Astrology! Just a few points about it - Page 2

On January 03 2009 06:32 zer0das wrote:
I'm wearing my what hat.

On January 03 2009 05:16 MoRe_mInErAls wrote:
1. So the uncertainty of astrology contributes to its authenticity?

2. What is an example of this 100% evidence?

On January 03 2009 06:23 PanN wrote:


You are so fucking unbelievable its sad.

"Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc."

These comparisons are hilarious.

On January 03 2009 06:35 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Alchemy didn't become chemistry because we stopped looking for evidence and just believed what people said, it became chemistry because we looked deeper, asked more questions, and discovered what was true and what wasn't. So saying we shouldn't challenge something new and different is counter to the way science works. It needs to be challenged, and live up to those challenges, in order to be taken seriously. Astrology has been around for a long fucking time without a shred of actual evidence to support it.

On January 03 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:


There is clear evidence for heritability and environmentality regarding to personality, how exactly is astrological sign of influence and where can I find the proof for this. And with proof I mean empirical data that has been tested and shown significant differences between different signs and correlations between identical astrological signs.

On January 03 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:
And what do you have to say about Dawkins' comments regarding astrology;

On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives.

On January 03 2009 06:35 fight_or_flight wrote:

How so? Do you think the Mayans were using newtons laws to predict eclipses? Do you think a chemist invented gunpowder by calculating the formula? Do you wonder why modern day medical researchers go into jungles and try to extract the active ingredients of roots that people in asia have been using for thousands of years?

Why does the word chemistry come from the egyptian word meaning earth? Go to wikipedia and read about the origins and history of the words "medicine", "chemistry", and "astronomy".

On January 03 2009 05:10 HamerD wrote:
Eighthly: Something I find really irritating is that people aren't willing to accept the murkiness of astrology. Because it does not give a person's full personality (as it's different because of genes and circumstance) it can never really give a clean cut, on-demand, perfect analysis of someone. People are very unwilling to be open-minded about things like this. They think that because it cannot be put into one sentence, it is an automatically invalid concept. You get a lot of hostility when explaining like this to most pig-headed people.

On January 03 2009 06:43 PanN wrote:


Don't try to argue with me after you compared astrology and astronomy.

On January 03 2009 05:40 Lucktar wrote:
If enough bullshit is written about your sign, you'll find some that sounds like it applies to you. That doesn't make any of it real or rational.

On January 03 2009 06:47 fight_or_flight wrote:

I said they have the same origins. Looking up the definition for astrology even lists astronomy as an (obsolete) synonym. You seem to be thinking I'm comparing modern astronomy with modern astrology, which I'm not, I'm simply saying that fringe areas can and do develop into respected sciences. (implying they should not simply be dismissed)

On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:


I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality.

In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it?

What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense.

On January 03 2009 06:40 HamerD wrote:


Well I never found research regarding heritability and environmentality, I never needed to. It was obvious to me, and so is astrology. There ain't no empirical data in credited tests...and the reason for that is that it's impossible to test. The other two personality affectors have their effects just as early as astrological personality affectors. This isn't a concept I want to thrust on people, because it's not the sort of thing that has a concrete academic study behind it, I mean clearly it doesn't.



I really enjoy Richard Dawkins' wisdom...really. I've watched almost every video on his website, and read two of his books. I personally think that Dawkins, like a lot of people, just misses the point of what astrology is. He also conflates the hocus pocus horoscopes with simple astrological profiling. He considers it all to be nuts. And I really appreciate his opinion but just think he doesn't approach it in the right way for understanding astrology. It annoys me that he lumps religion in with astrology.

On January 03 2009 06:45 DoctorHelvetica wrote:


It's invalid scientifically. Because it's murky it's fairly simple to project what you want into it, recalling only experiences where you exhibited behaviors supported by your "sign". Much like prophecy, religion, and other non-scientific ways of explaining the world and the behavior of people, it is intentionally vague. Really I could take any sign and attribute it to my personality.

On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:


Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.

I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything.

For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence.

The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).

On January 03 2009 06:53 HamerD wrote:


You could definitely take half a dozen. The zodiac splits in half then splits into quarters (fire, water, wind, earth), then into 12's. It's annoying again, to say it, but like with the other guy; once you have any experience of astrology you'll realise you really cannot project yourself into some star signs. At least from any credible source of astrology information.

On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:


I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality.

In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it?

What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense.