BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:04 AM

The existance of the universe seems extraordinary, when one gets down to it, depending, of course, on what the meaning of "extraoridnary is.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:56 AM

A deity? Must "God" be a deity? Not as far as I'm concerned, but if that understanding of the word is what makes you happy, go with it, I guess... ;-)

I think of God as the entire intelligent process that can also be called "existence". Tell me that there is no proof for existence! Everything we experience and are aware of is proof of existence. Everything is proof of "God" as I understand the concept. That doesn't mean I think I have to pray to this "God", do rituals to appease it, or belong to some organized religion, but if it made me feel better to do any of those things, then I would. And why not?

To be religious does not require belief in a deity, it merely requires a sense that there is an eternal and powerful meaning behind all life and all existence. That life is not an accident. That it is a striving toward perfection in every sense. The completely unreligious person must subscribe to the notion that his life and everyone else's is a meaningless accident...that the only meaning he or anyone else sees is one that was arbitrarily made up...and that kind of belief leads to various forms of emotional dead-ends, such as: cynicism, fatalism, materialism, greed, ruthless ambition, and ultimately, despair. (sounds like a thumbnail sketch of the industrial society in the early 21st century)

That's why it does not strike me as healthy or even sane to have such a philosophy that would dare assert that everything is just an accident or the end result of unthinking processes...unless sanity is to be relegated to mere brute survival and the enjoyment of temporary pleasures. That's okay for a stupid brute with a short and meaningless life that begins and ends in futility. It's not okay for a fully realized human being.

The desire for perfection, the belief in perfectibility, and all the beauty that flows from it in every form of human creativity is precisely what has fueled the noble history of both great spiritual philosophy AND great science. They go hand in hand. They are not opponents.

Their true opponents, however are these:

1. soulless materialism (that would use science only to kill and to dominate other men) and

2. hidebound, unthinking fundamentalist religion (that would act similarly).

You will find those two monstrous forces allying themselves naturally as one behind most extremely vicious political forces in this world, such as the Bush administration and its Islamic fundamentalist opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 04:04 AM

LH, I think you're making my point. I was deliberately including as many religions as I could think of- the Judaeo- Christian family, the Hindu family, ancient religions like Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome and Greece, animism, Paganism, Zoroastrianism and its descendants, and suchlike; and deliberately excluding some forms of Buddhism, and perhaps Confucianism and Shinto. Not because they don't count, but because they need to be treated separately, along with social beliefs like communism, fascism, and perhaps the Green movement and Darwinism. I'm not sure where astrology comes in this.

My point was that religion as a word has largely outlived its usefulness, because, being so protean, two participants in a discussion will almost certainly have completely different concepts of what the word entails.

So, for my own part, I'm not religious, because that's not a useful word to apply to the process by which I construct my world system; and I'm not a socialist, because that word also is too open to misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:36 AM

Actually some systems are chaotic, and some are, for all intents and purposes, not.

A stars lifespan and eventual fate can be determined when it forms. They only have certain modes of behaiviour, and these depend almost entirely on it's mass. It is a very simple system, with only one major influence.

The Weather is the classic example of chaotic system, with many influences.



Well, astrology is no more 'chaotic" than anything else in the universe. I am looking forward to the day when the huge number of factors at play in a natal chart can be separated and understood. And I have every confidence that day will arrive - and hopefully sooner than later.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:40 AM

Not because they don't count, but because they need to be treated separately, along with social beliefs like communism, fascism, and perhaps the Green movement and Darwinism.

Why do Buddhism, Shinto etc 'need to be treated separately'? 'Treated' by whom? Yourself? And why 'separately' - because you prefer them to, say, Islam?   

Where do democracy, capitalism and atheism fit into your scheme of things, Paul? Snuggled up all comfy cozy with fascism and Christianity? Or do they also merit 'separate treatment' because you, personally, like them better?

My point was that religion as a word has largely outlived its usefulness, because, being so protean, two participants in a discussion will almost certainly have completely different concepts of what the word entails.

WEll, ditto for the word 'love'. Better get rid of 'em both, quick!    ;]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:42 AM

Are human beings as 'chaotic' as the weather then, B?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:49 AM

(I'd say that a human being is a much more complex 'system' than the weather, and subject to a much wider range of influence as well)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:39 PM

I don't know about more complex, but certainly harder to measure and classify...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM

It depends what your point is, Paul...

I think that the traditional organized religions are, to some extent, outliving their usefullness....as are most of our other traditional systems, almost all of which are cultural spinoffs from the traditional religious ideas on which our cultures were founded.

For example: capitalism - the notion that man's proper destiny is to profit through an ever-expanding mercantile activity which generates ever larger quantities of products and cash. That's an idea that is living on borrowed time, to say the least, because Nature is not an infinite source that can be exploited on an ever-expanding basis.

For example: warfare. (Obviously a stupid, self-destructive idea, yet it has been indulged in for all of our recorded history!)

My point was simply this, that the "religious impulse" in humans is that impulse which conceives of higher motives in life than mere animalistic survival. As such, it is the impulse that lies behind art, higher moral concepts of all kinds, every form of social idealism, the scientific impulse to know and understand the mysteries of Nature, our higher concepts of love and brotherhood....indeed everything that really makes life worth living.

That's why the Tao, for example, I see as springing from the religious impulse, and Buddhism as well, although they presuppose no deity, no God, but rather a harmonious "way" of being and functioning that is seen occurring throughout existence, and which can be learned and applied by a wise human being.

All of that is good. It is highly beneficial. And it does NOT require belief in various forms of strange mythology, gods, goddesses, etc.

So, as you say, it all depends on how one defines "religion" or "socialism" or all these other common words. I find that most people define them in a very superficial manner, merely as something on which to hang their established emotional prejudice about the subject, rather than as a way of opening a door to larger possibilities.

Most people have a heavy emotional prejudice either for or against what they call "religion". Their prejudice seems to render them incapable of doing anything except attacking "religion" or promoting it...when instead they could use it as a doorway into understanding human life better.

It makes it useless, basically, to even discuss religion with most people. They don't want to think about it at all. They just want to either attack it or defend it, as a matter of course. Either way, in my opinion, is a waste of time. It achieves absolutely nothing except the blowing off of emotional steam and the perpetuation of prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:22 PM

"... it does not strike me as healthy or even sane to have such a philosophy that would dare assert that everything is just an accident or the end result of unthinking processes."

Why not? I do it everyday! (Well, not 'assert'....just assume such in lieu of evidence to the contrary.) I can have almost the same experiences, concerns, feelings...etc...as anyone, without positing something that just 'feels' nice to subscribe to. I guess some folks can't, but the question can always be asked - "What IS the ultimate, factual, non-subjective answer?" If the Earth were to explode tomorrow, would "the universe" care? I 'doubt' it would, though I can't prove it....

It is important to recognize that 'accidental' processes and 'unthinking' processes are not necessarily linked. The processes of the Universe follow laws of physics, even if we do not understand all of them yet, but to assert that ANY of those processes are thinking ones is to go quite far out on a limb.

I have been out on limbs, and I don't like it when they prove unstable. I like poetry...it ennobles us....but I don't care to base my life on assumptions that poetical concepts describe existance-in-itself.

But you knew that *wry grin*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:33 PM

Fine, Bill. Some people are happy no matter what they believe. Others are unhappy no matter what they believe. I've noticed that, and it doesn't have to fall along religious lines. By no means. You strike me as the basically happy type.

As whether the Universe would "care" if the Earth exploded....well, it would have to have something to lose in order to care, wouldn't it? And I don't think it does have anything to lose. There are suns out there going supernova, after all, so why sweat it if a little planet vanishes?

What do you live for, Bill? Just wondering. Have you ever asked yourself that question? If so, did you come up with an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:48 PM

sure, LH...like everyone else, I choose and create 'things to live for'....and most of them would be quite similar to yours..or anyone elses. Love, happiness, friends, music, sex, discovery, ...list as long or detailed as one cares to make it. 'Life' has, built in, a striving to survive and reproduce...and higher forms have the luxury of play and imagination. I even APPROVE of imagination...*smile*....I just have a personal inclination to keep track of where imagination takes leave of reality....I think I can enjoy both better this way.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM

Very sensible of you, Bill. I do that too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:39 PM

LH: I am getting the sense that I agree with you on nearly all matters religious as discussed here - e.g. I think my deity resembles yours. However, you say "...it does not strike me as healthy or even sane to have such a philosophy that would dare assert that everything is just an accident or the end result of unthinking processes..." and I do disagree with this. I see nothing wrong with all living characteristics arising as random mutations, but then "good" ones being preserved/amplified by natural selection because *they are traits that are beneficial to all (or at least one) species*. It is not the case that everything is the result of an accident. All kinds of things happen accidentally, and some die out while others are perpetuated. Mutation may be random, but natural selection is not! (Although both could be characterized as "unthinking") And I'm still talking about evolution - there may still be room for a non-accidental "initial spark" in the vast realm of human ignorance -- although I am prepared to adjust this thinking if science can someday recreate such a spark.

Wow, deep shit. My brain hurts.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:55 PM

Well, that's a philosophical difference, TIA.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:58 AM

Tia - religion for you deals with the spaces and questions that are not testable.

For me, instead of religion, read gestalt therapy and astrology (the thread subject). However, with the latter, there's nothing to pray to and they have a certain grounding in the facts of the experiences of real individuals.

I'm still intrigued that astrology is forbidden to go anywhere that is not testable/reproducible, and religion is so allowed.

LH - you have described your conception of "God". which I think I share. That is not a universal idea of God, though.

I say again that a fundamental difficulty that astrology and psychotherapy present to reason is the sheer depth/complexity/unknowability(?) of the human being.

It's interesting to note the widespread use of astrology by sportspeople, politicians, medics, and most intriguingly of all businessmen, few/none of whom are willing to broadcast the fact for fear of ridicule.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:45 AM

Ivor - you say "I'm still intrigued that astrology is forbidden to go anywhere that is not testable/reproducible, and religion is so allowed."

Religion and astrology are both allowed to go anywhere they want. But when they venture into making specific claims that can be tested, I reserve for myself the right to test them. Perhaps you can see why I do not belong to any named or organized religion - they all make claims that are demonstrably false. Yet I do not give up on religion as a concept. It's just that to avoid a mental partitioning, wherein I use one thought process at some times, and another thought process at others, my religion has to be flexible enough (hmmm, flexible religion - an oxymoron?) to avoid conflict with the world's ever-expanding body of knowledge gained through science. Who knows, there may come a time when I am forced to become an atheist. However I doubt this, because (again as Carl Sagan described it), as the "bubble of knowledge" expands into the darkness of ignorance, its surface area (i.e. our boundary with ignorance) increases as the cube of its radius.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:28 AM

"grounding in the facts of the experiences of real individuals"

The problem with astrology is that there is no grounding in facts. The experience of individuals who believe in one type of astrology, where Venus is a planet of war, is different than the experience of individuals who believe in another type of astrology where Venus is a planet of peace. Their experience is of cultural conditioning where they have been told something arbitrary and they are fitting their feelings into that arbitrary scheme. Their experience is not based on fact but on an arbitrary belief shaped by their particular culture. It is like believing in one culture that white is the color of mourning and in another culture that black is the color of mourning. People experience their own myths, but you cannot say that it is a fact for all human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 01:08 PM

I think that it is time to quote Shakespeare(or another man with the same name), "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies." and "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,But in ourselves".

My point being that science is limited by the limited human capacity to perceive and interpret--and though to some degree we can see and measure the stars(and other physical phenomena), the things that are of real importance to us are not out there, they are inside, and, for the most part, elude that sort of observation and interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

nice, concise, explanation, Alice. (I wish I could say it...then stop... a bit more often. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:12 PM

THe last few posts here have me pondering the so-called placebo effect - the well-documented but as yet unexplained (and largely unexamined) power of human thought/expectation/imagination/belief to produce measurable physical medical benefits. From the link above:

"Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant medication.
by Kirsch, Irving; Sapirstein, Guy
from Prevention & Treatment. 1998 Jun Vol 1(1) 2 [Article A]

Posted 06/26/1998. Mean effect sizes for changes in depression were calculated for 2,318 patients who had been randomly assigned to either antidepressant medication or placebo in 19 doubleblind clinical trials. As a proportion of the drug response, the placebo response was constant across different types of medication (75%), and the correlation between placebo effect and drug effect was .90. These data indicate that virtually all of the variation in drug effect size was due to the placebo characteristics of the studies....

Examination of pre-post effect sizes among depressed individuals assigned to no-treatment or wait-list control groups suggest that approximately one quarter of the drug response is due to the administration of an active medication, one half is a placebo effect, and the remaining quarter is due to other nonspecific factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)"

Interesting how even though researchers like Kirsch have observed and documented the power of the "placebo effect" for decades now, not much interest has been shown or money spent to date in studying or explaining how or why it works - least of all in discovering how to help patients understand and use their own natural, innate healing powers more effectively.

Instead, the placebo effect is typically pooh-poohed and waved aside, denounced regularly by skeptics, scientists etc as 'magical thinking', 'selective thinking', 'self-deception', 'wishful thinking', 'fallacy'.

ANd it's easy to see why -- how would it profit the Western medical industry (ie drug and chemical companies etc) if everyone knew, for example, that a sugar pill packs about the same whallop as Prozac? WHat if everyone learned how to expand and enhance this natural human ability to heal themselves whenever they pleased, and without the stressful, dangerous, invasive and (not to mention expensive) intervention of Western medical science? I have a very strong hunch there'd be a lot fewer people requesting medical assistance, and therefore a lot of doctors, surgeons, medical workers, chemists and scientists would be out of a paycheque, for one...

And it's quite easy to see how all this applies to astrology, and to 'non-Western' healing techniques (ie Reiki) as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:28 PM

PS Venus was seen as goddess of war in some cultures because as the Morning Star, 'she' came to be associated with fatal surprise attacks at dawn.   In other cultures Venus symbolized love, probably because of the planet's breathtaking beauty.   And in any case, love and war are closely related -- 'all's fair in love and war', remember?   :-]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:25 PM

George Custer was called "Son of the Morning Star" by some Indians for the same reason. He customarily attacked at dawn.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:31 PM

Alice - there are connections between real experiences of people and their horoscope even where they have no astrological belief.

Tia - I respect your religious belief, and I assume they involve a creator of this world. If so, what is the proof of that creator's efforts and existence.

GUEST M Ted - Hamlet meant that philosophy was limited, not Horatio's philosophy was limited.

He meant 'your' in the same sense of emphasis as if I say,"Your snobby types ruin the image of classical music" - meaning the same as if the 'your' was omitted. It's familiar linguistic usage in London.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:45 PM

It isn't necessary to think of "God" as a creator. But if you do, then the evidence for it is simply: everything. ;-) "Everything" is so big that people can't even look at it or grasp it. That's why they prefer to fight about little things instead.

What if the key to astrology (like tea leaf or palm reading) is NOT the technical rules of astrology itself, but the perceptiveness of the reader? What if the reader has some natural divining ability, and the method is just a frame to hang it on?

Having known people who were uncanny at reading tea leaves and seeing future probabilities thereby, I suspect that the "method" used in divination simply doesn't matter, and it is not the determining factor. The method is just the instrument you arbitrarily pick on which to play the song you want to play, to use an analogy. The instrument doesn't make the music...the player does. Any instrument will do.

Any divining method will do, if the person doing it has the right talents and feel for it. They will pick a method that they like. It might be astrology. It might be tea leaf reading. It might be a crystal ball. It might be anything. It doesn't matter. You will not be able to prove anything by analyzing the method, because the method isn't what makes it work. The reader makes it work, if they have the native ability to do such readings. And that cannot be proven or disproven, it can only be demonstrated in a way that will convince some, but not others, depending on their preconceived notions and inclinations.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM

Daylia says
"...the placebo effect is typically pooh-poohed and waved aside, denounced regularly by skeptics, scientists etc as 'magical thinking', 'selective thinking', 'self-deception', 'wishful thinking', 'fallacy'."
Not true at all. Scientists and skeptics are great believers in the existence, and power, of the placebo effect. In fact, many skeptics think that a lot of phenomena that others might explain with "magical thinking" are truly the result of the powerful placebo effect.

Ivor asks
"...what is the proof of that creator's efforts and existence?"
Answer: none.
How would you test for the existence of the creator? What set of measurements could one make to prove this existence? I can't think of any, so the existence (or not) of a creator, properly placed (for example before the Big Bang), does not conflict with my desire to test all things testable, and form my beliefs around the results.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM

To add to what TIA says about the placebo effect, it is a premise that is verifiable by using scientific methodology specifically the double blind study, and in fact has been, in several studies.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

I was making a point of my own, Autocylus--Horatio's limitations are not an issue here, and never were.

Next thing, though, is that BillD will tell us that science does not allow that the "Ghost" could exist, let alone speak to Hamlet as he did, and Gervase, Alice, Clinton Hammond, and the lot will fall in and say that "Hamlet" is bunch of unscientific rubbish and ought to be thrown out of the schools straight away--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:30 PM

I said earlier that I LIKE poetry! *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:58 PM

Science hasn't proven anything yet one way or another about ghosts...it just can't verify them, that's all.

Certain people simply can't bear the serious discussion of anything that science has not verified yet, it seems. ;-)

I wonder why? Should we just stop all further inquiry now, and say: "Everything real has been discovered." or...should we continue to investigate, thereby apparently annoying people who cannot stand hearing others discuss anything that is not scientifically verified yet?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:20 PM

I am an artist. I not only value imagination, myths and fantasy, but I have built a life on it.
(and I love Shakespeare and ghost stories) How in the world could you project such negativity about me based on the few statements I've made in this thread?
Here I am.e
and check out my painting of a magical creature Gartan Mother's Lullaby

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM

From the Skeptic's Dictionary -- note the closing remarks, the "see also 'list of 'related articles' (?!?)   

Placebo Effect /

"... In other words, the placebo can be an open door to quackery.

See also confirmation bias, control study, communal reinforcement, magical thinking, nocebo, Occam's razor, post hoc fallacy, regressive fallacy, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, testimonials, and wishful thinking.

For examples of beliefs deeply affected by the placebo effect see the following:

    acupuncture
    "alternative" health practices
    aromatherapy
    bioharmonics
    crystal power
    homeopathy and
    reflexology"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM

PS TO test for the existence of 'Creator', try expressing (aloud or silently) sincere, joyful gratitude for your life to everything in the universe to which you literally owe that life, as often as possible (preferably constantly :-) for at least a day or so. Carefully monitor any change in perception, sensation, cognition, mood, attitude, relationship, well-being etc. Record observations in personal unpeer-reviewed journal. Ponder deeply. Repeat as desired.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:16 PM

"everything in the universe to which you literally owe that life"

I give praise to the sperm and ovum which begat me on a daily basis.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM

You also owe your life, bobad, to the following:

The planet Earth, for providing air, water, and food, gravity, and a livable environment.

Animals and plants and many other people, in a variety of ways.

Society and past culture.

The sun.

You have not yet begun to give appropriate thanks, you ungrateful little snit... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM

And of course to Little Hawk, without whose opprobriums my life would be meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM

It is beyond my limited powers to impart meaning to your life.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:55 PM

I don't believe it, I will attack at dawn.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:58 PM

Go ahead. We will exterminate every one of your short-haired, smelly, lookalike bluecoat soldiers, and hang your miserable remains up for the vultures to gnaw upon.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:04 PM

Sticks and stones................!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:27 PM

Imprecations at 40 paces!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

Snowballs at dawn?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:38 AM

I am amused by the image that I conjure up from "Imprecations at forty paces!" Would that wars were fought thus. Imagine GWB and Saddam counting off forty paces, turning and firing insults at one another. May the best man win.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Venus (Ishtar/Astarte/Asherah/Aphrodite)
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM

My children - your infantile impressions of Me and feeble warlike antics here are very cute, but pathetic. Laughable!   And predictably species-specific, considering the evolutionary limitations of your cranial wetware.

That you may know me better....   

Ashtart was connected with fertility, sexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Morning Star
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:47 AM

Hau!

---

I had a problem accessing the image. If you do, try Morning Star Ceremony

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,HermAphrodite
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:59 AM

Manly, yes .... but I like it too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Mama Knossos Best
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:17 AM

Tsk tsk. A snake in hand is worth two on the tush, my dear.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:22 AM

re *daylia* - PM
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM


How does this test for the existance of a creator?

I agree in a general sense with LH- IF there is (a) god, it is the universe as a whole, of which we are a part. But the proposed test does not seem to prove that existance, or anything beyond the individual's perception.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM

and, btw,

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM

800!