What is your Zodiac [astrology]?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

Back in the late 19th century there was a strong belief that the field of science had no new discoveries left in it and that there would only be a few minor discoveries to help 'wrap up'. Then fission, fusion, relativity, etc happened. But while science and astronomy have broadened as fields and become more and more apparent and useful, the opposite has been happening with Astrology. Astrology began at a time when there was no way to really test any of the ideas. Some old priest folk got together in temples and wrote all of these things down, possibly under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs. Thousands of years passed with this knowledge considered the norm. Then some Astrologers began really looking to the stars and became the first Astronomers. The telescope certainly helped. Astrologers everywhere, and the Church, would try and shut them down at any given time. They attempted to dismiss the claims they made based upon real observations of the stars, which, for the most-part, didn't try and attempt to explain these objects from some divine or supernatural standpoint, which was tantamount to heresy. Eventually it became clear that Newton's laws applied to what happens out there, and even further on, that more advanced physics do. Gradually it has become very evident that anecdotal evidence for Astrology is arrived at similar to the ways cold reading is done, or most other forms of divination

You know, I'm scientifically minded but I have studied Astrology for years. (not so much recently) I've got tons of books on the subject.

I can admit I fit my sun sign quite well. My moon sign is Pisces as well. It fits. My rising sign (cusp of Sagittarius and Scorpio) also fits.

I've also studied the flip side to astrology, which states it's overdue for a change since the stars and planets are no longer aligned as they were when astrology was first developed. Real or not, it's a very interesting look at humanity.

There is a lot more to astrology than just the sun sign so this is a fairly irrelevant poll.

I have an interest in both occidental and Chinese astrology and think there is something to it but the popularised face of it is a load of the proverbial cow manure - I as a taurus am forever being promised money and friendship by newspaper columns and desire neither, but then my chart is somewhat complex and I am a fire horse with tripple positive fire present in my chart according to the chinese system, 'a rebellious son, bad omen for familial unity etc...'

peace j

Which is why I specified in my first reply that Pisces was my sun sign. I am always amused by how people scratch the surface only.

I find astrology very interesting. I'm a Leo.

Edit: This is all I saw when I read your post. And, quite frankly, it's true.

Ah, so you have no reply and must resort to weak and inaccurate ad hominem attacks. Good way to back up your pseudoscience, though I should have anticipated you would choose that 'route' (and you make an accusation against me while I have been quite civil, grow up), as pseudo-scientific advocates invariably revert to being whiny children when they're backed into a corner

Eight-teenth day of the third triskedene. This makes my sign Thelev the Weaver.

Last edited by Fnord on 08 May 2011, 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not to mention that but 'chronological snobbery'? Is that an attempt to try and paint historical knowledge as a bad thing? LOL. That's so awesome. Good for you man, good for you

I am an aries, but I dont act like one. but I do very much resemble the snake my chinese astrology.

If the sun can effect the climate on earth, then the year one is born may have some merrit.....maybe, but I cant prove it, nor am going to make a fool out of myself trying

Ad hominem = pointing out your lack of logic.

It's all so clear to me now.

Edit: I also think it's funny how you paint me as a psuedo-science believer just because I point out the fact that your arguments lack logic.

btw....does chronological snobbery mean that " I been around longer than you and seen more therefore I know more" kinda thing?? just curious...I never heard it put that way.


Jojo

Oh really? How do they lack logic? Please, enlighten me. Since the best you could do was impersonate my viewpoint via the quoting system, I suppose you actually have nothing useful to say. You have actually not added anything to this discourse in any meaningful manner. Thus far your responses have entirely consisted of personal attacks, without any reasoning behind what it is that makes Astrology correct. The burden of proof is on you. Moog has, though I found his response amounted to 'it cannot be measured via scientific methodology' thus furthering the logical premise that it is unscientific . I point you out as a pseudo-science believer because you are a pseudo-science believer. You actually have not replied to any of my arguments


Its just a dumb personal attack on MrLooney's part. He has nothing useful to add so he's resorting to name calling. This could be perfectly civil but he is choosing to make it uncivil. I'll remain impassive as I don't really care about his insults, they are proof enough that he has nothing to support his platform



The sun affects climate because of its heat and radiation. These are measurable. Nothing about Astrology is actually observable/measurable. There is only personal anecdotal evidence

My point (which you clearly missed) is that your argument is founded in nothing but arrogance. This is not a personal attack, it's an assessment of what your argument is.

Chronological snobbery is, at its core, the assumption that people of the past were idiots. Your argument is meaningless because you don't use any actual evidence or logic, just the claim that people of the past are idiots (not to mention your lack of knowledge of history).

Actually, in the other astrology topic, I pointed out that I managed to come up with a logical explanation for the Mars Effect in about 15 minutes. This really isn't hard to do. Since you're so impassive and unbiased, explain to me how the Mars Effect can exist (using the assumption that it's not just random) (Edit: Not existing in the sense that the positions of the planets affect personality, but rather that there is a correlation) without it being astrologically significant.