What's your horoscope?

[Anesthesia]

Firstly, I read it from a book, and I didn't interpret it myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am surprised you still don't understand after the number of times I have repeated myself. You did interpret it when you read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, no one can be biased when they are reading something new for the first time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I already explained how they can be. They can be told that astrology works. It is even just implied that it works by their being presented with a horoscope to read.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, telling you about how it works has nothing to do with whether it is believable or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it does, if you can't explain why horoscopes aren't accurate for every single person in the world then it is no better than rolling a dice to decide their personalities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fourthly, I never said it was magic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I said that to you it might as well be magic. You can't explain how it is happening so for all you know it is magic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, have you come to a decision on who is right about when birth is? You say when you exit the womb (an event which lasts more than several seconds - you still haven't responded to that) yet kelem_ryu says it is when you take the first breath - who is right?

[Mercifull]

Its hard to argue, Herr, with people that so badly WANT something to be true that they argue so strongly despite there being no scientific evidence for it (anecdotal evidence does not count) and yer masses of evidence against. :-s

[crimsonking]

And my post was ignored... I certainly feel loved...

[Mercifull]

And my post was ignored... I certainly feel loved...

It was ignored because it was irrelevant. Such a controversial subject is bound to provoke criticisms from people. This is a discussion forum not a happy fluffy agree with everyone board.

[crimsonking]

 

And my post was ignored... I certainly feel loved...

It was ignored because it was irrelevant. Such a controversial subject is bound to provoke criticisms from people. This is a discussion forum not a happy fluffy agree with everyone board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thread isn't about arguing, LT just asked for horoscopes to describe personality traits as she did on the Runehq forums its for fun and you all have turned this into a gigantic arguement. I was actually expecting Runehq to do about as bad if not worse than you guys and they were suprisingly mature about things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to start this bs, you can leave things you don't agree with alone or at least just give a quick opinion and leave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you guys that arrogant that every thread on this forum has to turn into a flame war? Its pitiful.

[lunapasa]

Libras are a group of perfectionist. They love all things which are sweet and beautiful( :shock: couldn't be less true), and likes to seek for freedom(doesn't everybody?). They have attractive looking complexions(depends on what you think is attractive), and usually have a sweet smile(i'm a pessimist, I only smile sarcasticly). They are very popular(nope), but they prefer to keep a distance from others(true, but it contradicts(sp?) the part about being popular). For male libras, they like girls with good facial features and lots of common interests(nope).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My comments are put in bold.

 

 

 

Mostly vague and doesn't say anything true about me.

[crimsonking]

 

Libras are a group of perfectionist. They love all things which are sweet and beautiful( :shock: couldn't be less true), and likes to seek for freedom(doesn't everybody?). They have attractive looking complexions(depends on what you think is attractive), and usually have a sweet smile(i'm a pessimist, I only smile sarcasticly). They are very popular(nope), but they prefer to keep a distance from others(true, but it contradicts(sp?) the part about being popular). For male libras, they like girls with good facial features and lots of common interests(nope).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My comments are put in bold.

 

 

 

Mostly vague and doesn't say anything true about me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The part where it says they keep their distance from others doesn't contradict their popularity, it basically means, people like you, but you tend to keep away from them.

[Nadril]

Mhmm... wow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lt, do you realize you are skipping over everything Anesth said? You realize that, no matter what you read/watch/see, you interpet it, right? It doesn't matter if you even do it conciously, you do interpet it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like Anesth said, a horscope you would interpet it related to your life. Many people would see something such as [using an example before] "You are good at saving money" and you would think back at all the times that you saved money. You may be a large spender, but chances are you have saved money for something before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really can not argue that you interpet what you read. I do it, Anesthesia does it, ryu does it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, some people are wise enough to notice how these things [horscopes , for example] are "correct" and thus realizes how false they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, like it or not, you do interpet stuff.

[kelem_ryu]

This whole arguement is leading nowehere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Astrology isn't scientifical accepted. That's a fact. I guess there really is no scientifical evidence. Okay, so what? Science isn't everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another fact is, that some people enjoy doing astrology. It somehow works out for them. People lie to themselves all the time, if they lie to themselves about astrology, so what? People also lie to others all the time, if they lie about astrology, so what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll just state astrology is BS, for the sake of arguement. (You know it isn't my true opinion, but i'll assume it is.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe they don't care about the science point of view on that. Well, leave them in their flawed believes. Who are we to judge them? Who are we to tell them what's right and wrong, what's true or false? Who are we to believe we have a monopoly on truth?

[Pete_the_Viscous]

--edit: Sorry, that sounded a bit too arrogant to post.

[Ltfairy]

 

Firstly, I read it from a book, and I didn't interpret it myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am surprised you still don't understand after the number of times I have repeated myself. You did interpret it when you read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, no one can be biased when they are reading something new for the first time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I already explained how they can be. They can be told that astrology works. It is even just implied that it works by their being presented with a horoscope to read.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, telling you about how it works has nothing to do with whether it is believable or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it does, if you can't explain why horoscopes aren't accurate for every single person in the world then it is no better than rolling a dice to decide their personalities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fourthly, I never said it was magic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I said that to you it might as well be magic. You can't explain how it is happening so for all you know it is magic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, have you come to a decision on who is right about when birth is? You say when you exit the womb (an event which lasts more than several seconds - you still haven't responded to that) yet kelem_ryu says it is when you take the first breath - who is right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, what is written in there is in there, why would I need to interpret it? And may I know, what is your definition of interpretation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what if they are told that it works, they can still not believe in them unless they actually seeing that it works. How are they biased in that case? I'm sure they aren't that dumb to believe it just because the astrologer says so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, so I'm not that good at astrology, but I am following a book written by a famous astrologer. If you want an answer, just go and find someone who can really understand astrology, and who will not lie about it to explain to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mhmm... wow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lt, do you realize you are skipping over everything Anesth said? You realize that, no matter what you read/watch/see, you interpet it, right? It doesn't matter if you even do it conciously, you do interpet it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like Anesth said, a horscope you would interpet it related to your life. Many people would see something such as [using an example before] "You are good at saving money" and you would think back at all the times that you saved money. You may be a large spender, but chances are you have saved money for something before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really can not argue that you interpet what you read. I do it, Anesthesia does it, ryu does it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, some people are wise enough to notice how these things [horscopes , for example] are "correct" and thus realizes how false they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, like it or not, you do interpet stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, and may I know how does it make horoscopes biased? Recalling back what you did doesn't mean that "I'm gonna recall back and try to make this astrological reading fit me.", if I were that person, I would just be like "Ok, if I'm like that then I'm like that. If I'm not, then I'm not." I accept it when the astrological readings tell me that something is true, and denies it when it isn't. It's not as if I'm gonna try my best to make everything I read fit me. How is it biased then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If interpretation is going to make things that biased, then everything in this world needs to be questioned. Every scientific fact can be interpreted, does that mean all of them are biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This argument wasn't initiated by me, and I didn't expect it to become like this. As I have said before, I'm not forcing anyone to believe in it. Just take it as a form of entertainment, and not take anything too seriously (if you don't believe in it). If you still have any more arguments against it, either send me a PM, or just ignore this thread.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

Are you guys that arrogant that every thread on this forum has to turn into a flame war? Its pitiful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see in no way how, for example Anesthesia is flaming anyone on this thread. If you believe something, you are ought to defend why you believe so. Maybe runeHQ is an agreelandia where people agree with everything to seem friendly and gain some bonus points. I don't know, haven't been there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if they want to believe that Ronald Mcdonald is our creator, let them, its about as truthful as any of the stuff you guys believe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, we could let them, then it just wouldn't be a "discussion". If I personally believe something, I have facts to back it up. I don't go around shouting 'the world has existed for 6000 years' or 'magic is real'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no science behind astrology, because horoscopes don't exist other than for the purpose of making money. It's exactly the same business as 'tarot readers' and 'fortune tellers'. They continously make false statements, and when 1 out of 100 is accurate, they get praised and recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can really scientifically prove how planetary movements could possibly alter human brain chemistry (and personality), feel free to.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

 

 

Seriously, what is written in there is in there, why would I need to interpret it? And may I know, what is your definition of interpretation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read some poetry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What BlueLancer just said reminded me of an entry in the Devil's Dictionary (which I rather think should be called "Lucifer's Lexicon" (having no guide to diction, but then I guess that's not as catchy):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PALMISTRY, n.

 

 

 

The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

[Nadril]

Ok, and may I know how does it make horoscopes biased? Recalling back what you did doesn't mean that "I'm gonna recall back and try to make this astrological reading fit me.", if I were that person, I would just be like "Ok, if I'm like that then I'm like that. If I'm not, then I'm not." I accept it when the astrological readings tell me that something is true, and denies it when it isn't. It's not as if I'm gonna try my best to make everything I read fit me. How is it biased then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, the way horscopes are writen though makes it so that many people will be able to see that trait, even if it isn't very dominent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, people don't like to say they do bad things. Horscopes back up that point. If you look at something that says you are good at handling money you will most likely sit there and think "hey, I am good at handling money!" and think of all the times you were good at it. [as I've stated before]. I don't think you would sit there and think "man, I'm really bad at handling money, I just spent all this money on something I didn't need".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, the thing is is it is probaly going to be a fairly half and half thing with many people. Unless you flat out suck with handling money there are probaly some instances that you did good, and as a human you want to reinforce that good thought. You don't want to say "I didn't do that" because its a negative idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also see how most horscopes are generaly "positive" (except for perhaps a few things that are neutral). Why does it never say "This person is bad at handling money"? Its because, again, as a human you don't want to beleive that. You want to be reinforced with the idea that you are a good person, and horscopes reinforce that fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If interpretation is going to make things that biased, then everything in this world needs to be questioned. Every scientific fact can be interpreted, does that mean all of them are biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you "truly" saying this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A scientist says that we are made out of cells. He can then show pictures, live demonstrations [showing cells under a microscope] and can generaly PROVE it is right. Also science is not vauge. It does not say "humans are made out of a lot of things". That can be interpeted, yes. "Humans are made out of cells" really can not be interpeted. Its clearcut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the same thing as me saying "thats a dog" and pointing to something that is clearly a dog. It is a dog, there is no arguing that. The statement is not vauge at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This argument wasn't initiated by me, and I didn't expect it to become like this. As I have said before, I'm not forcing anyone to believe in it. Just take it as a form of entertainment, and not take anything too seriously (if you don't believe in it). If you still have any more arguments against it, either send me a PM, or just ignore this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:/. You should have expected something like this to have sparked some kind of conversation.

[Ltfairy]

 

Ok, and may I know how does it make horoscopes biased? Recalling back what you did doesn't mean that "I'm gonna recall back and try to make this astrological reading fit me.", if I were that person, I would just be like "Ok, if I'm like that then I'm like that. If I'm not, then I'm not." I accept it when the astrological readings tell me that something is true, and denies it when it isn't. It's not as if I'm gonna try my best to make everything I read fit me. How is it biased then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, the way horscopes are writen though makes it so that many people will be able to see that trait, even if it isn't very dominent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, people don't like to say they do bad things. Horscopes back up that point. If you look at something that says you are good at handling money you will most likely sit there and think "hey, I am good at handling money!" and think of all the times you were good at it. [as I've stated before]. I don't think you would sit there and think "man, I'm really bad at handling money, I just spent all this money on something I didn't need".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, the thing is is it is probaly going to be a fairly half and half thing with many people. Unless you flat out suck with handling money there are probaly some instances that you did good, and as a human you want to reinforce that good thought. You don't want to say "I didn't do that" because its a negative idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also see how most horscopes are generaly "positive" (except for perhaps a few things that are neutral). Why does it never say "This person is bad at handling money"? Its because, again, as a human you don't want to beleive that. You want to be reinforced with the idea that you are a good person, and horscopes reinforce that fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If interpretation is going to make things that biased, then everything in this world needs to be questioned. Every scientific fact can be interpreted, does that mean all of them are biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you "truly" saying this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A scientist says that we are made out of cells. He can then show pictures, live demonstrations [showing cells under a microscope] and can generaly PROVE it is right. Also science is not vauge. It does not say "humans are made out of a lot of things". That can be interpeted, yes. "Humans are made out of cells" really can not be interpeted. Its clearcut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the same thing as me saying "thats a dog" and pointing to something that is clearly a dog. It is a dog, there is no arguing that. The statement is not vauge at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This argument wasn't initiated by me, and I didn't expect it to become like this. As I have said before, I'm not forcing anyone to believe in it. Just take it as a form of entertainment, and not take anything too seriously (if you don't believe in it). If you still have any more arguments against it, either send me a PM, or just ignore this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:/. You should have expected something like this to have sparked some kind of conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's totally not true, horoscopes says I'm too critical, and I admit that I am. Trust me, if you are reading a proper horoscopes book, it will tell you things from both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, let me give you something from the horoscopes book. "Virgoes give you the impression that they are always in deep thoughts." I have also asked my friend if I was like that, and they said yes. So do you think that statement above can be interpreted and biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another one. "Virgoes criticise a lot, and picks on the smallest mistakes." Take note that it is a negative statement. I asked around, and people who are close to me said I was like that sometimes. Again, do you think this statement can be interpreted and biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that any of the analysis is *that* vague. An example like "Virgoes like to think a lot" is vague, but "something like "Virgoes give you the impression that they are always deep in thought" is not vague.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, what is written in there is in there, why would I need to interpret it? And may I know, what is your definition of interpretation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read some poetry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What BlueLancer just said reminded me of an entry in the Devil's Dictionary (which I rather think should be called "Lucifer's Lexicon" (having no guide to diction, but then I guess that's not as catchy):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PALMISTRY, n.

 

 

 

The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do read poetry, and I admit that I have to do lots of interpretations. But astrology is not as vague as poetry, where the writer likes to give vague sentences with lots of meanings inside it. So I see absolutely no need to interpret the analysis, reason being that the meaning presented is clear enough.

[Anesthesia]

Ok, let me give you something from the horoscopes book. "Virgoes give you the impression that they are always in deep thoughts." I have also asked my friend if I was like that, and they said yes. So do you think that statement above can be interpreted and biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not that we think it can - it simply can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another one. "Virgoes criticise a lot, and picks on the smallest mistakes." Take note that it is a negative statement. I asked around, and people who are close to me said I was like that sometimes. Again, do you think this statement can be interpreted and biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not that we think it can - it simply can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am honestly astonished that you still don't get it.

[Ltfairy]

 

Ok, let me give you something from the horoscopes book. "Virgoes give you the impression that they are always in deep thoughts." I have also asked my friend if I was like that, and they said yes. So do you think that statement above can be interpreted and biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not that we think it can - it simply can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another one. "Virgoes criticise a lot, and picks on the smallest mistakes." Take note that it is a negative statement. I asked around, and people who are close to me said I was like that sometimes. Again, do you think this statement can be interpreted and biased?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not that we think it can - it simply can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am honestly astonished that you still don't get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yah, I'm wondering why as well. If that is what you mean, then are you saying that everything in this world can be interpreted and biased? Would it be better if you give me an example of something (a statement) that cannot be interpreted and cannot be biased? Perhaps I will understand better in that sense.

[Anesthesia]

You are female.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are 5'7".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They generally not subject to interpretation. They are quantitative, not qualitative. Qualitative statements are subject to interpretation and that is why self-reporting (in whatever guise) is not reliable evidence. Self reporting can refer to others too - just someone other than the experimenter.

[crimsonking]

 

 

 

 

Are you guys that arrogant that every thread on this forum has to turn into a flame war? Its pitiful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see in no way how, for example Anesthesia is flaming anyone on this thread. If you believe something, you are ought to defend why you believe so. Maybe runeHQ is an agreelandia where people agree with everything to seem friendly and gain some bonus points. I don't know, haven't been there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an attack on an entire belief system, I count that as flaming, you don't have to agree, but you don't have to go out on these monsterous arguments to shove everyone elses beliefs down into the mud like you all do when some religious thread is made, every time someone states an opinion on anything, especially religion, it automatically becomes a war zone upon whatever thread he/she posted on, you are all acting like immature little children, some of you can be really intelligent, but intelligence is nothing without the maturity to handle it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if they want to believe that Ronald Mcdonald is our creator, let them, its about as truthful as any of the stuff you guys believe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, we could let them, then it just wouldn't be a "discussion". If I personally believe something, I have facts to back it up. I don't go around shouting 'the world has existed for 6000 years' or 'magic is real'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no science behind astrology, because horoscopes don't exist other than for the purpose of making money. It's exactly the same business as 'tarot readers' and 'fortune tellers'. They continously make false statements, and when 1 out of 100 is accurate, they get praised and recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can really scientifically prove how planetary movements could possibly alter human brain chemistry (and personality), feel free to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thread isn't for this type of discussion, if you would even read the title it asks "Whats your horoscope?" Not "Your opinion on astrology?", you want to make a thread like that and do this there, go for it, but this thread didn't once ask for this, you all just automatically went on your rampage when you saw something you didn't agree with. She didn't even state that she believes this, even if she does, good for her, she was able to make a thread that didn't once ask for arguments or debates but still was able to speak her beliefs without shoving it in everyones faces, on this forum thats definatly something to look up to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Who are you to say that this belief isn't right when you can't even be sure yours is right? I mean, how scientifically can we exist? Or this universe be here? The big bang has been disproven several times on this forum alone, so you couldn't say that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Some priests get payed for stating beliefs about something that hasn't been proven, hell, one of them is basically a world leader, yet I don't see you complaining about them. Fortune telling, astrological readings, and tarot card readings are mostly gone to for fun, not belief, hell, half of the people who do it don't believe it themselves, and its not like they are making a fortune by doing this, most of them do it for like $5 per person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prove scientifically how we exist and how this plane of reality is even here, if you can't do that without going outside logic, then your science is flawed.

[kelem_ryu]

I feel if Ltfairy would believe the world is a sphere and Anasthesia and Nadril would believe it would be flat, those two would prove it right against Ltfairy, because they just are better rethorics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: And more power to crimson!

[Anesthesia]

kelem_ryu, we're not the ones claiming something works without evidence of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, we're not the ones who believe in magic. I still can't get over that one.

[kelem_ryu]

I still can't get over that one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hehe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

let me give you an example of the magic worldview (so that you can see where i'm coming from and why this evidence thingy isn't convincing to me): When somebody is looking for something and believes it to be there, he'll find it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or another one: Believes create reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So evidence really just shows to me, that somebody believes in whatever the evidence is for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are convinced of something your reality won't allow any evidence to enter, that could falsify your believes. If you find such evidence, it only shows you had doubts to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The beauty of all that is, that theoretical everything you want to believe in can become reality. Of course all that leads to a construct that can't be falsified and so it isn't scientifical. Doesn't bother me in the least. After all i believe in what i want to believe in, nobody can do anything about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All your arguments against astrology i heard before and i still believe in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From telling you my believes you can see, that evidence means nothing to me. Reasoning with somebody who firmly believes in science will lead me nowhere and what i hate about it is that believers in science always assume everybody has to argue according to their rules (with evidence, logic and such, .. scientific methode and so on). So either i play by their rules, wich i don't like, or i'm an idiot in their eyes. That's why i usually avoid such confrontations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the magicians point of view, all science is magic, but not vice versa. From that point of view astrology is magic to, but most astrologers wouldn't agree with me on that, because many feel that astrology should be accepted as science to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there you have it. Label me what you will.