Subject: Astrology Responds to "Skeptical Inquirer"

Hi BC,
 
Thanks for the indirect defense of astrology, and the link to my site, re the attack from "Regan".  I too took
her/his (?) insistance that you remove anything related to subjects on CSICOP's list of "unproven garbage",
and that no other views be heard, to be rigidly narrow minded.  Without getting into an argument with these
people, because I've done that many times and they still remain steadfastly clinging to their outlook and all
I've done is waste my time and air, I'd like to pose a premise to counter these strictly science types:
 
You say you accept only things that can be proven in a scientific environment; you only believe in that
which you can see, hear, or touch?  Well, what about love?  Can you deny the existance of love?  Have
you seen love?  Can you prove it?  Can you go into a laboratory setting and replicate love over and over,
consistantly, in a controlled experiment?  Certainly not.  Yet we all know it exists.
 
There's always some phony intellectual pseudoscientific asshole out there that thinks he has to SAVE the
rest of mankind.  Some egotistical jerk that thinks only HE has the rights to logic and reason, and we're all
just floundering in a sea of fantasy and superstition until HE comes along and SAVES US with his brilliant
logic and reason.  In 30 years as a practicing astrologer I've seen this countless times.
 
As for iridology, my son, who is in his first year of a very intense four year course in alternative medicine,
including acupuncture, reflexology, iridology, herbs and such had this to say:
 
"I've got news for him, they've used iridology (or at least methods that are very similiar to it)
in Traditional Chinese Medicine for thousands of years.  If it didn't work, nobody would use it."
 
Kevin also added this response, which I think just about sums it up:
 
"But the people at TSI are far from unbiased.  They've made up their minds long ago that anything that they don't
like or understand must be "unscientific" or "illogical" or "superstitious" or whatever epithets that can come up with.
And they twist and contort every fact they get their hands on to "back up" their narrow-minded agenda.
In truth, these folks are far from being scientific.  To be scientific, you have to be open-minded and unbiased
and let the evidence speak for yourself.  Otherwise you become an evangelist, if you follow me.
 
And in this respect, I don't see any difference between religious zealots who attempt to censor books, movies, etc.
that they don't like and pseudointellectual "skeptics" like Regan who wish to do the same thing to astrologers."
 
YES!
 
Thanks BC, for keeping your forum open and providing a little something for everyone.
This still being a democracy (cough, cough) I think all viewpoints can be accomodated.

Geneva
 
 

 Geneva, thanks for that.

 The point of Bartcopism is NOT to insist others think like me, I just don't want laws & rules
 made by people who take those actions to please the invisible ghosts.

 As long as religious charlatans aren't giving false hope to the sick and the dying (for a chunk of their
 estate like Oral Roberts does) I'm cool with all religions. I want to be free to worship (or not)
 and I think everybody should be.  This is America.

 Funny, religious people would have more freedom if I was a dictator, rather than someone
 who claims they have the "real" God on their side.

 bc