Star-signs!

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

I don't believe science can explain everything.

Neither do I. Neither do any scientists. Science, however, has a pretty good track record when it comes to explaining things about the physical universe. And that includes constellations, the sun, the moon and any supposed 'influences' these things are meant to have on us the millisecond we pop out of our mothers.

Scientists call something 'not worth to mention' or 'silly' or 'stupid' when it can't be explained.

Actually, scientists usually call unexplained things 'interesting' or 'intriguing' or 'an opportunity for research'. Unless of course it actually has a perfect rational explanation, but some people insist on giving it a silly one anyway.

Astrology isn't just the star signs, astrology is also tarot (don't know if that's the correct English word), reincarnation, meditation, reiki, and so on.

That's a pretty broad definition of 'astrology'. Let's stick to the 'star sign' stuff for the sake of conciseness.

I can't believe you live for nothing, without a reason. That's something science can't explain, the question why we live. Questions like why family is our family, why we feel good in certain situations with friends, why we feel bad about something else.

Because these things are outside the scope of science, just as aesthetics, theology, most philosophy and many other things are as well. The supposed 'influence' of constellations and planets, however, is not.

But then I can't stand it when people blindly trust every word that science says ...

Neither can I.

Science is only man's attempt to explain how the universe works, from his or her own observations.

'Only'? It something that is 'only' this, it seems to do a pretty good job. Thus our having this conversation on the internet and not on a series of clay tablets.

Just because a scientist says something is a "fact" doesn't mean that the observation was complete or the results interpreted correctly.

No, which is why the self-correcting mechanisms in the scientific method make it so powerful.

if reasons cannot be found....then it is dismissed as a scientific impossibility, a myth.

Nope, if the reasons can't be found, then scientists go on looking for the reasons. Unless, of course, there is a perfectly good explanation which means there aren't any reasons to be found. Like people insisting on using a Babylonian superstition to 'find' patterns that simply aren't there.

the moon regulates the tides of the ocean....why should it not regulate certain tides of human life.

Because we know how and why the moon regulates the tides - the different gravitational effects of the moon according to their vectors in relation to the geopotential surface of the unbounded water mass of the ocean. The physics of how the moon's gravity affects humans is totally different: the mass of a mother's body when holding her newborn child exerts about 12 million times more gravitational force than the moon at the same moment. A mosquito landing on your arm exerts more gravitational force than the moon at the same time.

So why does astrology single out the (supposed) tiny 'force' or 'influence' of bodies like the moon and sun at birth, and ignore the vastly greater force exerted by the proximity of the child's mother, a doctor, a midwife, some nurses or even a passing mosquito? And it gets even sillier when the 'force' of distant constellations supposedly needs to be factored in, despite the fact (i) they are millions of light years away and (ii) they aren't actually groups of stars anyway, they just look that way from earth.

Sorry if you don't like people pointing out how silly all this is or that the far more likely explanation is that the Babylonians were as 'right' about astrology as they were about the flatness of the earth or the usefulness of consulting goat entrails, but by any objective measure astrology is manifestly silly.