I wasn't even going to justify this attack with a response, but I have a few problems with your above comments:
Quote:
|
but there you are.. using logic .. you do realize that there is the supernatural in this world right? why cant there be a dragon, or ufo's or such? because someone that spent most thier life in a book says there isn't? sorry that falls into the mass hysteria syndrone effect.. where one of certian credentials or popularity says it so the masses believe it to be gospel.
|
Are you condoning or attacking religion here? Your first sentence would lead me to believe that you believe in a "supernatural", whereas the last sentence is a description of the very procedures used in the spreading of supernatural beliefs, including Religion. Last I checked, this was Tilted Paranoia ..
not Tilted Philosophy. If me presenting a logical explanation of something makes me "unfaithful", I'd be glad to discuss it in the proper forum -
Tilted Philosophy.
Quote:
|
sure i know what happens when every light in the world is switched on and off at sometime or on timmers given by engineers standers around the world.. or even what the composition of the concrete i use every day. that dosent make it set in stone and universal law.
|
I agree -- Knowledge is relative. However, that does not mean we should dismiss the most logical explanation for something because it could be explained another way. A car drives down the road -- I say its because the engine provides power to the drivetrain and driving wheels -- another person says it is powered by gnomes. Should I not hold my belief that is the engine (based on acquired knowledge) drives the car based on the fact that there is another possibility? I'm certainly open to the gnome-explation, provided it is supplemented by evidence, like seeing gnome's feet under the hood. Your reductio ad absurdum argument is again quite easily trumped by Occam's Razor: what's simpler? That you have a huge scientifically unmeasurable "aura" that somehow effects only sodium lightbulbs, or the fact that these have photovoltaic cells and heat dissapation problems?
Quote:
|
ball lightning, a duck billed platapus.. mammal that lays eggs.. hmm outta that nature bound..
|
I'd reply to this, but I'm not sure what it means -- it looks like a list of animals -- if you're attempting to say that these cannot be reliably defined by science, I would beg to differ for the reason above. If your explanation of why lights turn off is conclusive, I would ask that you share that opinion rather than telling me mine is too "logical."
From the sticky "Guidelines for Paranoia":
Quote:
|
If you think that Elvis shot JFK shortly before he and Jim Morrisson moved into Hitler's secret moon base, you should probably back it up with at least some evidence in order to avoid looking foolish.
|
Please offer your more believable explanation for the cause of this light-switching conundrum -- I am far from dismissing your interpretation, but I've yet to hear anything more than anecdotal experiences of "when I walked under it, it turned off."