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

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 06:19 PM

"Science without religion is lame"??? Why? pooh!

Why? Hmmm ... well for example, the all-new ever-evolving Jingle for the Single Finger is great fun to play on guitar! Trying to play it with just one *Lonely Digit* cripples it, though. In a most empirically verifiable manner.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 09:19 AM

Hmm, just thought I'd check back,and the scent of humbug still hangs over this absurdly long thread.
We really haven't really got much further, have we? Still same the rush towards unreason and the Taliban-like rejection of the Englightenment from the astrology faction. It's almost beyond parody: "Ooh, those bad and wicked scientists; let's all listen to our inner dolphins and realign our chackras to give peace a chance, and meanwhile I've found a quote from someone famous, so it must be true..."
*sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 09:54 AM

(ie love, compassion, respect for human life and for all of Nature)

All inventions of the Hallmark Greeting Card company....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

Lovely morning, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:36 AM

Ahhh, see the illustrious stars this thread has attracted! Admiral Kirk, in appreciation of your interest and encouragement, here is your own personal natal chart. No more hiding behind your artificial media personas -- your unique, delicate and charming inner self is hereby revealed for all the world to ooo oooo ooooogle!

For instance, the key factors of your natal chart are an Aries Sun, Taurus Moon and Aquarius rising. Your appearance is demonstrated by Aquarius rising, often short and stocky. Aries energy is typical for male pattern baldness as well.

You have epitomized the phrase "Go where no man has gone before," and no wonder --- you are a living example of the Aries pioneer spirit. Adventure roles as a police officer also symbolize an Aries career choice, and your books also show this direction.

You also have Uranus in Aries. Uranus is the ruler of Aquarius, your Rising Sign. This Aquarian "flavor" speaks of your futuristic visions, your dream of bringing them into the present, and your interest in writing.

An abundance of fire energy (Aries) contributes to your warmth and charm. You are a special and unique individual, even if you do this it a little too well! And you have contibuted a great deal to Western culture.

We will always love you, Bill! And if you'd like to discuss your chart in more depth .... hey, and maybe even humour me with a live demonstration of the "Kirk Kiss" I've been pining away for since I was about 8 years old!! .... just beam me directly into your private quarters, anytime!

And yes, I do mean anytime!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:48 AM

"You also have Uranus in Aries."

Getting a little personal, aren't we?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:51 AM

Ooo ... the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced we are a perfect match, Admiral! I too have an Aries Sun and a Taurus Moon, and my Rising Sign is Gemini (an Air sign like Aquarius, except that Aquarius is "fixed" (ie difficult to change) while Gemini is "mutable" (ie constantly changing). Furthermore, I just did a synastry chart for us, and noticed that our Venus is in Aquarius!   Wow -- this indicates a great love affair, an absolutely beautiful and satisfying relationship, one which makes a striking impression on others. We'd make a star-studded couple I know -- so what are u waiting for. Beam me up, quick! ANd damn the torpedoes!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 01:30 PM

I feel a bad, bad headache coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 01:39 PM

"you have contributed a great deal to western culture"
William Shatner?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM

Shatner has contributed much, no doubt about it. If you can't see it, too F-n' bad. ;-P

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:00 PM

Help is on it's way LH.Go to www.gallifreyone.com to learn how to access high culture in North America. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:04 PM

I didn't say he had contributed to high culture, now did I? I said he has contributed, that's all. You have heard of him, right? There's your proof.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:12 PM

I've heard of Mr Ed as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

Yes, but Shatner has made albums with stunningly original interpretations of famous tunes. Can Mr Ed say the same?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:17 PM

No but I bet Mr Ed would have made a better job of "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

Possibly. But would Mr Ed have had the sheer hutzpah to even try it in the first place? I think not. Shatner rules.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:33 PM

Leonard Nimmoy recorded a song about Bilbo Baggins.
That was crap as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: brid widder
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:06 PM

Astrology was given a boost today when everyone born under the sign of scorpio was run over by a horse and cart.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:26 PM

The Nimoy song about Bilbo Baggins is enough to drive people to throw themselves off cliffs like lemmings. It's almost unlistenable after a verse and a half. You want to kill whoever wrote it and arranged it. Unlike Shatner's stuff, Nimoy's is not bad enough or weird enough to be interesting on the basis of its very badness...it's just absolutely mediocre 100% dreck.

Nimoy, you see, could sing. Not terribly well, but he could stay on key and carry a tune. This consigns his stuff to the dreadful purgatory of songs that are seriously bad...but not BAAAAAD enough to be any good, if you know what I mean. Kind of like Danny Vinton, only not quite so professional-sounding.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:28 PM

Did DeForest Kelly record anything?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:29 PM

I don't think so. But...man! If he had... I bet it would have been awful.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:32 PM

CONSENSUS AT LAST!!!!!!!
Shall we let this thread sliiiide down the page or introduce (Sigh)Nichelle Nicholls into the equation?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:35 PM

She could have been half-reasonable, I think. What about the guy who played Sulu? He could have done quasi-Japanese Karaoke numbers. I bet that would have been riveting.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM

I'm holding out for Patrick Stewart's one man tribute to Led Zeppelin.
There's gonna be hell to pay when Daylia sees what we've done to her thread.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:41 PM

Nothing worse could happen to this thread than already has, in my opinion. (whatever way you choose to look at it)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:45 PM

Fair enough.Time I was thinking of turning in.G'night LH.
Watch out for Daleks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:51 PM

Good night, PF.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 08:23 PM

If George Takai (Sulu) sang anything, it sure outa be showtunes! Or perhaps a Cher cover.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 08:26 PM

How about him doing "I Feel Pretty" from West Side Story?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:48 PM

Some may want to read the Einstein


science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

quote in the context.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:53 PM

That's a great link Wolfgang.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM

Einstein's thoughts on that matter are very well expressed. Thanks, Wolfgang.

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

This thread has come a long way from the sun-sign beginning.

Personally, I don't demand that astrology be taught to anybody.

      "    , "   "   expect anyone to devote a lifetime to studying astrology (or anything else) before voicing an opinion.

I will keep quotations to a minimum, since someone objected to quoting, not an obstacle I've met before re astrology.

I have a high regard for science in principle - it, and its applications in medicine saved my life.

The thread throws up interesting speculations - where do we get our opinions? how much do we know about the subject? how do we deal with stuff from outside our normal stamping-ground? how much of what's knowable do we know? can we know only what is measureable? how does science deal, if at all, with whatever cannot be measured?

Some strands of philosophy point to ways we might create that which we claim to know about the world out there. There's even such a thing as the philosophy of science, which examines and tests the claims and methods of science.

I doubt if any of us can assert anything that would receive universal assent. Why even science contains disputes - over creation, consciousness, global warming, and much besides.

Surely a fundamental obstacle to clarity in the astrolgy debates (there seem to be quite a few) is that people are full of mysteries and the seemingly inexplicable.

I doubt if people, as people, in the round, are really amenable to usual scientific practices because we are not, in principle , open to the repeatability required by science. (Nearly quoted a Greek there,) Aspects of us are available to science - our bodies, our belief systems vis-a-vis social groupings. As individuals and groups, we are always at some point in our lives/histories, which we never return to.

And there will be nothing I can do about misrepresentation, misunderstanding, ignorance, bias, agendas, misreading, misinterpretation, red herrings.

It's quite likely to be true that 90% of everything is crap. I try not to decide on the value of poetry on the basis of the crappy poetry - Ted hughes and Frost and especially pound and Eliot would be very annoyed by that.

Finally for tonight (I've got to be up too soon), there are involved stories to be told about huamn potential and universal self-deception, and purpose of our lives, and our respective unique processes, and how we do or don't discover them.

i bow to anyone who considers themselves an astro-opponent in the spirit of Japanese fighters.


ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 07:50 PM

Apropos of Japanese fighters....what springs to my mind is the Ki-27 Nate and the A5M Claude, followed by the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa and the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero-sen. Then you have in fairly rapid succession the Ki-44 Shoki, the Ki-61 Hien, and the Ki-84 Hayate, and the Ki-100 Goshikisen. On the Navy side we also have the Mitsubishi Raiden and the Kawanishi Shiden and Shiden-Kai. At the tail end we have the mighty Kyushu Shinden, which only reached prototype stage in 1945. And that's only the single-engined fighters.

Aren't you glad you mentioned it? ;-)

As for Einstein's essay (which is wonderful) I think the most interesting thing to come out of it is something I have known for a long time, but had not yet articulated as well as he did. Modern science arose directly out of man's most basic religious impulses...which are the search for knowledge and perfection. Science is founded on the most noble emotions and intentions. It seeks to unravel and explain the greatest mysteries and unanswered questions of life, and this is exactly what motivates the religious quest at its highest level.

It should not be surprising that many of the great scientists were also religious people, because the one does not argue against the other, it arises directly from it.

Both science and a more enlightened approach to religion will find themselves very much at odds with cruder forms of traditional religion which do not seek answers to great questions, but merely lay down a plethora of rules and rituals from ancient books for people who do not wish to seek deeper meanings in life, but merely want to feel "safe" in some kind of organized group.

The traditional notion of a war between science and religion is, as Einstein suggests, foolish. The real war is not between science and religion at all...it's between a natural alliance of science and a more enlightened approach TO religion VERSUS the old fundamentalist religions which still attempt to maintain insupportable mythologies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Science and advanced religion are natural allies. They ask the same great questions: What is life? Where did it come from? Where did we come from? What is our nature and the nature of other things around us? Why do things function as they do? How can we improve what we see around us? How can we achieve greater things? How can we be happy?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM

"It should not be surprising that many of the great scientists were also religious people, because the one does not argue against the other, it arises directly from it."

From Wikipedia:

Atheism is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.[9](See also The relationship between religion and science).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:33 PM

Those poll results probably depend hugely on how the question is phrased -- in particular, what might be implied by the word "GOD". I'm a scientist, and deeply religious, but do not believe in the GOD described by any of the major religions. So, a casual survey would immediately define me as an atheist. But, I do believe in a god (as defined by me).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:53 PM

Further to that, one does NOT have to believe in a "God" (an anthoropomorphic diety made in the image of man) to be religious...one simply has to believe that life itself has some sort of spiritual meaning and purpose...some sort of meaning and purpose that goes beyond mere survival to the embracing of higher ideals.

While it is true that the rank and file of present day scientists are likely to include a higher proportion of atheists than some other groups of people would, it does not alter the fact that many of the greatest scientists who founded whole disciplines in science and made historic breaththroughs in it have been religious people with strong spiritual beliefs.

I wasn't talking about the hangers-on here, the little guys in the labs, I was talking about the founding fathers of science itself. They had no trouble integrating the scientific approach with spiritual awareness, nor would anyone with a truly open mind, in my opinion.

Read Sri Aurobindo, read any of his books, then come back to me with a rebuttal. He was a brilliant person, well aware of modern science and absolutely in accord with it. He also became a brilliant spiritual teacher in time, although as a young man he was an atheist.

The two, spirituality and science, are not exclusive, they are not enemies, they fit together beautifully, like hand and glove. They are in assistance to one another, not opposed at all, except in minds that have already been made up after one superficial glance, one hasty conclusion, and no further intelligent analysis whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 03:54 AM

There's no point in just changing the meaning of the word "religion". If you change "religion" or "Christianity" or for that matter "astrology" to mean "not what everyone always said it was, or behaved as, but something different", you simply need a new word for all that stuff (irrational belief in magic solutions to physical problems). But they were there first, they've got the word, and aren't going to let it go.

So by claiming to be "religious" when you don't believe the traditional claims of religion, you are simply muddying the water. And, I'd add, being too lazy, or too cowardly, to face up to breaking with the traditional forms. And, should any advances in the human condition come about because of more advanced views, making it all too easy for the traditionalists to tag along behind, and eventually claim any progress as their own. Note that the Church of England, truly reactionary up to the 1950s, is now claiming liberalism and tolerance as their own invention.

I'd say a religious point of view needs subscription to most of the following:

Major claims:

- The universe was created intentionally by a god or a group of gods.
- The individual human has a spirit which is a separate (if associated) entity from the body, and will continue to exist after the body's death.
- There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex.

This belief usually entails a number dependent claims, which are the ones that make religion both powerful and dangerous:

- The rewardable behaviour includes an acceptance of ordinances which have been transmitted, usually in the form of ancient texts, by that power. These include taboos on behaviour, usually sexual or trophic.
- It is desirable that the state should be structured to give those taboos the force of law.

Anything I've misssed out? Anyone claim to be religious without agreeing with most of that?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 06:03 AM

Defining religion has always been a problem.
Ninian Smart is acknowledged to have come up with some of the best defining criteria, but even his terms would come close to including Stalinism and Manchester United!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 07:44 AM

Thanks for the link, Wolfgang.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes ....

To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible....Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature..." (Einstein)

This is why, to date, science has always failed as a method of studying and investigating astrology. The scientific method cannot do justice to the seemingly endless number of complex factors at work in an astrological natal chart - some conscious and expressed (at least to some extent), others unconscious, latent, unexpressed.

I don't agree with Einstein that "religion" must give up the idea of a personal god, though. Human beings - even almighty scientists! - cannot know a thing except "personally" ie via their own physical senses (and technological enhancements thereof), emotions nad thoughts.

And I do wish Einstein had believed in the Paragraph!   8-[


" Major claims:

- The universe was created intentionally by a god or a group of gods.
- The individual human has a spirit which is a separate (if associated) entity from the body, and will continue to exist after the body's death.
- There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex."

I don't agree with any of that, Paul - except partially with the second one, even though it's incomplete. But then again, I'm not a "highly religious" person either.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM

There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex.

THe behaviour of the 'body/spirit complex', as you put it -- including thoughts, feelings, expectations -- IS the 'power which determines the future state' of that particular 'complex'. (Working within the constraints (ie properties and forces) of the physical universe which comprise and surround the 'complex', of course).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 09:19 AM

Dalia, I have to disagree with you post of 05 Apr 06 - 07:44 AM ( copied below)


Einstein was speaking of the weather, a chaotic system-ie one which will proceed in different ways depending on the exact conditions, but we can make certain forecasts with very limited infomation, but we need more infomation ( and processing power ) to do more.

If we say the weather will be the same tomorrow as it is today,we have a 50% chance of being right*, At the end of the second world war, forecasts were about 60% correct, and now are about 75-80% correct.

If astrology is a chaotic system, with a huge number of factors, then it should still be open to analysis. It may not be easy to do, but if the influences are real, they can be seperated and understood, to an extent, anyway.


* These are figures for Britian. I don't know about places with climate, rather than weather...



To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible....Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature..." (Einstein)

This is why, to date, science has always failed as a method of studying and investigating astrology. The scientific method cannot do justice to the seemingly endless number of complex factors at work in an astrological natal chart - some conscious and expressed (at least to some extent), others unconscious, latent, unexpressed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 09:27 AM

If astrology is a chaotic system, with a huge number of factors, then it should still be open to analysis. It may not be easy to do, but if the influences are real, they can be seperated and understood, to an extent, anyway.

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: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 02:16 PM

Paul Burke - Your version of "religion" is clearly one that derives primarily from the Judeo-Christian traditions.

The Judeo-Christians do not have a world monopoly on religion.

If you think that religion, by definition, requires an anthropomorphic God figure, your idea of religion is artificially restricted to a somewhat narrow cultural range, I can assure you.

"- The universe was created intentionally by a god or a group of gods."

No, I don't think I would agree with that. My view of it is that the Universe IS God...or...it's just one way of seeing what can be termed "God" (if you want to call it "God"). It could also be termed "existence" or "all that is". The Universe is a sense-perceivable aspect of All That Is.


"- The individual human has a spirit which is a separate (if associated) entity from the body, and will continue to exist after the body's death."

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. I've seen some evidence to support it, though not conclusive evidence at this point. I wouldn't say the spirit is separate, though, I'd say it's a different frequency level, that's all. A radio wave isn't physical, but it's real. It can make sound by means of the physical device we call a radio...by being stepped down in frequency. I feel that our bodies are analagous to the radio, and our spirits step down in frequency through the medium of the body, enabling us to act in a world of physicality. The body, like the radio, is inert and useless without the higher frequency transmission moving through it. The spirit is more important than the body, because it is what imparts life and the expressions of life...just as the broadcast program is much more important than the individual radio. The broadcast program and the spirit impart meaning. The body and the radio are simply tools, enabling a certain task to be accomplished.

"- There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex."

The spirit itself IS that power, and will determine its own future state, according to its own levels of awareness. YOU are the master of your own future development, not some separated conceptual god-being. You ARE the god that most people instead choose to project outside of themselves, and then to fear, bargain with, or worship.

Again I say, your view of what the word "religion" means appears to me to be a view that has arisen strictly out of the Judeo-Christian tradition...and that is a pretty narrow band when it comes to what can be termed the subject of religion...but they seem to think their way is all there is to say about the subject. It's not. Not by a long shot.

If one studies Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta (Hinduism), and many other non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim systems of understanding one soon tends to look beyond the concepts you have described as being the only way to define "religion".

Anti-religionists weary me, because they first set up a straw man which they call "religion"...a really stupid and limited concept of religion...they assume that that is all there is to religion or ever could be, which it isn't....and they then pat themselves on the back for being so brilliant as not to believe in what is obviously a very primitive notion in the first place. This is like giving yourself a medal for discovering that alcoholism is not good for people or that 2+2 doesn't equal 5.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

If we've moved onto religion, I recall Tia (Ithink)'s statement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

The existence of a God, especially one who created the world, seems an extraordinary claim.

What proofs, extraordinary, do scientists, or anyone give for such an existence. And where will reproducibility and testability come in?

Ivor

P.S. Should this be a new thread,BTW?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM

LOL! Here we go again...with this supposedly "separate" God somewhere out there, doing this and doing that...creating this and creating that...oh, my...

You really oughta just read Sri Aurobindo. All 20,000 or so pages of one of his books. Then talk about it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 04:28 PM

"The Universe is a sense-perceivable aspect of All That Is."

If a tree falls in the forest............?

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

The quote is actually from Carl Sagan, but I did use it above. As to generic scientific proof of a God - impossible. Now if you were to make a specific claim about some phenomenon, testability may be possible, and the tests should be repeatable (and reproducable by different testors).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 06:09 PM

I thought some people, some scientists for example, were making the claim that a deity exists. Seemingly without proof of existence of same ?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 10:18 PM

It's an interesting question Ivor. Many scientists do believe in a deity as a matter of faith. Nothing hypocritical about that in general. But, where it can get weird is on matters that are clearly testable. Some scientists undoubtedly believe various things as a matter of faith even when they are, in fact, testable. This requires a mental disconnect, or partitioning that many other scientists are uncomfortable performing.

For instance, is it possible for a scientist to be a true Catholic? This requires belief that the wafer really does, literally, become the flesh of Christ during the mass. This is testable of course. I am not sure how self-professed Catholic scientists handle this. I am not sure it has ever actually been tested (what priest in their right mind would allow it?) But, that's their business. As for me, my religion occupies the spaces and questions that are not testable - and there are plenty.