Astrology

[Aquiel]

Yep astrology. This is something I just don't understand. How can people even believe in what astrology says?

 

 

 

How can someone believe people are doomed to be a certain way just become of the day they were born?

 

 

 

The moon has indeniable effect on oceans, and humans since we are made out of water. But there's a step between that and saying that because the moon is aligned with a specific bunch of stars the human behaviour is changed.

 

 

 

The definitions for the signs are general. Some people, strangely, seem to fit their signs, others, not at all. Coincidence? That's what I think.

 

 

 

I guess it must be conforting to some people to put others or themselves in categories. It kinda answers the universal question "Who am I?" "I'm a leo!".

[StrOwez]

In the same way people can believe in God and other myths/spiritual things.

[BlueLancer]

In the same way people can believe in God and other myths/spiritual things.

 

 

 

So you'd really believe all 460 million Capricorn in the world will have a similar day and similar events because of what some guy writes about planetary movement? :lol:

 

 

 

Completely agree with the Maddox article about astrology (nevermind the crude language, it's a comedy site anyways, but so true)

 

 

 

Really, *don't* base financial or other important decisions on your horoscope. Please. You're just in for a huge disappointment.

[kelem_ryu]

Oh god not again a thread about astrology.

 

 

 

I just don't understand.

 

 

 

Of course you don't understand. You don't even try to. If you want to understand, try reading a book about it, instead of throwing around assumptions. I have a feeling though, you are very happy the way you are.

[StrOwez]

In the same way people can believe in God and other myths/spiritual things.

 

 

 

So you'd really believe all 460 million Capricorn in the world will have a similar day and similar events because of what some guy writes about planetary movement? :lol:

 

Quote me where I said that I believed in astrology..? The OP asked how people believe in that stuff and I answered.

 

 

 

On the other hand I don't think its acceptable for a member of a G rated forum to be giving links to websites of explicit content especially when that member is a moderator - way to follow the rules.

[BlueLancer]

Maddox has been posted quite a lot of times on the forum and topics about him have been left open (but, if you report it with a good explanation, I can view it neutrally and possibly remove the link.. Up to you). Jumping on a link to attack me isn't exactly constructive. If you read the second word of that post you'd see I didn't even implicate you believe in it.

 

 

 

Of course you don't understand. You don't even try to. If you want to understand, try reading a book about it, instead of throwing around assumptions.

 

 

 

I've admittedly only read 1 brochure about it and a few articles, if you have further reading, post links? :) Because the stuff I read so far about astrology/horoscpes made it sound just like a bunch of pseudo-science..

[Aquiel]

Oh god not again a thread about astrology.

 

 

 

I just don't understand.

 

 

 

Of course you don't understand. You don't even try to. If you want to understand, try reading a book about it, instead of throwing around assumptions. I have a feeling though, you are very happy the way you are.

 

I'm willing to see the other side of the issue. Go ahead, explain to me how exactly and why exactly astrology is real.

[Rebdragon]

Completely agree with the Maddox article about astrology (nevermind the crude language, it's a comedy site anyways, but so true)

 

 

 

Really, *don't* base financial or other important decisions on your horoscope. Please. You're just in for a huge disappointment.

 

That's my first time reading that article. Hilarious.

 

 

 

Sadly, my mom perfectly fits the stereotype :lol: .

 

 

 

[Although, she doesn't believe in astrology :-k .]

[Errdoth]

 

Completely agree with the Maddox article about astrology (nevermind the crude language, it's a comedy site anyways, but so true)

 

 

 

Aww...beat me to it.

 

 

 

I'm gonna go with a Carl Sagan quote here: I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.

[Lenin64]

, and humans since we are made out of water.

 

Sorry but I had to laugh at this. 70% water, yes, but i don;t think you could say we are "made of water". ANyways, people believe horoscopes because they have such broad terminology that they do describe, even in the most minute way, everybody. They believe the whole planetary alignment thing the same way people believe every other religion-yes, astrology is a religion.

[wakka102]

In the same way people can believe in God and other myths/spiritual things.

+1000000000^8

[kelem_ryu]

I'm willing to see the other side of the issue. Go ahead, explain to me how exactly and why exactly astrology is real.

 

 

 

There were threads about astrology before and i tried to explain before, but i did a poor job at it. Most i know about this subject comes from books.

 

 

 

One huge problem is that almost everybody, even about all scientists trying to disprove astrology are basing their ideas mostly upon hearsay and newspaper astrology. (Nobody takes newspaper astrology less serious than astrologers.)

 

 

 

Another problem is that astrology doesn't provide quantifiable data.

 

 

 

 

 

Hm.. i doesn't really serve any purpose trying lengthy to explain, what the theories are why astrology is supposed to work, how it works, what statements you are supposed to be able to make based on astrology and so forth. Since i got most my information (as mentioned) from books, i don't really know any quality links. I expect plenty of the astrology stuff on the web to be garbage, but i'm sure there are serious sites out there to. If you really are interested, you'll probably find sources that show you what astrology is all about.

 

 

 

What i'll probably never know is, whether fuzzy statements are made because astrology is bogus, or because the data is interpreted insufficiently, wich would be a very reasonable explaination because the very nature of the data (and the data is precise) makes it hard to interprete. One problem i always had with astrology is that i have a very hard time translating a very clear statement like "jupiter opposition mars". The very act of translating such a precise and beautiful statement has to make it fuzzy. That are reasons why i have a hard time to understand, why anybody could just outrightly dismiss astrology out of scientific reasons. In principle it would be possible to design experiments to verfy it, but it would be insanely hard to come up with an appropriate setup.

 

 

 

I can understand why people don't believe in statements based on astrology, but i disagree with their reasons. That newspaper horoscopes are vague at best is the most invalid reason of them all.

 

 

 

I have yet to see an attempt to disprove astrology, where the basic assumptions and questions are valid.

 

 

 

The best thing i have seen so far is a experiment by Darren Brown. Unfortunately i can't find the link anymore. In the end however he just shows that astrologers could all be applying consciously or unconsciously cold reading. I think it is very possible that it is something that is done very frequently. Still this doesn't necessarily mean astrology is bunk.

 

 

 

A simplistic example: Neglecting all other factors of a horoscope, leos are supposed to be more outgoing then idk cancers or capricorns. If you tell any person for example: "At times you are outgoing." or even "You are very outgoing." You got a myriade of problems here. First of all (that's what cold reading is all about) you can't quantify "outgoing". There is no scale o measure it. Second the term "outgoing" is wishy washy. The data is "sun in leo". This is a clear stament. Summing up everything the sun or leo symbolizes isn't the same as the symbol itself. I try to give an example: Try to translate this to somebody who hardly knows anything about the concept of numbers: 2+5.5=7.5 Just in case you are already thinking about apples: yes that is the way we learn how numbers work, but nothing in the statement 2+5.5=7.5 implies apples in any way. It is a very precise statement, but without knowledge of mathematics it is worthless. In order to understand it, you first have to understand the principles behind it.

 

 

 

Besides all that just because the sun is in leo doesn't mean the person has to show very much leo characteristics on the surface. Other aspects can reinforce the leo impression (and all what i am saying is very wishy washy for the outlined reasons) or they can hide it. A person with sun in cancer on the other hand can have a leo moon and a leo ascendant plus a leo mercury, venus and mars to top it off. A untrained eye would see very many leo characteristics. Basically the sun symbolizes something where outgoing is an adjective to describe it. Since everybody has the sun somewhere, everybody is outgoing, but in a different way. Facing astrology i'm inclined to say that our vocabulary is very limited. Just remember the innuit with their idk how many words for snow. To us it all is snow, or if you live in an alpine country, like i do, you might have mabye 5 words for different types of snow. I believe many insufficiecies of astrology might as well be insufficiencies in our language.

 

 

 

I'm just starting on the problems with astrology. Maybe you can understand why i hate it when people, like the TE (meaning no offense)who obviously know next to nothing about the subject ask meaningless questions like "do you believe in astrology?", with an underlying suggestion of disapproval about people who do "believe". (Although i have to admit that there are plenty of people out there, who believe (without quotation marks) for the wrong reasons (namely for the reasons of others disbelieve).

 

 

 

So yes, i guess i do believe in astrology. I'm even claiming that you can find the sun in BlueLancers birth chart in the 8th house. I might obviously be wrong and if i am right, it proves nothing.

[warri0r45]

I'm willing to see the other side of the issue. Go ahead, explain to me how exactly and why exactly astrology is real.

 

 

 

There were threads about astrology before and i tried to explain before, but i did a poor job at it. Most i know about this subject comes from books.

 

 

 

One huge problem is that almost everybody, even about all scientists trying to disprove astrology are basing their ideas mostly upon hearsay and newspaper astrology. (Nobody takes newspaper astrology less serious than astrologers.)

 

 

 

Another problem is that astrology doesn't provide quantifiable data.

 

 

 

 

 

Hm.. i doesn't really serve any purpose trying lengthy to explain, what the theories are why astrology is supposed to work, how it works, what statements you are supposed to be able to make based on astrology and so forth. Since i got most my information (as mentioned) from books, i don't really know any quality links. I expect plenty of the astrology stuff on the web to be garbage, but i'm sure there are serious sites out there to. If you really are interested, you'll probably find sources that show you what astrology is all about.

 

 

 

What i'll probably never know is, whether fuzzy statements are made because astrology is bogus, or because the data is interpreted insufficiently, wich would be a very reasonable explaination because the very nature of the data (and the data is precise) makes it hard to interprete. One problem i always had with astrology is that i have a very hard time translating a very clear statement like "jupiter opposition mars". The very act of translating such a precise and beautiful statement has to make it fuzzy. That are reasons why i have a hard time to understand, why anybody could just outrightly dismiss astrology out of scientific reasons. In principle it would be possible to design experiments to verfy it, but it would be insanely hard to come up with an appropriate setup.

 

 

 

I can understand why people don't believe in statements based on astrology, but i disagree with their reasons. That newspaper horoscopes are vague at best is the most invalid reason of them all.

 

 

 

I have yet to see an attempt to disprove astrology, where the basic assumptions and questions are valid.

 

 

 

The best thing i have seen so far is a experiment by Darren Brown. Unfortunately i can't find the link anymore. In the end however he just shows that astrologers could all be applying consciously or unconsciously cold reading. I think it is very possible that it is something that is done very frequently. Still this doesn't necessarily mean astrology is bunk.

 

 

 

A simplistic example: Neglecting all other factors of a horoscope, leos are supposed to be more outgoing then idk cancers or capricorns. If you tell any person for example: "At times you are outgoing." or even "You are very outgoing." You got a myriade of problems here. First of all (that's what cold reading is all about) you can't quantify "outgoing". There is no scale o measure it. Second the term "outgoing" is wishy washy. The data is "sun in leo". This is a clear stament. Summing up everything the sun or leo symbolizes isn't the same as the symbol itself. I try to give an example: Try to translate this to somebody who hardly knows anything about the concept of numbers: 2+5.5=7.5 Just in case you are already thinking about apples: yes that is the way we learn how numbers work, but nothing in the statement 2+5.5=7.5 implies apples in any way. It is a very precise statement, but without knowledge of mathematics it is worthless. In order to understand it, you first have to understand the principles behind it.

 

 

 

Besides all that just because the sun is in leo doesn't mean the person has to show very much leo characteristics on the surface. Other aspects can reinforce the leo impression (and all what i am saying is very wishy washy for the outlined reasons) or they can hide it. A person with sun in cancer on the other hand can have a leo moon and a leo ascendant plus a leo mercury, venus and mars to top it off. A untrained eye would see very many leo characteristics. Basically the sun symbolizes something where outgoing is an adjective to describe it. Since everybody has the sun somewhere, everybody is outgoing, but in a different way. Facing astrology i'm inclined to say that our vocabulary is very limited. Just remember the innuit with their idk how many words for snow. To us it all is snow, or if you live in an alpine country, like i do, you might have mabye 5 words for different types of snow. I believe many insufficiecies of astrology might as well be insufficiencies in our language.

 

 

 

I'm just starting on the problems with astrology. Maybe you can understand why i hate it when people, like the TE (meaning no offense)who obviously know next to nothing about the subject ask meaningless questions like "do you believe in astrology?", with an underlying suggestion of disapproval about people who do "believe". (Although i have to admit that there are plenty of people out there, who believe (without quotation marks) for the wrong reasons (namely for the reasons of others disbelieve).

 

 

 

So yes, i guess i do believe in astrology. I'm even claiming that you can find the sun in BlueLancers birth chart in the 8th house. I might obviously be wrong and if i am right, it proves nothing.

 

I'm going to give you a huge tip. Stop, take a deep breath, and think of what it would take for people to understand astrology. Start from the very simple, then work your way up to the difficult stuff where you use jargon.

 

 

 

Let me give it a shot, cutting it down to one sentence:

 

 

 

Astrology is the idea that the positions of certain celestial bodies either influence or correlate with human affairs.

 

 

 

Now, for what you have to do to prove this:

 

 

 

1) Show us all the correlations. Lots of them. Make your case undeniable.

 

2) Show how it does this so that you can blow any other ideas as to why there exists a correlation out of the water. This will make astrology a theory rather than just a correlation.

 

 

 

I think any reasonable person would be skeptical given the idea that the relative positions of celestial bodies actually influences our lives in any predictable way, especially in terms of people's personality, financial sucess, and sucess in relationships, etc.

 

 

 

Given that, most people brush it under the carpet as utter bollocks. This gives you, rightly or wrongly, an uphill battle.

[kelem_ryu]

I'm just starting on the problems with astrology. Maybe you can understand why i hate it when people, like the TE (meaning no offense)who obviously know next to nothing about the subject ask meaningless questions like "do you believe in astrology?", with an underlying suggestion of disapproval about people who do "believe". (Although i have to admit that there are plenty of people out there, who believe (without quotation marks) for the wrong reasons (namely for the reasons of others disbelieve).

 

 

 

I want to knit on this idea. I have the impression that many people don't "believe" in science for scientifc reasons. People seem to mostly believe what they are told to be true. Actually it goes so far that i have no reason not to believe that people dismissing astrology do that because of ignorance. They dismiss astrology, god, the easter bunny and idk what with the same certainty they affirm that everything "science" says (as if science could say anything. Usually what they mean is some people told me that some scientists thinks that, or i read somewhere that science says this or that is so.) is true. It is more likely that everything science says is false, because almost every theory becomes refuted someday. That is what science is all about: Finding models to explain the world (by certain means). I also often have the impression that people believe there is somekind of unified body of scientists who perfectly agree on what is true and what isn't. Sure they conform on some things, but there is much dispute, many unverified theories, much controversy on about just what constitutes a theory to be verified and for every verified theory there is somebody out there, who already has doubts. The much hyped string theory has hardly any solid evidence from what i read (and that's this point again. Most we "know" we base on something we read. It may sound more or less convincing, but only in very rare cases we go so deep into the materia, that we even could make reasonable claims on the truth of it.

 

 

 

My conclusion of all this is that our thinking is so deeplay biased (i haven't even begun on explaining how i came to that conclusion) that you cannot believe anything. From that point i went out and ultimately came to the conclusion (would be a very lengthy topic on it's on) that you can believe everything.

[BlueLancer]

 

So yes, i guess i do believe in astrology. I'm even claiming that you can find the sun in BlueLancers birth chart in the 8th house. I might obviously be wrong and if i am right, it proves nothing.

 

 

 

What I don't understand is what the planet's positions have to do with my, or anyone elses life for that matter. Heck, what were the astrology signs for that school killer 2 days ago? I don't even want to know in case it's too ridiculous.

 

 

 

People base their actions on what they need, want, or can do. I could smash my PC right now but I don't want to. A planet isn't going to make me do this or that.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to know how astrologers come to the conclusions they do, or is it just like Feng Shui - a pseudoscience without clear guidelines?

 

 

 

Penn & Teller did an episode on that, and not one of the 'Feng Shui consultants'were consistent in what is the right 'Feng Shui'. They'd all just position the furniture randomly, or absolutely opposite from the last consultant's setup.

 

 

 

If this phenomenon occurs in astrology too, it can't be regarded as a real science. Findings and techniques must be consistent. One astrologer can't say "Mars opposite Jupiter means good luck today" and the another "Mars opposite Jupiter means something bad will happen today".

 

 

 

If that's the case, it's nothing but a hoax, or at best entertainment.

[kelem_ryu]

I'm going to give you a huge tip. Stop, take a deep breath, and think of what it would take for people to understand astrology. Start from the very simple, then work your way up to the difficult stuff where you use jargon.

 

 

 

I might do that, but i'm not that interested in the subject. Besides it is pretty hard to find publishers today. ....

 

 

 

That's what books are for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, i guess i do believe in astrology. I'm even claiming that you can find the sun in BlueLancers birth chart in the 8th house. I might obviously be wrong and if i am right, it proves nothing.

 

 

 

What I don't understand is what the planet's positions have to do with my, or anyone elses life for that matter. Heck, what were the astrology signs for that school killer 2 days ago? I don't even want to know in case it's too ridiculous.

 

 

 

People base their actions on what they need, want, or can do. I could smash my PC right now but I don't want to. A planet isn't going to make me do this or that.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to know how astrologers come to the conclusions they do, or is it just like Feng Shui - a pseudoscience without clear guidelines?

 

 

 

Penn & Teller did an episode on that, and not one of the 'Feng Shui consultants'were consistent in what is the right 'Feng Shui'. They'd all just position the furniture randomly, or absolutely opposite from the last consultant's setup.

 

 

 

If this phenomenon occurs in astrology too, it can't be regarded as a real science. Findings and techniques must be consistent. One astrologer can't say "Mars opposite Jupiter means good luck today" and the another "Mars opposite Jupiter means something bad will happen today".

 

 

 

If that's the case, it's nothing but a hoax, or at best entertainment.

 

 

 

About Feng Shui. This is something i barely glimpsed into, but it is based on a very solid idea (something that should be much more obvious then astrology): The things around you influence you. So from what i assume a good Fengh shui guy would arrange things harmoniously.

 

 

 

 

 

This computer trash story ... i won't even try to go anywhere from there. The whole idea is full of assumptions.

 

 

 

What i read all the times between the line is that most people don't want it to be true. (Mostly then it seems that they fear for their free will, wich is an idea that you can believe in at best, but can hardly be proven. It's almost like believing in god.)

 

 

 

 

 

What you need to do (imo) when trying to understand astrology (or whatever else) is to start by wondering: "Okay some people tell me about astroloy, how could this concept possibly work?" Ask yourself how it could work, instead of why it can't work. Go into detail and so forth. Eventually there is a point where you have a solid base for a judgement. That's what i am so furious (well not really, but so to speak) about: You have no intention of even trying to make it work. What would be the harm to just accept it for the sake of experiment. Say: "Okay fine, astrology is working." and from there try to explore it. You can dismiss it later on anyway, if it ultimately proves to be too incoherent.

 

 

 

That's why no astrologer can take any scientific attempt to disprove astrology serious. None of them was taken by a person who truely learned about the subject. They leanred a little about it with the sole interest of disproving it. It's so obvious, because their assumptions lack detail. so much detail in fact that their experiments are worthless.

 

 

 

I'm not even saying astrology has to be true, mind you. I'm extremly discouraged though, because on the one hand i got people who outright dismiss it and on the other hand i got people, who go out of their way to make it work (or just blindly believe it.)

 

 

 

I think that if it works (if i were to discuss with an astrologer i would look very critical, but here on tip it i probably look like a believer of some kind.) there are numerous technical inconsistencies and as i already pointed out a huge pile of problems. Yet i don't think that necessarily means it is wrong. Even in science a theory almost always has a lot inconsistencies at first.

 

 

 

It's so futile to discuss this here.

[warri0r45]

I'm just starting on the problems with astrology. Maybe you can understand why i hate it when people, like the TE (meaning no offense)who obviously know next to nothing about the subject ask meaningless questions like "do you believe in astrology?", with an underlying suggestion of disapproval about people who do "believe". (Although i have to admit that there are plenty of people out there, who believe (without quotation marks) for the wrong reasons (namely for the reasons of others disbelieve).

 

 

 

I want to knit on this idea. I have the impression that many people don't "believe" in science for scientifc reasons. People seem to mostly believe what they are told to be true. Actually it goes so far that i have no reason not to believe that people dismissing astrology do that because of ignorance. They dismiss astrology, god, the easter bunny and idk what with the same certainty they affirm that everything "science" says (as if science could say anything. Usually what they mean is some people told me that some scientists thinks that, or i read somewhere that science says this or that is so.) is true. It is more likely that everything science says is false, because almost every theory becomes refuted someday. That is what science is all about: Finding models to explain the world (by certain means). I also often have the impression that people believe there is somekind of unified body of scientists who perfectly agree on what is true and what isn't. Sure they conform on some things, but there is much dispute, many unverified theories, much controversy on about just what constitutes a theory to be verified and for every verified theory there is somebody out there, who already has doubts. The much hyped string theory has hardly any solid evidence from what i read (and that's this point again. Most we "know" we base on something we read. It may sound more or less convincing, but only in very rare cases we go so deep into the materia, that we even could make reasonable claims on the truth of it.

 

 

 

My conclusion of all this is that our thinking is so deeplay biased (i haven't even begun on explaining how i came to that conclusion) that you cannot believe anything. From that point i went out and ultimately came to the conclusion (would be a very lengthy topic on it's on) that you can believe everything.

 

It shows a lot when your only out is to revert to talking about science just because it calls what you believe in bunk. You need to swallow your pride and support your own ideas without attacking others. You sound exactly like a creationist.

[warri0r45]

I'm going to give you a huge tip. Stop, take a deep breath, and think of what it would take for people to understand astrology. Start from the very simple, then work your way up to the difficult stuff where you use jargon.

 

 

 

I might do that, but i'm not that interested in the subject. Besides it is pretty hard to find publishers today. ....

 

 

 

That's what books are for.

 

 

 

If I was in your position and I knew my idea was true or had some truth to it I would be downright delighted to explain it to people who didn't know about it.

[BlueLancer]

 

I want to knit on this idea. I have the impression that many people don't "believe" in science for scientifc reasons. People seem to mostly believe what they are told to be true.

 

 

 

I actually know few people who just believe what they are told. Heck, I grew up in a christian environment and I was baptized. Since age 8 I realized all the kids who try to scare me with 'hell' if I don't do this or that are just funny little robots with no free will. I found a lot of friends, including christians and muslims, who lived a normal life without absorbing everything they read/were told.

 

 

 

I don't believe anything unless it can be empirically proven. Neither should you. 'God' is an exception, since I'm yet to find a plausible theory that tells how the first atoms just popped out of nothing, I'm keeping that option open (but am in no way religious).

 

 

 

There are a ton of pseudoscientific theories out there, astrology seems to be just one amongst the many.

 

 

 

Even astrologers themselves dispute the validity and truthfulness of their practice, admitting almost all astrologers intepret things differently and fight each other, all while trying to earn money. (Link is to Astronomical society of the Pacific)

 

 

 

In science, you don't research things meant to help people, for money. You do it to further understanding of the subject and to prove it's correct. Astrologers seem to be in the business just to bring in gullible individuals, keep them hooked on rubbish, and cash in on them.

[kelem_ryu]

It shows a lot when your only out is to revert to talking about science just because it calls what you believe in bunk. You need to swallow your pride and support your own ideas without attacking others. You sound exactly like a creationist.

 

 

 

I did attack somebody? Basically i said that most people would believe just about anything as long as it is told them in a sincere voice.

 

 

 

Creationist are biased because of their believe in a very distinct kind of god, but we are all biased. It's just that many people believe that logic and reason is above bias. You could put it as simple as: What makes something that is logical true, or that is true according to observation more true than something that is true according to believe? You say things are real, because you can see them, but in turn define reality as the sum of the things you see. That is circular logic. From a certain point of view logic is always circular.

 

 

 

I just want to point out that there are good reasons to believe that the world isn't as mundane as it seems (although even i have a hard time to believe what i write.) Maybe it is. What do i know? Maybe i'm just desperate.

 

 

 

I think this is basically what this is all about.

[warri0r45]

It shows a lot when your only out is to revert to talking about science just because it calls what you believe in bunk. You need to swallow your pride and support your own ideas without attacking others. You sound exactly like a creationist.

 

 

 

I did attack somebody? Basically i said that most people would believe just about anything as long as it is told them in a sincere voice.

 

 

 

Creationist are biased because of their believe in a very distinct kind of god, but we are all biased. It's just that many people believe that logic and reason is above bias. You could put it as simple as: What makes something that is logical true, or that is true according to observation more true than something that is true according to believe? You say things are real, because you can see them, but in turn define reality as the sum of the things you see. That is circular logic. From a certain point of view logic is always circular.

 

 

 

I just want to point out that there are good reasons to believe that the world isn't as mundane as it seems (although even i have a hard time to believe what i write.) Maybe it is. What do i know? Maybe i'm just desperate.

 

 

 

I think this is basically what this is all about.

 

I think I don't know what you're talking about. You've brought up science and your disaproval of it in one way or another in talks about astrology before. I was commenting that this is not the way to do things. Dismissing science does not make your ideas any more true. If you want to convince people in this forum you'll have to do so without trying to discredit the opposition. An idea can only go so far untill it requires explanation of itself and not of those which oppose it. Hence the creationism reference. Their overwhelming preoccupation is not proving themselves true yet proving others false. It's a very nonsensical, logically fallacious and cop-outish way of trying to prove yourself true, if that is at all what you want to do. I'll assume it is because you dislike people dismissing astrology and are an adherant to it and you seem to always participate in such topics. Other than that, I don't see where your views of the mundane nature or lack thereof of the universe come into it (or much of what you typed above, for that matter).

[Rebdragon]

I'm just starting on the problems with astrology. Maybe you can understand why i hate it when people, like the TE (meaning no offense)who obviously know next to nothing about the subject ask meaningless questions like "do you believe in astrology?", with an underlying suggestion of disapproval about people who do "believe". (Although i have to admit that there are plenty of people out there, who believe (without quotation marks) for the wrong reasons (namely for the reasons of others disbelieve).

 

 

 

I want to knit on this idea. I have the impression that many people don't "believe" in science for scientifc reasons. People seem to mostly believe what they are told to be true. Actually it goes so far that i have no reason not to believe that people dismissing astrology do that because of ignorance. They dismiss astrology, god, the easter bunny and idk what with the same certainty they affirm that everything "science" says (as if science could say anything. Usually what they mean is some people told me that some scientists thinks that, or i read somewhere that science says this or that is so.) is true. It is more likely that everything science says is false, because almost every theory becomes refuted someday. That is what science is all about: Finding models to explain the world (by certain means). I also often have the impression that people believe there is somekind of unified body of scientists who perfectly agree on what is true and what isn't. Sure they conform on some things, but there is much dispute, many unverified theories, much controversy on about just what constitutes a theory to be verified and for every verified theory there is somebody out there, who already has doubts. The much hyped string theory has hardly any solid evidence from what i read (and that's this point again. Most we "know" we base on something we read. It may sound more or less convincing, but only in very rare cases we go so deep into the materia, that we even could make reasonable claims on the truth of it.

 

 

 

My conclusion of all this is that our thinking is so deeplay biased (i haven't even begun on explaining how i came to that conclusion) that you cannot believe anything. From that point i went out and ultimately came to the conclusion (would be a very lengthy topic on it's on) that you can believe everything.

 

I think you just utterly murdered any remaining credibility you were still clinging on to. We're not talking a quick, clean, Romeo and Juliet poison scene kill here. This is Saw-level credibility murdering.

 

 

 

kelem, stopping spending 300 odd lines saying the same damn thing- "I know more than you about astrology, you don't understand it, and thus I am completely incabable of defending my side of the issue". It's getting f'ing annoying.

 

 

 

Brevity is a virtue man. Learn it.

[kelem_ryu]

Just recalled something Darren Brown said in an interview. It went along the lines that he thinks if you hold wierd believes it's better to shut up about them. I guess he has a point there.

 

 

 

Judging from Rebs response i went waaay overboard.

 

 

 

I guess i am slowly learning this lesson.

[Rebdragon]

Just recalled something Darren Brown said in an interview. It went along the lines that he thinks if you hold wierd believes it's better to shut up about them. I guess he has a point there.

 

 

 

Judging from Rebs response i went waaay overboard.

 

 

 

I guess i am slowly learning this lesson.

 

Actually, I'd prefer that you expound upon your point rather than evading the issue. Your belief is already out there (more or less), so if you really think it's true, explain and defend it dude :) .

[rushrock]

How can people believe what the bible says?

 

 

 

Let people believe what they want. Who are you to decide?