These are some of the most frustrating people to talk to. They use words without defining what they mean by them. Sometimes they use words that normally have a reasonably accepted definition, but they use them in an unusual way. They pretend to be making all kinds of grand points but they're not actually saying anything. When you question them about this or try to get a defintion out of them, they'll usually say something about you not being open minded enough, or they'll condescendingly explain how not everyone can attain the level of brilliance that they enjoy.

Some oft-abused terms:
Also Spiritual

Some examples:

I believe that God Transcends the bounds of Space and Time. God exists in the realm of the Spirit.

You must Transcend Reality in order to reach a state of Spirituality.

I believe God is Infinite.

Technically these statements do say something but it doesn't MEAN anything. Newagers frequently do this. They also often suffer from Modern Physics Abuse Syndrome

Chaos Theory states that the universe is inherently Chaotic and the Uncertainty Principle says that scientists cannot truly know reality. Therefore you must go beyond mere science to experience reality on a spiritual level.

What I like to do to People who argue, using terms they refuse to define, is I call them names that I refuse to define.
You are a Catamite
You look like Whirlygigs
Or, if it is a woman/girl
You are nothing more than a Succubus

For more weird words see: Unusual Sexual Terms
I found a bit of tripe on the web that is relevant to this node. Abuse of scientific concepts makes me mad.

Definition of God

God, consciousness, oversoul, superphoton, Creator, Alpha Node, etc... are all synonymous terms. So what is this God?

First, God is pure potentiality, this concept originating elsewhere but whose veracity necessitates its unoriginal use in this article. It is a superphoton with potential to be anything at anytime, to experience anything within physical limitations. The key to this concept is that God is not everything already, but is in the process of becoming one with everything. A seed is potentially a tree, but it is not a tree until it has time to grow. Likewise, God is potentially everything, but cannot be so unless it has time to infuse itself within all matter and energy. This also why "time" even exists.

Second, God is eternal order and transitory chaos. When flipping a coin or watching an animal do what it does, it is impossible to always predict exactly what will happen next. It is chaotic, but only transitorily so, for collecting data over long periods of time will allow one to gather an idea a certain behavior's probability. If the system's behavior is studied for an infinite period of time, its probability is perfectly comprehended, and is no longer chaotic when viewed in light of such an extended period. True chaos is God in action and creation. If all behavior were mechanical and perfectly predictable, with no evidence of chaos, then there is no originality, creativity, or creation resulting from that behavior. God's motive is to explore its own potential and gain all information, knowledge, wisdom, and experience there is to be gained, thus chaos is the only path to reach such a goal.

Third, God is negentropic synergy. Negentropy is characteristic of a process organizing random, uniform, stagnant systems into organized, interesting, lively ones. Synergy describes getting more out than in. Together, negentropic synergy means that the influence of God causes matter and energy to organize into complex systems, allowing more varied forms of expression with greater complexity of those systems. For example, one of these systems is the human brain, and another is humanity. Both are complex and non-uniform in function, as well as chaotic and dynamic.

Were there no God, all rock would eventually turn to dust and matter would decay into energy. Rather, rock is quarried by humans and made into works of art or buildings to house the functions of society. In particle accelerators, energy is converted to matter, etc... The probability of each of these things happening in such ways without conscious intent (the influence of God) is virtually zero.

In thermodynamic systems, entropy (random energy distributed among the molecules in the form of heat which is unusable for further work) can only be decreased if energy is added to the system, as in electricity running an air-conditioner which forces the house to cool while expelling hot air (entropy would be evident when your house warms to the same temperature as the air outdoors). In social systems, God's influence is equivalent to this electricity, but informational, rather than electrical in nature. Thus, God is counter-decay and anti-entropy.

There is more, but I dont think you want to know about how God is an Interface with the universe or about the holographic nature of the universe.

In order to be a little bit fair, the ideas that the author is putting forth are not, in themselves, ludicrous. They're unprovable theories, which makes them a bit less interesting. I dont mean to be an asshole. The thing that bugs me is simply the juxtaposition of scientific terminology in order to lend credence to these speculations. Philosophising of this sort could be done well enough without the scientific jargon.

When I'm talking with people, I do tend to ask for clarifications, for definitions, quite a bit. But there comes a time when you can't ask for every detail, or you lose track of the original argument.

Human language is vague. It's meant to be that way. I enjoy asking people what their definition of "love" is, or what the term "always" means to them. Just because people agree on the major points doesn't mean that they agree to your entire definition. It's like the Uncertainty Principle and Tao rolled into one. That which can be named is not what you mean. If you try to name it, it changes on you. When you make the ends meet, they move the ends.

My roommate loves to argue with people, to show them they are wrong and then laugh at them. If you start talking, you are wrong. He also tends to stereotype people and refuse to change his views. Once he puts you in your box, you're stuck. I gave up discussing anything with him, because he gets lost in the pedantics of things. So if you enjoy arguing, perhaps you might be humble enough to conceed a point or two, even if you think they're still wrong.

So there I was faced with a 20 year old in an environment foreign to her; she must have felt cornered. I was defending personal choice, and the freedom to use drugs. She was on the hardline that claimed that drugs are bad, no ifs ands or buts, and she would never do drugs because of all the evils they are associated with. Her arguments were that drugs are bad; o.k., and a case study about how someone she knew really messed up his life on drugs.

I was arguing that even the father of our great county at least encouraged the smoking of hemp, that Anslinger was corrupt, and lied to congress, and that anti marijuana propaganda has mostly been inaccurate at best through the years and used as a tool of prejudice and racism.

Being somewhat intoxicated at the time, I became amused by the lack of substance to her argument, and began to laugh, "You are so young." She took this to be age discrimination, and became very offended. I tried to calm her down by explaining that I meant that her argument was under developed, but she was too offended to listen anymore.

She tried to turn the tables on me, and asked, "You must have a greater exposure with drugs than I do, what all have you done?" I confessed I had only tried alcohol, pot, and mushrooms, and that I like to stick with things I feel are natural. She said, "Well, I've done that!" and left me dumbfounded. I was stunned by the hypocrisy. At that point we parted ways.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.