Thomathy wrote:

Paisley wrote:

How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.

When someone stubs their toe they might say 'God dammit!' (Most often I say 'Ow!' because my toe hurts.)  This is a common expletive.  Even taken literally, the person is not blaming god, they'd be asking god to damn something.

Agreed. The expression "God damn it" literally suggests that an individual is calling upon God to punish somebody (actually something..."it" is generally considered to be impersonal). This is why such an expression is called cursing. The individual is literally asking that someone or something be justly punished or condemned (i.e. cursed).

So, let's place this in proper context. The so-called unbeliever stubs his toe on the bottom leg of a coffee table and screams "God F****** damn it!!!" Now, what are we to make of such behavior? 

Well, the individual is clearly angry (a present state of "rage" is probably a better description). But if he is angry, then he must be angry with someone or something? So, with "whom" is he directing his anger? Or, at "what" is he directing his anger?

1) Is he angry with the coffee table? Does he actually believe that an inanimate object deliberately had the intention to bring him pain? Maybe? But what does this reveal about the unbeliever's beliefs? Whenever you're angry, you're angry with an intelligent agent, not with an inanimate object or an impersonal situation. Inanimate objects or impersonal situations cannot be held morally responsible for unpleasant experiences. So we can easily dismiss this explanation; it's simply absurd.

2) Is he angry with himself? Possibly. But when you consider the worldview of atheistic materialism, then this doesn't really make any rational sense. Why? Because in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, every action an individual performs "could not have been otherwise." In other words, each and every event that one experiences was predetermined by the blind, pitiless forces of nature playing themselves out. So why is he blaming and cursing himself for something he had absolutely no control over? It's completely absurd. Besides, are we to really believe that the unbeliever is demanding that he be punished for being such a bumbling idiot? This will only compound his pain and will not alleviate his sense of righteous indignation.

3) Is he upset with the "universe" itself? Does he actually believe that the forces of nature are conspiring argainst him? Perhaps. But, how can you be angry at something that is not intelligent and therefore cannot held morally responsible? This is no different than being angry with an inanimate object (e.g. the coffee table). It's absurd.

4) Is he upset with a higher power or intelligence (i.e. God) whom he believes is deliberately against him? Most definitely. This is the only thing that makes a smattering of rational sense.

Thomathy wrote:

It is customary to use certain expletives in particular situations, this is a learnt trait, and thus they can carry connotations.  Sometimes expletives are used in place of other words or sentences and take over their meaning, for instance, 'Fuck off!' is understood to mean 'Go away!' or any other similar sentence, however, with the extra connotation that person uttering 'Fuck off!' is particular angry with whom they're telling to go away and has decided to convey all of that in their use of the expletive.

 

Agreed. An individual will curse another human being because he (the individual) is expressing righteous indignation and believes the other is guilty and deserving of retribution.

Thomathy wrote:

Your whole argument, however, is more simply refuted by pointing out that just because you believe it's cursing god to use god in an expletive does not mean that anyone who utters an expletive that includes the word god believes they're doing the same thing.  An Atheist certainly doesn't think that she's cursing god, she in fact can't curse god because she doesn't believe in god.  What you're arguing requires that the person uttering the expletive means to curse god and, as I've pointed out, that's not how people use expletives.

I have made a bullet-proof argument earlier in this post why the atheist does indeed exhibit anger directed towards God. The evidence for this behavior is played out everyday by such trivial mishaps as stubbing one's toe.

I know atheists who claim to be practice a form of Satanism, replete with all the trappings of a black mass and ceremonial magic. This is why I limit my discussion of atheism to atheistic materialism.

There are groups of satanist that are also non-theist(atheistic) like for example: "LaVeyan Satanism"

More or less Satan serves as a symbolic representation in defining a life philosophy rather than a literal presence. I think it's a bit strange but to each his own I guess...

 

Paisley is either being willfully ignorant, or truely is moronic in his understanding of term freethinker, as such and as stated before, with his vague and misconstrued defintion of free will, then freedom fighters must believe in free will, nor is there free press, or free agents, free market, free state, free fall, free throw, or in the end freedom of speech since every MUST believe in free will because ALL those words have free in them, as such using his method, if it contains free it HAS to be free will or nothing. Nice going Paisley, you lost the debate right from the beginning, your just to dogmatic to understand where you lost it at.

tothiel wrote:

Such things are not intellectual endeavors and you're quite simply elevating the issue to absurd heights. Its clear that these things have become common spur of the moment verbal reactions that express negative feelings such as 'pain', 'anger', or even 'frustration'.....etc.... Nothing more. There is no rhetorical victory to be had here.

For example: dictionary.com:
Goddamnit –interjection (sometimes initial capital letter) Informal: Sometimes Offensive.
(used to express anger, perplexity, amazement, etc.)

 

When an atheist says "God damn it" after stubbing his toe, then he is obviously expressing anger. This begs the question: "What is he angry at?" or "Whom is angry with?"

How is the atheist a free thinker when his worldview relegates him to nothing more than a "robot with consciousness?" You're not a free thinker. You're not even a participant. You're just a spectator in the game of life.

By the way, I am FREE to define free thinker as I see fit. I do not subscribe to your dogmatic definition and therefore, as such, I am not bound to it. Besides, my definition is actually in tune with the literal rendering of the term. Your definition is misnomer.

it has a will of its own. it has a choice of its own. it has a mind of its own.(choices, commands, emotions, thinking processes)

will by itself signifies self-control and freedom of one's self to command his mind and body without resorting to "free will" in those cases. 

still use "free will"? go ahead if you like, but it's totally not necessary to describe one with a mind of it's own that already has the freedom of choice because the term "will" covers it.

any thoughts?

Paisley wrote:

I know atheists who claim to practice a form of Satanism, replete with all the trappings of a black mass and ceremonial magic. This is why I limit my discussion of atheism to atheistic materialism.

Oh, THAT's the reason. Okay. You know people who say they believe in Satan ? And they told you they're atheists ? And you believe them ? LOL !!

LaVeyan Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality, with influence from Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, while its rituals and magic draw heavily from occultists such as Aleister Crowley. Borrowing Crowley's terminology, its adherents define Satanism as a "Left-Hand Path" religion, rejecting traditional "Right-Hand Path" religions such as Christianity for their perceived denial of life and emphasis on guilt and abstinence.

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism 

LaVey proposes instead that if all gods are creations of humans, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanists should instead internalize their gods and therefore worship themselves; hence the Satanic maxim, "I am my own god."

source: Wikipedia "LaVeyan Satanism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism 

I think what Paisley's referring to is the idea that if all things are directly caused by the interactions of the inescapable laws of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, etc), then no, there is no freedom of choice, because just as a rock cannot 'choose' to resist the physical effect of Gravity, so you cannot 'choose' not to react to the sum total of all the stimuli in your life in whatever way you will, in fact, react. Not only would you then react exactly the same way every single time you were placed in exactly the same situation (despite it being impossible to begin with, because each time the total stimuli would be different simply by including your memories of previous times), but you would be physically unable to make a different choice, because all of the electrochemical processes in your brain would be in exactly the same state, and so subject to exactly the same cascading electrochemical reactions.

In effect, the question could be asked: If the universe has no randomness, how are we anything but incredibly complex computers executing the programming built into us by the total effect upon us of the universe over time? If we were somehow placed in the exact same situation multiple times, we would, based simply on the physical laws of science, have no choice but to think the same things, in the same order, resulting in the same reactions. Every time. 1+1 never gets to equal 3. An insanely complicated math problem, no matter how many times you solve it, will always have the same solution if none of the parameters change.

So: If the universe is one incredibly complicated math problem, and each of us is one small piece of the problem, then no matter how many times we're answered, our part cannot ever resolve to something other than what it resolves to the very first time. It's only in variation of circumstances that response changes, and only in the mind-numbing complexity of years of billions of stimulus-response interactions, many completely unaware, that we achieve the illusion of spontaneous action... IF all things are directly caused by the prior state of the universe from moment to moment.