talk about what The Atheist says about you, then discuss it with him or her. Please explain why you're bringing stuff up in response to my posts when I've said nothing even close to the topic you're rambling about here, because it looks like you're just avoiding the question.

Avoiding the question?  I answered it directly.  Let me put it more plainly.

Quote from: "Davin"I've shown you that your logic leading to the conclusion of atheists being inconsistent and illogical in this instance is support by faulty logic. Do you also not care if you're being logical?

I DON"T CARE IF YOU LABEL WHAT I STATE IS ILLOGICAL...I'M ALREADY LABELED OTHER THINGS OF THE LIKE.  Which part of the previous was not understood in answering your question?

I did not ask if you preferred to be labeled or not, I asked if you cared about being logical. So once again, you did not answer the question.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Although you claim my point is inconsistent and illogical, It is quite consistent and logical considering my world view.  Your insistance to use it (while in one aspect you are free to do so) is illogical because you don't believe there is a God to damn...in fact you don't know of anyone that has been damned...hence it being illogical.  I can't count how many times you've tripped over your own "logic"...it astounds me.  People break legs.  It is a fact.  So AT LEAST on this one, there is no reason to claim it non-logical.  On the "You're in my heart" line, it is a line given to someone *you like and not given in anger, frustration.  Further more, it is not an exclamation.  It is a statement of love for another.

When one yells "fuck!" do you consider that to be a literal statement? You're inconsistent in that you consider only religious exclamations as being literal but none others. Because I don't consider religious exclamations to be literal, I'm not in any way being illogical if I happen to utter one.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Maybe you should read up on the special pleading fallacy. You're making a special case for religious exclamations by taking religious exclamations literally and all other kinds of exclamations figuratively. It's special pleading because you're not applying the same rationale to religious exclamations that you apply to all other kinds of exclamations for no logical reason.

Maybe you should look more closely at what you're wanting to "protect".  Name other exclamations that fall under this discussion and we can go over them one by one to show you they don't have the same meaning as the "God" exclamations (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclamation).

Which is exactly my point on your special pleading, you consider "god" a special case.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Coming from someone who's yet to demonstrate their argument without fallacies, your point of one person having the only logical position doesn't mean much. Let alone it's a red herring so that you will yet again avoid the point I made.

My point stands without fallacy.  I need only to establish disbelief in God and then the point is made all on its own, that to invoke God to damn anything is to be illogical when God is non-existent...as it is in your worldview.  Nothing more is needed.  There is no "fallacy" other than the Fallacy of Stance which you hold.

It is not inconsistent of me because I don't mean it literally.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Want to try again? Logically, it is illogical to say that something is illogical with an illogcial argument. Go ahead, I'll wait until you actually address my points.

Don't need to try again.  I've addressed your points.  If you feel I've missed one or avoided one.  State it plainly.  Maybe my lower intelligence missed it.  Don't just say, "I'll wait until you actually address my points." and cross your arms.  What good is that if you're wanting to discuss?

All three points were completely missed. I can wait.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Do tell me, what is my world view?

Your worldview is your worldview.  What complaint do you have now about your worldview?  What is the difference in our points here?  Your worldview differs from mine.  I thought it would be plain what your worldview is.  Maybe I'm wrong and you believe God exists...if so, then your use of religious exclamations stands without any "complaint" on my part.  We've just wasted a few pages and a few moments in life.

I don't have a complaint about your world view. You're stating knowledge of my world view. So what is my world view?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I've already substanciated the point that *you don't use, "GSM damn you!", why?  Because to do so would invoke not a GSM as we both agree doesn't exist, but that it invokes laughter, humor, even perplexity.

But I have used "GSM damn you!" on several occasions.

Yes...thank you.  For establishing this many times.  Hence the "*you"

So you're saying I don't use "GSM damn you" while saying I do? This is a contradiction.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Why would I commit some kind of appeal to majority fallacy? But I will do that this afternoon and see which one of my exclamations works best.

I hardly hold my breath to think you'd do this experiment in the logical fashion.

The best exclamation happened to be "und keine eier!" to cause a reaction out of people.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Why would you "commit some kind of appeal to majority fallacy?".  Again, I giggle a bit at the humor.  Because the whole point is that any human you address by yelling angrily, "Unicorn damn you!" will be met with a different reaction that if you yell angrily, "God damn you!"  It is because of this reason, most people use "God" instead of "Unicorn" or "GSM".  The latter produce laughter and/or a state of perplextion.  It is the whole point...it's not a fallacy.  (I've noticed the Atheist has made up names for all kinds of "fallacies" simply to disregard ideas.  It's comical at times.)

Because "und Keine eier!" elicited a bigger reaction, I suppose that means that "and no egg" is way more powerful than a god that people claim can damn people. As for making up "fallacies", the fallacies I name can be looked up and you will find that I did not make them up. Just because you're ignorant of the fallacies, doesn't mean that I'm making them up.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Like in the previous paragraph when you stated, "[...]*you don't use, "GSM damn you!"[...]" Please stop lying. Can't we just have an honest discussion?

Notice the *.  Which is speaking to the majority and thus to the worldview.

Then why are you addressing me?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Why can it not be both a joke as well as an exclamation of anger and/or threat?

I acknowledge in some instances it can.  The point being that when the exclamation is uttered in anger, frustration, rage, belligerence, wrath, it directly calls on God to damn.  When used among friends it is not in anger, rage...  The whole context in this discussion has been the context of anger, rage, cussing and so on.  Not the language of friends or lovers.

The entire context of this discussion has been exclamations, no one specified that we're only talking about exclamations made in anger, rage, cussing and so on.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Everytime I say "god damn you!" to my friends and family, they don't get all fearful of being damned by god.

I think I've touched on this just above.

Yes, so then you admit that exclamations with religious terms are not always to be taken literally?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Again...if there's a lack of damned people, what is the point, what is the logic is calling upon God to damn?

You are so wrong, it's not even funny anymore.  It invokes *you to call upon Him to damn.  It invokes God's power TO damn.

Right, I agree.  You don't see the reason.  But the reason is there nonetheless.  You seemingly believe religion is bad and you apparently also hold no belief that God exists, yet you call on God to damn.  I think I see your logic now... (it's illogical logic)

Fallacies-Schmellacies.  The Atheist doesn't believe God exists, but *you call on God to damn.  Is that not some sort of fallacy?

It's just an untrue statement, I do not call on a god to damn things. It's not a literal statement.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Let's see if we can come up with a new name for that fallacy.  Of course, I'm too dumb to figure it out so I'll leave that up to those with higher intelligence.

No new names for fallacies, if you doubt the authenticity of a fallacy I name, then by all means look it up. It appears that by your lack of knowledge of fallacies as well as your lack of a desire to look them up, that you do not care about being logical.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Ignoring the rest of what you posted to simply acknowledge this.

If this is the extent of your study on Christianity, the Abrahamic God and thus a conclusion...then delusion runs both on the Christian and the Atheist alike.

The delusion would mean that I actually believe the absurd and grotesque stories of the bible. I do not.
I am trying very, very hard to understand how a Christian can believe such nonsense. Not only to believe in the stories but also come to the conclusion that the god described is all loving and perfect given that the stories depict a horrific beast putting itself into a dictatorship position, with right of life or death, eternal punishment or eternal reward over those it claims to have dominion. It really does seem to have a blood lust, I mean, come on, unleashing a he bear on small children for laughing at a grown man's bald head?!

I can't for all my attempts fathom the position of a Christian.

Currently I am likening it to the position of a dog or an abused partner. Due to years of deep and total abuse of mind and soul one may develop a deeply seeded dependancy on one's tormentor,  a degraded sense of self worth, a warped understanding of relationship and what love, respect, and friendship are.
This is how I see the Christian's relationship with their imaginary god. Of course they deem it as love. God IS LOVE!. HMM this is not love as the non Christian world defines the word.

I take comfort that this does not affect the types of relationships, and view of self worth a Christian has when relating and interacting with other mortal humans.
I am saddend with the viral effect and propensity for Christians to evangalise, to classify Gays as sinners, to put woman in a place below men, to interfer with people's desire for euthanasia and abortions.
You of course, as previously explained do not wish to impose Christian values into state law. So I have no beef with you.

I am simply sturggling to understand the Christian viewpoint of Christianity and really, really struggling to see why a non Christian would look towards Christianity for anything other than as a threat to human rights.

Quote from: "Davin"Of course I dismiss evidence, I know of no one that doesn't. I would like to know where you're getting all the other information about me, because it is very wrong.

Then I stand corrected.  You dismiss evidence.

Quote from: "Davin"I did not ask if you preferred to be labeled or not, I asked if you cared about being logical. So once again, you did not answer the question.

I think this discussion plainly answers your question.  If you can't see the answer.  It's no wonder you dismiss evidence.

Quote from: "Davin"When one yells "fuck!" do you consider that to be a literal statement? You're inconsistent in that you consider only religious exclamations as being literal but none others. Because I don't consider religious exclamations to be literal, I'm not in any way being illogical if I happen to utter one.

We're not discussing other forms of exclamation.  The topic is plain and is about RELIGIOUS EXCLAMATIONS.  Yelling "Fuck!" has nothing to do with this discussion other than it is not a religious exclamation and makes no appeal to a non-existent being.  

Quote from: "Davin"Which is exactly my point on your special pleading, you consider "god" a special case.

Well I'm sorry to bring you the bad news, but this thread is a "special pleading" in that we are discussing specific exclamations and not all exclamations. (biting tongue)

Quote from: "Davin"It is not inconsistent of me because I don't mean it literally.

(big breath)  Yes I agree, you don't mean it literally.  I disagree, it is inconsitent and flows contrary to Atheism.  The question is...why appeal to something you don't believe exists AT ALL!  Again, Whitney is the only one so far to be standing more true to her worldview...Atheism...on this point.  It's logical to not want to appeal to "God" when there is no God.  Why are you arguing TO use these exclamations if they, at their basis, go contrary to your worldview?

The fact of the matter is, these religious exclamations, God damn (it)!, Oh God!, Jesus Christ!, these all appeal to a God that Atheism says doesn't exist.  Why are Atheists, as this thread proves, wanting and arguing TO USE these with the basis of argument being, "I don't mean them literally." or "I don't give them special meaning." ... It matters not one hoot.  What matters is that these do appeal to what *you claim doesn't exist.

So, as I started off in this thread asking; What is it about "God" that makes the exclamation special enough that the people that "fight" to use it, don't even believe what the exclamation says or implys?  Why does the Atheist insist on "God" establishing the context or seriousness of his/her anger, amazement, wonder, frustration, pleasure...whatever the exclamation is used for, why?

It is not logical to appeal to "God" when "God" doesn't exist.  It's the exact reason why when I am frustrated, angry or in rage I don't exclaim, "Unicorn damn it!"  It doesn't mean anything at all.  It in fact does the opposite of what I'm trying to do with the exclamation.  Unicorn doesn't convey I'm angry or in a rage, rather to do so would serve only to perplex the ones hearing it, even bring laughter.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Of course I dismiss evidence, I know of no one that doesn't. I would like to know where you're getting all the other information about me, because it is very wrong.

Then I stand corrected.  You dismiss evidence.

You dismiss evidence as well, as can be seen in this discussion. The difference is that you claimed to know my reasoning for dismissing evidence, where did you get that knowledge?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I did not ask if you preferred to be labeled or not, I asked if you cared about being logical. So once again, you did not answer the question.

I think this discussion plainly answers your question.  If you can't see the answer.  It's no wonder you dismiss evidence.

You did not answer a very simple and plainly stated question: do you care about being logical?

Instead you went off on you not caring about being labeled. The question is very simple and can even be answered as a yes or a no.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"When one yells "fuck!" do you consider that to be a literal statement? You're inconsistent in that you consider only religious exclamations as being literal but none others. Because I don't consider religious exclamations to be literal, I'm not in any way being illogical if I happen to utter one.

We're not discussing other forms of exclamation.  The topic is plain and is about RELIGIOUS EXCLAMATIONS.  Yelling "Fuck!" has nothing to do with this discussion other than it is not a religious exclamation and makes no appeal to a non-existent being.

Quote from: "Davin"Which is exactly my point on your special pleading, you consider "god" a special case.

Well I'm sorry to bring you the bad news, but this thread is a "special pleading" in that we are discussing specific exclamations and not all exclamations. (biting tongue)

I'm using non-religious exclamations as an example (evidence that you dismiss), that shows that exclamations are not to be taken literally (I'd say most of the time), all the time. You're making a special exception for religious exclamations for no other reason than because they're religious exclamations. Which is known as the special pleading fallacy.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"It is not inconsistent of me because I don't mean it literally.

(big breath)  Yes I agree, you don't mean it literally.  I disagree, it is inconsitent and flows contrary to Atheism.  The question is...why appeal to something you don't believe exists AT ALL!  Again, Whitney is the only one so far to be standing more true to her worldview...Atheism...on this point.  It's logical to not want to appeal to "God" when there is no God.  Why are you arguing TO use these exclamations if they, at their basis, go contrary to your worldview?

I'm not sure if you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument despite me clearly explaining it to you, if you're trolling or just having a problems understanding it. I'm not arguing TO use them, I'm arguing that there is NO REASON TO REFRAIN FROM using them. If I never heard a religious person make the exclamations I would not have searched them out, because I have heard them and I do not consider them any more special than any other exclamation, I see no reason to not use them. The point is indifference to the terms, not a desire to use the terms.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The fact of the matter is, these religious exclamations, God damn (it)!, Oh God!, Jesus Christ!, these all appeal to a God that Atheism says doesn't exist.  Why are Atheists, as this thread proves, wanting and arguing TO USE these with the basis of argument being, "I don't mean them literally." or "I don't give them special meaning." ... It matters not one hoot.  What matters is that these do appeal to what *you claim doesn't exist.

Because when an atheist utters the exclamations (as I'm sure even most Christians that utter them), are not actually appealing to a god. I'm sure that after asking a Christian that says "god damn it!" after injuring him/her self whether they actually want a god to damn the thing, that they'll say that they don't actually intend a god to damn the thing. Which means that even people that believe in a god, do not mean the exclamation literally. If people that believe in the god don't take the statement literally, then why must someone who doesn't believe in the god take the statement literally?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So, as I started off in this thread asking; What is it about "God" that makes the exclamation special enough that the people that "fight" to use it, don't even believe what the exclamation says or implys?  Why does the Atheist insist on "God" establishing the context or seriousness of his/her anger, amazement, wonder, frustration, pleasure...whatever the exclamation is used for, why?

I'm not fighting to use religious exclamations, I just don't see a reason to not use them.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It is not logical to appeal to "God" when "God" doesn't exist.  It's the exact reason why when I am frustrated, angry or in rage I don't exclaim, "Unicorn damn it!"  It doesn't mean anything at all.  It in fact does the opposite of what I'm trying to do with the exclamation.  Unicorn doesn't convey I'm angry or in a rage, rather to do so would serve only to perplex the ones hearing it, even bring laughter.

That is you, you are not the only person who exists. Other people do things for different reasons.

...and so we see what happens when a debate about a topic turns into an argument about debating.

Quote from: "fester30"...and so we see what happens when a debate about a topic turns into an argument about debating.

I think it's already gone beyond an argument about debating, each side just keeps getting louder and louder bringing the same points (as an atheist, I agree with Davin when he says that AnimatedDirt's case is one of special pleading) over and over again.

Disaster...fuck...shit...see there are so many words out there that make the point clear that it's difficult to remember them.

If the exclamation were something a little more specific like "Oh my yahweh" or "yahweh damn" then I agree that would seem more than a little odd and would refrain from using it because it does invoke something specific and not as vague as 'god', but when I use OMG and goddamn they're not sentences that reflect any beliefs or lack of beliefs, they have accepted and widely used meanings. In fact I was even a bit surprised that some people might see it as an actual invocation, just to show the extent of how they do not hold any religious meaning to me.

Quote from: "Davin"You dismiss evidence as well, as can be seen in this discussion. The difference is that you claimed to know my reasoning for dismissing evidence, where did you get that knowledge?

I never disputed dismissing evidence, did I?  As an Atheist, you haven't searched the scriptures to find the truth behind why God would ask a man to sacrifice his son...and dismiss that God never intended the man to go through with it, but rather to guage his devotion to his God.  In fact, it is God himself who sacrifices His Son.  Preaching is against the rules so I must stop there.  The point being that all the Atheist knows is that God asked a man to sacrifice his son.  Gasp!  Left at that, certainly one can draw the conclusions the typical ignorant Atheist draws.  Hence the Atheist dismisses evidence, in fact ignores it.  I know for a fact that when an Atheist brings up these points, he/she has not even delved any deeper into the scripture (if at all) even in curiosity to see what unfolds.

Quote from: "Davin"You did not answer a very simple and plainly stated question: do you care about being logical?

Again, this thread answers that question for you.  It's a given.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm using non-religious exclamations as an example (evidence that you dismiss), that shows that exclamations are not to be taken literally (I'd say most of the time), all the time. You're making a special exception for religious exclamations for no other reason than because they're religious exclamations. Which is known as the special pleading fallacy.

I don't dismiss the evidence.  I've made mention of these at least twice.  The "evidence" you supply in the other exclamations don't have relevance because:
1.  They are not appealing to (a) God
2.  I already acknowledged we know they are not being uttered for their literal interpretation
3.  Religious exclamations are a special appeal.
How much more direct can I be?  We are not discussing "Shit" alone because "Shit" alone is simply an exclamation and not a religious exclamation.  If one says, "Holy Shit!", THEN we have issue as what makes "Holy Shit!" different from "Shit!"?  In context and literally, nothing.  THEN WHY ADD HOLY to it?  What does holy add that unicorn can't as a generally accepted exclamation?  Holy has religious implications.  That being that only God, or a god, is able to deem something holy.

I hope this answers the question of why the other "evidence" is dismissed as evidence relevant to this subject of RELIGIOUS exclamations.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not sure if you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument despite me clearly explaining it to you, if you're trolling or just having a problems understanding it.

Check the Trolling 101 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2332) thread...I'm definitely a troll.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not arguing TO use them, I'm arguing that there is NO REASON TO REFRAIN FROM using them.

The reason is because it is contrary to the claim of Atheism.

Quote from: "Davin"If I never heard a religious person make the exclamations I would not have searched them out, because I have heard them and I do not consider them any more special than any other exclamation, I see no reason to not use them. The point is indifference to the terms, not a desire to use the terms.

Again...it's a matter of logic and not of indifference.

Quote from: "Davin"Because when an atheist utters the exclamations (as I'm sure even most Christians that utter them), are not actually appealing to a god.

The words do...literally.  *You may not be literally appealing to God, but *you are in the fact that the words do.  At least one Atheist on HAF seems to agree.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm sure that after asking a Christian that says "god damn it!" after injuring him/her self whether they actually want a god to damn the thing, that they'll say that they don't actually intend a god to damn the thing. Which means that even people that believe in a god, do not mean the exclamation literally. If people that believe in the god don't take the statement literally, then why must someone who doesn't believe in the god take the statement literally?

Again...literal or not, the words still appeal to the non-existent God.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not fighting to use religious exclamations, I just don't see a reason to not use them.

Because doing so is contrary to Atheism.

Quote from: "Davin"That is you, you are not the only person who exists. Other people do things for different reasons.

Reasons that run contrary to their stance in Atheism.  Reasons that run contrary to logic, by that stance.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You dismiss evidence as well, as can be seen in this discussion. The difference is that you claimed to know my reasoning for dismissing evidence, where did you get that knowledge?

I never disputed dismissing evidence, did I?  As an Atheist, you haven't searched the scriptures to find the truth behind why God would ask a man to sacrifice his son...and dismiss that God never intended the man to go through with it, but rather to guage his devotion to his God.  In fact, it is God himself who sacrifices His Son.  Preaching is against the rules so I must stop there.  The point being that all the Atheist knows is that God asked a man to sacrifice his son.  Gasp!  Left at that, certainly one can draw the conclusions the typical ignorant Atheist draws.  Hence the Atheist dismisses evidence, in fact ignores it.  I know for a fact that when an Atheist brings up these points, he/she has not even delved any deeper into the scripture (if at all) even in curiosity to see what unfolds.

I never said that you disputed dismissing evidence, and I never said that I never dismissed evidence, the question is how do you know the reasons behind why I dismiss evidence? Where did you get all this information about me? In short: stop lying.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not arguing TO use them, I'm arguing that there is NO REASON TO REFRAIN FROM using them.

The reason is because it is contrary to the claim of Atheism.

Atheism has no claim.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"[spoiler:3gjqko5m]Again...it's a matter of logic and not of indifference.

I don't dismiss the evidence.  I've made mention of these at least twice.  The "evidence" you supply in the other exclamations don't have relevance because:
1.  They are not appealing to (a) God
2.  I already acknowledged we know they are not being uttered for their literal interpretation
3.  Religious exclamations are a special appeal.
How much more direct can I be?  We are not discussing "Shit" alone because "Shit" alone is simply an exclamation and not a religious exclamation.  If one says, "Holy Shit!", THEN we have issue as what makes "Holy Shit!" different from "Shit!"?  In context and literally, nothing.  THEN WHY ADD HOLY to it?  What does holy add that unicorn can't as a generally accepted exclamation?  Holy has religious implications.  That being that only God, or a god, is able to deem something holy.

I hope this answers the question of why the other "evidence" is dismissed as evidence relevant to this subject of RELIGIOUS exclamations.

Quote from: "Davin"Because when an atheist utters the exclamations (as I'm sure even most Christians that utter them), are not actually appealing to a god.

The words do...literally.  *You may not be literally appealing to God, but *you are in the fact that the words do.  At least one Atheist on HAF seems to agree.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm sure that after asking a Christian that says "god damn it!" after injuring him/her self whether they actually want a god to damn the thing, that they'll say that they don't actually intend a god to damn the thing. Which means that even people that believe in a god, do not mean the exclamation literally. If people that believe in the god don't take the statement literally, then why must someone who doesn't believe in the god take the statement literally?

Again...literal or not, the words still appeal to the non-existent God.[/spoiler:3gjqko5m]

It's not a literal statement, just like "break a leg" is not a literal statement, just like "fuck!" is not a literal statement. It is commonly accepted that exclamations are not literal or logical. And you're saying that if "god" is mentioned that it must be literal... simply because "god" is mentioned. This is inconsistent and illogical. If it's not literal, then the statement does not appeal to a god.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not fighting to use religious exclamations, I just don't see a reason to not use them.

Because doing so is contrary to Atheism.

It's not contrary to atheism to not care about religious terms.

Quote from: "Davin"I never said that you disputed dismissing evidence, and I never said that I never dismissed evidence, the question is how do you know the reasons behind why I dismiss evidence? Where did you get all this information about me? In short: stop lying.

Not lying.  You just said you dismiss evidence.  That's my whole point.  You dismiss that which you care not to delve deeper into and find the core reason you dismiss it.  You dismiss the Bible because "God asked a man to sacrifice his son."  Full Stop.  You dismiss the end of the story, the meaning of it and the reasons why God did it.  It's your choice and perogative to disagree, but don't disagree and therefore dismiss the evidence when you've not even searched the evidence.  It's like if you're an archaeologist digging for ancient civilizations.  You jab the spade into the dirt, uncover more dirt...and move on to another location.  You know where to look, you simply have potholed the Bible and so dismissed its claim(s) on superficial knowledge of what says.

Quote from: "Davin"Atheism has no claim.

That there is no God/gods is not a claim/stance/belief the Atheist bears when they themselves put a label to their (dis)belief?

Quote from: "Davin"It's not a literal statement, just like "break a leg" is not a literal statement, just like "fuck!" is not a literal statement. It is commonly accepted that exclamations are not literal or logical. And you're saying that if "god" is mentioned that it must be literal... simply because "god" is mentioned. This is inconsistent and illogical. If it's not literal, then the statement does not appeal to a god.

The words do.  You may not, but the words literally do.

Quote from: "Davin"It's not contrary to atheism to not care about religious terms.

Of course it's not contrary to Atheism to not care about religious terms.  "Atheism" doesn't care what you do or think.  But the Atheist does care, else he wouldn't call himself an Atheist.  In fact, the proof of caring is simply looking through this thread at all the Atheists that care.  They don't want their "God" taken from them...because they don't care about religious terms, they don't believe God exists...who was it mentioning circular logic?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Not lying.  You just said you dismiss evidence.  That's my whole point.  You dismiss that which you care not to delve deeper into and find the core reason you dismiss it.  You dismiss the Bible because "God asked a man to sacrifice his son."  Full Stop.  You dismiss the end of the story, the meaning of it and the reasons why God did it.  It's your choice and perogative to disagree, but don't disagree and therefore dismiss the evidence when you've not even searched the evidence.  It's like if you're an archaeologist digging for ancient civilizations.  You jab the spade into the dirt, uncover more dirt...and move on to another location.  You know where to look, you simply have potholed the Bible and so dismissed its claim(s) on superficial knowledge of what says.

You have no idea why I dismiss evidence because you did not ask, you assumed and fabricated a lot of stuff. So stop lying.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Atheism has no claim.

That there is no God/gods is not a claim/stance/belief the Atheist bears when they themselves put a label to their (dis)belief?

An atheist is just someone that does not believe in a god or gods, no claims made. It's amazing that you've been here so long, had it explained in many various ways and still yet cannot understand a neutral position.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"It's not a literal statement, just like "break a leg" is not a literal statement, just like "fuck!" is not a literal statement. It is commonly accepted that exclamations are not literal or logical. And you're saying that if "god" is mentioned that it must be literal... simply because "god" is mentioned. This is inconsistent and illogical. If it's not literal, then the statement does not appeal to a god.

The words do.  You may not, but the words literally do.

I take you don't get sarcasm as well. Sarcasm is to say something that means the exact opposite and if you take it literally, you would miss the meaning. Very often statements do not mean their literal meaning. Given that you interpret the bible to mean something other than it's literal meaning, I'd think that you'd understand this.

EXO 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
EXO 33:20 Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

If those two verses are taken literally, then it is contradictory. One verse literally says that this god is talking to Moses face to face, then the other verse (a mere nine verse later), literally says that Moses would die if done so. Do you hold that one must accept the literal meaning of the words and have a very blatantly contradictory bible, or do you accept that statements are not always taken literally. BTW, in Hebrew it also says "face to face" and that no man can see this gods face and live, so you can't claim poor translation:

וְ×"Ö´×'ֶּר ×™Ö°×"וָ×" אֶל־מֹשֶׁ×" פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים כַּאֲשֶׁר ×™Ö°×"Ö·×'ֵּר אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ×"וּ וְשָׁ×' אֶל־×"ַֽמַּחֲנֶ×" וּמְשָׁרְתֹו ×™Ö°×"ֹושֻׁעַ ×'ִּן־נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתֹּוךְ ×"ָאֹֽ×"ֶל׃ ס 33:11

You'll notice these words that translate as face (פָּנִים -paniym), as a term (פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים) meaning face to face.

33:20 וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת־פָּנָי ×›Ö´Ö¼×™ לֹֽא־יִרְאַנִי ×"ָאָ×"ָם וָחָֽי׃

The last part (רְאַנִי ×"ָאָ×"ָם וָחָֽ ) "lo' 'adam ra'ah chayah" means, "no man can see me and live".

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Of course it's not contrary to Atheism to not care about religious terms.  "Atheism" doesn't care what you do or think.  But the Atheist does care, else he wouldn't call himself an Atheist.  In fact, the proof of caring is simply looking through this thread at all the Atheists that care.  They don't want their "God" taken from them...because they don't care about religious terms, they don't believe God exists...who was it mentioning circular logic?

What is circular about it? I don't care enough to restrict my language nor enough to specifically choose certain terms, therefore, I will say anything that comes to mind. You're trying to inject caring about religious terms where no caring exists.

Quote from: "Davin"You have no idea why I dismiss evidence because you did not ask, you assumed and fabricated a lot of stuff. So stop lying.

Sorry, but there is no lie in me saying you dismiss evidence especially after you've admitted (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7094&start=150#p108127) to doing so.  I haven't assumed anything.  You haven't said anything about the Bible other than, "God made a man sacrifice his son."  Well..."Curly Bill Brocious ate at a Mexican feast." is accurate, but it does not explain the whole movie of Tombstone, nor Curly Bill.

Quote from: "Davin"An atheist is just someone that does not believe in a god or gods, no claims made. It's amazing that you've been here so long, had it explained in many various ways and still yet cannot understand a neutral position.

[My emphasis] If this is true, then the Atheist should change their label to Agnostic.

Quote from: "Davin"I take you don't get sarcasm as well. Sarcasm is to say something that means the exact opposite and if you take it literally, you would miss the meaning. Very often statements do not mean their literal meaning. Given that you interpret the bible to mean something other than it's literal meaning, I'd think that you'd understand this.

I do understand.  But we are not talking about lines in a book that tell a story.  What we are discussing here is literally cursing and swearing AT someone.  Talking face to face or not talking face to face has no relevance HERE on cursing and swearing.  The whole point is to anger another or OUT OF anger towards another.

Quote from: "Davin"What is circular about it? I don't care enough to restrict my language nor enough to specifically choose certain terms, therefore, I will say anything that comes to mind. You're trying to inject caring about religious terms where no caring exists.

You don't have to restrict your language.  Simply that to invoke "God" in cursing and/or swearing goes contrary to the Atheist beliefs (or non-beliefs) and therefore illogical.

I'm fond of saying things like: "By Andraste's pyre!' or "Elune's grace!" or if I'm feeling perticularly nerdy "Praise Arceus!"

I don't believe in these gods any more than I do Xenu, Xena or Xatu. It's just somethign to say, no more no less... And this is coming from someone believes in the (magical) power of words and will. No belief, no power. Simple as that, at least in my book.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You have no idea why I dismiss evidence because you did not ask, you assumed and fabricated a lot of stuff. So stop lying.

Sorry, but there is no lie in me saying you dismiss evidence especially after you've admitted (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7094&start=150#p108127) to doing so.  I haven't assumed anything.  You haven't said anything about the Bible other than, "God made a man sacrifice his son."  Well..."Curly Bill Brocious ate at a Mexican feast." is accurate, but it does not explain the whole movie of Tombstone, nor Curly Bill.

It's not that I dismiss some evidence that you're lying about, it's you making stuff up about why I dismiss the evidence that is the lie. I never said "God made a man sacrifice his son." Why are you being so dishonest? Isn't there something about thou shalt not provide false witness or something like that? Exo 20:16 - "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." I think that's it. So why are you bearing false witness against me?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"An atheist is just someone that does not believe in a god or gods, no claims made. It's amazing that you've been here so long, had it explained in many various ways and still yet cannot understand a neutral position.

[My emphasis] If this is true, then the Atheist should change their label to Agnostic.

Simply amazing. Is this poe?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I take you don't get sarcasm as well. Sarcasm is to say something that means the exact opposite and if you take it literally, you would miss the meaning. Very often statements do not mean their literal meaning. Given that you interpret the bible to mean something other than it's literal meaning, I'd think that you'd understand this.

I do understand.  But we are not talking about lines in a book that tell a story.

So the words in your holy book are to be taken less literal than what someone says when they drop a hammer on their foot? That is not a very good position. That's like saying that the words that come out of the mouth of someone who just stubbed their toe is more important, more accurate, more literal and more rational than the words in the bible. But if that is your position, then alright.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"What we are discussing here is literally cursing and swearing AT someone.  Talking face to face or not talking face to face has no relevance HERE on cursing and swearing.  The whole point is to anger another or OUT OF anger towards another.

The topic is "Religious Exclamations" so any religious exclamation falls under the topic. And the OP said nothing about saying things out of anger:

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"Assuming that you don't believe in a god and/or not part of a religion:
Do you use religious exclamations ("Jesus Christ!", "Good God!", etc) when you talk? Or say "Bless You" when someone sneezes?
If no, does it come naturally or are you making an effort to keep them out of your day-to-day vocabulary?

Stop trying to change the topic in what appears to be an attempt to avoid my points.

I'll explain why I bring up the bible: You keep mentioning that the words literally say X, so I was providing an example where you don't take the literal meaning of the words as the meaning of the statement. So tell me why the words in the bible should be taken less literally than a type of statement that is widely understood as irrational. Is it because an angry person in great pain is more rational than the bible?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"What is circular about it? I don't care enough to restrict my language nor enough to specifically choose certain terms, therefore, I will say anything that comes to mind. You're trying to inject caring about religious terms where no caring exists.

You don't have to restrict your language.  Simply that to invoke "God" in cursing and/or swearing goes contrary to the Atheist beliefs (or non-beliefs) and therefore illogical.

I do not invoke god, they are not literal statements. If I refrained from using religious terms for irrational or no reason when exclaming, that would be illogical. Because the words are already part of my vocabulary, they are part of the pool of words I pull at random when I'm exclaming things. 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.

Quote from: "Davin"I do not invoke god, they are not literal statements.

Saying, "God damn it!" invokes God.  These words literally appeal to a non-existent God from the Atheist point of view.

Quote from: "Davin"If I refrained from using religious terms for irrational or no reason when exclaming, that would be illogical. Because the words are already part of my vocabulary, they are part of the pool of words I pull at random when I'm exclaming things.

Either *you were born into a home with God/god/Theist/theist values or *you weren't.  Either way the Atheist has made a consious decision in labeling him/herself.  It's amazing that the Atheist can leg go of beliefs (rise above unintelligence), but can't let go of simple phrases that play INTO these beliefs.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Then what are you doing on this thread.  You certainly do give them special consideration.  They are a special pleading, as you have promoted.  You're arguing that they are not illogical to use...one would think you would state your position and leave it at that.  But you keep going and going and further establishing my most basic of points...The Atheist cannot live without God in their lives (of their own choosing, not the things that happen around them which cannot be helped).  The Atheist that argues he/she should not have to think about what they say is an Atheist that is simply not thinking at all, therefore is acting illogically.

Once again, Whitney is the only Atheist/Free Thinker so far to be in the logical position in regard to these religious exclamations.  And she's right in what she states as her reasoning, "it doesn't make sense since I'm not trying to appeal to one"

To continue to argue FOR using these regardless, simply makes the opposite statement as the words literally do as they state they do.  To simply not think about our words and sentences we put together is to just talk for talking sake.  No thinking = Not being logical.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I do not invoke god, they are not literal statements.

Saying, "God damn it!" invokes God.  These words literally appeal to a non-existent God from the Atheist point of view.

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?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If I refrained from using religious terms for irrational or no reason when exclaming, that would be illogical. Because the words are already part of my vocabulary, they are part of the pool of words I pull at random when I'm exclaming things.

Either *you were born into a home with God/god/Theist/theist values or *you weren't.  Either way the Atheist has made a consious decision in labeling him/herself.  It's amazing that the Atheist can leg go of beliefs (rise above unintelligence), but can't let go of simple phrases that play INTO these beliefs.

I could if I wanted to, but because I do not hold religion with special significance, I have no reason to.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Then what are you doing on this thread.  You certainly do give them special consideration.  They are a special pleading, as you have promoted.  You're arguing that they are not illogical to use...one would think you would state your position and leave it at that.  But you keep going and going and further establishing my most basic of points...The Atheist cannot live without God in their lives (of their own choosing, not the things that happen around them which cannot be helped).  The Atheist that argues he/she should not have to think about what they say is an Atheist that is simply not thinking at all, therefore is acting illogically.

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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Once again, Whitney is the only Atheist/Free Thinker so far to be in the logical position in regard to these religious exclamations.  And she's right in what she states as her reasoning, "it doesn't make sense since I'm not trying to appeal to one"

"Logical" according to the person who didn't even know what the special pleading fallacy was (and without looking it up accused me of making it up) 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.

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

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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"To simply not think about our words and sentences we put together is to just talk for talking sake.  No thinking = Not being logical.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"Logical" according to the person who didn't even know what the special pleading fallacy was (and without looking it up accused me of making it up)

I meant to imply that Atheists have "made up" lots of fallacies to throw out here and there in argument.  Not that you made it up.  That's not, also, to imply they are "made up" as in making a name up, but terms to sound important.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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?

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

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "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.  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...??

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"Aye, an atheist appealing to a non-existent god would be inconsistent.

Inconsistent and therefore illogical.  Thanks AGAIN.

Quote from: "Davin"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!"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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?

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

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

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

Pray for me.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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]

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"Aye, an atheist appealing to a non-existent god would be inconsistent.

Inconsistent and therefore illogical.  Thanks AGAIN.

Quote from: "Davin"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!"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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?

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

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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]

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Of course you don't MEAN it literally...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "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)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "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.)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.