Religious Exclamations

[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.

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 comes to mind.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[GAYtheist]

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

[LegendarySandwich]

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?

[Davin]

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.

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.

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.

[terranus]

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?

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?

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

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

Apparently, yes.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

How does the statement break legs?

I think Legendary Sandwich gave the explanation for you.

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.

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.

[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.

[The Magic Pudding]

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.

[Stevil]

These term(s), God damn it, God, Oh God are terms based on the Biblical God.

The arrogance of Christians invokes war.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.