Do you believe in star signs

@clousems said in #47:
> "Give a proof but not scientific cause anyone would call themselves correct."
> You realize that logic itself is a science, right? It is literally impossible to prove anything unscientifically.

That's your problem not me.
Also, there's no proof that science is supreme.
Plus, science isn't everything.
Many are superstitious into falsly believing in Science just for the sake of it.

@clousems said in #50:
> I'm not sure that the distinction matters at this point: he appears to be rejecting proof purely on personal, preconceived ideas, which implies that he's rejecting the scientific method as well as a number of fields of study.
What's the proof of scientific proof itself?
Come on, don't act stupid.
It's universal truth that Science is just a branch and lot more is yet to be discovered.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #51:
> That's your problem not me.
> Also, there's no proof that science is supreme.
> Plus, science isn't everything.
> Many are superstitious into falsly believing in Science just for the sake of it.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #52:
> What's the proof of scientific proof itself?
> Come on, don't act stupid.
> It's universal truth that Science is just a branch and lot more is yet to be discovered.

QED

@clousems said in #53:
> QED
Finally, glad you understood it.
Though currently nothing else is better than Science but it doesn't necessarily mean that any other entity is not greater than Science. Pretty logical.
Also, who told that Science is supreme?
God? Then it's self contradiction.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #45:
> Seems like you haven't heard about abacus.
> Without it, people would have never learnt about counting.
Well, guess what, I have fingers!

> Lol, no! Life then waa better than today's technology.
> In religious mythologies, you can clearly see how advanced life was then.

You yourself said "religious mythology", so you accept that all the books are just beliefs, and the events did not happen.
Today's technology also has aims towards eradicating poverty and all the other things you mentioned.

> Your so-called modern technology is doing nothing. So, it can't clearly be better.
What about online education, navigation, easy communication, telemedicine, online banking, entertainment and more? Were these features available in the satyuga and dwapar yuga?

@Akbar2thegreat said in #39:
> Definitely not but it itself isn't correct either. And who's gonna judge science, I guess only God (real supreme entity) can do so.

You really wanna bring God into this?

#54
I'm a Christian. According to science, you are wrong. According to my religion, you are wrong, your religion is stupid and evil, and you are stupid for following an evil religion. Are you absolutely sure you want to emphasize God over science? Because, if so, I trust my God more than your gods, and my God says you're wrong, so you should just shut up and not be a heretic.
Disagree? Well, in that case, my God says you're wrong, so you should just shut up and not be a heretic. I can do this all day.

Now, when people rely on science and logic instead of religion, conversations can happen on equal footings, and input actually matters. People can even construct theories as to how their religion can be compatible with science. However, it's a difficult task to make science bend to religion. If your religion says rocks don't exist, that doesn't mean jack shit to reality. If your religion says that millions of giant dragons are frolicking through the streets of Bruges and causing havoc this very moment, yet science and logic say otherwise, you should either find a better religion or consider that your religion may not have been literal.

See why we use science and logic as our foundation in discussions?

@Mantram_PateL said in #55:
> Well, guess what, I have fingers!
I guess you ate them up!
On serious note, all incidents in history are responsible or have effect for everything that is today. Extreme example: Had asteroids not killed dinosaurs and made them extinct we would be never in this world!

> You yourself said "religious mythology", so you accept that all the books are just beliefs, and the events did not happen.
There's difference between myth and mythology. Myth is fake, mythology isn't.
Earth mythology states that universe was created due to space debris colliding with each other and forming planets. If I follow your principle, then Earth wasn't made like this instead God made it.

> Today's technology also has aims towards eradicating poverty and all the other things you mentioned.
And same technology has increased disparities between different people, made religious groups more of enemy, and biggest of all: corruption!
Same technology has destroyed all sports like cricket, football, chess, etc by making stupid variants and shorter formats.

> What about online education, navigation, easy communication, telemedicine, online banking, entertainment and more? Were these features available in the satyuga and dwapar yuga?
And same technology has made people addicted to electronic devices and robbed them of outer world and body health and caught in web of Internet which has more cons than pros. Same technology made hackers do scams and frauds more easily. These things weren't in old time era.
Clearly, the effects of pros and cons of technology are nullified so there's no positive result of having technology.
Again I stand correct.

> You really wanna bring God into this?
Why not? After all, Science has proved his existence. Even BGV theory approves of same.

@clousems said in #56:
> I'm a Christian. According to science, you are wrong.
Lol! You can't mix religion with science (and I didn't!)

> According to my religion, you are wrong, your religion is stupid and evil, and you are stupid for following an evil religion.
Lol! No religion is supreme and have their own system. But there are common things to religions which make it universal though not scientific.

> Are you absolutely sure you want to emphasize God over science? Because, if so, I trust my God more than your gods, and my God says you're wrong, so you should just shut up and not be a heretic.
Lol! There's no supreme God in all. All supreme Gods of each religion stand in same phase.

> Disagree? Well, in that case, my God says you're wrong, so you should just shut up and not be a heretic. I can do this all day.
Oh, now I know that your catchphrase is 'shut up' hence you call it every time!

> People can even construct theories as to how their religion can be compatible with science.
Wrong, they are different. You can only compare on grounds and not make them compatible with each other cause that's not possible.

> However, it's a difficult task to make science bend to religion. If your religion says rocks don't exist, that doesn't mean jack shit to reality.
Lol! Now you are making up random claims yourself without even knowing about what religions say.

> If your religion says that millions of giant dragons are frolicking through the streets of Bruges and causing havoc this very moment, yet science and logic say otherwise, you should either find a better religion or consider that your religion may not have been literal.
You are proving yourself mad. Instead of spreading false news about religions read about them if you really care else you will be arrested on religious grounds.

> See why we use science and logic as our foundation in discussions?
Logic is self explanatory but science isn't.
And now don't spoil logic by mixing it with Science. It's independent of science.

As already mentioned, logic is a science. Merriam-Webster defines logic as a "science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration". It is based on scientific principles. It can never be fully independent from science.

As a Christian, I DO believe in a supreme God, one that is incompatible with your religious beliefs. As a Christian, I believe you to be wrong about the esoteric. I already went over this as well. This is what you fail to grasp: you are attempting to use speculative perception of reality as a means to disprove logic and data. This will never work.

If anyone ever tries to arrest me on "religious grounds", I will punch them in the face on principle.

Hypotheticals are hypothetical.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #33:
> Did it cause havoc in 2019?
> Certainly not, and the astrology lives up to the prediction.

Semantics to the rescue!
Besides the point that COVID-19 was already a thing as of November 2019 (define "wreak havoc" however you please), you do know that nearly every year a disease is wreaking havoc in some region (an endemic outbreak), don't you? It's in the news, but normally you just don't care because it's not in your world region, so you quickly forget about it. And every few decades a pandemic hits (especially in the past prior to the advent of germ theory).

So this amazing prediction is about as amazing as the prediction that there will be a hurricane in 2025. No wait, that's too specific! That there will be a storm. Nah, still too specific. That there will be an extreme weather event. That's it.

You know why astrology is useless nonsense? Because it cannot predict anything remotely useful under controlled conditions. Why didn't it predict the pathogen that would cause the pandemic? Why didn't it predict the host animal that would transfer this zoonosis to humans? Why didn't it predict the pathogen's leading mechanism of spread (aerosols)? Why didn't it predict who would turn out to be patient zero?

If it had, we could have actually prevented the pandemic. If it had, it would have been a useful prediction.

But it did not and cannot make useful predictions, because it's made-up nonsense. Same with Nostradamus. It's all magical thinking, confirmation bias and cherry picking. It's not useful in any way. It's bogus.