Astrology Opinions

BB4_intellect
atheist
BB4_intellect's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Astrology Opinions

I just wanted to hear everyone's opinion on astrology.

Do you believe people born on the same day of the year have similar personality traits??? etc.....


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
It's claptrap. Here's a

It's claptrap. Here's a little experiment James Randi did to have a look at Astrology and horoscopes:

http://video.rationalresponders.com/video/James-Randi-on-Astrology

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BB4_intellect wrote: Do you

BB4_intellect wrote:

 

Do you believe people born on the same day of the year have similar personality traits??? etc.....

 

Why would being born on any particular date influence an individual's personality?

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is some slight

There is some slight indication that there may be a correlation between the average temperature experienced by the mother over some critical period can have some influence on the maturing brain. I seem to remember from some old study. This would produce some correlation to time of the solar year, which will produce some correlation to the stars, at least over historical periods where there hasn't been time for major shifts of the zodiac positions due to the precession of the equinox.

That's at least one plausible mechanism for whatever slight correlation the astrologer's might claim to have found.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
My wife and I were born on

My wife and I were born on the same day of the same year, our personalities are quite different. I don't give astrology any credence, why would it not apply to the animal kingdom?

My dog is a sagittarius but she acts more like a Leo!


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There is

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is some slight indication that there may be a correlation between the average temperature experienced by the mother over some critical period can have some influence on the maturing brain. I seem to remember from some old study. This would produce some correlation to time of the solar year, which will produce some correlation to the stars, at least over historical periods where there hasn't been time for major shifts of the zodiac positions due to the precession of the equinox.

That's at least one plausible mechanism for whatever slight correlation the astrologer's might claim to have found.

 

Of course then people born at precisely the same time in different parts of the world wouldn't have the same personality traits due to experiencing different temperatures.  Also, more often than not any temperature fluctuations would be more likely to be due to the mother having the financial means to have access to shelter and heating rather than whatever is going on outside!

Overall, I think "lol" sums up my feelings towards astrology.  Does it have a hit rate greater than random chance when giving specific rather than ambiguous predictions?  No it does not.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote:BobSpence1

phooney wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is some slight indication that there may be a correlation between the average temperature experienced by the mother over some critical period can have some influence on the maturing brain. I seem to remember from some old study. This would produce some correlation to time of the solar year, which will produce some correlation to the stars, at least over historical periods where there hasn't been time for major shifts of the zodiac positions due to the precession of the equinox.

That's at least one plausible mechanism for whatever slight correlation the astrologer's might claim to have found.

 

Of course then people born at precisely the same time in different parts of the world wouldn't have the same personality traits due to experiencing different temperatures.  Also, more often than not any temperature fluctuations would be more likely to be due to the mother having the financial means to have access to shelter and heating rather than whatever is going on outside!

Overall, I think "lol" sums up my feelings towards astrology.  Does it have a hit rate greater than random chance when giving specific rather than ambiguous predictions?  No it does not.

I agree.

One point I would make is that someone was trying to find some correllation between time of birth and personality, things that actually measureably affect the environment around the period leading up to and around birth is what they should looking at, rather than the orientation of the earth relative to bodies light years away.

I did say slight, if any, correlation, from which it follows that in most if not all cases, any similarities would be completely swamped by all the more direct influences, which is what we actually see.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 The problem with astrology

 The problem with astrology is not that there are no conceivable correlations between circumstances of conception, incubation, and birth, and the grown individuals sharing certain qualities.  It's well established that various prenatal environments tend to cause predictable qualities in adults.  The problem is twofold:

1) Any such correlations certainly do not have anything to do with stars.  The doctor who gave birth to you was exerting a stronger gravitational field on you and your mother than any star.

2) There has never been any kind of scientific attempt to quantify falsifiable parameters to test empirically.  In other words, it's all blind guessing and vague language.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Astrology is the art of

Astrology is the art of writing a vacuous generality so flatteringly that people are smugly delighted to apply it to themselves.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Astrology is

Desdenova wrote:
Astrology is the art of writing a vacuous generality so flatteringly that people are smugly delighted to apply it to themselves.
Well said.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 One really serious problem

 One really serious problem with testing astrology is that we all have common traits. That may seem obvious, but you're going to get someone with a vague prediction or description. Even very detailed star charts tend to result in a vague group of attributes like "strong" or "forgetful". If a person thinks of the last time they forgot something, then they'll agree: "Hey, I am forgetful!"

The problem I've seen this create is with people who are Gemini or Scorpio. I don't know exactly what the problem is, but I've seen people identify with these attribute clusters, and apparently use them as an excuse for bad behaviour. I'm not really up on the astrology (because I think it's nonsense), but when people actually believe the stuff, it's going to come true.

PS - welcome to the forums.

[Edited for crappy writing. Well, some of it.]

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is funny when "new agers"

It is funny when "new agers" claim "I am not like them" referring  to old myth claiming they are atheists, failing to see that they fall into the same gap answer garbage that causes them to believe that somehow their fortunes can be told by a huckster who shouldn't even make what illegals make, at a newspaper, who writes a column because as P.T. Barnum rightly put it, "There is a sucker born every minute".

I don't like the fact that the word "atheist" only refures to claims of gods. I think it should incumpass the rejection of all naked assertions. If you are going to base your life decisions on someone else trying to skim a buck off you, your wallet will always be as emty as your head.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't like

Brian37 wrote:
I don't like the fact that the word "atheist" only refures to claims of gods. I think it should incumpass the rejection of all naked assertions. If you are going to base your life decisions on someone else trying to skim a buck off you, your wallet will always be as emty as your head.
What's wrong with "Skeptic"? I'm a skeptic, and from my skepticism comes my atheism, as well as a healthy doubt of all other things woo.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Brian37

JillSwift wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
I don't like the fact that the word "atheist" only refures to claims of gods. I think it should incumpass the rejection of all naked assertions. If you are going to base your life decisions on someone else trying to skim a buck off you, your wallet will always be as emty as your head.
What's wrong with "Skeptic"? I'm a skeptic, and from my skepticism comes my atheism, as well as a healthy doubt of all other things woo.

 

 

If that is your picture in your avatar, the only thing I am willing to delude myself into is that I have a shot. But the odds of that happening are as likely as the Detriot Lions winning the Super Bowl this year.

In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with calling oneself an atheist and other than lacking a more "skeptical" scope in it's usage beyond deity claims which it should, the words "skeptic" and "atheist" portray the willingness and nessesity to get it right through inquiry. I don't see them as any different other than some chose to use "skeptic" to placate the emotions of theists.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If that is

Brian37 wrote:

If that is your picture in your avatar

My skepticism tells me "no".

PS - what IS that logo on the card? I think I recognize it, but I can't tell from where.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Brian37

HisWillness wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If that is your picture in your avatar

My skepticism tells me "no".

PS - what IS that logo on the card? I think I recognize it, but I can't tell from where.

The logo on the card is the symbol for the "Brights". The woman in the avatar is the symbol for "HOT DAMN!".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Brian37

HisWillness wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If that is your picture in your avatar

My skepticism tells me "no".

PS - what IS that logo on the card? I think I recognize it, but I can't tell from where.

It's not me. It's a clip-at picture.

The logo is the "Invisible Pink Unicorn". One of many attempts to logo-ize atheism. It's one of my favorites as I was a lurker on alt.atheism when it was started to be used as an illustration of the silliness of invisible super-beings.

 

Brian37 wrote:
In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with calling oneself an atheist and other than lacking a more "skeptical" scope in it's usage beyond deity claims which it should, the words "skeptic" and "atheist" portray the willingness and nessesity to get it right through inquiry. I don't see them as any different other than some chose to use "skeptic" to placate the emotions of theists.
Well, I can see your point of view, but "atheist" does have a rather more specific meaning thanks to its root words. Plus, I know far too many atheists who couldn't manage a skeptical thought if thier life depended on it. (Waves at Luminon.)

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:HisWillness

JillSwift wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If that is your picture in your avatar

My skepticism tells me "no".

PS - what IS that logo on the card? I think I recognize it, but I can't tell from where.

It's not me. It's a clip-at picture.

The logo is the "Invisible Pink Unicorn". One of many attempts to logo-ize atheism. It's one of my favorites as I was a lurker on alt.atheism when it was started to be used as an illustration of the silliness of invisible super-beings.

 

Brian37 wrote:
In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with calling oneself an atheist and other than lacking a more "skeptical" scope in it's usage beyond deity claims which it should, the words "skeptic" and "atheist" portray the willingness and nessesity to get it right through inquiry. I don't see them as any different other than some chose to use "skeptic" to placate the emotions of theists.
Well, I can see your point of view, but "atheist" does have a rather more specific meaning thanks to its root words. Plus, I know far too many atheists who couldn't manage a skeptical thought if thier life depended on it. (Waves at Luminon.)

As perfect as Jake thinks he is, even I jump the gun. I thought it was the symbol for the "Brights". But now that I think about it, I do remember that. Even I am subject to A.D.D moments where I fill in the gaps.

And as far as the woman, SHAME ON YOU! You should be sued for false advertisement. I have my own delusions to uphold ya know! CANT A MAN DREAM, at least in a wet way? Thanks to you I have to live in reality! YOU YOU YOU EVIL PERSON!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:It's not me.

JillSwift wrote:
It's not me. It's a clip-at picture.

Judging from Brian's reaction, I should explain that I'm not being insulting. My hints were the professional lighting, airbrushing (or photoshop), and skeletal arm on the woman. She's like Skeletor. She also reminds me of a drama-creator I know, so I wouldn't be able to get past that to call her attractive. The likeness is uncanny.

JillSwift wrote:
The logo is the "Invisible Pink Unicorn". One of many attempts to logo-ize atheism. It's one of my favorites as I was a lurker on alt.atheism when it was started to be used as an illustration of the silliness of invisible super-beings.

THAT's it. Thank you. I was going to go nuts trying to remember where I had seen that.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:JillSwift

HisWillness wrote:

JillSwift wrote:
It's not me. It's a clip-at picture.

Judging from Brian's reaction, I should explain that I'm not being insulting. My hints were the professional lighting, airbrushing (or photoshop), and skeletal arm on the woman. She's like Skeletor. She also reminds me of a drama-creator I know, so I wouldn't be able to get past that to call her attractive. The likeness is uncanny.

JillSwift wrote:
The logo is the "Invisible Pink Unicorn". One of many attempts to logo-ize atheism. It's one of my favorites as I was a lurker on alt.atheism when it was started to be used as an illustration of the silliness of invisible super-beings.

THAT's it. Thank you. I was going to go nuts trying to remember where I had seen that.

If there was a god(no offense to Jake) I would pray right now that I was Bill and that avatar was my Monica.  Sadly though, considering my last bought with god, this too will be crossed out.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And as far as

Brian37 wrote:

And as far as the woman, SHAME ON YOU! You should be sued for false advertisement. I have my own delusions to uphold ya know! CANT A MAN DREAM, at least in a wet way? Thanks to you I have to live in reality! YOU YOU YOU EVIL PERSON!

Maybe you just have a thing for women holding cards. Check this one out:

Cutie holding card

or this one:

Redhead cutie with a business card

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Brian37

HisWillness wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

And as far as the woman, SHAME ON YOU! You should be sued for false advertisement. I have my own delusions to uphold ya know! CANT A MAN DREAM, at least in a wet way? Thanks to you I have to live in reality! YOU YOU YOU EVIL PERSON!

Maybe you just have a thing for women holding cards. Check this one out:

Cutie holding card

or this one:

Redhead cutie with a business card

The first pic is a definite BOIIIIING!

But if anyone here saw all the women I dated and the one I was married to, only two out of the 7 or 8 were BOIING!  But both of those two were bat shit insane, but my penis override rational thought. So it didn't matter to me that one of them was super jealous or that the other was a hypochondriac, all I knew is that I was poking some hot pooter...It  only dawned on me later that it wasn't worth it after the fact.

While it is true humans are initially attracted by looks and smell, long term, I would rather take a plain Jane over a crazy hottie with no brains. Looks only get you so far, after that, reality sets in.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And as far as

Brian37 wrote:
And as far as the woman, SHAME ON YOU! You should be sued for false advertisement. I have my own delusions to uphold ya know! CANT A MAN DREAM, at least in a wet way? Thanks to you I have to live in reality! YOU YOU YOU EVIL PERSON!
I am proud of my EBILNESS! Sticking out tongue Laughing out loud

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Michael Shermer tests astrology

What do you guys think of this video? Shermer seems to have failed at proving astrology is bullshit. Not that I think it isn't...Smiling

http://video.rationalresponders.com/video/Vedic-Astrology-Michael-Shermer

 


pablotar
pablotar's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
 That guy was googling the

 That guy was googling the shit out of those people on his laptop!


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
My father is a professional

My father is a professional astrologer, so I am relatively well educated in this area. This also means that I have an experience only with my father's Aquarian Astrology. This is very important, because it takes into account a shift of ecliptics and it's movement through constellations. This influence changes the very basis and purpose of astrology, and so the traditional astrology becomes less relevant and the AA gains an importance, as the ecliptics moves into the age of Aquarius. You may disbelieve in astrology, but it changes nothing on the fact that it is very complicated and evolving method. If you want to say just "bullshit", then fine, but then you need not to ask about it in the first place. (btw, I think the same about the most of commercial astrology, mainly the newspaper columns) I just answer questions, maybe the people would like an answer from a real astrologic guy.

It should be also said, that the astrology is about influences, not a state of existence. It can predict an influence, but not if anything will happen, this needs a specific state of existence. An event may happen only if it's state is prone to some influence. For example, you want to go in the town on Saturday to have some fun, and you want to know if it will be good. Astrology can't tell you if you'll get some...uhm, relationship, that depends on many other things, it can only predict that you'll be more likely to get horny, if you can.

aiia wrote:
BB4_intellect wrote:
 Do you believe people born on the same day of the year have similar personality traits??? etc.....
 Why would being born on any particular date influence an individual's personality? 

It's gonna get a bit complicated - whatever the astrology is, it's not simple.
The explanation of astrology relies on a cosmology of subtle realms, containing a various degrees and forms 'subtle' matter and energy. All living things, including planets, consists on multiple forms on several realms at once.
The closest non-physical realm is called etheric, actually four etheric states plus solid, liquid and gaseous material states forms together a "Cosmic Solid" realm. Etheric matter is abundant in solar system as the air in atmosphere, and it serves as a medium to streams of subtle energy from the planets.
A living things have an etheric body, which is responsive to all kinds of subtle energies. The children before they get born, lives within an etheric and physical body of mother, so they're shielded to the subtle energies from the cosmos, but with their first breath they breathe in the ether, charged with very specific qualities and combinations of energies from the planets in the solar system. This sets the initial parameters of their etheric and probably also astral body for the rest of their life.

So much for theory. As for practice, the existence of ether was proven by Silvertooth experiment. (google up if you want)


enzoconti wrote:

My wife and I were born on the same day of the same year, our personalities are quite different. I don't give astrology any credence, why would it not apply to the animal kingdom?

My dog is a sagittarius but she acts more like a Leo!

You mean a solar sign, but a major role has the Ascendant, aka Rising sign, which changes like every hour. All other planets also plays they role, and some greater asteroids too. Quaoar, Ceres, Chiron, and so on. Then there are Sabian symbols (which my father uses) and they change like every 5 minutes. Even if you and your wife would be born on the same minute, the sky is changing by a position on Earth (for example some planets may be hidden behind the horizon, which affects the ascendant, etc)
Btw, ascendant affects how do we appear to other people, so the difference in personality may be significant. It is rare to find a person who seems to behave as he/she "typically" should according to a solar sign. The Ascendant may be interesting. 4 people of our 5 people family has ascendant in Leo - and so has the 5th person, my older brother's girlfriend. From my experience, a whole horoscope characterizes the personality and lifetime events very well. You wouldn't believe me, if I'd tell you how much. Btw, I've never seen an animal astrology to be taken seriously. I never heard of anyone on this continent doing it. Really, dunno. I'd guess that an animal is much more controlled by genetics and upbringing.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:My father is a

 

Quote:
My father is a professional astrologer

It runs in the family.... credulity, that is.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Happy new year! The expert

Happy new year! The expert says, that astrologic constellations during the 2009 year will be very agressive and damaging to big, old rigid "structures", namely economic, political and hopefully religional. I'm glad that Uranus will kick their butts.
There's a chinese curse, saying 'interesting times on you!' Fortunately, I'm not a chinese guy, so I enjoy living in interesting times.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Wow, they're using astrology

Wow, they're using astrology to predict something that has already started.  That's so ... pathetic.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:Wow, they're

thingy wrote:

Wow, they're using astrology to predict something that has already started.  That's so ... pathetic.

Who talks about prediction? That's only a confirmation, that the constellations and the events on Earth are in harmony. There might be very different constellations, which could mean different things than these already starting, but this is not the case. (I've never seen it ever would be ) It's not ambiguous, there are differences between constellations of growth, stagnation, revolution or downfall. If you doubt, which is praiseworthy, learn more on this topic, (houses, quadratures, trigons, etc) or visit your local astrologer.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:Wow, they're

thingy wrote:

Wow, they're using astrology to predict something that has already started.  That's so ... pathetic.

Also, something that pretty much everyone in the financial sector had predicted five years ago, and in very specific terms. The only "accelerant" to the process was the abuse of the Clinton administration's attempt to get everyone a mortgage. Turns out when that runs amok, there's a serious credit problem. Huh.

C'mon, astrology's a joke. It's just a joke. You can't "disprove" it because it doesn't say anything, and it's loaded to the brim with confirmation bias. I've met amazingly intuitive people who are forced to say that they're doing astrology because people don't want to pay to hear about their humanity. They want to hear about their connection to the stars. Even though the message about their personality ends up being the same ("you're not getting enough sleep, you should probably floss more, and call your mother" ), and all they needed was for someone to tell them, it's like we need someone in the function of witch doctor.

Actually, we may have something there. Maybe we never grew out of the need for the witch doctor. The witch doctor becomes a priest, all the rituals are there. When people think the priests aren't magic any more, then they have to believe that someone else has magic. Astrologers seem magical enough, and people really, really want to believe. We just got used to thousands of years of witch-doctors! I wonder where that came from?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:C'mon,

HisWillness wrote:

C'mon, astrology's a joke. It's just a joke. You can't "disprove" it because it doesn't say anything, and it's loaded to the brim with confirmation bias. I've met amazingly intuitive people who are forced to say that they're doing astrology because people don't want to pay to hear about their humanity. They want to hear about their connection to the stars. Even though the message about their personality ends up being the same ("you're not getting enough sleep, you should probably floss more, and call your mother" ), and all they needed was for someone to tell them, it's like we need someone in the function of witch doctor.


Well, maybe many of the astrologers are as you say in your condescending tone, I don't know. Maybe your father is an astrologer and he's a total conman, so you really know what you're talking about. All right, you shared your opinion, can you also tell us how did you build it?
But this is not what I have at home, not nearly. The horoscope shows a past, present and future influences shaping the person, his/her personality, and  much more. It's very complex and perfect way of understanding ourselves and others. Should I mention some examples of how it works?
It also raises an interesting questions about determinism, because the constellations are determined for the future. Of course, an astrologer is also partially a psychologist, and there is no virtue in ignoring all other helpful methods of knowledge, besides astrology, rather opposite. If the session should be helpful to the client, the astrologer must tell everything he knows from his experience and intuition in most understandable form, and mainly the unpleasant things, as these are one of the most important.

HisWillness wrote:
Actually, we may have something there. Maybe we never grew out of the need for the witch doctor. The witch doctor becomes a priest, all the rituals are there. When people think the priests aren't magic any more, then they have to believe that someone else has magic. Astrologers seem magical enough, and people really, really want to believe. We just got used to thousands of years of witch-doctors! I wonder where that came from?
I don't know how about you, but we here take a great care to pay only for what really works, to save money. If it works, if it's worth of the money, then we pay for it and recommend the others. This is how the market works.
But don't think that people (sometimes with an university degree) who were clients of my father switches their brains off. It's a common sense to pay a close attention to what astrologer says, to ask proper questions, and to realize the significance of things being said. After all, the client pays for it, so he/she must not sit there speechless in awe, but show an interest to improve his/her life. A passive clients are not worth of the time spent on them and the little money that everyone pays.
The scientific basis of that is a problem of scientists, who ignores it, saying that it doesn't work, because it can't work. I don't know about elsewhere, but it works here, in this house. So when you say that science doesn't support the astrology, this seems to me like denying an existence of an obvious things, like Sun. In such cases, a brethren of science, the business and politics, speaks on it's behalf. They doesn't want us to improve ourselves to independence and to search for alternative solutions to our problems. 'The world as we show it is the only world that exists,' is their creed. No thanks, there are alternatives.


Btw, there are no rituals and magic in astrology, except of wearing a magical amulets called 'microphones', setting up an audio mixing tabernacle and drinking a sacred concoction called 'coffee'. I will also give an announcement if my father's first book will come out in USA, it should in the years to come.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
BB4_intellect wrote:I just

BB4_intellect wrote:

I just wanted to hear everyone's opinion on astrology.

Do you believe people born on the same day of the year have similar personality traits??? etc.....

My belief in regards to astrology is that I can create a horoscope for you and over 50% of the population will identify with it.  I can also create 12 different horoscopes, place them in the astrology section of the newspaper, and have most of the people believe the horoscope applies to them. 

 http://video.rationalresponders.com/video/Astrology-Debunked-Richard-Dawk

Here's more:

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
That's not a just belief,

That's not a just belief, Sapient, that's the truth. It's possible to say a set of phrases, which sounds acceptable for the most of people. This is what I don't support - the feel-goodism. Majority of people goes to an astrologer or for a psychic readings, because they want to hear something good about themselves.
But how can I explain to you, that there is a group of adult people, who wants to work on themselves, who believes that there is more in this world than wealth, family and career? Well, these people are friends, co-workers and clients of my family. Understanding of them is different than understanding of an average, undemanding client of a commercial astrologer. As I can hardly find a words, I recommend everyone to know themselves, so they won't pay for the feel-goodism. Who works on developing him/herself, will not be satisfied by these empty phrases of an astrologic conman.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The point of many

The point of many experiments in giving people random horoscopes, is that most, if not all, of the subjects find that they seem to describe their personality and life history 'perfectly', because they are couched in such vague or ambiguous terms that when combined with natural comfirmation bias, people who already are inclined to accept Astrology will subconsciously interpret them that way.

BTW did those charts for the coming year decode into specific references to the financial system, and not just big 'structures'?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The video is nice,

The video is nice, so...rationally sounding. But testing the astrology by a magazine "horoscope" is about as precise, as to test the science a methods and results of pseudoscience. What Mr. Dawkins did is a debunking of these pages in magazines with bits of vague text for every day and with the most basic astrologic marks printed colourfully around. But he still didn't show that he has any idea of what is he talking about, the astrology itself. I see no hint that he ever heard a terms like the 'house', 'trigon' or 'quadrature'. He's completely ignorant about the subject, he only tries to insult people by talking to them like to a small children. Is that rational?

BobSpence1 wrote:
The point of many experiments in giving people random horoscopes, is that most, if not all, of the subjects find that they seem to describe their personality and life history 'perfectly', because they are couched in such vague or ambiguous terms that when combined with natural comfirmation bias, people who already are inclined to accept Astrology will subconsciously interpret them that way.
Yes. The real astrology is not so ambiguous. I'll give an example. The horoscopes says that my older brother is very selfish and manipulative person. And it says that I am so selfless and eager to help others, that I must be aware to not let anyone misuse my help, and I must tame my workoholism. Both descriptions are very true and very definite. I'm pretty sure, that me and my brother couldn't exchange our horoscopes by mistake.

BobSpence1 wrote:

BTW did those charts for the coming year decode into specific references to the financial system, and not just big 'structures'?

I just asked my father. The constellations for 2009 are lethal to big, materialistic structures, generally said. Some great institutions are expected to fall, the global financial system, in the first place. But that's general.
He told me more about three things, Uranus in Pisces, Saturn in Virgo and Quaoar quadrature. This was taking place around the time when the financial crisis started in 2008 and he described it to me more closely:

Quaoar has very powerful influence, and quadratures generally means a bad influence as such. It means "an unexpected strike/death blow from the outside", or something like that. This fits, I think.

Uranus in Pisces is obvious. Uranus = the great revolutionist, Pisces = spirituality. This means a destruction of materialistic thinking in favor of the spirituality and humane values, which is about the same. I had just seen a TV programme summing up the 2008 year, and it was exactly like that describing the public opinion.

And finally, the most significant constellation, Saturn in Virgo. Virgo means literally houses, immovables, wealth, money, a material security generally, and in our times, literally mortgages. Saturn has an opposite archetype to Uranus, it's the one who confines and restricts with a cold, hard law.

To sum it up, we have an unexpected, destructive events which severely restricts the market with immovables and mortgages on them. People turns away from following the blind materialism, and more realizes the value of friendship, love, faith, and spirituality.
Is that enough for your question?
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
For those just tuning

For those just tuning in...

In Luminon's view, science fails to prove his favorite brands of woo because:

(Pick one or several)

  1. Science tested a false version of the woo. (His favorite.)
  2. Science didn't know enough about the "secrets" of the woo to be able to test it properly. (Second favorite.)
  3. The tests were done by skeptics, biasing the tests. (Classic!)
  4. The tests were done "double blind", biasing the tests. (Incredible!)
  5. Science can't/won't acknowledge the immaterial.
  6. Science is or contains a big conspiracy to quash the spiritual world.

In short, he believes in woo because he refuses to be skeptical.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The scientific basis

Quote:

The scientific basis of that is a problem of scientists, who ignores it, saying that it doesn't work, because it can't work.

Oh please. Trying to transfer the problem of lack of testable predictions to us doesn't change the fact that this is actually your problem. Science does not and cannot depend on personal accounts such as "it works in my house". Data gathering is a stochastic process. You must put forth testable predictions. The ability to gather testable predictions depends on the repeatability of experiments. You keep trying to sidestep this by saying that we don't actually understand it and then complain because we dont test it (test what? There is nothing to test. No testable predictions!) This is your problem. Not ours.

Quote:

In such cases, a brethren of science, the business and politics, speaks on it's behalf.

Ah yes, of course. When your credibility is in the gutter, play the "evil conspiracy" card. Come on. We've seen that countless times.

Quote:

'The world as we show it is the only world that exists,' is their creed. No thanks, there are alternatives.

No there are not. It is truly that simple. The only way to gather accurate information about the nature of reality is by collecting data and testing predictions by using the scientific method. In the case of pure science, this depends on the ability of the experimenter to measure output variables on the basis of known controls and auxiliary hypotheses. If a certain proposition about the nature of reality cannot pass these criteria (and a few more), then there is no way to gather valid data, so there is no point talking about it.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Yes. The

Luminon wrote:
Yes. The real astrology is not so ambiguous. I'll give an example. The horoscopes says that my older brother is very selfish and manipulative person. And it says that I am so selfless and eager to help others, that I must be aware to not let anyone misuse my help, and I must tame my workoholism. Both descriptions are very true and very definite. I'm pretty sure, that me and my brother couldn't exchange our horoscopes by mistake.

 

Well, that is as you say. However, your chosen example is so ambiguous that it refers to both me and my older brother as well.

 

My older brother is such a manipulative and selfish person that as co-executor of my mother's estate (with my younger brother), when it came time to distribute the money, he realized that the amount was not divisible by 3 in US currency. So he wrote me a check that was one cent smaller than what both he and my younger brother got. I do not know how familiar with US money you are but that is the smallest possible division of our currency and corresponded to about on part in 25,000,000.

 

As for myself, a few years ago, I was handing off the torch for control of my employer's financial services office and I worked the final day miserably sick so that I could make the paperwork accurate to the exact penny for the person who was going to take over when I moved to a different department.

 

Also, I regard it as something of a virtue to allow myself to be used by my clients. I am well aware that they are capable of abusing my trust but only by doing that can I learn who would abuse my kindness. Other people in my company prefer to simply maintain control of all things and while they do not ever get run over by the few people who don't understand the value of my approach, neither do they benefit from the level of trust that my approach brings me from something like 99% of the clients whom I do work with.

 

So I find that your example does not really serve the point that you were trying to make.

 

Just for shits and giggles, if I was to post my birth information, would your father be willing to do a free chart for me that you could post in this thread? Done that way, if you can convince a hard core skeptic such as me, then you will have made a point.

 

I will even take this a step further. Post what your father charges for a normal chart before I post my data. Provided that I agree to the reasonable fee, I will be willing to paypal you twice what he normally charges if you can convince me that you have something real going on.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:3. The tests

JillSwift wrote:

3. The tests were done by skeptics, biasing the tests. (Classic!)

Oh... Their... God! I've just realized something. Skeptics are the most incredibly powerful manifestors of metaphysical energy in the universe! Why, our psychic powers are so overwhelming as to cause lesser psychics to not be able to levitate objects, read minds, bend spoons, or cast accurate horoscopes! Our ability extends all the way into the aether, silencing ghosts and preventing them from manifesting. Our gift also allows us to control matter itself, reconfiguring photographs of flying saucers to make them appear to be blurred images of street lights, turning the blood of holy statues into colored olive oil, and making perpetual energy machines wind down! Hell, even gods run and hide in darkend closets when we approach!

Tremble before the terrible might of the omnipotent skeptics, mere mortals! Mwuhahahahahahahhhhhhh!

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote: In short,

JillSwift wrote:
In short, he believes in woo because he refuses to be skeptical.

There are things to which I am skeptical, and the scientific institution is one of them. One of favorite topics in conversation with our family friends are an examples of scientists who discovered something really unusual, but they were given no chance from the academic herd. Just recently, a friend had read a book in Russian language from the scientists, who discovered, that our model of atom is unprecise. We were talking about many such a things, which are supported by many personal testimonies, but ignored by official authorities. We have seen enough in our lives to know, that such a things are possible and plentiful. But how the dissent is possible? Are the people blind, corrupted, or power-hungry? Or do we have here two completely different worlds with different laws of physics? I don't know, and this is why I'm interested in science and skepticism, the purpose is to explain and resolve the dissent. This will open many new possibilites for the science.

Desdenova wrote:

Tremble before the terrible might of the omnipotent skeptics, mere mortals! Mwuhahahahahahahhhhhhh!

This may match the cases when a person is astrally "clairvoyant". Astral mediumship is basically an anachronism from the times of tribes and shamans, which survives till now mainly in some traditions, like the notorious gipsy fortune-tellers. It's naturally unstable and deceptive kind of clairvoyance. Just make the psychic nervous and his/her power is gone. First people must lose an abilities like that, before they can develop some new, which they will really control. For example, my sensitivity to etheric matter is reliable, it works always. (it's very useful in mental exercises)
The most correct way of a work with astral realm of existence is scientific and technical, which gives us an advantage over it. For example, Nikola Tesla made some devices to gather an energy from there. (the famous Tesla's tablets, a.k.a. Wagner's tachyonized tablets)


deludedgod wrote:
Oh please. Trying to transfer the problem of lack of testable predictions to us doesn't change the fact that this is actually your problem. Science does not and cannot depend on personal accounts such as "it works in my house". Data gathering is a stochastic process. You must put forth testable predictions. The ability to gather testable predictions depends on the repeatability of experiments. You keep trying to sidestep this by saying that we don't actually understand it and then complain because we dont test it (test what? There is nothing to test. No testable predictions!) This is your problem. Not ours.
Well, I do what I can, in the one house of mine. You see, this is one of many reasons why do we need a help of a scientist, for all this methodology, defining the testable predictions, and so on. Our worldview is very one-sided. However, this needs also the other side to learn something. Just like I must learn a scientific criteria and then apply them to my experiences, the scientific worker must learn something about how the esoterics works. There is a lot of despising and underestimating on both sides, but the truth is, that we need each other. I have seen unusual things, so the question is not if they exists, but what exactly they are.

deludedgod wrote:
Ah yes, of course. When your credibility is in the gutter, play the "evil conspiracy" card. Come on. We've seen that countless times.
Maybe it's not a conspiracy for the most part, it's the way how a majority of the world lives, it's a failure of imagination and communication. I don't know, but both sides are valid, thus there must be some sort of common ground for them. It will take decades to find it, as it always does. There's a few topics on this unifying theory I'd like to talk about, but in friendlier time and place.

deludedgod wrote:
No there are not. It is truly that simple. The only way to gather accurate information about the nature of reality is by collecting data and testing predictions by using the scientific method. In the case of pure science, this depends on the ability of the experimenter to measure output variables on the basis of known controls and auxiliary hypotheses. If a certain proposition about the nature of reality cannot pass these criteria (and a few more), then there is no way to gather valid data, so there is no point talking about it.
Yes, it's simple and natural, but you seem to think that we need a schedule of tests, test protocols, separate rooms for testing subjects, blindfolds, measuring technical devices, the research staff separate from the studied people, and so on. This I would call the standard model. But we esoterics work a bit differently, I'd compare it to an organic neural network. Each person is a working unit in a small group closely cooperating together, but some of the members also maintains a connection with several other similar groups. We receive data, we test them, and we spread the results to our members and make them available to other groups, who can test them as well.  There is of course a multiple of such a networks, which may be cold towards others, or even hostile. For example, our contacts with Scientology, I AM movement, Theosophists, Antroposophists or Rosecrucians and others are of such a kind.

While the idea of a worldwide network as a research institution is fascinating and has a certain interesting features, this all has a very prosaic reason, as it's the only method of such a work besides having a job, school, family, and housekeeping. The best members of ours are those, who have their studies finished, work going well, older children, and their home secured, and they search for something to make an use of their personal capabilities. (a hobby)

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:There are

Luminon wrote:
There are things to which I am skeptical, and the scientific institution is one of them. One of favorite topics in conversation with our family friends are an examples of scientists who discovered something really unusual, but they were given no chance from the academic herd.

Scientific academia is still a meritocracy. You can cry conspiracy all you want, but anywhere I've ever been, discussing these topics with professors and graduate students of science, there's a huge fascination with new theory. Huge. Why would someone who's naturally curious about the sciences ignore new things?

On the other hand, the new things would have to actually help. The book you mention about the atomic model may or may be out of date. But you wouldn't know that, would you? It's not like you're not an atomic physicist, or hang out with atomic physicists. That's not an argument from authority, that's just illustrating your lack of "due diligence" about the subject.

Science is hard because the hard work of doing the research is what gets other scientists' attention. Not one hypothesis.

Luminon wrote:
For example, Nikola Tesla made some devices to gather an energy from there. (the famous Tesla's tablets, a.k.a. Wagner's tachyonized tablets)

Don't you dare turn Tesla into a mystic. It cheapens everything he did. And what the hell are "tachyonized tablets"? I've studied Tesla's work for years, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

Luminon wrote:
Just like I must learn a scientific criteria and then apply them to my experiences, the scientific worker must learn something about how the esoterics works.

No, the scientific worker doesn't need to do any such thing. While you cannot deny the antibacterial effect of penicillin, a scientist can readily deny the existence of your etherial hocus-pocus, and be none the worse for it. 

Luminon wrote:
Yes, it's simple and natural, but you seem to think that we need a schedule of tests, test protocols, separate rooms for testing subjects, blindfolds, measuring technical devices, the research staff separate from the studied people, and so on.

That's because we do. Otherwise you're just guessing. To move from guess to testable hypothesis is a big jump. A lot of work is involved. Just guessing takes no real work, and testing a hypothesis takes a lot of work.

Luminon wrote:
But we esoterics work a bit differently,

Yeah, I know. You guess, and pretend like you've done the work.

Luminon wrote:
I'd compare it to an organic neural network.

An organic neural network is a brain. You mean a network.

Luminon wrote:
We receive data, we test them, and we spread the results to our members and make them available to other groups, who can test them as well.

What is this, an infomercial for reversing the Enlightenment? What have you guys figured out? Seriously, what does your Network of Woo have to show for all its networking? This crap has been going on since before Nostradamus, and has yet to produce anything. Are we honestly to believe that the ancient method of sharing esoteric "techniques" will ever provide us with anything other than excuses when stuff doesn't work? 

You're killing me, here. Without even trying to understand atomic physics, you're willing to throw it all away because of one book. Without even trying to understand the work of thousands of scientists, you're willing to count yourself among them because you have a feeling you're an esoteric. Without even a hint of a scientific education, you're willing to tell the entire scientific community what they're doing wrong.

It boggles the mind.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The academic herd I

Quote:

The academic herd

I almost choked reading this. Have you ever worked in a scientific institution, published a scientific paper or attended a scientific conference. The experience teaches you a certain respect for the power of raw data and methodology. These people will rip you to shreds if they find anything wrong with your methodology. The effect of this is quite remarkable. As was pointed out by Steven Weinberg, thanks to this system of filtration and rigor, the modern physics community, in the last 100 years, has never actually been “wrong”, in the sense that physicists of previous centuries would sometimes by and large embrace pseudoscience such as Phlogiston theory (which was later disproven by Lavoisier). Every instance of nonsense, N-Rays, polywater, cold fusion, was caught and crushed. Not just physicists, but the modern scientific community in general has a track record so successful that chances are, if there is widespread resistance to your theory, it is your problem. And if you don't think it's your problem, you buckle down and do so much high quality research that it becomes accepted. That's what Wegener did when plate tectonics was ridiculed, what Boltzmann did when his atomic theory was ridiculed and Pasteur did when his theory of bacteria was ridiculed, and they got results. Nothing that was actually a good theory was not eventually accepted.

 

Quote:

"Just recently, a friend had read a book in Russian language from the scientists, who discovered, that our model of atom is unprecise."

You should be careful about your own ability to make a judgement here. This is your problem. The question at hand should not be whether or not you think he is correct but whether you can decide. Do you really know about the current model of the atom? Do you know, for example, how to use Hamiltonian operators to describe the Zeeman effect or use eigendecomposition matrices to operate over complex-valued spaces or how to use Feynmann diagrams to show elementary interactions in quantum chromodyamics? If the answer is no, you should seriously be questioning your own ability to think critically on this subject matter.I'm not trying to be a dick, but this subject is very brutal. And if you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that your understanding of our current model is sufficient for you to decide whether your interloctor has made a successfull argument against it then I cannot really help you. He should take it up with atomic physicists and you should study some atomic physics (actually, better brush up on about 10 years of mathematics first).

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


pablotar
pablotar's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
 LUMINON WROTE. "Just

 LUMINON WROTE.

"Just recently, a friend had read a book in Russian language from the scientists, who discovered, that our model of atom is unprecise."

Hey, Luminon, can you expand on this? With precise terms?

Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I've got to respong AiG

I've got to respong AiG Simmons...sorry to let you wait, man.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:


So I find that your example does not really serve the point that you were trying to make.
Well, my point was about me and my brother, not on any other people, which makes it not very usable for them... Nevermind.
 
Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
  Just for shits and giggles, if I was to post my birth information, would your father be willing to do a free chart for me that you could post in this thread? Done that way, if you can convince a hard core skeptic such as me, then you will have made a point.


I will even take this a step further. Post what your father charges for a normal chart before I post my data. Provided that I agree to the reasonable fee, I will be willing to paypal you twice what he normally charges if you can convince me that you have something real going on.

This is very interesting offer and I had it already discussed with my dad. He is interested, but you surely understand, that there is many obstacles which we will need to overcome. (the price you asked for is in the bottom of this post)

Firstly, my dad doesn't work 'for shits and giggles'. If you have no problem in your life, then I can sincerily congratulate you, but nothing more. He has his working schedule (mostly book translations) busy enough to help only those, who really needs it. But if you have some kind of issues with your relationships, family, work, health or something else, then we can focus on them.

Secondly, my father doesn't speak in english fluently and he's not sure he can understand a spoken english well enough. This is why I suggest that you write down some important issues and periods in your life, of which you'd like to gain a greater understanding. The response would be in a written form. He also always prefers to work with client personally. The feeling you get from someone through telephone or Skype is very different to a personal meeting, and it's also very important for my father to understand that person intuitively and interpret the horoscope. Because you won't be around, the commentary would be mainly about what you write down.
My father always records the horoscope and digitally processes it before sending it to the client, and that wouldn't be possible with Skype. The client must have some kind of record, because the importance of things said may be shown even years later. (some clients calls back in that case) So the text form would be better than just an unrecorded talking.

Thirdly, there's a problem with americans and their time zones. There's like 4 or 5 of them in USA. We already had an american guy here, who had no idea in what time zone he was born, and what time, if summer time or winter time. I'm not even sure that you have such a thing in USA. (daylight saving time, maybe?)

As for what my father will need, it's the year, month, day, hour and minute of your birth. (don't forget to mark what is a month and what day, if it's not obvious) If you can't provide a minute, then tell approximately, if it's a quater, half, or a whole hour. Next, a place of your birth is needed, for example, a city or town where the hospital was.
You may need to go there or to a registry office to let them search their records of an exact time of your birth. The minute would be nice, but please don't screw up the time zones and daylight saving time. If something more would miss, I'd let you know.

As for the money, My father usually takes 75 dollars per consultation, thus doubled as you suggested, 150 dollars.
So that's my offer.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:That's what

deludedgod wrote:
That's what Wegener did when plate tectonics was ridiculed, what Boltzmann did when his atomic theory was ridiculed and Pasteur did when his theory of bacteria was ridiculed, and they got results. Nothing that was actually a good theory was not eventually accepted.

This is the salient point here, and it's one that I was originally too shocked to make properly. If you're right in the academic community, and you have the data to back it up, then you may even go through a period of being laughed at. But it's BRIEF. Once any number of academics get a hold of your data, and they run it, they say something to the effect of "holy shit, you're right" and then get everyone else to test it. But as deludedgod says, such instances are so rare as to be notable.

The scientific community is very accepting of anyone who wants to work their ass off to produce evidence that they're right. If that process of working your ass off turns up nothing, then you've actually done the world a favour in falsifying your hypothesis. Then nobody has to bother going through that again (unless they're a sucker for punishment). The data will not lie, given enough repetition in a rigorous testing environment.

To pretend that any such hard work has produced data that confirms astrological predictions is simply pretending. Or, possibly, being unfamiliar with what deludedgod points out is the sheer weight of data involved in scientific endeavour.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Isn't it fun that Luminon

Isn't it fun that Luminon came by and wrote a post that read like my post was an outline for his?

Luminon wrote:
we esoterics work a bit differently
Hahahahahahaaaa!

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Dracos
Posts: 106
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
superstition

How could twins have such different personalities?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon   Perhaps you

Luminon

 

Perhaps you misunderstood what I am asking for. I have no desire to waste either your time or that of your father. Nor do I see a point in trying to get a skype conversation going so that your father can be my expensive therapist. If I wanted to pay that kind of money for counseling, I can do that locally. Also, the “shits and giggles” comment was not meant in disrespect, which I think you interpreted it to be.

 

What I was suggesting would be that I give you the data that would be needed to make a chart for me. After that, I can review the chart,in this thread, and score it for accuracy. Compare that to your earlier point that the charts for your family tell you that you are pretty much in the same boat as I am.

 

How about this: Let me find a moderator in here who is willing to handle this challenge and I will give that person biographical data on me. Then I give you the data that you need to make my chart.

 

Once we are agreed on that much, I give you my birth place and time and you make the chart. You post what all of that says about me and the moderator will decide from the two sets of input how close you are.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Luminon

 

Perhaps you misunderstood what I am asking for. I have no desire to waste either your time or that of your father. Nor do I see a point in trying to get a skype conversation going so that your father can be my expensive therapist. If I wanted to pay that kind of money for counseling, I can do that locally. Also, the “shits and giggles” comment was not meant in disrespect, which I think you interpreted it to be.

 

What I was suggesting would be that I give you the data that would be needed to make a chart for me. After that, I can review the chart,in this thread, and score it for accuracy. Compare that to your earlier point that the charts for your family tell you that you are pretty much in the same boat as I am.

 

How about this: Let me find a moderator in here who is willing to handle this challenge and I will give that person biographical data on me. Then I give you the data that you need to make my chart.

 

Once we are agreed on that much, I give you my birth place and time and you make the chart. You post what all of that says about me and the moderator will decide from the two sets of input how close you are.

 

I'd volunteer for that.

If I may suggest: more than one?

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Heh, and how 'bout you get

Heh, and how 'bout you get someone born at an entirely different time to submit a bio as well, just to see if the charts match that person too. Hell, I'll volunteer my own for the experiment if Gene and I aren't the same sign.

Aquarium here, water holder. Or whatever you call it.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.