Religious Exclamations

[LegendarySandwich]

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.

[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...

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

So your choice is to be inconsistent.

I don't care either way.  The point is that the Atheist is being inconsistent and illogical.

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.

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.

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.

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?  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.

[Stevil]

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.

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.

[Davin]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The GSM invokes laughter.

A non-existent creature invokes nothing.

A joke.  Humor.  God invokes His power to damn and thus it invokes anger, seriousness...

A non-existent creature invokes nothing.

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?  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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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".

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?

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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 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..........

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

I not familiar with any of these analogies.

How convenient.  That's why I included the link

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'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"

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.)

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.  

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.

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.

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?

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.  

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)

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.

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.

[Stevil]

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.

*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.

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.

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.  

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.

...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).

[AnimatedDirt]

[...]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.

[LegendarySandwich]

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...

[The Magic Pudding]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which is exactly my point on your special pleading, you consider "god" a special case.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.