An Anonymous Internet Atheist's Favorite Authors

I.) Partially Random--versus--Much More Random

. The illustration above shows how I plotted the Zodiacal positions of both Sun and Mars from two different groups birth charts. The first is a sample of authors reportedly preferred by a very angry sounding atheist who ardently states that he hates topics like astrology because, "It's obviously just a religion." And, of course, all notions not "scientific" enough for our atheist here are of course, "pure ignorance!" The second chart also a plot of Sun and Mars 'birth' positions for some only hypothetical persons. These plots (yellow circle = Sun, red circle = Mars) were generated using a random number generator program available on the web. What I attempt to show here is the noticeable degree of non-randomness in the birth chart patterns of the authors which were selected as favorites by the angry anonymous internet atheist. The authors which he reportedly most identifies with--his chosen target, "atheist authors, " seem to (unfortunately for him) show the emergence of statistically weak but detectable pattern (trend?) as a result of his choosing them. We cannot know what 'causes' what here, but we can fairly question the apparent lack of expected randomness in this comparison.

. Two things come to mind. Either "atheists", as defined by the subject, have some astrology in common, or the subject's selections were (as I more often come to suspect) an unconsciously performed act of identifying with metaphorical similarities, and thus pointing to persons who are, somehow, (astrologically speaking) very similar to himself. There would seem a certain lack of actual total anonymity implied here. I mean, is the guy himself a Sagittarius native, like two of the three first to be chosen authors in the most center circle (above)? ( In truth I thought he might be Sag, or a late Scorpio like his chosen role models, but that really got him going on about what a complete waste of molecules I truly must be...:)

. Religion is broad topic. Unemotionally viewed as a some kind of neutral object, like a rabbit or personal computer, it has parts, both real and hypothetical, with metaphorical modules or sub-assemblies and individual components. Personally, I see Science itself as having most of the same or alt least very similar types of subroutines and psychological functions, not the least of which is some form definition of the "belief' and 'faith' modules found in both mental activities. This, at least in part, allows me to see Science as *probably* more like the 'religion' (--the belief and faith system) which just happens to have the most *objective* evidence in its corner. But there are atheists in the world with a strong distaste for this kind of sloppy seeming sentiment and implied delusional thinking at its center. Some will vehemently argue that all things not "scientific" in their ways of understanding the world--whether the topic is human life, or merely just "the universe and everything," are unforgivable, abominable acts of perverse ideation--deliberate ignorance--willed malfeasance perpetrated by crackpots and religions (and of course experimenting astrologists) in general. I cannot seem to muster that much anger (or at least attempt to sustain it for longer than I can hold my breath), but some persons can, and it may be more psychological pathology than a 'soldier for science' type unflinching duty to Reason at that point.

========================================================