What is your Zodiac [astrology]?

Post Reply New Topic

Leo and it doesn't describe me at all. Leos are ought to be all extroverted and assertive, and I'm very much the opposite.

Cancer ftw.

And leo's just tend to be the party planners in my opinion.

Look at the results tho, something I've been told before is births tend to coincide with the holidays or when people don't have anything better to do. When is march? Nine months after june. When is september? Nine months after Dec.

When people are warm or jolly, they tend to...

I fit my cancer traits pretty well tho, all the women (family wise) in my life have been pieces, and I always attract taurus. Lots of them.

Have a Pimm's and lemonade

Other factors in your chart might be modifying, inhibiting, or overwhelming your sun in Leo.

Gemini here...

While I fall dead smack center of the bell curve, astrology has nothing to do with anything and the argument about weather is irrelevant because summer is winter in Australia and it generally doesn't snow in Seattle, Portland, LA or San Fran. England, near the equator, parts of Africa. Know what I'm saying? So if you're born on say, my birthday of Feb. 27th in say, Ecuador...

Februrary the 8th AQUARIUS

THIS

Except for Astrologers own 'research' there is no evidence that Astrology is real...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

Its like kitsch artwork compared to the real masterpiece of Astronomy (dogs playing poker vs the works of Da Vinci). Why make random things up about a universe that is already perfectly amazing? It takes away from the real beauty of what's out there. New age balderdash

Oh yeah... I'm a Gemini. And how come there's no Ophiuchus up there? Do Astrologers not count that or..? I was under the impression there was an effort to re-include it in the zodiac. Oh well

There's a few things wrong with that article.

For a start, he's decided that astrology can only work by some force exuding from planets that affects us, which is erroneous.



He's also referenced the James Randi astrology stunt which only really proves that humans are suggestible (no s**t) and that it's possible to write weak astrological reports.

Here's a good rejoinder to that article, I think Bob's got a lot of it covered here http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm



Hmm, I thought I'd already explained the Ophiuchus thing to you before. Maybe not so well. If you really are interested: http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_ophiuchus_e.htm

Hmm, writing is a traditional career for Geminians

PS. I'm willing to do you a natal chart report, if you'd like. No charge. I promise that no one will be harmed, and it will not damage our ability to do rational thinking. It's pretty hard to damage a Geminian's thinking anyway, they tend to be compulsive thinkers, or worse, talkers (My niece was born under Gemini)

That's probably because he's attempting to look at it from a scientific perspective. And I have read about Astrology theories such as 'the Mars Effect' that imply that what is out there does have effects here. Though I suppose there are different schools of thought within Astrology. That tabula smaragdina is very ambiguous, much like Astrology itself. The only think somewhat accurate about that quote is that yes, the elements here are everywhere else in the universe. But what is 'The One'? If it cannot be measured, how can there be any evidence for it? Phil Plait is actually being very honest in speculating upon there being a measurable force from other planets, as he is thinking like an Astronomer/scientist. This is my problem with Astrology, you get into the realm of the scientific and the argument is 'it doesn't work that way'. So then how does it actually work?



If you wish.

I was born on July 15th, making me a Cancer.

It always annoys me when people use this phrase and insist that it means something cannot be true.

(Edit: 100 years ago, there was no evidence of black holes, except through Relativity's predictions)

50 years ago, there was no evidence that drinking tea had positive health effects (except documentation by Eastern doctors, and they're obviously full of crap).

30 years ago, there was no evidence that Chi Kung had any major impact on health (except, again, the doctors).

That second one also presents another problem: In spite of the evidence that exists and is readily available, many people claim that there isn't any. The sheer arrogance of the statement is astounding, as if the speaker can know, with absolute certainty, every test done. From my experience, most people that claim this have actually done very little to no actual research in the matter, just dismissing it out of hand.

Edit: Just because the evidence isn't there doesn't mean it isn't true. You can say that you believe that it isn't true, but you can't say absolutely that it isn't true, especially when it hasn't been studied in-depth (like astrology).

Edit2: By the way, for those that are cheering because they're astrology believers, keep in mind that this cuts both ways. There are plenty of things that people believed in, and there was no evidence for, and then it was completely debunked. Plum pudding, anyone?

500 years ago, there was no evidence for Astrology. 200 years ago, no evidence. 100 years ago, no evidence. 50 years ago, no evidence. etc etc (Anecdotal evidence is not admissible, btw)
When the question of scientific method comes up, the answer is 'it doesn't work that way'. Therefore one has little choice but to conclude 'there never will be evidence', as it lies in the realm of mysticism and divination, both under the umbrella of superstition
Making random s**t up about planets and stars without any burden of proof or scientific method and then decrying people who are skeptical of this is arrogant if anything.

Mathematical models based upon sound reasoning and understanding of science



You can observe biology and see what effects tea or other beverages/food have upon it (underlined: for the most part, people who aren't trained in the medical profession but claim to offer miracle cures are, in fact, full of crap). Many people also thought smoking tobacco was good for you once upon a time. Quackery is a real problem, East & West. The whole 'Eastern Medicine thing' can often be a scam, and sometimes not. The more mysterious it seems the more willing people are to throw money at it. Plenty of Easterners take big advantage of this



I don't buy into alternative medicine and the concept of 'qi'. But I have heard its relaxing in a similar way to meditation. Most benefits of alternative medicine arrive via the placebo effect. But Qiqong is one that is pretty harmless and as I said, relaxing (apparently)

Last edited by Vigilans on 08 May 2011, 5:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In 1899. What you are saying is, essentially, "Everything that can be proven has been proven."

It's seriously nonsensical to say that just because something does not exist now doesn't mean it won't exist in the future. Aside from the argument (which I already made), that you are not omniscient.

Whoops, I forgot the exact date. 100 years ago, there was no evidence at all. It wasn't until about 95 years ago that Relativity suggested it.