Oh you so know that’s in Chemistry’s bag. 
Should I prove to you that Richard Bachman is a real person in the same manner? What about Stephen Bury?
Erek
If you don’t get it, you need help more than I can give… I’ve given as much attention to a response to you as I think it’s worth.
It’s Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle – Quantum Mechanics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg’s_uncertainty_principle
For the rest of you, because I think your rigid analysis is full of shit, this is why I don’t take you seriuosly. I don’t expect you to take me seriously because I don’t take YOU seriously. I debate with two different styles, one with derision for pompous windbags who like to think that other people are guilty of some extraordinary sin that they are clean of even though they commit it all the time, and another where I actually try to explain things to people. I admit my rhetoric can be developed better, and that’s an ongoing process, one of the MAIN REASONS I post here is to improve my rhetoric, so that I can go out and confront the DUMBASS arguments that I hear put forth here in real life in a sentence or two. I play those “dishonest word games” because I see semantics here that are completely fucked up so I attempt to unfuck them in the only way that I know how.
Zoe I am not a Christian, I do not wish to be associated with being a Christian and I guarantee you if I moved to that small town, I would probably be just as disturbing to the townspeople there, and I have felt that my rights have been violated many times by this country. The drug war is a violation of religious freedom. However, in this particular instance, all I see is a woman moving into a new town and trying to force HER beliefs onto the whole town. It might be easier for you to consider me a Christian bully, but that is simply not the case.
Should I prove to you that Richard Bachman is a real person in the same manner? What about Stephen Bury? I have heard that Cecil Adams is not a real person, that he is a pseudonym. Now, you want to show me that he is a real person and not a pseudonym that’s great, I am perfectly willing to believe that he’s a real person if you show me. However, real person or not, he IS a sacred cow, and they’re my favorite.
Erek
In short, MSWAS is a Sophist and I am a Philosopher – we hold vigilantly to two orthoganol sets – me to logic, Ethics and Mores, while he clings to whimsey, cafeterian ideals & situational argument. I cannot trust someone like him and will defend against any such argument + will recruit students to do so also. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. If any discussion continues in defense of Sophistry on your part, it will go nowhere, kind of like my 2-posts ago.
Apparently we agree on something else surprizingly.
For the rest of you, if you REALLY want to know what I meant by Christ returning, here it is:
I…AM…CHRIST
I’m back, I chose to tell you people first, I chose that moment as the time I would stop pretending that I was something else. I feel so much better now.
Now, go ahead, take me seriously, I dare ya!
I decided to take that whole “Thief in the Night bit, with a little bit of American guerilla marketing styleee.”
I’m sorry if people made predictions that were not entirely accurate, or you read too much into the translation of the translation of the translation of the allegory. I apologize if this offends your Atheo-Christian biblical literalist skeptical mindset, but there it is. Do with this information what you will.
I am not looking for sycophants, I am not out to save you, and last but most certainly NOT least…
I AM NOT JESUS
I’m here to eat all your sacred cows, and hopefully help illuminate some people, heal some macrocosmic karma fulfilling the secret wishes of so many, oh and live forever in heaven for eternity amen.
It amazes me that Aeschines defends me for three whole days, and people talk about how he’s had his head up my ass for so long.
Oh, and a real skeptic doesn’t assume a negative due to lack of evidence, most of you ARE NOT real skeptics. Your one size fits all attitudes with your need for there to be ONE answer to EVERY question is kind of irritating. The answer to every question is God, but that hasn’t seemed to satisfy you, so we try to supply multiple answers for multiple contexts.
Here, have an apple.
Love,
Erek
Oh, if only you people lived up to your own expectations of others, I would so like you so much better. If I saw more people claiming to be actual skeptics BEING actual skeptics, I’d have an orgasm. Your elimination of sophistry out of some misguided belief that there is some conflict between SOPHistry and philoSOPHy, is well less than compelling. Sometimes sophistry is necessary. If you want to take a different tactic that’s fine, but mostly people like yourself just get a charge out of feeling superior because you are a REAL philosopher as opposed to those OTHER philosophers.
Sure I’m a pompous windbag, but if you can find a point where I accused someone of something and wouldn’t claim responsibility for occasionally doing it myself, I’ll have it drug out into the street and shot.
I see failures in the rigor of people who claim a strict rigorous stance regularly, I have pointed it out regularly, like when people make inductions but don’t deduce it to whether or not it’s correct, or like when atheists deny the existance of a word that they cannot define. How about when they expect someone to ‘define’ God and won’t accept when it is explained to them that God is something that you must EXPERIENCE. Or how about when someone tells me that my experience of God is a HALLUCINATION, and then I ask how they know their whole life isn’t a hallucination, because that’s what they just suggested mine was, but that’s sophistry right? Not REAL philosophy like one with a massive brain cavity like your own would engage in.
I do answer things seriously all the time, I try to explain the points that I am making. But the truth is, I rarely get the chance to expound upon MY philosophy because I can’t get past the emotional biases people apply to words and expect me to justify. I mean really I can’t possibly be expected to KNOW what every emotional bias anyone ever applies to a word is can I? I mean only Jesus Christ has THAT kind of power, ahh yes, but of course he’s unverifiable therefore we must assume a negative due to lack of evidence, because it the way a REAL skeptic would do it right?
If you want me to take you seriously then you need to understand one simple thing, "No it is not REASONABLE to assume that because something cannot be proven that it is not true.
How about this, I’ll cop to my difficulties in vocabulary if you’ll cop to yours. I think Aeschines posts are reasonable evidence that a certain type of person, one usually chased off by the SDMB goon squad actually CAN understand me. I mean the number of times I have heard you people BRAG about chasing off a Fundie or New Ager. Yeah that’s fighting ignorance, berate someone until they stop posting. You’ve really done the world a service, good job. At least Aeschines is hail and hearty enough to stick around and try and survive this beast of a forum.
Erek
Natalie Portman is a pseudonym. Charles Bronson is a Pseudonym. Alice Cooper is a pseudonym. That doesn’t make them any less real.
Well poo. You can’t even prove that you’re a real person if you want to go that route.
Please cite a mere five occurances.
I agree with that, but I have to add, it’s not reasonable to assume that because something cannot be proven that it is true, as well. Wouldn’t you agree?
That’s Physical Chemistry, baby! 
I hated P-Chem the first time around…
Now THAT would be some deep wading for a whole lot of pointlessness. You can take it or leave it, believe me or not that I have seen people make comments like “Remember this fundie who is now gone” or “That silly new ager who thought this who is now gone?” Most people take it to mean that they couldn’t stand the heat of their rigorous rationality, but having seen what passes for rigorous rationality on this board, I would generally assume that they just got tired of talking and not being understood. Quite simply I wouldn’t know how to search the forum for a conversational aside. If you want to help me figure out how to do that, then I might be compelled to find those cites for you. But I don’t know what keywords to use, and somehow I think “fundamentalist” would get me a ton of hits. I don’t remember particular threads it was in either.
I’ll leave it in the realm of the anecdotal because I’m a lazy fuck, and have to take a shower and get out of here.
On the Cecil Adams route though. How are you defining “real person”. I had heard Cecil was a pseudonym for a group of writers at the reader, as opposed to “Natalie Portman” who is a single person, that uses the name exclusively.
Erek
Most definitely.
You say this as if there were no overlap in science. While I have no experience with Quantum Chemistry, I know for certain that Quantum Mechanics is the foundation of particle and condensed matter physics, see Basics of Quantum Mechanics. Both of which are fields within physics; with Quantum Mechanics being a required subject of study for a Bachelors, Masters and PhD in Physics (it’s one of the big 4: classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics).
You are mistaken. I was comparing your language to that of a fundamentalist, not calling you one. Please reread.
Again, you are mistaken. mswas was the author of that OP. When asked by **Schuyler ** in post 25 to define what mswas means by “God” mswas says in post 27 “Schuyler I will not EVER give you a solid definition for God.”
Nice try, but the attempt is to discuss issues rather than making jokes. It’s inappropriate and your attempt to justify it by redefining “Great Debates” is immature. If mswas is interested in “sharing” he should do so in a different forum.
As for the head up the ass comment, I apologize. I was attempting to point out to you that your input into this thread is clouded by your admiration of mswas and rather than say that in an effective way I chose my language poorly. Rather than read the threads others, and myself, have pointed you to, you have continually scoffed at them and requested precise post numbers. You’re not entering this discussion free of bias and its obviously clouding your objectivity.
The problem with using two styles is that you’re going to lose people along the way; some of which were interested in what you had to say prior to using style #1.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and the only thing you’re accomplishing is adding to the confusion.
See what happens when you’re honest - we find something we can agree on (or were you just joking?).
mswas, I am certainly no genius, but I’m no moron either. Sometimes you confuse the crap outta me and rather than saying what you mean (and meaning what you say) you say something out in left field. Perhaps its the optimist in me but I truly believe there are those on the board that would take you seriously if you would be serious. Otherwise you’re lumping those that are interested in a discussion with you into the kettle, where they will soon feel burned and learn that its best not to talk to you.
As for vocabulary difficulties, I’ll join those ranks (ref. ass comment - even though I thought it was super funny).
I’ll leave it. I don’t trust you.
Naw, it’s a running joke between chemists and physicists as to who ‘owns’ QM.
Ah, I see. For the sake of argument, I’ll say physicists. 
I ask for an example and you tell me to read the thread. Delicious irony in light of this–
And this–
This is a perfect example of dishonest debating, or as you put it, having two sets of rules. When I ask for a post, you tell me to read the thread. When another poster refers you to a thread, you ask for a post. Now was this metaphor, fantasy, or joking? Or are you simply lacking in intellectual integrity, as is your inamorato?
Well, there you go again. For all your protestations, you clearly do not have any interest in edifying anyone. This is lame-ass shit, and everyone here can see that.
I think this debating technique is called “hide the turtle” or “spank the weasel” or something. That’s a joke son. If his OP had been about points, lines, or planes, and if a poster had expressed confusion about those terms, and if he truly wanted that poster to understand, then yes, he should have defined those terms. However, since none of those conditions apply, what you have there is a non sequiter. Fine technique in the metaphorical world of fantasy humor. As an argument it sucks.
Ding Ding Ding. Third times the charm. Once again I ask you for a specific reference and you come up all wobbly and shit.
And yet you are so mean to me. Is this an expression of your pantheism, or is it counter to it?
No, it is dishonest if he reasonably expects his statements to be misunderstood, which you have already conceded he did. Once again, if you want someone to understand you, and that person is having a tough go of it, it is incumbent upon you to speak in such a way as to facilitate that, if you are able. If all you care about is seeing sparks fly with no intent to enlighten (metaphor plus wordplay) then by all means carry on. You are doing a bang up job.
Quite the contrary. They are all around me, many of them in this thread. He just aint one of them.