What's your horoscope?

[kelem_ryu]

Yet you are unable to explain this supposedly solid foundation, or counter any of the points I made against it? They must have been pretty poor books. Either that you you were just looking at the pictures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who say i'm unable? I'm UNWILLING ffs! Consider yourself right and me wrong, that's what discussions are for anyway, isn't it? Proving yourself right and the others wrong.

[kelem_ryu]

 

 

 

Anasthesia, i doubt you have any knowledge of this subject. I thought it was [cabbage] myself, but after reading a couple of books i discovered that astrology has a very solid foundation on wich it bases it's insights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, I see. Browsing over a few books means you do have knowledge of the subject. Clearly, how wrong of us, Mr. Expert.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do YOU gain knowledge on a subject? Besides i studied easily two dozend books on astrology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh right, so it's gone from a couple to 24? You sure read fast.

 

 

 

I've yet to see any form of arguement derived from your magnitude of 'fact' either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't care to give an argument. Don't you get it? Why should i care?

[Anesthesia]

Unwilling because you're unable, I can only guess. The fact you had to resort to using bad language further proves your inadequacy. You're doing the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're in stark contrast to most other users, who try and give an argument even when they don't know what they're talking about.

[Echofish]

Gosh, reading Anesthesia and kelem_ryu's comments makes me feel dumb in English :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anywayz, I'm a Taurus. I don't really believe in horoscopes but I checked every description for Taurus and it sounds accurate to me!

[kelem_ryu]

You're doing the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol! i guess so

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're in stark contrast to most other users, who try and give an argument even when they don't know what they're talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OKay, okay.. i just heard all those arguments soooo many times before and discovered, that most discussions are just there to make oneself sound smart and to make oneself feel smart.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About those arguments you gave. As far as i read them they are all valid. There are counter arguments, that are equally valid. Scientific research (all that i read so far) on astrology is biased from the premisse on so that their research has no value to astrologist at all. Most people have the habit of proving whatever they want to prove. I'm increadibly frustrated by discussions in general, so usually i don't bother with them anymore. idk, what to say. i'll try to give a brief overview on what astrology is maybe. If you are interested that is.

[Anesthesia]

An interesting quote on the subject:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"How happy are the astrologers if they tell one truth to a hundred lies, while other people lose all credibility if they tell one lie to a hundred truths." - Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540), a papal adviser.

[kelem_ryu]

Okay, i don't want to to prove anything. I'll try to explain it a little bit though, but don't give me those "i'll prove you wrong arguments", because i don't want to "prove i am right" either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all there is the problem that there are no factors that could be quantified. You could make statistics, but there you have the problem that you can't make a statistic about the correlation between mars in a water sign (scorpio, cancer, pisces) and people that assert themselves through emotional means (instead of by intellectual means as somebody with mars in a air sign would do.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also when i said emotionally, this "emotionally" is already limited language. It would be more accurate to say somebody with mars in scorpio asserts him or herself scorpioesque, but most people wouldn't know what exactly scorpioesque means. It's like the innuit having idk how many words for snow. So you say "emotionally" and already limit the language so much that it becomes way to vague. Also "asserts" is already vague in comparsion to mars. So it is more accurate to say "mars in scorpio" then "asserts himself emotionally" (wich is also limited due the fact that english isn't my main language. otherwise i might find better words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example to the above: I had an exam in german and had to describe what romantic literatur is all about. I could attribute the same adjectives to the romantic as i could to neptune. I could have written romantic literature is about everything that neptune is, but instead i had to write, about what neptune is. Every sign of the zodiac and every planet has a certain feel, a certain theme and mood, like every word has a certain feel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Astrology is based on the principle of synchronity. As for example the entire romantic has a certain feel to it, as has the idk renaissance. Every time has a certain feel. It seems these moods alter cyclic in the same way the planets rotate. That's not because the planets rotate, it's because the whole solar system is a unit. So from reading the positions of the planets you can conclude what's going on on the earth. :? Wasn't a very comprehensive explaination..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intuitevely it's pretty clear how it works and such and i consider inuition more important then reason by now. I didn't feel like that always. I found that reasoning is very prone to corruption and mainly serves for claims of power. I don't believe that there is such a thing as right or wrong and i don't care if i am "right" or "wrong". I percieve arguments as some kind of duells, where truth isn't really important at all. That's why i don't care to argue anymore. I say something that means something between the lines, you perceive it in your way and can say something to. I'll in turn read between the lines again and so on. I don't want to prove anybody wrong either. I just want what i write to be accepted as what it is. Words are just wrappings for a message. and all that has nothing to do with astrology anymore :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So go ahead and take these paragraphes apart. I didn't mean it to be taken apart, i meant it to be taken as a whole, not as a series of arguements or the like, that can be countered. Anyway do with it whatever you want.

[Anesthesia]

So you are saying that the position of stellar bodies affects how things work on earth and hence gives you the ability to predict what will happen in the future?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It gives no explanation of the solid foundation though, that's still wishy-washy and only talks about what happens; not how it happens, which, from the sound of it, might as well be magic for all you care. It doesn't say how the positions of stellar bodies dictate personalities and happenings on earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You made the claim that it had a solid foundation and that's why I am pursuing this line of questioning.

[kelem_ryu]

So you are saying that the position of stellar bodies affects how things work on earth and hence gives you the ability to predict what will happen in the future?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No i didn't.

[Anesthesia]

So from reading the positions of the planets you can conclude what's going on on the earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explain that then? You've still said nothing of this solid foundation. You've hinted that history repeats itself and that's hardly an explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does that have anything to do with what peoples' personalities are like? How does it have anything to do with how different people will supposedly have different experiences each day? How does it explain how, when you look in different newspapers, the horoscopes say different things for each star sign? Surely if it was any form of prediction it would have to be based on reasoning - and if it was then all predictions would be the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't seem to be saying HOW these things happen, only that they do. That's no more credible than saying it's magic.

[kelem_ryu]

 

So from reading the positions of the planets you can conclude what's going on on the earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explain that then? You've still said nothing of this solid foundation. You've hinted that history repeats itself and that's hardly an explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does that have anything to do with what peoples' personalities are like? How does it have anything to do with how different people will supposedly have different experiences each day? How does it explain how, when you look in different newspapers, the horoscopes say different things for each star sign? Surely if it was any form of prediction it would have to be based on reasoning - and if it was then all predictions would be the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all newspaper horoscopes are garbage. Every astrologist will tell you that. some do them nevertheless, because it is a nice source of income. You can't make any valid statement on just the so called sign of zodiac you were born in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So from reading the positions of the planets you can conclude what's going on on the earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not the same, but it goes in the direction: When you read it's 3pm on your watch, is it 3pm, because it's what the watch shows? The question would then be: Why is there a synchronity between the planets and the happenings on earth? and that's where i can't give you an answer you wouldn't tear into pieces. i mean i could tell you that synchronity is one of the fundamental principles of magic, but i have a feeling you are strongly biased towards magic. Still astrology isn't magic. Just this one principle is the same. Like pysics and biology aren't the same, although they share some principles. Also i don't want you to think i'm a fool for believing such things, because i ain't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could give you a quote myself: "There are more things between heaven and earth, than "don't know how this line goes in english", Horatio."

[jemathonical]

Im a Virgo

[Anesthesia]

Strongly biased towards magic? I'm strongly biased towards rational enquiry. I was giving magic as an example of something which is on the same level of plausibility as astrology. Here are some other examples: Santa, the tooth fairy and the bogeyman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Why is there a synchronity between the planets and the happenings on earth?" - if you are referring to a synchronicity between the planets and people's personalities or the events they encounter then the answer is that there isn't. You say there isn't an answer that I wouldn't tear into pieces, is that freely admitting that your pseudoscience doesn't stand up to tests or questioning?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So far all you've done is say "it really works, honest".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe the quote you were referring to is along the lines of "There are more things between heaven and earth than we can perceive with our normal senses" - which implies that you believe astrology works, but that we just don't know why. That is contradictory to what you said before about it having a solid foundation. Make your mind up...

[kelem_ryu]

Well i say there is synchronity, you say there isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me synchronity is as perceivable as gravity. I can't "prove" the things i told you and i also said, that i won't try. Also i don't say you have to believe me. Actually i don't care too much if you believe me or not, but i do care if you believe i'm a moron or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me it's clear that astrology and for that matter magic (or magick how magicians call it) works. I can also tell you that i think of magick as highly as i think of science (not very). Astrology fascinated me for some time, but i don't use it anymore, because what use it is, to read the chart of a person, when i can read the person instead? I don't think astrology can be classified as magic and i know that scientists wouldn't count it as science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the beginning on, i didn't know what this discussion would be good for at all and basically it isn't even a discussion, because i don't give arguments that are valid by the given rules of a discussion (and these are rules i disapprove of.) To me magic(k) is one level above science, wich in turn is on a level with religion, in fact i do see science as a religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most astrologers just use astrology, the same way you and me are using the internet. We don't have to understand everything about how it works. We just need to know, how to use it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well basically the point where you won't follow me is the synchronity, so i guess i have no ground =P.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The quote is out of "Hamlet". I just don't know how it goes in english. Hamlet says to Horatio: "There are more things between heaven and earth than (something along these lines: your school wise knowledge says), Horatio." -> looked it up on the internet. in english it goes like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

 

 

 

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Anesthesia]

I'm starting to wonder if I need to post any more arguments against this astrology quakery; you've already debunked it more than I could hope to.

[Ltfairy]

 

And can you tell me in what way is this BS?

I know 8 Leo's (myself included), 5 of which I have known for over 6 years.

 

 

 

None of us are even remotely similar. A horoscope that covers all of us without being so vague it covers every person on the planet is essentially impossible to write.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's only 8 people, but there are billions in the world, can you say all of them are like what you said? I should put myself more clearly, there are similarities and differences in character, but never are all of them similar or different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horoscopes are both sided, pointing out the similarities you have with people born under the same horoscopes, and at the same time, differences between you and people from other horoscopes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you find it pathetic that you cannot control who you want to be, decide how you want to act and change your own future, because it's pre-determined in the stars?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I ever mention *anywhere* that I am going to let this horoscopes thing control *every* single move of my life? The reason I read it is because I get to know myself better, and what has that got to do with controlling my future?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was born on the 14th of October (libra? don't know for sure).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, libra for you. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Libras are a group of perfectionist. They love all things which are sweet and beautiful, and likes to seek for freedom. They have attractive looking complexions, and usually have a sweet smile. They are very popular, but they prefer to keep a distance from others. For male libras, they like girls with good facial features and lots of common interests. For female libras, they like knowledgable guys who are respectable of others, looks are also an important criteria.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is still a difference, they aren't 100% similiar. And one character trait can *never* apply to *everyone*. Besides, some people have character traits 99% as what the horoscopes said they were, so it is not vague in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know what vague means? It means 'can apply to everyone' in this context. That means that I could give a horoscope like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Has two arms, two legs, hair growing out of the head, two eyes, likes eating, enjoys the intake of fluids" - that can apply to 99% of people. It is still vague though. Understand yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you sure that more than 90% of the people in the world seeks for freedom? Well, that might be true in Europe, where the people there are given lots of freedom. But it's not true at all in Asia, where many people tend to rely on their country and parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between freedom and independence. Please don't confuse yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, are you sure *everyone* likes girls with good facial features and lots of common interest? Well, I do know some guys that don't mind anything about how their girlfriends look, or whether they have any common interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know a very small minority of guys then. It is still painfully vague.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it's all BS :thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And can you tell me in what way is this BS?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because there is no method to it. It is a case of providing vague statements to which people who believe in the magic of astrology can say "oh that applies to me!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is BS because you have said that people of different zodiac signs can have traits from others. That is like my speculating about the appearance of someone whom I've never met saying "he could have brown hair, but it may also be black, blonde or red - he may also be a woman."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm aries, and for some reason, all things that are said about aries' usually match with me. Odd. :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gotcha! :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why horoscopes is still believable, not 100%, but still to a certain extent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When someone who believes in something self-reports then it is not evidence of success. They are biased and can easily interpret your vague statements so that they apply to themselves - that is not accuracy; it is being vague and open ended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can I repeat myself again, no one character trait can apply to *everyone*. If that's what vague is, then it isn't vague, reason being that the character of one person can never be the character of *everyone*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, so my example isn't that good. Nevertheless, are you 100% positive that *everyone* in this world likes to seek freedom? Is there any statistical evidence that says it's true? No I presume, so again, you can never say that "likes to seek freedom" applies to *everyone*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me say this clear, what you are saying is that my analysis can apply to everyone, and here above darkrick has pointed out that it's impossible. One of you is arguing that my analysis is no way accurate as it can be applied to everyone, and the other says that it's no way accurate because even people from the same horoscopes can be different. So I shall make myself clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An analysis can never apply to everyone. People born under the same horoscopes can still be different, but at least 50% of them share similar traits (I'm talking about people in the world here, where there's a high posibility).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does that answer your question? It is different at times, and similar at others, but it's never just similar or just different. Which means none of your arguments stand, as what you are saying is that it is similar to everyone's character. Darkrick's argument doesn't stand either, as there are still people who are born under the same horoscopes and share similar traits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRA. Balance. 8-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Libras are a group of perfectionist. They love all things which are sweet and beautiful, and likes to seek for freedom. They have attractive looking complexions, and usually have a sweet smile. They are very popular, but they prefer to keep a distance from others. For male libras, they like girls with good facial features and lots of common interests. For female libras, they like knowledgable guys who are respectable of others, looks are also an important criteria.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gosh, reading Anesthesia and kelem_ryu's comments makes me feel dumb in English :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anywayz, I'm a Taurus. I don't really believe in horoscopes but I checked every description for Taurus and it sounds accurate to me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taurus are a group of extremely shy and strong people. They seldom throw temper, and when they do, it can be destructive. Even though they are shy, they can withstand a great amount of pressure, and are unafraid of failures. They are also independent, and can do almost anything by themselves. For male taurus, they like talented and gentle girls. For female taurus, they like guys who are willing to improve and are mature in their thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im a Virgo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virgo are a group of kind-hearted perfectionist. They want everything to be perfect, and they pick on even the slightest fault. They are pretty down to earth, and have good analytical skills. They mature at an early age, and are careful of the smallest details. They are rather shy, but have a strong determination. Even though they appear to be weak and gentle, they have an inner strength much greater than what others think. They are full of determination, and have pure thinking of their life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I'm repeating myself here. The horoscopes I am talking about here has nothing to do with predicting your future, it's just a way of letting you know why you behave in a certain way to things. It makes you realise some of the similarities you have with people (not *everyone*) born under the same horoscope, and the differences you have with people (not *everyone*) born under different horoscopes.

[Anesthesia]

Turn that around - can you say all 500,000,000 Leos are like what you said? Oh wait, you already weaseled out of that one by saying they can have characteristics from other horoscopes. What an exact science!

[Ltfairy]

Turn that around - can you say all 500,000,000 Leos are like what you said? Oh wait, you already weaseled out of that one by saying they can have characteristics from other horoscopes. What an exact science!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can ask you the same thing, can you say that my analysis of the character of these 500,000,000 Leos is so general that it applies to *everyone* in this world?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hold on a moment. are you still arguing your stand, or did you just change your stand of argument? You were arguing that my analysis is too general, and here you are asking me if my analysis is general enough to include the 500,000,000. Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And didn't I point out above already? Read again what I said. I said it's both sided, so no matter which side you are on (whether you think it's too general, or whether you think it isn't general enough to include everyone under the same horoscope), it's not a valid argument.

[Anesthesia]

I don't need to claim it applies to everyone in the world. I only need to claim that it applies to more than 1/12th, which common sense dictates that it does. Then again, I don't think astrologers are too hot on common sense - given that kelem_ryu believes in magic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is astrology magic? Can YOU say how it works?

[Mercifull]

So basicly the astrological analysis will apply 100% to some people and for others it may be a combination of traits from any of the 12 signs and possibly some people might have NO traits assigned to their star sign?...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense now. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If, as you say, the astorlogers in the papers are writing bunk then surely they should be arrested for fraud? Would you back that and campaign for it to clean up the name of "real" astrologers?

[Ltfairy]

I don't need to claim it applies to everyone in the world. I only need to claim that it applies to more than 1/12th, which common sense dictates that it does. Then again, I don't think astrologers are too hot on common sense - given that kelem_ryu believes in magic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is astrology magic? Can YOU say how it works?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not magic, and it has nothing to do with it. It's a study of stars and how they affect the people born under that period of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure how it works, but it does apply completely to 50% of the people worldwide. Think again, if it is that vague, horoscopes would not have existed at all. Let's say horoscopes is a theory, if it is that vague, do you think there is still a point in studying it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basicly the astrological analysis will apply 100% to some people and for others it may be a combination of traits from any of the 12 signs and possibly some people might have NO traits assigned to their star sign?...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense now. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If, as you say, the astorlogers in the papers are writing bunk then surely they should be arrested for fraud? Would you back that and campaign for it to clean up the name of "real" astrologers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ones in bold that you said is not possible at all, how can someone be without character?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that's what businessmen are like. You can't do anything about them can you? They have the money and they can publish anything they want, and they will definitely want to publish something that appeals to the general crowd. Unless you are government authorities, you can't do anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I would love to, but it's not possible. I can't possibly travel around the world campaigning for it. I don't have that power, neither do I have the resources.

[Anesthesia]

I am not saying that the science behind it is vague; I'm saying it's non-existent. I'm saying that the 'predictions' and personality analyses made by astrologers are so vague that more than 1/12th of people could apply them to themselves, should they want to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's not say it's a theory. It is not a theory. Theories either originate from or are supported by experimental evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you could respond to these points which I made earlier?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's more, the very fact that someone's birth is a long drawn out procedure is more evidence that this is simple quackery. Why doesn't it kick in at the time of conception? Does the womb shield you from the astrological magic? What about the fact that birth certificates aren't necessarily completed at the exact time of birth (whenever you determine that to be within the many minutes it is actually taking place). What about the fact that due to the birth lasting several minutes, a person could be considered to have left the womb on two different days? Started at 23:59 and finished at 00:05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Astrology originated around 600BC. At this time astrologers knew about 6 planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter. They did not have telescopes, which were invented in 1608, to see the others. When the other planets were discovered they magically started having an effect on astrological calculations, as though they'd known about them all along.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the fact that Pluto is no longer considered a planet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pray, tell us how stellar bodies magically affect our lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to pretend astrology is a science then it has to play by the rules of science. The force must have a measured and predictable effect. It must be testable. No astrologer predicted any of the outer planets based on the forces they must have been exerting on us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the fact that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto's names were decided by a vote? That their names have nothing to do with their 'characters'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ones in bold that you said is not possible at all, how can someone be without character?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Astrology is not possible at all, how can the position of planets affect peoples' personalities?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure the newspaper astrologers believe they are right and you are wrong. That's how erroneous belief in something works - you think that your belief is right and all others are wrong, just look at all the religions that think their god is the only true one and all the others are false. The simple explanation is that you're both wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not need to provide evidence for my claims that your 'predictions' (predictions of peoples' characters) can apply to more than 1/12th of all people because they are true prima facie. That means that the burden of proof is upon you to support your claims which are contrary to common sense. That's how the burden of proof works - you're claiming something that is not true at face value, therefore it is up to you to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

I am not sure how it works, but it does apply to 50% of the people worldwide (me included).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the rest 50% that have a birthday?

[Ltfairy]

I am not saying that the science behind it is vague; I'm saying it's non-existent. I'm saying that the 'predictions' and personality analyses made by astrologers are so vague that more than 1/12th of people could apply them to themselves, should they want to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's not say it's a theory. It is not a theory. Theories either originate from or are supported by experimental evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you could respond to these points which I made earlier?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's more, the very fact that someone's birth is a long drawn out procedure is more evidence that this is simple quackery. Why doesn't it kick in at the time of conception? Does the womb shield you from the astrological magic? What about the fact that birth certificates aren't necessarily completed at the exact time of birth (whenever you determine that to be within the many minutes it is actually taking place). What about the fact that due to the birth lasting several minutes, a person could be considered to have left the womb on two different days? Started at 23:59 and finished at 00:05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Astrology originated around 600BC. At this time astrologers knew about 6 planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter. They did not have telescopes, which were invented in 1608, to see the others. When the other planets were discovered they magically started having an effect on astrological calculations, as though they'd known about them all along.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the fact that Pluto is no longer considered a planet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pray, tell us how stellar bodies magically affect our lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to pretend astrology is a science then it has to play by the rules of science. The force must have a measured and predictable effect. It must be testable. No astrologer predicted any of the outer planets based on the forces they must have been exerting on us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the fact that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto's names were decided by a vote? That their names have nothing to do with their 'characters'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ones in bold that you said is not possible at all, how can someone be without character?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Astrology is not possible at all, how can the position of planets affect peoples' personalities?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure the newspaper astrologers believe they are right and you are wrong. That's how erroneous belief in something works - you think that your belief is right and all others are wrong, just look at all the religions that think their god is the only true one and all the others are false. The simple explanation is that you're both wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not need to provide evidence for my claims that your 'predictions' (predictions of peoples' characters) can apply to more than 1/12th of all people because they are true prima facie. That means that the burden of proof is upon you to support your claims which are contrary to common sense. That's how the burden of proof works - you're claiming something that is not true at face value, therefore it is up to you to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trust me, if this whole horoscopes thing is just a ridiculous thing that isn't true *at all*, no one will believe it. The reason that it is true is the fact that it does apply completely to people (not everyone), as in, everything said about their own horoscope is true. Don't tell me that those that thinks it is true are just wierd people imagining it to be true. It's not an imagination, it's something that is right in front of the eyes. In the horoscopes book, it says that I am someone who is good at analysing and am pretty down to earth, and it's completely a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The newspaper astrologers are doing it for money, while I'm just doing it for pure interest. Who do you think is more reliable? Of course they will claim they are correct, if they claim they are wrong, who will still spend money on it? You have to realise that they can twist facts around just for their own profit, no matter how misleading it can be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding your point stated earlier, if the whole astrology thing should start at the time of conception, real astrologers will have already corrected their mistake. Just like in a science experiment, I'm sure the scientist will correct his mistake when he finds what he is doing is wrong. The fact that the astrologers did not do it is because what they previously did did not turn out to be an error.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It can be testable. Just take a (large) group of people born under the same horoscopes, and let them take a personality test, I'm sure there are at least half of the people with similar answers to the questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, so how does the fact that Pluto no longer is a planet affects the accuracy of astrological readings? It's not as if it's not there anymore. It's just not termed as a 'planet'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, what are you trying to say here about Uranus, Neptune and Pluto? Yah, their names might have been a vote, but how does it affect the accuracy of astrological readings?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your saying that this whole thing needs proof, we already have plenty. First, the horoscopes thing pretty much applied to me. Second, it also applied to some people who posted here, and there will be more who find that it applies to them. What more concrete proof do you need? The fact that it applies to people already shows that it is true, and is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure how it works, but it does apply to 50% of the people worldwide (me included).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the rest 50% that have a birthday?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I mean by apply here is the fact that it applies to them 100%. As in everything said in their own horoscope (virgo for me) is true for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the rest, they will have character traits from other horoscopes, but there won't be a case where none of their character traits is in the horoscope readings.

[Anesthesia]

First, the horoscopes thing pretty much applied to me. Second, it also applied to some people who posted here, and there will be more who find that it applies to them. What more concrete proof do you need? The fact that it applies to people already shows that it is true, and is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is not proof. That is people who believe in astrology applying things to themselves. By your rationale, someone who believes in god saying that god answers their prayers/talks to them is objective proof that god exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The newspaper astrologers started out just like you. They just wanted to turn a fast buck, if you're going by how people claim predictions apply to them then the newspaper astrologers must be the most accurate of all.