Religious Exclamations

[Stevil]

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

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.  

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)

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.

[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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[fester30]

...and so we see what happens when a debate about a topic turns into an argument about debating.

[xSilverPhinx]

...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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

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.

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 thread...I'm definitely a troll.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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?

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.

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?

[Davin]

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.

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.

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".

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Byronazriel]

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.

[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 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?

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?

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.

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:

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?

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

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.

[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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.