Astrology and Relationships

[Phil Ayesho]

That's like saying because I'm a geologist, I know the church altar isn't holy. Astrology doesn't dispute the physical properties of heavenly bodies. Astrology seeks to describe personalities and predict the future of people based upon the movement of heavenly bodies. Two completely different fields. For all an astrologer cares, the moon could be made of green cheese and no astronomer I know ever cared with any seriousness whether his or her Mars trined with Jupiter.

Sorry jason..
I gotta side with the astronomer.


See, Astrology is no different than any other form of augury... and ALL of that is absolute, demonstrable crap.

Look how many replies express doubt- YET say they have many of the characteristics of their "sign"....
Double blind studies have proven conclusively that the same percentage of folks see their own traits reflected in astrological descriptions, NO MATTER WHICH ONE THEY ARE GIVEN.

You can hand them out at random... or even hand all people the exact same description... and the same percentage will think its descriptive of them.

That is proof positive that astrology and the movement of planets affecting personality is nonsense.
Add to this the precession of the equinoxes, and the plain fact is that NONE of the astrological 'houses' actually even align with the actual constellations anymore.
It is WEEKS off at this point... so, right now, Astrology can not even actually claim any relevance to the heavens whatsoever.


Finally... Yes- the two are different fields... one is a science based upon evidentiary argument... and the other is a delusion that CLAIMS an effect from the planets that they can not demonstrate and that repeated testing has proven to be total malarky.

As in ZERO predictive effect....

Now- if someone wanted to suggest a personality analysis based upon when you were born... and could link, being born at such a time that, as a toddler, you are cooped up for the winter, and that would affect your personality differently than a child born at some other time who would be a toddle in summer... that I might credit has having some basis in actual cause and effect.


But astrology is in the same area as believing the altar stone to be holy.
And, sorry my friend, but that belief is a delusion.

Tell yourself whatever you want.
But don't tell anyone else that something is real unless you can demonstrate that it is.

 

[jander]

Astrology is a load of crap. It's used as a way for people to excuse stupid behavior. "Oh, I said something and then did the opposite? Well, I AM a Gemini!" Take some responsibility for yourself because the stars don't give a shit.

 

[2322]

Sorry jason..
I gotta side with the astronomer.


See, Astrology is no different than any other form of augury... and ALL of that is absolute, demonstrable crap.

Look how many replies express doubt- YET say they have many of the characteristics of their "sign"....
Double blind studies have proven conclusively that the same percentage of folks see their own traits reflected in astrological descriptions, NO MATTER WHICH ONE THEY ARE GIVEN.

You can hand them out at random... or even hand all people the exact same description... and the same percentage will think its descriptive of them.

That is proof positive that astrology and the movement of planets affecting personality is nonsense.
Add to this the precession of the equinoxes, and the plain fact is that NONE of the astrological 'houses' actually even align with the actual constellations anymore.
It is WEEKS off at this point... so, right now, Astrology can not even actually claim any relevance to the heavens whatsoever.


Finally... Yes- the two are different fields... one is a science based upon evidentiary argument... and the other is a delusion that CLAIMS an effect from the planets that they can not demonstrate and that repeated testing has proven to be total malarky.

As in ZERO predictive effect....

Now- if someone wanted to suggest a personality analysis based upon when you were born... and could link, being born at such a time that, as a toddler, you are cooped up for the winter, and that would affect your personality differently than a child born at some other time who would be a toddle in summer... that I might credit has having some basis in actual cause and effect.


But astrology is in the same area as believing the altar stone to be holy.
And, sorry my friend, but that belief is a delusion.

Tell yourself whatever you want.
But don't tell anyone else that something is real unless you can demonstrate that it is.

The sole venue of science is to explain natural phenomena. Science has no charter to explain supernatural phenomena. This is why physicists do not sit around debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin just as astrologers do not build particle accelerators to search for Higgins' Bosuns.

You can claim that astronomy refutes astrology all you care to but the fact is no body of astronomers nor any peer-reviewed journal of astronomy has ever published anything having to do with astrology and likely never will because they are two entirely different disciplines. Any scientist can say that he or she believes something is hokum but until the scientist gets a paper published in a reputable journal proving that his or her hypothesis is true, the opinion is not standard accepted fact.

Your claim that someone studied that astrological sign descriptions are too vague also denies an important point. There are a myriad of astrological descriptions for every sign and not even the signs themselves are the same. What tradition was used in the descritions and who wrote them? Were they describing Greco-Western, ancient Scandinavian, Chinese, Tibetan, Indian, Arabic, or Japanese astrological signs? There are many different astrological schools of thought each with their own theories and descriptions. I think it unfair, and certainly poor science, to dismiss an entire body of knowledge based upon one study that did not include every single astrological school of thought.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Double blind studies have proven conclusively that the same percentage of folks see their own traits reflected in astrological descriptions, NO MATTER WHICH ONE THEY ARE GIVEN.

You can hand them out at random... or even hand all people the exact same description... and the same percentage will think its descriptive of them.

Was this supposed to be a James Randi test? Because if it was, you've vastly overstated what was demonstrated, Phil.
Where did that come from, please?

 

[D_Petherick_Poundlouder]

Its funny that people think the reasonable world is real. James Randi makes me laugh. And so does everyone else.

Astrology is just fun. Have fun with it...like everything else in life. Who cares if it's "real" is what I say.

 

[2322]

Was this supposed to be a James Randi test? Because if it was, you've vastly overstated what was demonstrated, Phil.
Where did that come from, please?

The ultimate point with all of Phil's arguments in this area is that he tries to claim that science has proven that the supernatural (gods, ghosts, astrology, etc.) does not exist. This is a false assumption because science does not explain the supernatural, only the natural. This is why most of science and religion exist in relatively benign harmony. There are points of contention here and there, certainly creationism is one of them, but even then, most mainstream religious leaders claim that evolution does not contradict their teachings. I've known a few highly religious people who are scientists and to their way of thinking, science is just another avenue for understanding the workings of God in the universe. Whether God or some other deity has caused the position of the moon, sun, and planets in the solar system to affect our personalities at the moment of birth is not a question science can answer because by necessity, a supernatural force is required for this to happen. Since science is confined to the study of the natural universe, it cannot study the supernatural. Scientists can debate what is natural and what is supernatural, but must discard anything that has no basis in the natural world. That doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't exist, just that the actions of the supernatural must be discarded as a means of cause and effect. Otherwise every scientific theory would boil down to, "God did it." We can choose to believe that the hand of God is apparent in every natural occurance or not. Science doesn't care what you believe. Science cares about what is observable and reproducable and so God is excluded from that process because actions of the hand of God cannot be proven or disproven. Miracles are miracles precisely because they defy natural laws. Rods cannot become snakes by every mechanism we know of yet some people believe God caused this to happen. Once God enters an equation, then all bets are off because nothing is beyond the power of a god. God could make a stick into a snake. God could make it seem like a natural process. God could make people willfully not see his hand in action. God can defy any law of nature we know of. That's why science doesn't go near God. It's a wildcard that throws everything into a fait accompli.

"God created the world in seven days."
"No, the big bang created the universe about 13 billion years ago."
"God caused the big bang to happen and then created the world in seven days."
"There is nothing in science that can support your theory."
"It's not a theory. It's my faith. I think God created the world, all the animals and Adam and Eve in six days and then made the universe appear to be much older. He even created an entire fossil and geological record meant to confound humans to test their faith."
"Again, science does not support that."
"It doesn't matter. Nothing is beyond the power of God and if God wills it then it happens as he wills. Even something so complex as hiding the true origin of the universe."
"Why would he do that?"
"Ask God. I don't know."

See what I mean? No matter what science asserts, faith can always answer with, "...because God willed it to be so." There's no winning and so this is why the great majority of people on this planet don't see God and science as mutually exclusive forces. Phil's trying to prove an a priori assumption that science disproves the supernatural by using science as a hammer when what's really needed is a screwdriver. Science no more disproves the supernatural than faith in the supernatural disproves science.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

Sorry jason..
I gotta side with the astronomer.

No you ain't.

Double blind studies have proven conclusively that the same percentage of folks see their own traits reflected in astrological descriptions, NO MATTER WHICH ONE THEY ARE GIVEN.

They've proven conclusively... the result of the experiment. Well sure.

You cannot prove something which doesn't claim a physical process. While you and I both believe that astrology is crap, there isn't a God, etc. the fact is it is impossible to prove OR DISPROVE it. If people want to believe in something they will, most people are incredibly stubborn about these things and will do mental gymnastics to come up with a scenario that fits around reality and ends up in a pre-decided result. It's just the way it is. Stop claiming you can prove them wrong, that's reducing yourself to the low scumbag level of preaching (leave that to the religious).

BTW Jason, it's the 'Higgs Boson' :wink:

 

[2322]

BTW Jason, it's the 'Higgs Boson' :wink:

I am happily corrected. I should have looked it up but had hurry to dinner with two psychiatrists who like to talk to me about my mother. :theyareontome:

 

[Wish-4-8]

Astrology is fun. But flawed. As Phil Ayesho already mentioned, the star alignment of today is not the same as it was back then when astrology was created. Just that alone is enough to discredit it. It takes away any credability if it even had any.

But, my sign, Libra, is incredibly accurate and best describes me of all the signs. Then again I was born premature. Oh well.
And the daily horoscopes are almost always wrong.

 

[2322]

Astrology is fun. But flawed. As Phil Ayesho already mentioned, the star alignment of today is not the same as it was back then when astrology was created. Just that alone is enough to discredit it. It takes away any credability if it even had any.

But, my sign, Libra, is incredibly accurate and best describes me of all the signs. Then again I was born premature. Oh well.
And the daily horoscopes are almost always wrong.

Stars do move, but not enough for us to see in such a short time as about 10,000 years. What does change our perspective somewhat is precession, the wobbling of the earth on its axis. Precession causes the apparent movement of the sun through the zodiac/ecliptic to slowly change over time. Because earth is tilted on its axis, some of the constellations the sun appears to pass through change as well. The whole, "Age of Aquarius" thing is about just this. The sun has spent the past 2,000 years heralding spring while in the constellation of Pisces, but precession of the earth now causes the sun to appear to be in the constellation of Aquarius on the spring solstice (depending upon what kind of star map you're using).

There's a real problem going on with this and the constellation Ophiuchus. Ophiuchus should be the 13th sign of the zodiac because the sun spends far more time in it than the sign it's supposed to, namely Scorpio. The great majority of Scorpios aren't Scorpios at all but Ophiuchusians. Precession has caused the sun to leave Scorpio nearly entirely. This pic demonstrates the issue.

Now if you're an astrologer, you'd be pretty pissed-off that now you have a 13th sign to deal with, but most western practice astrologers have determined to ignore poor Ophiuchus (who is in the process of being eaten by Serpens, a constellation (in two parts!) of a snake) because the traits of people born during the traditional time of Scorpio haven't changed. This is because most western practice astrologers believe time of year is more important than whatever sign the sun is truly in. Some do disagree and they've formed a branch called, Ophiuchian Astrologers.

Precession does not, however, change our perspective of the stars in relation to each other.

 

[ScorpioSlut]

Without entering into the larger argument that has formed here I believe there is something to it while it's not foolproof. It is very complicated and much more than just a description in a book or a prediction in a horoscope. Mostly I have some fun with it though I have noticed a few truths within it....much like NJ I've found that the Taurus/Scorpio pairing is not a pleasant one though I most often hit it off with fellow Scorps and the odd Sag.

 

[Wish-4-8]

Ha, I was supposed to be born a Ophiuchis. But I came out early. Now I am a Libra.

 

[Screwsalot]

Eh, I don't believe in most of it because well, just look at it all, the qualities are all wide spread to the point where they can fit any one. The only thing I've noticed that they have been sortive correct on, are the people who they say I won't get along with. There seems to be one sign that I tend to get along with that the astrology says I won't. Of course, you shouldn't look for some one based on their sign, thats just a mistake, but when a introduction goes horribly bad and you later find that their astrology sign doesn't get along with yours, its fun to say, "Thats explains why."

Just my little opinion. I only pay attention to the astrology part that claims I won't get along with others.

 

[SR_Les Intercourse]

i dont believe in it either, im a virgo.

 

[deleted356736]

I didn't believe in astrology until someone did my birth chart, and it was so like my personality it was uncanny (I'm a Gemini). It was more targetted than the general horoscope attributes, because we were able to find that time of day that I was born.

The ideal partner for me, supposedly, is Libra. Surprise, I'm married to a Libran. I have only ever fallen in love with one other woman, also a libran I later found out. Both women had similar personality traits that are very common for this star sign.

So I started out sceptical, but I have been converted.

 

[D_Selmus_Swallow]

Cancer here, and fit the profile of that type generally, but I can think of a myriad of other reasons besides the alignment of stars for why that is.

 

[luka82]

I`m a TAURUS and SCORPS make my head turn!
I`ve always had such great chemistry with scorps....

 

[pornographicpoet]

Virgo here...I actually place a great deal of belief in astrology.

 

[Barely Big]

Gemini, and astrology is absolute nonsense. I'd enter the argument, but I don't forsee anyone's mind getting changed.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Nah, I don't like to think of myself as superstitious. I do enjoy horoscopes, however. They're harmless fun. I'm a Pisces.