Do you believe in Astrology?

[Suburbanelite]

Interesting topic so far. I can appreciate most of the points made here, though I had to sift through all of the arguments that consisted of "everyone who believes in anything but the hard facts is a grade A retard."

I don't believe in a god. I don't feel that my personality is defined by the heavens or that my destination is predetermined. There's so much that I have grown to understand about the universe that I question most metaphysical philosophies, especially ones that carry critical details about how my life should unfold. This is also why 99% of the horoscopes I have ever read are total garbage. The sweeping generalizations that serve almost every personality type are upsetting, at best.

However, astrology has its roots in something that is no longer tangible in modern society. Where it once served as guidance for spiritual individuals to find their path to self-actualization, it has become what seems more like a diluted attempt to validate the claims of so-called "mediums" who are nothing more than con artists making their living off of the naive.

Where the break occurred, and exactly when something that was so vital to ancient civilizations became what it is today, I believe is indiscernible. It's notable that before the enlightened began to understand that the part that we play in our world is completely self-defined that something like astrology was strong enough to lead people in the right direction. There's a lot more to this than I will ever understand, at least.

That 1% of detailed birth date descriptions I have encountered once or twice in my life invoked in me, a 95% realist, the tiniest curiosity into what little validity astrology might have, or had... I voted yes.

I must be retarded...

[BerenTebogo]

Interesting topic so far. I can appreciate most of the points made here, though I had to sift through all of the arguments that consisted of "everyone who believes in anything but the hard facts is a grade A retard."

I don't believe in a god. I don't feel that my personality is defined by the heavens or that my destination is predetermined. There's so much that I have grown to understand about the universe that I question most metaphysical philosophies, especially ones that carry critical details about how my life should unfold. This is also why 99% of the horoscopes I have ever read are total garbage. The sweeping generalizations that serve almost every personality type are upsetting, at best.

However, astrology has its roots in something that is no longer tangible in modern society. Where it once served as guidance for spiritual individuals to find their path to self-actualization, it has become what seems more like a diluted attempt to validate the claims of so-called "mediums" who are nothing more than con artists making their living off of the naive.

Where the break occurred, and exactly when something that was so vital to ancient civilizations became what it is today, I believe is indiscernible. It's notable that before the enlightened began to understand that the part that we play in our world is completely self-defined that something like astrology was strong enough to lead people in the right direction. There's a lot more to this than I will ever understand, at least.

That 1% of detailed birth date descriptions I have encountered once or twice in my life invoked in me, a 95% realist, the tiniest curiosity into what little validity astrology might have, or had... I voted yes.

I must be retarded...

It's more that the understanding you claim to have of the universe isn't an actual understanding of universe. You know some facts and some concepts, and that's great, seriously, less work for me, but you don't understand them if you can be swayed by a few lucky predictions.

Seriously, I'm sorry for being blunt but it's true.

If you make millions upon millions of predictions over a large enough period of time you are invariably going to get a few right. That's why 99% of them were absolutely fucking stupid and 1% were creepily accurate. Statistically it should probably be closer to 2-3% but that just depends on the definition of accurate by the person reading them.

This is the biggest problem with science and math in schools today. Children and young adults are taught to memorize kingdom, phyla, species, and the number of electrons on an 100 different atoms, and every variation of sin, cosine, and tangent. Our heads are jam-packed filled with facts that we only learned deep enough to recite, as a parrot would, at the time of the exam. We're never taught to deal with large numbers or probabilities in general education. I know very few people who can't find the hypotenuse of a triangle but those same people also don't understand that just because the odds are low doesn't mean that over time the event won't happen many, many, many times.

Do I blame you, and the others, for this error in thinking? It depends. Are you a college level scholar trying to round out your education and seek a true intellectual understanding of the world? Then yes, shame on you. Are you a kid out of high school who doesn't know better? Well, you can teach yourself but circumstances are circumstances, etc

Ignorance isn't a great excuse but to an extent it's not really the individuals fault in a school system that teaches you only to pass the SAT and some other state standardized test and nothing else. It's bullshit, but it's also the byproduct of a society that doesn't understand that facts are meaningless without actual understanding.

Which brings me full circle. You say you understand the universe and intricacies of the unknown but you really, really, really don't. It's the same level as otherwise intelligent people looking at polaroid pictures of dust particles reflecting the camera flash and saying it's a motherfucking supernatural energy orb. Fuck shit motherfucking stupid. Astrology is a numbers game. If you read it 99% of the time and it's wrong it doesn't matter but you read it and one time it's dead on you're sold because you value that one correct answer over hundreds or thousands of wrong ones.

Now, you tell me, is that not retarded?

Edit: Re: your incorrect history lesson

Alchemy is responsible almost entirely for the classification system we use known as the Periodic table of motherfucking elements. Infinitely more important than anything Astrology ever contributed to anything, ever. Fact. Now, does this mean that out of nostalgia we should have alchemy offices where people pay to have other people try really hard to turn lead into gold?

Seriously. I wonder sometimes about what people consider to be understanding, because really, you don't understand.

Again, purely factual statement based on thousands of years of evidence and enumerable physical and reviewable tests:

Astrology has never had any effect on people that wasn't purely psychological. Ever. Our universe has four fundamental forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong force, Weak force and all of them have been shown beyond any measurement we can currently discern (and we smash individual fucking protons) to have absolutely no relation to anything astrological ever, in any way.

There is no fifth force called the "wibbly-wobbly I'm full of shit" force, nor is there a "I'm a 4000B.C. philosopher/scientist who is amazed by the stars and who lives in a time where the only reason society advances is because we believe we can control the world around us by believing in these mythologies so I will create a more ordered system of myth to better appease the angry sky gods" force.

In case you were confused.

[BerenTebogo]

As an aside:

I criticized Richard Dawkins just a bit ago for falling into the trap I'm currently falling into, so I'll summarize.

In front of you, all of you, in this thread posts that can be put into two categories:
1) Facts supported by evidence
2) Coincidence supported by bias and interpreted as truth

If you honestly, honestly, read this thread and weigh both sides against each other and are unable to see that one side is a smoke and mirrors show and the other side is rooted in what is apparently a dirty word these days, fact. How it got to be a dirty word I don't know, but it disgusts me.

Really, many of the posts in this thread make me feel both angry and disappointed. You are the youth of a new world. We have the internet, and ipads, and synthetic cellular life and proton accelerators spanning two countries. If the only way you can get to sleep at night is by believing in something that isn't even defensible as God, but literally something that CANNOT be rationally defended then nothing I say will sway you.

This both depresses and sickens me. But, unlike what I fault Dawkins for, the facts are in front of you. If I could physically shove them down your throat I would, but I can't, and sounding like a religious extremist for science isn't going to help my cause. Yes, you're wrong, without question, but if you're too silly to even accept that possibility in the face of facts and evidence then you're too silly to waste anymore time on. This is a blanket statement, not a direct one.

I won't harp on why people are wrong anymore. If the words "fact" and "evidence" have somehow been manipulated and twisted into meaning BAD things in this culture, or to you the reader, then honestly, honestly, honestly, the system of education in this country has failed you. Your parents have failed you. Your friends have failed you.

And for that I look upon you with pity.

[Suburbanelite]

It's more that the understanding you claim to have of the universe isn't an actual understanding of universe. You know some facts and some concepts, and that's great, seriously, less work for me, but you don't understand them if you can be swayed by a few lucky predictions.

Seriously, I'm sorry for being blunt but it's true.

If you make millions upon millions of predictions over a large enough period of time you are invariably going to get a few right. That's why 99% of them were absolutely fucking stupid and 1% were creepily accurate. Statistically it should probably be closer to 2-3% but that just depends on the definition of accurate by the person reading them.

This is the biggest problem with science and math in schools today. Children and young adults are taught to memorize kingdom, phyla, species, and the number of electrons on an 100 different atoms, and every variation of sin, cosine, and tangent. Our heads are jam-packed filled with facts that we only learned deep enough to recite, as a parrot would, at the time of the exam. We're never taught to deal with large numbers or probabilities in general education. I know very few people who can't find the hypotenuse of a triangle but those same people also don't understand that just because the odds are low doesn't mean that over time the event won't happen many, many, many times.

Do I blame you, and the others, for this error in thinking? It depends. Are you a college level scholar trying to round out your education and seek a true intellectual understanding of the world? Then yes, shame on you. Are you a kid out of high school who doesn't know better? Well, you can teach yourself but circumstances are circumstances, etc

Ignorance isn't a great excuse but to an extent it's not really the individuals fault in a school system that teaches you only to pass the SAT and some other state standardized test and nothing else. It's bullshit, but it's also the byproduct of a society that doesn't understand that facts are meaningless without actual understanding.

Which brings me full circle. You say you understand the universe and intricacies of the unknown but you really, really, really don't. It's the same level as otherwise intelligent people looking at polaroid pictures of dust particles reflecting the camera flash and saying it's a motherfucking supernatural energy orb. Fuck shit motherfucking stupid. Astrology is a numbers game. If you read it 99% of the time and it's wrong it doesn't matter but you read it and one time it's dead on you're sold because you value that one correct answer over hundreds or thousands of wrong ones.

Now, you tell me, is that not retarded?

Edit: Re: your incorrect history lesson

Alchemy is responsible almost entirely for the classification system we use known as the Periodic table of motherfucking elements. Infinitely more important than anything Astrology ever contributed to anything, ever. Fact. Now, does this mean that out of nostalgia we should have alchemy offices where people pay to have other people try really hard to turn lead into gold?

Seriously. I wonder sometimes about what people consider to be understanding, because really, you don't understand.

You concentrated wholeheartedly on my understanding of the universe, but I'll let you know that it is still, far and beyond, incomplete. I don't spout an ultimate grasp of the mechanics behind the details of my life because I'm still learning about them. The understanding that I claimed was my attempt at being concise in stating, essentially, what I have learned so far. I wasn't hinting at omniscience. Though I am bearded, I don't claim to have the wisdom of the world tucked beneath it.

I won't defend something that I don't fully understand, but doesn't astrology predate alchemy? The night sky was (visually) accessible before the first sentient beings even laid eyes on it.

I'd take a risk in saying that, though it may not have been vital to it, 'twas the rejection of the idealism of astrology (see: this thread) that powered the machine of critical study of outer space from Earth's surface. This is akin to the rejection of the futile attempts of alchemy to transmute common metals into precious ones, particularly gold in pursuit of the natural sciences, most notably chemistry. I get why it would irk you so much to speak with individuals who spout the rehearsed qualifiers for something as lame and unfounded as modern astrology. It's painful for me, too.

The point of my former post was to say that I believe astrology had some credibility once, and was perhaps based more on human experience rather than a divination of the stars. That is why I believe in it. My belief is just a bit outdated. You won't catch me reading modern horoscopes. The 1% I've encountered have been from old books on the theories behind astrology. Not exactly anything I'd show to you with the stamp of "FACT" on it, just something I considered while I was searching for meaning behind the paranormal and metaphysics.

Edit: Astrology has far too many flaws to defend. I can appreciate both sides of the argument... one for the truth, and nothing but, so-help-me-I'll-murder-anyone-who-says-otherwise, and the spiritual yet wholly ignorant opposition which has the intent of good-natured peace and harmony idealism. I wouldn't change my vote, though I'd say I'm on more of the median between the responses.

[Titanss]

Sath, do you have AIM or MSN? Something relatively important to discuss with you

The meaning of life?

[Max™]

It's funny though, when I post almost the same exact rants a year or two ago, I voked far more trolls, is your macro busted Sath?


The public school system teaches rote memorization of facts over pursuit of understanding. My woman was informed that she simply must not be capable of learning by some shitbag twat of a "teacher", and due to dyslexia wound up having to pick between a couple classes she had fallen behind in, or resource type classes that just sucked the enjoyment of learning out of her.

She tells me about how much she loved school, she was so excited to learn new things, math was amazing, and beautiful. Then she finds out that apparently she's broken, and stupid. Saddest shit I heard in a long time. So I decided a while back to begin rekindling her appreciation for mathematics.

Right now if you asked her what a number is, she'd notice that you didn't specify whether you wanted a subset by subset construction:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/1...255203c876.png,

or simply assumed she would think you meant the Integers, because you didn't know she recognizes them as the well manicured lawn at the edge of the Rational woodlands, which merge into the depths of the Real jungle, all of which lies in a valley in the Complex mountain range.


Here's the crazy part, she's enjoying this stuff, who knew helping someone develop a rich understanding of a subject, instead of rote memorization by repetitive tasks, could lead to both retained knowledge, and appreciation of something as dry as defining sets of numbers?


The common messages you get from entertainment/peers/etc is that you want to get lucky, hit it big, be the guy with the innate quarterback build/reflexes, be the chick who wins the lotto, be the fucker who sues someone else for something they did to themselves, and if you can't be like that, try harder.

If you're smart, you're not cool, if you question things, you aren't religious enough, if you don't want to go with the flow, you're probably a terrorist or something.


Maybe they're right, perhaps giving up higher brain functions does lead to a happier life, frontal lobotomies for everyone!

[BerenTebogo]

You concentrated wholeheartedly on my understanding of the universe, but I'll let you know that it is still, far and beyond, incomplete. I don't spout an ultimate grasp of the mechanics behind the details of my life because I'm still learning about them. The understanding that I claimed was my attempt at being concise in stating, essentially, what I have learned so far. I wasn't hinting at omniscience. Though I am bearded, I don't claim to have the wisdom of the world tucked beneath it.

I won't defend something that I don't fully understand, but doesn't astrology predate alchemy? The night sky was (visually) accessible before the first sentient beings even laid eyes on it.

I'd take a risk in saying that, though it may not have been vital to it, 'twas the rejection of the idealism of astrology (see: this thread) that powered the machine of critical study of outer space from Earth's surface. This is akin to the rejection of the futile attempts of alchemy to transmute common metals into precious ones, particularly gold in pursuit of the natural sciences, most notably chemistry. I get why it would irk you so much to speak with individuals who spout the rehearsed qualifiers for something as lame and unfounded as modern astrology. It's painful for me, too.

The point of my former post was to say that I believe astrology had some credibility once, and was perhaps based more on human experience rather than a divination of the stars. That is why I believe in it. My belief is just a bit outdated. You won't catch me reading modern horoscopes. The 1% I've encountered have been from old books on the theories behind astrology. Not exactly anything I'd show to you with the stamp of "FACT" on it, just something I considered while I was searching for meaning behind the paranormal and metaphysics.

Edit: Astrology has far too many flaws to defend. I can appreciate both sides of the argument... one for the truth, and nothing but, so-help-me-I'll-murder-anyone-who-says-otherwise, and the spiritual yet wholly ignorant opposition which has the intent of good-natured peace and harmony idealism. I wouldn't change my vote, though I'd say I'm on more of the median between the responses.

Again, I'm done arguing. I will, however, for your benefit restate your entire post a bit more succinctly without making any implications that you haven't already, maybe this will help you understand a bit more clearly:

While interested to an extent in the workings of the universe, I've never made a concerted effort to educate myself on the topics. I'm aware that you don't have to be enrolled in a Ph.d. program to do something as simple as enjoy the series "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan, yet I've never gotten around to it. If I had, I probably would have been exposed to the wonder and majesty of the universe as it is, without the hocus pocus and bad science. I also would have been exposed to a true understanding, at the layman level, of the universe that would do away with any need to defend astrology on any level.

Given my topical at best understanding of the workings of the universe I find that the best way to decide what I will believe is to look at what was popular to believe before me. Astrology has existed for a long time and involves stars so I believe it must be intrinsically connected to Astronomy, the same way Alchemy is to Chemistry. I make this connection, of course, while understanding that as Chemistry developed Alchemy died out completely in a very short time, as Chemistry evolved out of Alchemy, whereas Astronomy was developed and Astrology did not die out as Astrology has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of Astronomy aside from the fact that they both involve you looking up from time to time. If I did a little bit of research I would know that the first astronomers cared not for the zodiac designations but rather for the meaning behind why objects move through the night sky the way they do (Aristhotenes, spelling iswrong, for example). Shame I can't be bothered to, and even if I did, would probably stop the moment I found a loose connection supporting what I already believe.

Finally, I have what appear to be some strange beliefs that seem to imply that morality cannot exist without guidance from a supernatural third party. They are strange beliefs that seem to imply a shallow understanding, if any, of cultural evolution and the history of societies large and small. That's ok though as I'm not a historian or an anthropologist, but in the future I should try to avoid making implications about things I have absolutely zero knowledge on. On the whole I'm a nice guy who has potential to really be able to sink my teeth into this subject and learn about the real wonder and mystery of the universe, but so far I've only been bothered to check a few wiki pages and maybe watch a History channel special once. It's a shame, I really should put a little bit more effort in. They tell me the universe is a much more wonderful place in reality than all of the science fiction and mythology ever could be.

Until I do ever get around to furthering my education though I will continue to use singular events or sources as supporting evidence to refute hundreds if not thousands of rational counter-arguments because I was never taught how to interpret evidence or information because my high school science teachers were also the gym teacher and lunch lady.One day though, should I ever find the motivation, I may just discover how great the universe really is without the need to dress it up in dollar store glitter.

---

A bit longer than your original post but I think I really went to the heart of what you were trying to say.

[Sylvrdragon]

What is really lacking in American education is the teaching of Rationality itself. It is the foundation of all science. Without it, it is agonizing difficult to put a scientific notion into context.

[pahnphoenix]

What is really lacking in American education is the teaching of Rationality itself. It is the foundation of all science. Without it, it is agonizing difficult to put a scientific notion into context.

american education is terrible, but it's the result of a larger oppressive context.

for example, no one who matters (and no one who isn't patently retarded) believes "intelligent design" is science, or is the purview of a science class. seriously, this is one of those cases where if you genuinely think X (in this case, "intelligent design should be taught in science classes"), you're not just wrong but very likely sick, injured, or horribly abused in some way. disdain and anger toward the holder of such a view is an inappropriate response; the human brain *just doesn't make errors that big*, it's like forgetting how to speak english or something. some people might *say* they think X, but they haven't really thought about it; they're just parroting what their pastor or whoever says. anyone who actually thinks about it and still thinks it's science is, again, sick. i'm not dissing here, this is simple truth.

anyway, given all that, how does the whole debate about intelligent design get started? it's a significantly larger-than-science-class scheme to politicize trivial things in an effort to get people elected and pacify the populace. it's a side bonus that this particular politicized pointlessness (unlike stopping gays from getting married) undermines education, thereby further disempowering the people.

do you understand what i'm saying? education isn't bad due to bureaucrats not having thought up better methods, nor due to bureaucracy itself being inherently inefficient. believe me, there's been LOADS of thought about education already done and documented. nothing you or i could ever suggest about education hasn't already been put in a book centuries ago (unless it directly references the internet or something). education is willfully bad, because the point of it is emphatically NOT to teach people critical thinking.

i could ramble more, but i'm boring myself, so another post ends abruptly.

edit:

i do want to point out one last thing though. a lot of people are fond of quoting the following principle:

"never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

this is the most heartfelt thing i will ever write on one of these messageboards, and if any of you anywhere learn anything at all from me, i hope it is this:

if you believe that above principle YOU ARE A FUCKING SUCKER. IT IS NOT A TRUISM. human affairs are, for the most part, from a practical standpoint *rather easy*. normally, plans go off. if you see X happen and Y results from it, *chances are, X happened so that Y would result from it*, especially if X is done by something with a lot of resources. if you actually believe "hanlon's razor" quoted above, i guarantee that i could con you out of every single thing you own given a couple years. FEIGNING STUPIDITY IS THE MOST OFTEN AND (TO ME, MYSTERIOUSLY) EFFECTIVE TOOL USED BY PEOPLE WITH MALICIOUS OR EXPLOITATIVE INTENT. please, do not be a perpetual child in your life. understand that responsibility exists, and hold yourself and people around you to being responsible.

i am probably not expressing this very well, but the total and utter wrongheadedness of "hanlon's razor" is possibly the most important thing any socially conscious adult can realize. you are living in a fog where the world mysteriously doesn't make sense and "everyone is stupid" if you choose to ignore malice b/c of your low opinion of the human intellect. it is a *cheap trick* to stop people from making others take responsibility for their malicious actions.

[Max™]

Eh, the razor bitching aside, I agree about the willfully bad education aspect, it is there to make you a good office worker, or soldier, not a deep thinker.

There is no reason for a government funded educational system to obsolete itself by making sure everyone can figure out things on their own, as opposed to providing the appearance that they are making sure you are educated.

A thoroughly educated and inquisitive populace is much harder to appease, and much harder to govern.

[Eliseos]

Every time you sit in a chair you have faith that the person who constructed it wasn't a fucking loon and it will support your weight.

My office chair was made by a loon and it breaks every day

[Amastacia]

Just gonna throw this out there...

Most of the time Hanlon's razor gets quoted, it's more a general disillusioned statement of cynicism/misanthropy than a factual statement about the cause of an event.

Likewise, very few people actually believe in Murphy's Law. It's just a "funny" thing to quote when circumstances are not proceeding as anticipated.

[Max™]

I'm actually surprised everyone doesn't test chairs/couches to a certain standard before accepting that it will support you.

Big fat friend of mine, you ever see him sit in a chair, you'll notice he puts his hands on the back of it, then pushes down hard to test it out, I've personally seen six chairs catastrophically fail while he sat in them, making his skepticism understandable.

The best part is how he sits there in the rubble, picks up a piece of a leg and looks at it in disgust, all hail Cliff Chairbane!

[BerenTebogo]

I'm actually surprised everyone doesn't test chairs/couches to a certain standard before accepting that it will support you.

Big fat friend of mine, you ever see him sit in a chair, you'll notice he puts his hands on the back of it, then pushes down hard to test it out, I've personally seen six chairs catastrophically fail while he sat in them, making his skepticism understandable.

The best part is how he sits there in the rubble, picks up a piece of a leg and looks at it in disgust, all hail Cliff Chairbane!

It's an evolutionary intuition. Much like some animals are born with an "instinctive" knowledge of what they should fear in order to stay alive, it can be bred to be more pronounced or it can be bred out of existence. A case study is of pre-colonial New Zealand, which was a natural fortress basically. The primary inhabitants, due to geography, were birds as they were the only ones with access to the island. As such there were no natural predators and over many, many, many generations some birds evolved into flightless versions of themselves. Similarly, as observed even as recently as 30 years ago, many of these species lack the instinctive wariness that most prey animals have as a defense mechanism. They didn't understand that they should be afraid of humans or dogs or rats. We all know how that story ends.

It's a similar situation with the chair analogy. We, through evolution, have come to the ability to allow our senses to report data on our surroundings in such a way that we can compare known positive experiences with known negative experiences and judge accordingly. If we walk on solid ground enough we get a feel for it and our senses then look for similar markings that will tell us how we should approach the next ground we see, etc.

Obviously this is a very rudimentary explanation, but it all boils down to sensory perception and really, our minds use a system that can be crudely described as faith all the time. If it didn't then we wouldn't have been able to be a successful species. It's impossible to hunt, or farm, or reproduce if every time you need to take a step you must first test the ground in every direction from you, or if you are afraid to eat anything but what you have been fed in your earliest years (breast milk) because it is untested and one wrong test is all it takes to kill you.

Again, rudimentary, but like many things it is a sort of evolutionary memory. Presumably, there is specific coding in certain genes for defense mechanisms the same way there is for the biological imperatives to eat, breathe, sleep, and reproduce. Yadda yadda. I'm not an evolutionary biologist so feel free to correct any mistakes.

[Sirenia]

It's quackery. I still say I am an aries though but even though I would fit what an "aries" is suppose to be, I'm sure I would fit all the other signs in some way too.

[Xaeon]

It's quackery. I still say I am an aries though but even though I would fit what an "aries" is suppose to be, I'm sure I would fit all the other signs in some way too.

X2 it's crap. It's designed to apply to everyone.

[Sylvrdragon]

I'm a Sagittarius because bows are fucking cool.

[BerenTebogo]

Go shoot a goat.

[Vixia]

Im a scorpio/libra cusp so sometimes it says im a scorpio and sometimes it says im a libra (oct 23) so I just read both and pick which one i like best lol

as far as like the personality traits and crap go though - scorpio for sure

and this thread is far too philosophical for me to read at 3:30 XD

[Max™]

Go shoot a goat.

What would you have a Virgo like myself do... oh wait, nevermind.