+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Recreational Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Star-signs! (/showthread.php?tid=5323)
Re: Star-signs! - tlclark - 05-08-2006
Wow!
Just discovered this thread.
After reading four pages I still can't believe no one came up with the best quote on this..
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but with ourselves"
From JULIUS CAESAR no less!
At any rate...my dish.
First off, I'm an Ares and I like pina coladas and walking in the rain.
Second, I once saw an astrological chart prepared for some Duke in the 17th C., what shocked me was the person who prepared it, Johannes Kepler! I later found out that Galileo did the same for Cosimo d'Medici, and Copernicus did likewise. How cool is that!
Third. I am of the opinion that modern horoscopes are junk. Many are scientifically inaccurate. Depending on your latitude, especially if you are born near a cut-off, you may not be the sign you think you are. Most astrological charts are junk. Since astology is not arbitrary, but based on real astronomical positions, which are fixed and real, the sloppiness of modern astrology is the best evidence that it is bunk, but that's my opinion.
On the larger debate I would describe myself as a person who is as close to an atheist as you can get, and miss.
I was a born skeptic, in fact, I would have been far happier I think remaining an atheist. God had other plans.
Not to get too personal, but I have as certain a knowledge about God as I do about the existence of my right hand. Saying there is no God, would be like looking at my hand and calling it a kumquat!
Now. Ask me how I know that?
Hmmm. Give me a lifetime and I might be able to explain it to you.
God's sense of humor is very well established. He made me a skeptic and then gave me evidence I can't rationally justify.
I love Goffredo's allegories as well and really can't argue against them, but at some point, there is no rational evidence for the most important things in life.
I will always remember what a monk on Mt. Athos told me the last time I was there. He said that the most important things in life are the ones we feel and not think out, family, friends, love. All the things for which we can't give rational justifications. Carl Sagan, noted astronomer and athiest had the tables turned on him when one of his christian friends asked him to prove he loved his wife.
That being said, as a person who believes in a Creator, we obviously have a rational capacity (necessary for free will but that's another discussion) that implies that God has expectations of our reason. It would be absolutely illogical to say that God gives us rational capabilities and then expects to not ask certain questions.
Neither can I believe that God would be upset at us for using those rational faculties to obvious conclusions.
That means that as creations with free will and reason, God would be upset if we didn't pursue those mythical purple rhinos, or lucky gambler to the nth degree, as Goffredo suggests. This isn't just important for our mental and technological progression, but for our spiritual welfare as well. Without pursuing reason and giving it due diligence, faith becomes superstition.
BUT, and it's a big but, at some point, in some things we have to accept evidence beyond reason.... and then we are back to my right hand being a kumquat again. At that point I can no longer tell you, all I can do is show you the path and the rest is up to you.
Thanks for a great conversation!!
Re: Star-signs! - Tarbicus - 05-08-2006
Quote:I will always remember what a monk on Mt. Athos told me the last time I was there. He said that the most important things in life are the ones we feel and not think out, family, friends, love. All the things for which we can't give rational justifications.Travis, how is that Divine? I don't understand how something that can't be readily explained has to be attributed to God and religion? Why can't it just be instinct?
Here's a link to a famous atheist's view of Astrology:
The Real Romance in the Stars. And here's where rationality and reason debunks Astrology in my mind:
Quote:The shape of a constellation, moreover, is ephemeral. A million years ago our Homo erectus ancestors gazed out nightly (no light pollution then, unless it came from that species' brilliant innovation, the camp fire) at a set of very different constellations. A million years hence, our descendants will see yet other shapes in the sky, and their astrologer (if our species has not grown up and sent them packing long since) will be fabricating their oracles on the basis of a different zodiac.
A far more rapid astronomical shift is the precession of the equinoxes.2 My birthday (26 March) is listed in the papers as Aries but this is the sun sign which somebody with my birthday would have had when Ptolemy codified all that stuff. Because of the precessional shift of approximately one whole zodiacal sign over the AD era, my sun sign is in fact (if you can call it a fact) Pisces. If astrologers were doing something that had any connection with reality, this presumably ought to make a difference. Since they aren't, it doesn't. Scorpio could go retrograde up Uranus and it wouldn't make any difference.
Re: Star-signs! - tlclark - 05-08-2006
Quote:Quote:I will always remember what a monk on Mt. Athos told me the last time I was there. He said that the most important things in life are the ones we feel and not think out, family, friends, love. All the things for which we can't give rational justifications.Travis, how is that Divine? I don't understand how something that can't be readily explained has to be attributed to God and religion? Why can't it just be instinct?
I didn't say it was divine. I said it was irrational. It may be instinct. I have to concede that. There are a lot of evolutionary biologists that say our preference for our loved ones is just an evolutionary glitch. I also know that most people (myself and many atheists included, you may not be one) feel an inherent disgust at such a thought! That love and attachment are no more significant than say opposable thumbs is something most people find repugnant. (Yet that too may be instinctual!) Eventually it's circular. You are forced to reply "instinct" to anything, or you are forced to suggest it's something more. Nothing can break that cycle, unless it's some emphemeral inexplicable witness, and like I said, I can't explain it.
Like love, faith is either aesthetics (an arbitrary illusion of how things should be) or its real, but unprovable.
But's that's all I'm going to say about that. I'll let Thomas Aquinas take the rest. :wink:
Now as a believer, I realize I can't give this witness to anybody else. It's the exactly the antithesis of science where I can communicate it.
Dawkins calls faith a "mind-virus" but I think that's deliberately pejorative and bigoted. Sagan and Russell were never so crass. When it comes to my favorite Atheist however the prize goes to Albert Camus.
None of this BTW has any bearing on my belief in people's morality. I find most atheists to be very moral. Believing in God is a lot less about morality than people think and a lot more about meaning anyway.
As far as astrology goes, I don't believe in it all. But for the sake of intellectual honesty, I simply can't condemn those who believe in it, but I think my last post explained why reason requires us to distinguish superstition from faith.
Thanks again!
Travis
Re: Star-signs! - Tarbicus - 05-09-2006
Quote:I didn't say it was divine. I said it was irrational.True, but why is it irrational to feel love, and have feelings? Why is it so awful that these things could be part of a biological process? It doesn't make the feelings any less real or important, or undermine in them any way.
Quote:That love and attachment are no more significant than say opposable thumbs is something most people find repugnant.Well, I disagree with the need to find that idea repugnant, nor do I feel it diminishes the value of the feelings or therefore equate them with opposable thumbs. But our different attitudes could be memetic :wink:
Re: Star-signs! - tlclark - 05-09-2006
Quote:Quote:I didn't say it was divine. I said it was irrational.True, but why is it irrational to feel love, and have feelings? Why is it so awful that these things could be part of a biological process? It doesn't make the feelings any less real or important, or undermine in them any way.
Well to slice this philosophical salami so thin we can see through it...
A better question is not is love "real" , but perhaps is it a genuine emotion or is it merely a manifestation of some chemical/biological process?
For example, would I throw myself in front of a truck to save my kids because I love them, or would I do it because they represent my genes best chance at survival and I instinctively protect my genetic investment in them? That instinctive urge to protect my genetic information is "love". Some argue that this instinct is so valuable, it even extends to others who do not possess my genes and represents a side, but irrelevant, benefit. In the way that the fruits of certain trees are tasty to humans. It matters not one fig (pun intended) if we like naturally occuring fruits. That's just an accidental benefit from the tree's perspective. All it cares about is procreating. If we help it, well good for it, but our tastes rarely matter. It's the same with love, we may like and protect people other than our own kin and genetic code, but that's just a happy accident.
In one case, love is an attribute of humans and the world, it is real, has dimension. In the other, feelings are just aesthetics and love is just a label on a process, a label without any inherent meaning other than survival.
Or to put it another way, "love" is a process no more moral than say digestion, necessary for the propigation of the species. But most of us don't get warm and fuzzy over digestion. Most do over love.
Now most atheists I know don't even believe this. While they may think love is biological in origin, they believe it to be in some way transcendant, but in my opinion that's certainly no sillier than believing in God.
Re: Star-signs! - Goffredo - 05-09-2006
"You say you would die rather than live without my love, then
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?"
Regards the fellow challenging Sagan to prove he loved his wife I suspect Sagan answered and didn't let the fellow get away thinking he had the last word. What I would have said to such a challenge would have been along the lines of what I wrote earlier:
1) there are things that are unexplained but still consistent with what we know about nature; love is a strong emotional bond; we do not know how emotions emerge from biochemistry but there is no evidence what so ever that emotions violate know laws of nature. I do not have the foggiest idea what emotions are but I am certain that the biochemistry is still at the basis. I "believe" this is more likely than the contrary claim - emotions have some non-physical origin - because biochemical alterations (drugs, disease, stress) may change emotions very dramatically. That does not mean that I can explain emotions studying biochemistry alone, bottom up. Need other categories, higher-up concepts to understand complex social behavior and what feedback exits between the biochemistry of the brain and the external world, etc etc. Reductionism is a darn good idea if we mean it to mean that at rock bottom there are the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean physics can explain all higher level phenomena occur nor that physics will, sooner or later, be able to. Maybe physics applies the wrong concepts and categories and cannot properly handle all types of complex phenomena.
2) science doesn't claim to "prove" things the same way one proves a theorem in math. We first need to discuss what we mean by "proof". Personally I would never challenge a believer of some pseudo-effect to "prove" his claim, but at least to substantiate it with some evidence that wasn't useless. I wouldn't challenge a believer in God (s) to prove (his/hers, their) existence, but to at least avoid saying solipistically "I believe and that is enough for me", or posing useless questions like "how else do you explain this or that". What is an indirect proof of the existence of God for one person may be an interesting topic of research for another.
Love, emotions are worthy of study or are they not? If you say yes, they are worthy of study (you acknowledge them interesting topics), then our positions are close. If you say no they shouldn't be studied because science cannot do them justice, then we very distant.
Now suppose you say "OK, love, emotions are worthy of study, but religion? GOD? No science cannot do justice to Religion. Certainly science cannot be sufficient to study GOD". QUESTION: Are you sure of the boundary, demarcation between what may be studied and understood and what may be not without violating some taboo? Maybe you drew the line too quickly? Maybe you shouldn't have crossed it earlier? Maybe there is no line, or it should be be pushed all the way, one way or the other (to one extreme no God. to the other extreme no questions what-so-ever). These are the questions I like asking to those that "believe", whatever they claim to believe. Are you aware of what you are doing when you believe something? Where and why do you draw the line.
I acknowledge that a personal belief can be very strong and make a person behave this way or that, but to say the act of believing is enough to justify the belief (it own existence) is circular. If a person prefers not to reason that is also fine with me and to be frank that is precisely what religion is all about. Faith is not "beyond" reason, it is actually something completely different, something else, it is incompatible with reason. It all boils down to abandoning-oneself to an act of faith, without further question. When you believe you stop asking questions. Those that ask questions are not, in that moment, believing. No value judgment here, just an attempt to say things clearly. There are no compromises or possible synthesis possible other than the fact that both these incompatible behaviors can be found in a single person. Human are fortunately full of contradictions and it is difficult to find someone that does not how doubts one way or the other. The basic drama of human existence is having to live out our lives and face death. We all cope one way or another and all of us will probably invoke a God in the last moments as we feel our consciousness slip away.
Re: Star-signs! - tlclark - 05-09-2006
Quote:Regards the fellow challenging Sagan to prove he loved his wife I suspect Sagan answered and didn't let the fellow get away thinking he had the last word.
Oh Sagan answered alright, but his answer was unsatisfying both to the other astronomer and to himself. He even used this in his fictional works as a demonstration of the limits of human rational experience. Ultimately what we are talking about here is transcendence. Some atheists ARE believers in transcendence and I think Sagan was among them. Others are simply reductionists.
The question is an old one, are we greater than the sum of our parts? Even most of the atheists I know what to answer "yes", but none of them can't justify an explanation for that. Reductionists will say that we are programmed to think that way, that it gives the human race drive or optimism needed to survive, but we could have just have easily been successful without it.
I admire the integrity of such people, but most people I know just don't "feel" that way. They desperately WANT to believe in something higher, even those that don't believe in God.
Sagan felt that our intelligence, our abilities would one day allow us to reach this kind of transcendence. You find similar ideas by the futurist Ray Kurzweil, but (and this really is my point) this is utterly arbitrary.
As to what you say, you are right, we are a lot closer than we may appear. I don't disagree with much of what you say. I did like this part.
Quote:That does not mean that I can explain emotions studying biochemistry alone, bottom up. Need other categories, higher-up concepts to understand complex social behavior and what feedback there is with the biochemistry of the brain, which is not a closed system but interacts with the environment, etc etc. [/quote}
But I don't think that higher models and better physics will ever answer the question, there will always be some variable that makes this an open question.
We can get more precise, but more precision doesn't change the question. Are we more than the sum of our parts?
At some point in the future I imagine that we will have some advanced race with near god like knowledge of all of the factors you mentioned, and I doubt this question will go away with the infusion of fresh data, but I could be wrong. :wink:
Quote:Love, emotions are worthy of study or are they not? If you say yes, they are worthy of study (you acknowledge them interesting topics), then our positions are close. If you say no they shouldn't be studied because science cannot do them justice, then we very distant.
Now suppose you say "OK, love, emotions are worthy of study, but religion? GOD? No science cannot do justice to Religion. Certainly science cannot be sufficient to study GOD". [/qoute]
Quite the contrary. Now this is a bit of theology emanating from Kant and Thomas Aquinas. If we have free will, then we have to assume God gave us the rational capacities to make those choices. Rational capacity means not only that we can ask questions, but that we MUST ask questions.
Just to make it really weird, most atheists don't believe in God because they believe in evolution. I believe in evolution because I believe in God!
While its true that some evolutionists are bigoted towards religions and have overstated the evidence, the VAST majority are simply honestly looking at the evidence and saying what they honestly think based on the evidence. By denying the evidence, the creationists are denying what it might have to tell them about God.
God made the universe, if the universe doesn't reflect him than he is either a very capricious or an untrustworthy diety. This is what infuriates me about some Creationists. By suggesting that we can't possibly figure out how the universe works they are suggesting that God didn't give us sufficient free will to be moral beings. Others suggest that the universe was staged to make us believe in evolution, but that it is ludicrous from a theological view. This puts God in the position of betting against himself!! The universe is a product of the Creator. If creation doesn't reveal the Creator, than the creator is engaged in a shell game, which is inconsistent with a benevolent God who grants us free will. If God didn't want us to ask questions he should have made us lap dogs.
For me, there are no questions off the table, even the existence of God, but I have my answer to that.
Quote:I acknowledge that a personal belief can be very strong and make a person behave this way or that, but to say the act of believing is enough to justify the belief (it own existence) is circular.
I would agree, but I didn't say that. Believe me, I would rather believe that there ISN'T a god. It would make my life so much simpler. I believe we should wait for evidence. I have that evidence. I just can't transfer it to you. That's why I don't agree with this tautology you suggest.
Quote:If a person prefers not to reason that is also fine with me and to be frank that is precisely what religion is all about. Faith is not "beyond" reason, it is actually something completely different, something else, it is incompatible with reason. It all boils down to abandoning-oneself to an act of faith, without further question. When you believe you stop asking questions. Those that ask questions are not, in that moment, believing.
Forgive me, but that is circular as well. One could only make that statement if you were in possession of all the data. You are not, no one is. "Proof" as you said is depends on what you mean. Science never claims an all-encompassing world view. It rests on the premise that you don't base knowledge on things you don't know. You can only reach slightly beyond the facts to theories that must then be tested against those facts. I have a fact. My fact is peculiar in that it simply can't be transfered. I know that for you you could never accept my fact as a fact. To be honest intellectually, I would have to accept that, but to deny that fact from my perspective would be irrational.
let's go back to your purple rhinos. Let's say I was the guy who originally saw it. Let's say I REALLY did see it, but everything else proceded as you suggested. You're are right that everyone else would be mad to believe in the Rhino. But what about the person that saw it? What about him? he has his memory, but he can't transfer it. So for him, he either has to deny it, or believe he was delusional, or trust to his own eyes. A lot of people do lie to themselves. I can't. I saw that damned purple rhino and it's been haunting me ever since. That's the position of believers. It's not that we don't have evidence, we do, it's just not transferable, but denying it would be as hard as that guy would be for him to deny that rhino, because he knows he really saw it.
Quote:No value judgment here, just an attempt to say things clearly. There are no compromises or possible synthesis possible other than the fact that both these incompatible behaviors can be found in a single person.
Forgive me again, but it is a judgement call. You are free to make it, but suddenly, all those that believe as I do are "unreasonable"? and that's not a value judgement? But that's ok. Making value judgments is perfectly fine. It's only PC nonjudgmentalness that would suggest otherwise. I make value judgments against you, you make judgments against me. It's cool, as long as we are civil and share some important meta-values, like my values don't require me to kill you for your values, which is unfortunately not shared by all non-believers and believers this day.
Quote:Human are fortunately full of contradictions and it is difficult to find someone that does not how doubts one way or the other. The basic drama of human existence is having to live out our lives and face death. We all cope one way or another and all of us will probably invoke a God in the last moments as we feel our consciousness slip away.
There is a great story. A famous atheist is on the outskirts of heaven. Some of the greatest minds of the past are gathered around him to try and convince him to come to the Heavenly city, but he refuses. He is convinced that this is all a delusion in the last moments of life working on a damaged and dying brain, at any moment he will either wake up or cease to exist and he will not be convinced.
Thanks for the conversation, a pleasure as always.
to believe or to argue, that is the question - Goffredo - 05-10-2006
Dilemma:
Is one being stubborn and ultimately irrational for insisting for a
rational explanation? (What a bore!) The flip side questions: is one being gullible? Is one simply quitting short in look for a better answer (What a shame!) How about transcendentals? Then there is Godel: some things can't be proved or disproved in mathematics (beware of what Godel and mathematicians mean by "proof"). Maybe some things are beyond any form of argumentation. (Interestingly Godel claimed he built a proof of the existence of God).
There seems to be no clear demarcation between what is rational and what is ultimately irrational. It is a fascinating problem. I feel that if a person calls himself out from this fascinating and possibly eternal problem, then he is, unfortunately, resorting to a form of solipsism, even if he does it in "good" company (from within a group of believers).
I say "unfortunately" because I firmly think the only way to break out of the quick-sand of subjectivity is to keep in focus the problem of convincing someone else, especially those do not share the same preconceptions. It is not healthy for one to use only evidence that supports his favorite idea. It causes all kinds of trouble. "Believe me". More generally it is not healthy for those that share beliefs to interact exclusively with one another. In particular, at the extreme, soliloquy is not healthy and ultimately it is sterile (although the rigorous a-social solipist, the real loner, can make some challenging points).
Consider how many people do not appreciate the importance of NOT selecting/rejecting favorable/unfavorable data to support a pet idea or theory. You then shouldn't be surprised then that even less value augmentations and confrontations. Just think how "experimentation" in the modern sense of the word became a respectable form of argumentation only recently in Western history. And still today too few people value experimentation, and indeed most educated people actually consider it a mere technical detail rather than a philosophically deep moment, as a true confrontation with "reality". There is more good philosophy in performing and interpreting a simple inclined plane experiment in an introductory physics course than in reading tonnes of philosophical books.
To me, what it means to frame a convincing argument with another person is the issue. I do not feel that arguing with oneself is a solid enough ground to get anywhere significant without some check with the external world, be it another person or an apparatus.
Re: to believe or to argue, that is the question - tlclark - 05-10-2006
Well I can "Amen" to most of this post. :wink:
The problem is that no one, and I mean no one, teaches epistemology anymore.
When I read through Plato and Aristotle the first time I wondered why these guys were so highly prized. Afterall, most of what they suggested was just flat out wrong. It took me a while to 'get' it. They believe in this thing called "Truth" and that this truth isn't dependent on the perspective of the viewer, than truth ought to be more or less stable. They are in many ways the anti-derridas and Foucaults.
Now I love postmodernism, it allows us to explore so much more of ourselves and our culture, but if you ask me if I would rather live in the world of derrida or Plato, I'd pick Plato everytime.
Quote:There seems to be no clear demarcation between what is rational and what is ultimately irrational. It is a fascinating problem. I feel that if a person calls himself out from this fascinating and possibly eternal problem, then he is, unfortunately, resorting to a form of solipsism, even if he does it in "good" company (from within a group of believers).
I totally agree here.
Quote:I say "unfortunately" because I firmly think the only way to break out of the quick-sand of subjectivity is to keep in focus the problem of convincing someone else, especially those doesn't share the same preconceptions. It is not healthy for one to use only evidence that supports his favorite idea. It causes all kinds of trouble. "Believe me". More generally it is not healthy for those that share beliefs to interact exclusively with one another. In particular, at the extreme, soliloquy is not healthy and ultimately it is sterile (although the rigorous a-social solipist, the real loner, can make some challenging points).
Ditto that too! This is why I think God is basically a comedian. Christianity is almost always concieved as a comity, hence the whole Body of Christ metaphor. Which means you've got to go out, interact and convince others to believe, participate in the comity, on the basis of things that are almost entirely personal, subjective, ephemeral and non -transferable. Maddening!! We have to be crazy together! It would be impossible were it not for the Spirit, that's why paul emphasizes the "foolishness" of the endeavor, but again, that's non-transferable and I could explain it further, but I don't want to lapse into proselytizing here.
That's why I think that in public schools, religion can only be taught in an encyclopedic or anthropological way. It really can't be tackled any other way, just like listing that the major exports of Bolivia are tin and alpaca wool. We can describe its characteristics, but it really can't be brought into the realm of science and I think does violence to it if you try. That doesn't, in my opinion, make it unreasonable however. It places it in a category of highly individualized reason, accessible only to the individual and perhaps the comity.
Could we all be delusional together? Sure! Intellectual honesty would have to force us to admit it, but we don't think so. Science is a form of reason that by contrast, has far less meaning, but has far more utility, because the methods of reasoning are transferable, and capable of being repeated.
Quote:Consider how many people do not appreciate the importance of NOT selecting/rejecting favorable/unfavorable data to support a pet idea or theory. You then shouldn't be surprised then that even less value augmentations and confrontations. Just think how "experimentation" in the modern sense of the word became a respectable form of argumentation only recently in Western history. And still today too few people value experimentation, and indeed most educated people actually consider it a mere technical detail rather than a philosophically deep moment, as a true confrontation with "reality". There is more good philosophy in performing and interpreting a simple inclined plane experiment in an introductory physics course than in reading tonnes of philosophical books.
Have to give an Amen and hallelujah to that too!!
Obseration, experimentation, repitition, the transferable nature of the knowledge, have benefited mankind in ways that no other philosophical movement could. This doesn't mean I except this as the sole means of accessing knowledge or even reason, but it's success is inarguable.
Quote:To me, what it means to frame a convincing argument with another person is the issue. I do not feel that arguing with oneself is a solid enough ground to get anywhere significant without some check with the external world, be it another person or an apparatus.
Well it depends on the evidence doesn't it? I have what you might call a 'supernatural' experience that leads me to believe in God. Could that supernatural experience be false? Could I be mistaken? Dreaming? Delusional? Hallucinating? Certainly. So my one man dialogue is certainly suspect, you are right, but then I also have to reason things out with myself.
When I have such an experience, should I first go get a catscan to make sure I am not suffering from some neurological disorder? What if I perform such due diligence, I'm perfectly healthy, have no other signs of madness/delusion and I still have this experience? What then? Then it becomes madness and unreasonable to myself to deny it.
But this works in the reverse as well. For example, if you actually presented Sagan with an angelic visitation, I doubt he would put up too much of a fight. He would give due diligence to the possibility that he was insane, hallucinating or what not, but given the evidence of his own experience, he would know himself well enough to know that the experience was "real". Now basic decency and reason would inform him that it would be rude and unreasonable to insist that everyone agree with his new vision, but he would also be unreasonable if he denied it as well. The only thing left to him is persistant polite persuasion, which is the place I find myself in.
Now, I also know that there are some doubters, that are not honest doubters like Sagan, and if an angel showed up to say Richard Dawkins, my guess is that he would badger the doctors endlessly to find a way to explain why this couldn't possibly be real. Some people are atheist because of reason, but just as many are simply religionists and NOTHING would persuade them.
Basically I suggest pragmatism.
As long as we admit that no one has all the data and we call speculation by its proper name, and we maintain personal civility, we can procede.
In matters of education then, evolution should be taught since it is the only communal set of knowledge that can be equally affirmed by observation, but we shouldn't sneer at the creationists either.
No methodologies are excluded from the conversation, but we admit the limits of non-transferable evidence. We allow those with personal experiences (like mine) to continue to quietly persuade people, but we build together on those things that can be more concretely affirmed by transferable experience.
Goffredo, this has been a delight!!
Take a laudes!
Travis
Re: Star-signs! - Robert Vermaat - 05-10-2006
Folks, I think this discussion is more and more getting into the 'being right because I'm right' phase. Even if this is OT, I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to the topic and not lose yourselves in endless and unresolvable discussions about being right and the other one therefore being wrong. This has no ending.
May I suggest you agree to disagree and leave it at that before anyone gets too personal?
taking it personally???? - Goffredo - 05-10-2006
Hi Vorty
Who is taking it personal?
I don't think Travis is taking it personal. Travis: are you?
Am I? Don't think so.
Vorty: Are you?
ciao
Re: taking it personally???? - Robert Vermaat - 05-10-2006
Quote:Vorty: Are you?ciaoWell, my post was sent just a minute after Travis sent his and yes, that puts a bit of different light on it.
But still I maintain my point / what are you guys discussing.. not star signs, that´s for sure.
Off to bed now... :?
Re: taking it personally???? - tlclark - 05-12-2006
Quote:Goffredo:1e8uj6r6 Wrote:Vorty: Are you?ciaoWell, my post was sent just a minute after Travis sent his and yes, that puts a bit of different light on it.
But still I maintain my point / what are you guys discussing.. not star signs, that´s for sure.
Off to bed now... :?
I wasn't taking it personal at all, and if I made it look like it was I apologize.
This is a tangent to be sure, but a forgivable one. We started on the veracity of Star-signs, and that led to a discussion on the nature of human knowledge in general. But then I suppose anything could.
Ok, back to topic.
I don't believe in astrology and I've never used "What's your sign?" as a pick-up line. Nor do I know anyone who has ever successfully done so, but if it did, I might be more inclined to accept it if they did. :wink:
Re: Star-signs! - Dan Howard - 05-12-2006
You've just nailed it! Astrology was invented to help guys pick up chicks. It helps them to pretend to be more "mystical" and "spiritual" :wink:
Re: Star-signs! - Arthes - 05-12-2006
Greetings,
something on relationships and star signs...
I do have to admit that if ever I meet a 'likely' man nowadays and he tells me he is a Pisces...it immediately makes me wary....one mauling, two times bitten and a couple of times snapped at ... has left it's marks..
Unfair comment on the rest of you nice Pisces guys, I know...but I seem to have been like bait on a line to some of those fish.
OK I know it may just be coincidental or bad choice, but could there be a common denominator in the Pisces astrological group that is triggered by an Aquarian born around my time of year.....?
I know personally of two relationships that lasted many years, neither of them 'matching' signs, one a Cancer/Libra and the other a Capricorn/Cancer....the first was a happy match, the second not so happy.
If you take that on the principles of water creates oxygen/air - and earth is made soggy by water.... you can see where the difference could be..especially as the crab is amphibious not a fish.
A fire sign with a water sign, could find the fire is extinguished by the water or the water is burnt dry and with fire and earth, the fire could be extinguished by the earth.
Fire burns brightly with air, but can burn out of control if you are not careful...
Chinese birth signs and Feng Shui have the same sort of principles...but have wood and metal instead of air....metal destroys wood, water destroys fire, fire creates earth, metal creates water....etc
The Chinese also have animal years, rather than months that are used to prepare your horoscope, these are aligned with your elemental sign for a fuller picture. Certain 'animals' and elements are advised against forming a relationship with another as they are 'opposites'.
There are some Eastern countries where you are advised not to marry unless your birth signs are compatible as this creates bad 'chi' in the family as a whole and the same with businesses, your partner must be of a compatible sign, otherwise there could be losses.
regards
Arthes