Johnny Rotten

Right. Why rebut the points of my argument when you can just pat the poor unbeliever on the head and lament his lack of vision. Look, with the right anecdote, I could shoot down any argument in this thread -- even my own. Instead, I rely on logical deduction and empirical evidence. I believe that astrology, however, relies on subjective interpretation.

You claim that astrology is real, and you challenged anyone to debate you on this topic. In case there's any doubt that you made this claim, let me refresh:

(Emphasis mine)

But when I told you that it's a stretch of claim and explained why, you implied that I'm just not spiritual enough? Come on now.

I believe aliens are here. I find ESP, clairvoyance, ghosts and remote viewing to be plausible, if only explained through an aspect of the natural world that we do not yet understand. Natal horoscopic astrology, however, cannot be explained through scientific means. It is a system of prediction based on the day I was born. This is, functionally, no more indicative than the lines on my hand or the distribution of tarot cards on a table. At best, I believe it is only a catalyst of vaguely understood mental behavior.

I'd be more open to the idea that a person was psychic and thought there was meaning in the astrological signs they use as tools to tell a person about their past, present, and future.

I'm not some hick in the sticks. Nor am I an uptight, button-down WASP. I live in San Francisco, and I had two gay roommates. I smoke pot as a matter of course, philosphize endlessly on the meaning of the life, and struggle every day with the possibility of the existence of a god, goddess, or sacred tree stump hidden away in the Himalayas that whispers the secrets of the Earth to those who have the ears to listen. I make mistakes, I have regrets, but I think long and hard about controversial topics before I wade into a discussion. And everything I know about life and everything I've read about other peoples' lives leads away from formalized superstition.

Masculine, feminine, air, fire, water, earth, cardinal, fixed, mutable, angular, succedent, Grand Trine, Grand Cross, hemispheres, Jones patterns -- there is enough in an individual dice roll to address everyone who's lived who's ever lived and ever will live. And in the event that it does not, the person either did not live long enough to fulfill their pre-ordained potential or were cut down in their prime before the stars could line the path of their life.

Because I do not buy all this does not make me stubborn. Because I do not ascribe to a particular mystical analysis does not make me philistine. Everyone has a spectrum of beliefs -- and a point at which they draw the line. To go beyond an individual's personal line, point back, and say to them, "You go no further because you are just not strong enough to believe" is wholly arbitrary and entirely unsupportable.

In fact, astrology is a leap of faith. In order to accept it as real, you have to accept that it contains forces that are not understood nor perhaps even explainable. It is insubstantially different from accepting Jesus as my Lord and personal savior. If you disagree, perhaps you are not familiar with the astrological roots of Christianity.

I choose not to make that leap of faith. Does that make me difficult or close-minded?

I wouldn't have brought any of this up if you didn't claim that rejecting a leap of faith (positioned as a fact, no less) was an act of philistine stubbornness. If you find my position disrespectful, perhaps you should take a closer look at your own.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine