pan6467: I'm not sure where you get the idea that everyone here is approaching the subject with a closed mind. Rather, they've said - and quite reasonable - that there have been thorough studies into the validity of astrology (or lack thereof), and they'd like to see something to counter those. The source of their frustration comes from the fact no such counter-argument is being provided, yet for some reason there is continued debate.
It seems to me that you equate "respecting others beliefs" to never saying anything bad about those beliefs. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you want to believe in astrology, go ahead. No one here is proposing that it should be illegal or anything like that. If you want to discuss astrology, on the other hand, you must accept that people will bring their own beliefs into the discussion. Just because something is a personal belief doesn't give you immunity from interacting with other people. Basically, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." And, by "kitchen," I don't mean TFP - I mean interaction with the general public at large. It's no different for fundamentalist Christians: If they want to discuss their beliefs without the worry of facing any opposition, they should do it somewhere that is designed for fundamentalist Christians, but if they want to discuss their beliefs in a place where there are all sorts of people, they cannot expect to be immune from debate. TFP is a discussion forum...it seems pretty silly to say "you can start discussions on topics like astrology, but people can only participate in them if they agree." That seems to be what you're looking for.
So, since differing viewpoints are welcome here, those who disagree with astrology have not only stated their viewpoints but also provided information from reproducible studies which show that astrology lacks validity. They didn't jump up and down claiming victory after that, but rather they asked those who support astrology to provide some sort of evidence -
any sort of evidence, really - that astrology is valid. Yet, simply asking for a reason to believe apparently puts some people on the defensive, which is something I'll never understand. People simply want something more than "because I feel like it works" as an explanation.
An open mind digests new evidence and alters beliefs based on that evidence. That means that an open mind would digest the evidence given against astrology and either provide contradictory evidence of equal validity (that means no anecdotes), or adopt the views supported by the new evidence. An open mind does not adopt beliefs simply because they can. Frankly, no one on the dissenting side in this thread has even been given an
opportunity to be close-minded, because they haven't been given any reason to believe in astrology other than "I believe it, so you should too."
Lastly, I'm sorry but I find it laughable that you compare the dissenters here to born-again Christians. Born-again Christians often claim that their views are being disrespected simply because people dare engage in debate with them. Born-again Christians, when faced with evidence against their beliefs, often fall back on statements such as "well
I believe it's true," rather than provide any sort of counter-argument. Born-again Christians accuse other people of being close-minded when they do not adopt born-again beliefs, despite being given no compelling reason to do so. These are not descriptions of the dissenters here, but rather they describe some of the debate styles being used to argue
for astrology in this thread.
You claim you're interested in conversing with someone from an opposing viewpoint and to learn from one another, yet you have made no actual attempt to do so. If you were truly interested in engaging opposing viewpoints, you would have responded to the evidence provided in posts 2, 51, 88, and 103, and those are only the posts which provide outside sources! That's all not to mention compelling arguments made by actual posters. (And anecdotal evidence is not a compelling argument for anything.) You can't complain about how close-minded people are when the furthest you go in engaging their arguments is pointing out anecdotal evidence and "it works for me."
The only person supporting astrology here that I've seen make any attempt to provide counter-arguments is
DaveMatrix, but there are two problems with his arguments. First, it's an
incredibly large leap to go from "there may be other dimensions" to "maybe astrology has some validity." Second (and this one applies to you as well
pan6467), it is a false argument to say that because past scientific observations have been corrected, we should not lend significant weight to current scientific observations. First of all, science rarely goes
backwards in its understanding, which is to say that once something is fully debunked it almost always stays debunked. Second of all, two simple thought experiments show the flaw in this logic: 1) The argument will continue to be made so long as science does not say what you want it to say, but then what happens if one day it
does? I don't believe you would continue not to accept it - rather, you'd point to it as validation for what you've been saying all along. 2) The only logical conclusion to be made from arguing that current scientific observations shouldn't be given weight because past observations were proven incorrect in some capacity is to say that no scientific observations should be given weight whatsoever, because the past cannot be changed and the future is always unknowable. If we actually lived life this way, we would still believe there were literally tiny little people in the head of sperm and that rain is caused by the tears of angels and thunder is the sound of them bowling. Oh wait, perhaps the angels ARE crying and bowling, just in another dimension! (See, it's pretty ridiculous.) Not knowing everything is not an excuse to act like we know nothing.