SecretMethod70

Sorry, but you've just proven you know very little about some of the basics of science. The first is just plain wrong, and the second shows a severe misunderstanding of the scientific method and, specifically, what a scientific theory is. Just as one can't reasonably choose not to believe in the theory of gravity, it is equally unreasonable not to believe in the theory of evolution. In both cases, not believing in it (regardless of what you think when it comes to the working details) is simply wrong, plain and simple.

You can't go around claiming people fall under the same umbrella as you just because you'd like them to. You'll have a hard time finding a single Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, scientist, or atheist who is interested in being associated in any way with the term paganism. Stop trying to claim that they are pagans. You can point out the technical difference between paganism and neo-paganism all you want, but I think you're intelligent enough to know that pretty much everyone here who ever refers to "pagans" is really referring to neo-pagans. (And we've already gone over this in another thread.)

Congratulations. Though, I have to wonder how you scored that high when you apparently don't know the most basic workings of an atom that are taught in elementary school science. Either the test had more to do with procedures than science, or I'm genuinely concerned for the state of our nuclear program.

As far as the "Law of Attraction" is concerned, it is true that hostility breeds hostility. On the other hand, sometimes something is just wrong, and there are only so many ways to approach it. Debating the existence of god is entirely different from debating astrology, because one can only speak in terms of the probability that god exists. There is no way to test the question. Astrology, on the other hand, can and has been tested, and it has failed. Now, saying that something makes you feel good, but simultaneously recognizing that it has no actual basis in reality is one thing (I think that's what roachboy thinks you're arguing, but I haven't seen anything to convince me of that). I'm all for respecting that - do whatever you damn well please. But making public claims about something that can be and has been refuted is not something that will typically go unchallenged.

The argument that keeps being made regarding science amounts to "science isn't perfect, so why should we believe it?" This has already been addressed more than once, but what the hell, let's try again. I'm lazy, so I'll just plagiarize myself. 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. Not knowing everything is not an excuse to act like we know nothing.

It seems to me that you're more interested in talking at one another than talking with people. You'd like to state your beliefs, have other people state their beliefs in a way which has the least friction with your own, and then...I don't know what, because there's nothing of any benefit that can come from that sort of interaction. I'll say it again, if you're not willing to have your beliefs challenged, don't talk about them, and especially not on a public discussion forum. Not all things can mutually exist, and a discussion between open-minded individuals is one in which both sides are open to the possibility of rejecting the entirety of their previously held thoughts, based on new arguments and evidence. In the case of this thread, evidence has been provided in opposition to astrology, and there are only a few truly open-minded, "willing to learn from other people" reactions: provide counter-evidence that is at least almost equally compelling as the evidence given, or discard your old thoughts in favor of those supported by the newly provided evidence.

Of course, you say you don't even believe in astrology, so I have to wonder why you're really even bothering in this thread. Then again, you also claim that you no longer "have to win arguments" and that you now simply speak your mind and don't care whether people walk away thinking they're right. Yet, you've participated in this thread more than anyone else in the past 2 days...that doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't care whether or not they "win the argument."

Unless you're being true to and standing up for what has been shown to be true (or at least more true than anything else we know) through science?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling