I realize zodiac descriptions are pretty generalized but I do fit the typical characterization. I'm Taurus so...I am stubborn, I can be opinionated (when I know I'm right! LOL!), I am an "alpha" female" and really cannot have another alpha female as a roomate. Been tried - been proven! But, I also have a big heart and am a loveable "ham" with a prankster side. And, I do LOVE to travel. Find it hard to sit still really...
Even a broken clock with fake times on it can be right every once in a while. That doesn't make it magic or accurate, it's just random chance.
It's far more likely that you saw the traits supposedly associated with Virgo, decided that you liked them, and then tried to be more like those traits than it's likely that everyone born within the span of about a month has a nearly-identical personality
There are around 7.6 billion people alive today, and there are twelve zodiac signs. That means that each zodiac sign is shared by approximately 633,333,332 people - not far short of twice the population of the USA.
Therefore, one would expect any description of a "typical Virgo" to match at least some of those people born under that sign with a fairly high degree of accuracy - it would be statistically unlikely to be otherwise, and in no way provides evidence that the zodiac or astrology is anything other than a big festering heap of woo.
Not only do the positions of the planets have absolutely no bearing on what your personality will be, the zodiac signs themselves aren't even accurate for the nonsense that they are...
[elle.com]
Complete Horse hockey based on common personality traits.
If it were based on the precise moment of conception it would be worth the study, but try find that moment..
Even if astrology had something to it, it would only be completely accurate at birth in describing where you started from. Most people in today's world move around andhve vst array of experiences in many different places. Each new location you are in has different astrological influences. So, for most people by the time they are adults, the influences they had at birth would be altered by their life experience.
I think it is more likely that if the time of your birth has any influence on you, it has to do with seasons and environment,than it does the planets ad/or stars. People born the same time of year would experience similar environments, which may influence psychological development and give them similar traits. I think that if more likely than astrological influences being responsible. Astrology may just have a spurious relationship to other influences, which have yet to be identified. I've suggested oen possiblity, but it may be something else altogether.
Until there is some sort of causal relationship discovered, where spurious relationships can be ruled out, any similarities between persons born under the same zodiac sign may not ever be explained as being caused by anything.
I will not rule out that there may be some influence at work, but I sincerely doubt that it is astrological in nature. You see I too am the stereotypical Virgo as well. My five siblings tend to also have the traits associated with their astrological signs, as did my parents. I don't discount it all as coincidence, but doubt the influences are astrological in origin.
I lack any verifiable real data to make any kind of definitive answers beyond what I said above.
You can believe in anything but a deity and still be an atheist. Atheists are atheists by definition, and the definition is that one does not believe in even one deity.
I don't think you can be a skeptic or critical thinker and be into astrology, because anyone who understands logical fallacies will not see "my sign describes me perfectly" as anything but confirmation bias.