|
On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles.
Big manly Spartans also come in cycles of 300!
|
On January 03 2009 07:21 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool. I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
There is a difference with something being dogmatically rejected and being incompatible with scientific reasoning and shown to have no scientific evidence.
|
On January 03 2009 07:21 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool. I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Yes, truth can do that, if its truth.
But your bullshit isn't truth, its you basically saying "science and mathematical patterns are true, so mine must be as well".
Except, you haven't posted any patterns of proof, infact, in the whole nearly four pages of this on going argument, that has been no proof for your side, yet plenty for mine.
As I said, fuck you.
|
On January 03 2009 07:21 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:10 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Intersting, thanks. On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist. There's a difference between coming up with theories that are logical and can be demonstrated consistantly and just claiming things. For example, if I drop an object it falls. From this I conclude that objects unsupported by other objects fall and therefore theorise gravity. I can prove this by picking up an object and dropping it. I can repeat this experiement as often as I like. Your sun and empires example is akin to dropping an object to see if it changes the shape of the moon. Furthermore your conclusion that it does, after all you dropped it and the moon gradually became more crescent ignores the fact that it does that whether you drop it or not and that the reason it changes shape can be demonstrated much more logically without random objects. And empires still don't rise and fall in 300 year cycles. I just don't know where you're getting this from. You'd be an idiot for assuming correlation if it were true. But it's not. And I don't know what that makes you. An aspriring idiot maybe? Someone so desperate for something utterly retarded to believe in that they'd make up a coincidence between two absolutely unrelated events.
Yes, I agree with you. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the point I've been trying to make in this blog. That point is, that you do not necessarily need solid evidence for something to be true, or even believe something is true. There is nothing wrong with believing there may be a correlation based on a gut feeling. Claiming that it is true is wrong, but what I'm saying is that there will always be a certain subset of things which are true, but not provable.
It is the fringe beyond science, which sparks interest to be researched in the first place. Eventually science will get there and it may turn out that a lot of things are proven false. But they might also be proven true as well.
On January 03 2009 07:23 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:21 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool. I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. There is a difference with something being dogmatically rejected and being incompatible with scientific reasoning and shown to have no scientific evidence.
One should not make the mistake of rejecting something when no scientific evidence exists either way, which is what I'm saying.
|
On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem.
Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work.
That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples.
|
|
|
On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples.
Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false.
Explain what cusp signs are.
Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false.
Give me a correct site.
|
On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site.
Now don't be a cunt.
Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader.
Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much.
I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
|
This is a classic test and completely misses the point.
|
On January 03 2009 07:54 HamerD wrote:This is a classic test and completely misses the point.
Back that statement up. how does it miss the point?
|
On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
YOU of all people call me a cunt?
You're supposed to persuade me, yet you have no evidence.
When I asked for evidence, it took nearly thirty minutes to even get a reply, and all it says is "I'll get you your evidence".
You're honestly questioning if English is my first language or not, based on only one sentence?
Attacking grammar just to get away from the point, you're a twat.
I know what repression is, what I meant was, your bullshit 100% fake fairy tale astrology should apply to everyone, yet your excuse for that is "Oh! They must be repressed! So it won't work on them!"
You don't have a correct site on hand, which is further proof you're full of it.
Astrology is 100% lies, enjoy it, "cunt".
|
On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt?
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
|
On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
|
On January 03 2009 07:57 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:54 HamerD wrote:This is a classic test and completely misses the point. Back that statement up. how does it miss the point?
Two main reasons. A, it exposes fake astrology and not astrology (it essentially attacks the 'cold reading' of bogus astrology). And B, it immediately makes the assumption that any tests that makes people go 'OMG THAT'S ME!' must be false. It doesn't question anything about astrology because Derren Brown is interested in the psyche and not astrology at all. If I have made any mistakes there it's because I watched about 10 seconds of it. I did however see Derren talking to Dawkins on channel 4 about the exact same thing, so I have an idea of it.
There was a similar experiment Derren was using as a blue print, and the mistake that made was not realising what parts of the psyche astrology deals with, and that most if not all the parts astrology affects are equally affected and smothered by circumstance.
|
On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're such an asshole.
No wonder you believe such lies.
|
On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: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. 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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
|
On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:
[quote]
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. 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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that.
You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
|
On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:
[quote]
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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Yes I am guilty of personal attack, but not against him, it was to the other person.
You, I, and everyone, have requested evidence from him, and nearly five pages later, there still hasn't been any.
He can't provide you evidence, because its all lies. You're debating with a wall.
|
On January 03 2009 07:18 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science
b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway. You just destroyed your argument against us with that sentence. You are arguing that we are casting aside your 'science' without giving it a chance. We aren't, we are just asking for something more than anecdotal evidence, which you have yet to give out. However, you just said, without reading an article contrary to your viewpoint first, that that article is wrong, and you will show us why. Leaving alone the fact that the guys that wrote the article are probably professionals in their field and you are...some guy..., you are being more closed minded than you are accusing us of being.
Are you blind? I said I want the paper. That was a tiny little article, have you ever seen a paper before? There, that's what condescension feels like. Now leave it out!
It's like einstein saying 'you can't just throw a ball and expect to be able to see time slowing down around it' to some zealous professors. Although the parallel stops quite early on because astrology is not the theory of relativity and I am (contrary to unpopular belief) not Einstein.
Look, I thoroughly approve of the concept of good science, I just think most people go into astrology with a lot of the primary concepts and facts completely out of kilter, about WHAT it actually applies to!
|
On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:
[quote]
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). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense
This one is about telling the future. I don't believe in that.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk
The time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all. The questions they ask are mostly concerned with genes and circumstance ANYWAY.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070522093713/http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030817-105449-9384r.htm
Look, these time twins tests are ok for debunking 'tell the future' and fake astrologers. But the criteria they set out are not exhaustive...and also it just talks about 'astrologers'. It's like grouping Kent Hovind in with Richard Dawkins as 'scientists' or Hitler and Obama as 'politicians'.
These papers are about things that I don't consider to be anything to do with the astrology I deal with. The astrology I dabble in deals with our natural predispositions towards various personality leanings. It is something that is much more evident and useful when examined personally, with an open mind, in relation to one's life.
Like I said before the sun signs are like a colour chart (there are not 12 definite colours, only twelve general areas of shade), and there are other signs relating to the year in which you were born and I think even the place. I never bother to go that deep into that stuff because I like to keep in the border between psychology and astrology, because it helps me deal with personality issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
