Do you believe in astrology? What is your sign.


missile
#31
Let's just say it fits me
 
Wiskycoo
#32
I'm a catalyst... Aries.
 
Riyko
#33
I don't beleive in Astrology.

I'm also a Leo
 
Vereya
#34
I am an Aries.
And I believe in astrology. And in a lot of other things... I am terribly superstitious. For instance, yesterday I broke a dish, and now I am waiting for happiness to come It is a Russian belief that when you break a dish or a glass or a cup, that is an omen of happiness coming to you.
 
Dexter Sinister
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Vereya

... now I am waiting for happiness to come...

If only it were that easy...
 
selfactivated
#36
Quote:

Cancer
Cancer, the most empathetic sign is symbolized by the Crab. Ruled by Moon, this is the fourth zodiac sign that lasts from June 22nd to July 22nd and is called 'Karka' in Hindi.
About Cancerians
They are deeply emotional and intuitive. The top concern for them is their family. People born under this sign are unduly sensitive and are more concerned with expressing emotions than getting involved in superficial conversations. They can be moody, drawing into the protective shell if things around them get too intense.
They appreciate art, literature, and especially drama, where the flow of action and feelings particularly excite them. They may themselves possess considerable literary and artistic bent of mind. Cancerians have a retentive memory, particularly for emotionally laden events which they can recall in detail for years afterward.
Cancerians are not easy to understand, for their moods often fluctuates from sweet to cranky. They can be untidy, sulky, devious, moody, and inclined to self-pity because of an inferiority complex. A typical Cancerian broods on insults. They also tend to change their opinions and, indeed, their occupations, and lack stability. Cancer people are apt to do the opposite from what they are advised to do.

Quote has been trimmed

Perfectly me
 
Dexter Sinister
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by selfactivated

Perfectly me

The Forer Effect. www.skepdic.com/forer.html (external - login to view)
 
selfactivated
#38
I see
 
el speedo
#39
I'm a Libra.
 
JonB2004
#40
I don't believe in astrology.

I'm a Sagitarius.
 
SpookyTheCat
#41
 
iBubble
#42
I must say i havn't seen anything that has forced me to beleive yet, Can you prove me wrong let me see what you come up with i'm pisces.
 
jimmoyer
#43
When you read the daily sun signs in the paper, also
read your rising sign.

Gemini Rising. Scorpio Sun, Moon, Saturn, Venus.
Mars and Jupiter in Libra.

Sign sign, everywhere a sign,
breaking up the scenery
losing my mind,

Do this
Don't do that...

Can't you read the Sign ???
 
iBubble
#44
Can i read the sign? Ok explain...
As for reading the papers i don't, as i feel news papers hold inacurrate information!
 
jimmoyer
#45
Inaccuracy in newspapers is no reason to avoid them.

Check out optical illusions.

Our own lying eyes deceive us.

The burden is on us to interpret.
 
iBubble
#46
If we choose to carry the burden then we only have ourselves to blame. our eyes will see what we choose them to see, nobody can force an illusion upon them!
 
mimiki
#47
i don't really beleive in it, but am curious to know on what basis can people beleive in it? as different publications have different assumptions.
 
s_lone
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

I'm somewhat reluctant to get into this, because it's probably about as unlikely to change anyone's mind as a debate between an atheist and a Christian about the existence of god would. However...
There is no science of astrology. It's pure pseudoscience, flummery and self-delusion from start to finish, and has nothing to do with reality. It has no plausible mechanism, doesn't survive routine statistical analysis, has no internal logic, its practitioners cannot agree even among themselves about the basics of how to do it, and it has contributed exactly nothing of substance or value to any legitimate field of human knowledge. It is, in fact, demonstrably false.
Think you're a Taurus, for instance, according to the sun signs? Wrong. The sun was not in Taurus when you were born, it would have been in Pisces or Aries, depending on the exact day of your birth. 2500 years ago when the Babylonians put all this together it would have been in Taurus, but due to an astronomical phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes, things have moved about 30 degrees west of where the Babylonians saw them. I'm a Taurus, and on my birthday the sun was about in the middle of Aries according to this little astronomy program I have here.
So should I read the horoscopes for Aries, or Taurus? Doesn't really matter, they're all nonsense anyway.

Quote has been trimmed
This is a common argument against astrology. But serious astrologers DO take the precession of the equinox into account. There is the tropical zodiac (used by a great majority of astrologers) and the sidereal zodiac. It is the sidereal zodiac who bases itself on the constellations. The tropical commonly used zodiac doesn't change because it is based on the yearly revolution of the Earth around the sun... Based on the solstice and the equinox.

This certainly doesn't prove the validity of astrology but it's an important point to understand to go on with an honest debate.
 
s_lone
#49
I'm a gemini with scorpio rising.

Sun sign columns in the papers rarely do any form of justice to astrology because the sun's zodiacal postion is only one of many many factors to interpret while looking at a natal chart.

While science dissects the universe in order to try to understand it, astrology goes the other way around. It TRIES to grasp the cosmos as a whole and study its effects on our human existence. Science divises itself into a whole series of sub-categories meaning it often fails to connect the dots in order to discover higher patterns of meaning. Astrology sees the cosmos as filled with meaning and inter-connectedness and TRIES to understand parts of it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity (external - login to view)

When statistical studies are done to research correlations between human existence and astronomical data, there are practically never any conclusive results, despite a few very interesting exceptions. (check out Charles Gauquelin). Where it gets interesting is when tests are done to study the capacity of astrologers to "understand" the celestial picture. It's as if astrology was a language and that you need to understand it in order to use it succesfully.
 
Dexter Sinister
#50
What's to debate, honestly or otherwise? Astrology is simply wrong.

www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html (external - login to view)
 
s_lone
#51
Many astrologers DO use asteroids and other celestial objects in their interpretations. But obviously, astrologers will be much more concerned with objects that our WITHIN our solar system. As soon as you get out of our solar system, stars and galaxies will be of much more interest than extra-solar planets. The galactic core (around the 26th degree of Sagittarius) is a very important factor for many astrologers.

Astrology is much more concerned with meaning than causality, which is why Jung's concept of synchronicity is so important to this discussion.

Of course astrology is often used by crooks and sad naive people who can't bear the weight of their own free will. But that is not an argument against astrology's validity.

The most important thing to remember is that decent astrology is not about predicting the future, it's about understanding the past and the present, giving us an idea where we stand in the cosmic scheme of things. Astrology can be used as a tool to create a dynamic and personal future while taking into account larger and meaningful realities such as the solar system and our galaxy.
 
Dexter Sinister
#52
Jung's concept of synchronicity is nonsense, in this discussion or any other, he just didn't comprehend what's called the law of large numbers and the frequency with which highly improbable events actually happen. Gauquelin's work was discredited long ago for bias in his data selection. The arguments against astrology's validity are as I originally stated them:
Quote:

There is no science of astrology. It's pure pseudoscience, flummery and self-delusion from start to finish, and has nothing to do with reality. It has no plausible mechanism, doesn't survive routine statistical analysis, has no internal logic, its practitioners cannot agree even among themselves about the basics of how to do it, and it has contributed exactly nothing of substance or value to any legitimate field of human knowledge. It is, in fact, demonstrably false.

What you're talking about, using it as a tool to create a dynamic and personal future and so on, is just more New Age bs. Astrology has singularly failed to prove its claims; there's nothing there. It's just the same old tricks mediums and psychics use: cold reading, the Forer effect, confirmation bias, selective thinking, and all the rest of it. You're deluding yourself if you think there's anything more than that in it.
 
iamursh25
#53
Ii'm a Gemini. Some of the discriptions of a gemini, in most horoscope, are true for me. So the stars, the moon, and all those cosmic mambo jambo doesn't have anything to do with our birth? our "destiny"?

Spam deleted
 
Dexter Sinister
#54
Not a thing. That's the Forer effect. www.skepdic.com/forer.html (external - login to view)
 
SaintLucifer
#55
Astrology is utterly ridiculous and is debunked rightfully so. It should be buried along with religion as more superstitious malarkey. What do the postions of the stars have anything to do with fate? You people do realise that when you look at a star that is where it was hundreds, thousands or even millions of years ago depending upon their distance from our solar system? Christ on a stick but some of those stars no longer exist even though you can see them because the light from their destruction has not yet reached our human eyes. So how can you base fate on the position of a star that you see which currently no longer exists? That is the essence of absurdity. Please people, get lives.
 
s_lone
#56
Materialism and scientism at its best; the cosmos has no connection whatsoever with human existence...

Is that what you believe?
 
Dexter Sinister
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

Materialism and scientism at its best; the cosmos has no connection whatsoever with human existence...

Is that what you believe?

Not at all. The cosmos is intimately connected with human existence. Every element heavier than lithium, for instance, which is only the third element in the periodic table, had to be cooked up in thermonuclear reactions inside stars that blew up and scattered them around the galactic neighborhood, to be incorporated into a subsequent generation of star and planet formation. The cosmos appears to be about 13.7 billion years old, the earth's around 5 billion years old, so the sun is at least a second generation, possibly a third or fourth generation, star. Without previous generations of stars to make the heavy elements and spread them around, the chemistry of the cosmos, with only hydrogen, helium, and lithium to work with, would be too impoverished to sustain life.

That's the basic connection, not the mystical flummery you appear to believe in. Reality as science reveals it is far more complex, rich, and interesting than anything any mystic ever dreamed up.
 
mimiki
#58
for those of you who believe and follow astrology, as different sites/people give different takes every time, which site in web gives the most accurate outlooks?
 
Freethinker
#59
It is pointless to address this with logic. We have people who were likely taught superistion from childhood. Makes it easy to move from one superstition to another. The move to logic will be more difficult.

Astrology is superstition. Use it's belief as a marker to know when you are dealing with an illogical superstitious person. That is the only minimal benefit it has.
 
Simpleton
#60
Yeah, what Dung said.
 

Similar Threads

0
Astrology fundamentals
by s_lone | Mar 7th, 2007
no new posts