Star signs (a challenge)

18 Jun

Here’s a challenge for people with little to do, or don’t want to do the things the need to do… if you follow?

I don’t believe in astrology, tarot cards or any other new age, alternative stuff.

Or I do believe… if it’s free.

I am just very sceptical to any spiritual truth that cost money. Capitalism and spirituality can go hand in hand, but they shouldn’t be lovers or become married.

SO THE CHALLENGE IS:
What starsign am I?

Guess.

I have now posted lots of blog entries and you can see a picture of me to the right so it shouldn’t be hard to guess if there were any truth to it. There are many hints spread across the blog, one time I even state it explicitly.

So have a guess and feel free to explain it aswell. If you don’t know what the different star signs entail then there are lot’s of websites dedicated to explaining them on the WWW. I won’t post any here as I don’t know who is right and who contain viruses. There are some explanation on wikipedia, but there are no general descriptions of the signs, only the factual (i.e. that there is something called a zodiac sign).

I find it fascinating how I have been out at night (s)talking to women and they always guess wrong even though I am almost a stereotypical version of my own star sign.

But no… I don’t believe in astrology and even less in horoscopes.

But who knows?

(Richard Dawkins does.)

Blog 2.0 - Like a prostitute, AMC and Blog 2.0 is open to anything.

PS: So you may wonder “How come you state that you are open to anything, but also that you don’t believe in astrology and then go on to say that you are a “a stereotypical version of my own star sign”?“.

Well I guess it’s the Libra in me. (Was that the answer?)

PPS:

Richard Dawkins (DAWKINS!) is at it again like a whiny bitch child without a father. “IT DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT!”, he screams. “Why won’t you see it my way!”, etc.etc.etc.

But he has a point, like he has in everything, but the point is pointless because he sees them with cynical scientific eyes. We wants to understand darkness with light, emotions with logic and humanity with tools.

Richard Dawkins (DAWKINS!) stop your crusade, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not everything is an equation, or at least… Not everything should be.

And about his “Lazy stereotyping” argument. Is Dawkins (DAWKINS!) against psychology and their grouping of personality types, mental disorders and the like?

No, of course not… or perhaps.

I don’t know.

Psychology is after all a soft science. But I do believe Dawkins (DAWKINS!) would acknowledge the effort, and the scientific-y demands makes it easier for him to falsify should it not fit his view.

And that is the source of Dawkins (DAWKINS!) hatred isn’t it… Religions lack of falsifiability. Since religion isn’t build upon the scientific criteria of testing Dawkins (DAWKINS!) can never really prove any kind of spiritual “truth” as false. And it probably annoys the hell out of him.

GOOD!

You deserve it you ignorant fuck!

(DAWKINS!)

Advertisements

Anything on your mind? I am listening:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: