pan6467

I am not going to get into a pissing match with people who have closed minds... there is nothing to gain from it except repeating myself and hearing their well rehearsed bullshit come out.

I put this along the lines of arguing with holier than thou born again Christians. Same concept, closed minds, their opinion is all that matters, they have 100's of reasons why I am wrong, yet, I never once tell them their beliefs are wrong.

Never did I say anyone's beliefs were wrong, just that one should respect others beliefs, so long as their beliefs do not affect you.

Your closed mindness doesn't bother me in the least. I am quite content and comfortable in my belief of having open mind. Doesn't mean I believe in every little thing as someone wants to say I do. I believe there is some truth in all things these people would dub as myths, fairy tales and whatever.

I do like how those who want to be so right, talk down, belittle, add whatever they like to the argument and pick and choose what they will discuss.

Having been closed minded like some here, once, I can speak from my personal experience, the reason I was close minded was I always had to be right and I always had to win arguments.... now, I just don't care I give my beliefs and what works for me and let those with closed minds walk away thinking they have won whatever it was they wanted to win.

Pity, though, I was hoping someone from a differing viewpoint would converse with me on an equal level with equal respect given so that we may have learnt from each other. But with closed minded individuals that rarely happens.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

SecretMethod70

pan6467: I'm not sure where you get the idea that everyone here is approaching the subject with a closed mind. Rather, they've said - and quite reasonable - that there have been thorough studies into the validity of astrology (or lack thereof), and they'd like to see something to counter those. The source of their frustration comes from the fact no such counter-argument is being provided, yet for some reason there is continued debate.

It seems to me that you equate "respecting others beliefs" to never saying anything bad about those beliefs. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you want to believe in astrology, go ahead. No one here is proposing that it should be illegal or anything like that. If you want to discuss astrology, on the other hand, you must accept that people will bring their own beliefs into the discussion. Just because something is a personal belief doesn't give you immunity from interacting with other people. Basically, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." And, by "kitchen," I don't mean TFP - I mean interaction with the general public at large. It's no different for fundamentalist Christians: If they want to discuss their beliefs without the worry of facing any opposition, they should do it somewhere that is designed for fundamentalist Christians, but if they want to discuss their beliefs in a place where there are all sorts of people, they cannot expect to be immune from debate. TFP is a discussion forum...it seems pretty silly to say "you can start discussions on topics like astrology, but people can only participate in them if they agree." That seems to be what you're looking for.

So, since differing viewpoints are welcome here, those who disagree with astrology have not only stated their viewpoints but also provided information from reproducible studies which show that astrology lacks validity. They didn't jump up and down claiming victory after that, but rather they asked those who support astrology to provide some sort of evidence - any sort of evidence, really - that astrology is valid. Yet, simply asking for a reason to believe apparently puts some people on the defensive, which is something I'll never understand. People simply want something more than "because I feel like it works" as an explanation.

An open mind digests new evidence and alters beliefs based on that evidence. That means that an open mind would digest the evidence given against astrology and either provide contradictory evidence of equal validity (that means no anecdotes), or adopt the views supported by the new evidence. An open mind does not adopt beliefs simply because they can. Frankly, no one on the dissenting side in this thread has even been given an opportunity to be close-minded, because they haven't been given any reason to believe in astrology other than "I believe it, so you should too."

Lastly, I'm sorry but I find it laughable that you compare the dissenters here to born-again Christians. Born-again Christians often claim that their views are being disrespected simply because people dare engage in debate with them. Born-again Christians, when faced with evidence against their beliefs, often fall back on statements such as "well I believe it's true," rather than provide any sort of counter-argument. Born-again Christians accuse other people of being close-minded when they do not adopt born-again beliefs, despite being given no compelling reason to do so. These are not descriptions of the dissenters here, but rather they describe some of the debate styles being used to argue for astrology in this thread.

You claim you're interested in conversing with someone from an opposing viewpoint and to learn from one another, yet you have made no actual attempt to do so. If you were truly interested in engaging opposing viewpoints, you would have responded to the evidence provided in posts 2, 51, 88, and 103, and those are only the posts which provide outside sources! That's all not to mention compelling arguments made by actual posters. (And anecdotal evidence is not a compelling argument for anything.) You can't complain about how close-minded people are when the furthest you go in engaging their arguments is pointing out anecdotal evidence and "it works for me."

The only person supporting astrology here that I've seen make any attempt to provide counter-arguments is DaveMatrix, but there are two problems with his arguments. First, it's an incredibly large leap to go from "there may be other dimensions" to "maybe astrology has some validity." Second (and this one applies to you as well pan6467), it is a false argument to say that because past scientific observations have been corrected, we should not lend significant weight to current scientific observations. First of all, science rarely goes backwards in its understanding, which is to say that once something is fully debunked it almost always stays debunked. Second of all, two simple thought experiments show the flaw in this logic: 1) The argument will continue to be made so long as science does not say what you want it to say, but then what happens if one day it does? I don't believe you would continue not to accept it - rather, you'd point to it as validation for what you've been saying all along. 2) The only logical conclusion to be made from arguing that current scientific observations shouldn't be given weight because past observations were proven incorrect in some capacity is to say that no scientific observations should be given weight whatsoever, because the past cannot be changed and the future is always unknowable. If we actually lived life this way, we would still believe there were literally tiny little people in the head of sperm and that rain is caused by the tears of angels and thunder is the sound of them bowling. Oh wait, perhaps the angels ARE crying and bowling, just in another dimension! (See, it's pretty ridiculous.) Not knowing everything is not an excuse to act like we know nothing.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

pan6467

First, I stopped talking about "Astrology" in post 101 with this :

Secondly, I have no problems with honest debate, but when people start posting:

When I said no such thing, the closest I even came to saying something along those lines was:

I have issues because it no longer becomes a debate with respect of others.

When called upon to show me where he got that he took part of a sentence out of context, the whole sentence reads:

Therein lies my argument, just because you choose to believe that "there can be no "proof" to these things, doesn't mean that these things cannot exist.

Therein, lies my argument, I'm not going to label someone if they choose to believe in something I don't. The problem in society is not people believing in "the occult, witchcraft, tarot, Astrology, etc." The problem is people labeling those that believe without discussing and exploring why the person believes that way to begin with.

I stated my beliefs here:

I gave my reasoning in the very next one.... nowhere do I claim it is "scientifically rational":

I even went so far as to say this (which is the whole of my argument):
Now, while our realities may collide and touch, it doesn't mean my beliefs have to affect yours or yours have to affect mine. Nowhere was I pushing a belief and telling anyone they had to believe, I just put forth that there is nothing wrong in having an open mind and thus maybe learning from each other. And learning from each other dear friend, IMHO, is what life and evolution is all about. You can never learn from one another if you go in with closed mind.

I am open to discuss my beliefs and why and how I came to my beliefs... but I expect the ones I am talking to, to have the respect I show them and to teach me as I teach them. Not shove shit down my throat and expect me to eat it without question and bow down to their beliefs. You won't change what I believe or how, but I may learn some very interesting things and I am always open to that. Again, IMHO, life is about learning from each other... not demanding and trying to prove the "I'm right you're wrong" ego feeding bullshit.

But when one want to shove "scientific proof" down another's throat and tell them that their beliefs are wrong, then they react in a negative manner. Negativity begets negativity and it repels any positive action that can take place. (BTW that's Science in action there....like patterns and actions are drawn to each other, opposites repel each other.)

So we can get out of this thread, that scientifically there is nothing to prove that astrology, ESP, life on other planets, any paranormal, metaphysical, occult study or even a God exists, however, unlike those with small minds who rely solely on Science, I choose to believe that perhaps they do exist we just are not open enough as a society or intelligent enough as a society to understand them. Thus what we cannot explain we decide to label as impossible, old wives tale, etc etc so that we can feed the ego of MAN and ourselves.

In the end it comes down to this, one must ask themselves why they are so eager to destroy the beliefs of others, especially when those beliefs do not even affect you.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

The_Jazz

Pan, as someone who stopped posting after the first page, I like this post. This thread has evolved from a question on whether or not astrology is accepted here into a revalation of core beliefs and their bases.

Discussion of religion, which in a certain light includes both astrology and hard science, is always difficult to balance. You can see that in this thread over and over because there are two fundamentally opposed worldviews colliding here. One approaches the universe accepting only what can be observed and the other certain that the unobservable exists. We are all gradations of the extremes, but I think you've nicely summed up one of the fundamental missions of TFP with your offer to discuss the what's and why's of your beliefs.

I shall return to interested observation mode.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Ustwo

I like the part where he said I had a small mind

I'm one of those small and closed minded types using my logic and science, after all what has science ever done for us!

Because it does affect us, it affects us all. What have we gained as a society when one group wants to get evolution banned from schools and another is convincing people to get ineffective alternative 'healing' and a third is trying to get their brand new pagan religion into prisons and the army?

Its not about you. You do what you want. Its about society as a whole that the negative effects become alarming.

By not pointing out the truth as we can best determine you foster a climate where critical thinking is is almost taboo. How dare you question MY belief, it only affects me!

Well it affects everyone in a republic, a republic that requires an educated an involved public. I don't want that public believing in fairies, casting spells, or that their future comes from the stars.

Belief in Astrology and the like is a symptom of a failing education system. One thing that has become clear to me is just how little people understand about how things work, how science works, or even basic biology. There is plenty of wonder, mystery, even spirituality in what is real, we dont' need to invent a fantasy to experience the wonder that being alive is.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

ok so let's see...if this continues along these lines, it seems like all we are in store for is apissing match, so how can the ground be shifted a bit harder?

way back in the posts numbered in the 70s somewhere, i wrote something about not quite understanding why the arguments in this thread were set up as they were such that for one side there is a notion of science that is roughly consistent with the contemporary understandings of the term that--letigimately--rejects astrology *as a science*--and this simply because to accept it as science requires that you also accept a geocentric universe. period.

and on the other side, there are two sets of objections: dave's position, which to mind is a misunderstanding of thomas kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" that relies on a sequence of claims that i see as having no merit which amount to the claim that astrology may well be a science, but that only visionaries (like dave, presumably) think so---and that the "common herd" enacts its slave mentality by ridiculing these visionaries---the problem being--than as now--that the argument pivot not on the claim that astrology might be interesting for some or many reason(s), but rather that in order to BE interesting, astrology has to be accepted as a science. so dave and ustwo are arguing mirror images of the same game.

it seems to me that these positions over and undervalue "science" at once--overvalue it in that science comes to occupy the position of arbiter for determinations of interest in general, which is absurd on the face of it, and little more than an expression of an aesthetic position at a deeper level--and undervalue science insofar as it is presented as a monolithic abstraction hovering over what by this point in the thread has become a kind of tedious ritual concerning whose posts get to invoke the word.

this is a no-win situation, and it seems to me that the game is by now basically over on this argument.

and then there are the positions pan outlines, which are quite different, but which seem to be getting collpased back into davematrix's positions. maybe this is the power of context, i dunno.

so the point of this post is to see if i can help push things onto another set of grounds. pan addresses questions of belief, the loops that link up general propositions (statements about the world, about the orders of the world) to information. if i read his posts correctly, i could extend one of their dimensions into a basic challenge to ustwo's position---how exactly are you using the abstraction "science"?
when it comes down to it, and a bit of the underpinning gets revealed, the basic discipline invoked appears to be biology, but of no particular genre, as if biology is a single entity, one stream of work, one logic structuring all research--none of which is true. so when you use the term "science" to dismiss the positions of others, what exactly are you referencing?

another way: on what basis do you adopt the rhetorical position of the voice of science in your posts in this thread?

second problem: this notion of what is and is not "true" i
if you just throw the word around, no problemo. that which is not "true" is a lie so anything that is not a lie is "true"....but it aint like that. not really.
a statement that is true is formally correct. it (implicitly or explicitly) references the results of running a proof, and emerges as true if it is logically consistent with the axioms--and does not violate the rules that govern deductions--which are particular to given proofs--there are not generally agreed upon rules for deduction, there is no Big Single Proof that we have around, that we can reference and on the basis of which we can say that any proposition is "True" in an absolute sense. knowledge, like everything else, is regional.

you can have arguments about which set of axioms is preferable to another, which set of rules governing deduction (which is a procedure and nothing more--an efficient procedure, a worhtwhile procedure--but still, a procedure) are preferable to others--and that debate would devolve sooner or later onto a discussion of the persuasive power of this or that proof, which would in turn devolve onto structures of belief, procedures that enable one to guage relative interpretive power, etc. in such a debate, the relative *social value* of one set of axioms and procedures over another becomes a criterion amongst others that are involved in the play of the debate--these claims would not hover over the debate, and invoking them would not end it. because in the end, what is being debated is less the accumulated bodies of socially legitimate information about the world in themselves than the relations one adopts to these bodies of information---because you are NOT that information, you invoke it in particular contexts, in particular ways.

this is not to say that anything goes--but it is to say that there is a different and quite complex discussion that could be had at this point that is simply not happening, even though the ball is now bouncing around the court and pan has put it there.

another way: at this point in the discussion, it seems absurd to make the move that ustwo makes in number 125, which amounts to the claim that i, the subject position from which the post operates, i occupy Science and that anyone who raises questions--NOT about science, but about my claims regarding science--is stupid. you act as though the sciences are the ONLY legitimate discursive framework available--which is ridiculous--but it might explain something of your politics--not in themselves, but about your relation to politics, IF you route those committments through the same circuit of legitimation as you route your claims to be the voice of science.

this is a matter of rhetoric in posts, btw. this is a written debate and there is nothing but rhetorical postures involved with it.

let's see if this shove works.
maybe it's kinda opaque in that it invokes a separate discursive frame (philosophy) and places that frame in a position of being able to adjudicate in an argument. that itself might be a problem--but you'd have to argue that point. you cant simply assert it.

anyway, shove delivered.
the wings await me awaiting in them.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

A large part of communication is being easily understood. Sometimes in ones effort to communicate this becomes obfuscated by erudite sounding phrases and terms which are unnecessary to the primary focus of the subject and end up making the messages less accessible to those unversed in the style.

On the other hand lets break this shit down and get to the meat of it. I have attempted to do just this in a lighthearted manner, and I feel qualified to do so based on past credentials which are available on request.

I have done so in 3 parts.

The second is my proposed translation.
The third is my response to that quote/translation.

Some extraneous thought was removed.
As I saw 40 people while this was being written there may well be some disjointedness.

Lets change directions.

Science rejects astrology because astrology is based on the earth as the center of the universe

Well I suppose thats a reason to question the basis of the star charts, but its not the question at hand really. I'm willing to give astrology the benefit of the doubt that it still works in a non-geocentric universe. The scientific argument has to do with its validity as any sort of predicting tool.

Dave thinks that astronomy is valid but not well understood so is mocked by those who can't understand it. He is wrongly forcing astrology into the realm of science to defend it where it doesn't belong much like Ustwo is using science to debunk it

Science shouldn't be the only factor to determine what is interesting or relevant, but it also can not be treated as a singular object to be dismissed out of hand.

I don't think anyone said that there wasn't any beauty or interesting things done with astrology. Some of the star charts are very impressive in both complexity and artistic beauty. I'm just saying it can't tell you if you are suited to be a stock broker.

There is no point in attempting to discuss astrology scientifically

[Translation note, needed further context to translate, dubious accuracy]

What is science as it applies to lifes questions?

It appears to be that the biology is being used, but biology isn't just one 'thing' but several difference disciplines. Which part of it are you using when you invoke 'science'?

Mmm I only invoked biology in response to pans flawed examples of 'unsolvable' problems. It was to illustrate his lack of understanding of biologic systems does not mean they are unanswerable.

Why do you feel you speak for science?

Because I am a scientist. Not a scientist as seen by an undereducated public as some sort of wizard, either good, neutral, or evil, but as one forged in the lecture hall, honed in the laboratories, and tested in the field. I claim to be no expert on all subjects, science as an abstract is meaningless. What I do claim to be an expert on is the method, the way one must look at a question to see if it holds up to scrutiny. The language, the format, the mistakes I know. Science isn't a discipline, its a method, and its that method which I put forth as the measure of validity to lifes questions. Questions that can not be answered by this method are not answerable by any method. Often the problem isn't the method but that we dont' really know the question to ask, but assuming that some can never be formulated that does not make the question valid. For example: "Why are there undetectable mice living in my ear? " is a question that can not be answered by this method but its still a stupid question.

Luckily for us, astrology doesn't fall into the invisible mice category. It makes predictions, predictions which can be directly tested, and it has failed. Its value as a hypothesis is reduced. This makes its a scientific question not a philosophical one, one which it fails to deliver what it claims to do. Were this a drug we wouldn't be having this debate, but because its under the new age psuedo science umbrella we people people defending it with the same methods as those who defend that a Jewish man rose from the dead.

There is no absolute truth in science or anything else, and the rules that govern the process of the truth being determined vary

Science will not give you an absolute truth, there is always wiggle room either way even with theories that held up time and time again. What I think there is, is a relativity of wrong. I'm sure that our current theory of star formation is not 'true' there are mistakes based on a lack of data. What I'm also sure of is that its far more correct than a myth of the gods throwing rice onto the sky or any number of early creation stories.

(Translators note: Luckily I have extra strength asprin on my desk)

You can debate the method of deduction you use to determine the validity of a question. This would then turn into a debate about which proof was more persuasive with in then leads to which beliefs you hold and then which method is more socially relevant. This would do nothing to determine if the original question was valid. In the end what is discussed is not the question at hand but how you relate to that question and you twist it to your own point of view

I'd rather not talk about the science aspect but the social one that pan brought up

(Translators note: Lets just talk about this one directly)

What the hell are you talking about? First off it wasn't about anything you had said, it was a direct response to why 'letting' people believe nonsense like astrology is not good for the population as a whole. You have no problem telling me how my political beliefs are wrong, yet somehow its wrong for me to point out the verifiable wrongness in astrology? If my politics are indeed directed through the same circuit as I use for my scientific inquiries then I'm quite happy with it, its far better to use logic and reason in ones politics then phases of the moon.

Lets talk about this from a philosophical standpoint so we can link the social and scientific sides.

And lets talk about the social context of angels dancing on the head of a pin too.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

Did I in anyway disparage science? Did I in anyway say that science is abstract, wrong, or downplay science in anyway.... I'd like to see where I did.

The worst thing I said about science was that "science is pure impuricism and by virtue of it's method it totally excludes metaphysics." That's it.

Did I anywhere insult or degrade someone for their beliefs in science? No the worst I did was to say that those who believe in just science and refuse to discuss with respect others beliefs are closed minded.

I consider anyone, who refuses to show respect for another's belief, to be very small minded (it has nothing to do with intelligence). I feel that way about Pagans who dislike Christians, Christians who believe they are the only ones that are right, KKK members, Black Panther members and so on. To me, a closed mind/small mind has a very negative outlook and is far more dangerous than showing respect for others.

As I stated before, SCIENTIFICALLY, one of the most major "facts" is "Like energies attract, opposites repel each other." I believe, it's called the Law of attraction and is proven from the atom up.... Postive protons repel negative electrons... oops I did say neutrons first, silly me, I got ahead of myself. Neutrons are neutral, hence the name and are needed to keep balance in an atom and hold it together. Perhaps, neutrons are like open minds used to balance out the closed minds on both sides.


One of the major givens in psychology is that when you attack another's beliefs it actually reinforces their belief and makes them more apt to react negatively to outside forces. In other words, what we have going on in this country is we have been pushing God out of everything, the religious fight back because they feel threatened. Instead of finding a ground that can accept both theories, (as evolution nor creationism have been proven... both are solely BELIEF BASED aspects of man's existence), both sides are demanding all or nothing.

It stems from small closed minds who want only their beliefs deemed the best in mankind's interest. The fight has nothing to do with the truth.

Open minded individuals and people willing to show others respect, will learn both theories and decide for themselves which THEY, the individual, wishes to believe.

As for this: That statement just shows true prejudice, hatred and blows apart any argument you have of trying to have a civil, respectful discussion. That statement alone proves beyond doubt that you care not about anyone else's beliefs, yet you demand everyone accept yours. Because Paganism isn't a brand new religion, it is ANY non Abrahamic monotheistic religion or belief... you know Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the ancient religions from Egypt, Rome, Greece, Norse, North American... and so on. Oh yeah and wait, it would also include science and atheist believers. But I digress.

We are guaranteed the right to believe how we choose to by the US Constitution... so why shouldn't "pagans" be allowed to practice in the military or have freedom to worship how they wish in prison. Been my experience that finding religion and inner happiness because of that has bettered lives. I don't think I have ever seen anyone who has found that, living an unhappier, worse life than they were before finding it.

I beg to differ, it is all about me and my beliefs, you were the one attacking my beliefs because they didn't live up to what you decided was the correct and proper way of coming to a belief.

You attacked my beliefs..... show me where I EVER attacked yours in this thread.

Again, the Law of Attraction.... if you push and push someone's beliefs and keep negatively attacking their beliefs they in turn respond negatively. You show respect of others views and open mind and you receive positive exchanges back.

But maybe that's too scientific.

Actually, I think accepting, respecting and being open to learning new philosophies, spiritualities and religions opens one's mind even farther to be more critical thinking and promotes a true positive atmosphere for critical thinking.

I find your way of.... BELIEVE MY WAY is far less conducive to critical thinking, thinking for one's self, willing to learn and be open to other ideas and new ways of doing things. In other words, I see it exactly the opposite of how you do.

Wait, if Science is the new true belief and all else is hokey fairy tales then why do you use these words? So, we don't know for FACT any of this is true, it's the
Who cares what someone else believes as long as they respect my right to believe the way I wish to and they do a job competently, pay their bills and work to better society?

Again, this adds to the prejudicial, anger, hatred that you are exuding. You are creating far more negatives than I have in this thread. But yet, your way is the only way to a better society? People shouldn't be allowed to believe anyway they desire even if they are bettering society. Well, your truth does come out now doesn't it.

BTW, who determines who's beliefs are right and wrong? After all, your beliefs are only . We as in who?

And if it is science, then that is scary as things keep evolving and disproving other things. Again, comes from man and man is fallible, has been proven to make mistakes in every "science", emotional and only knows what he can hear, see, feel or BELIEVES to be true.

Really, again your pomposity and prejudice shows and you contradict what you state to be what we should follow as our guideline for a better society.

I find the opposite to be true, those with open minds, those accepting of others beliefs and those that show respect and converse in positive ways are by far more intelligent. As for education, anyone can learn from books and in college, all they truly have to do is go to class.

So, because I believe in the things I do you want to tell me I'm uneducated, I have little understanding of science, or even basic biology... by all means start a new thread and quiz me but I get to quiz you in return. Bring it, otherwise, again this is just a prejudicial hate filled statement from you.

I so look forward to your reply. Oh yeah, I can't remember if I ever mentioned this, as I am not one to brag about my past achievements but I was selected to be in the US NAVY NUCLEAR school. Only means I had to score a 98 on the ASVAB and a 95 on the NUKE TEST. I scored higher, in fact I was in 1988 among the 5 highest scores ever on the Nuke test. So tell me again how undereducated I am in science. I ask, because I know you will not have the "time" or find another reason not to test me.... especially if I get to test you in return.

Just a friendly challenge to you.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Johnny Rotten

You keep coming back to this, but the thing is... the validity of astrology, in this thread, was not positioned as a belief. It was positioned as a conviction. I took issue with this, as did several others. We said, "No, you can't do that, and here are my arguments against astrology being accepted as a predictive system."

The manner in which some of us took issue may have gotten a little heated, yes. But it shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on someone's beliefs. It was a rebuttal to a weakly founded declaration.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

pan6467

Like I stated earlier, I was not really into this thread and I am in no way a proponent of Astrology, but I respect those that are. To me, being true to one's faith and standing up for what you believe, even in adversity shows me more character and personal strength than most anything else could.

I came to this thread because it seemed there were attacks on people's beliefs. I saw someone simply ask what others thought. It went from someone asking a simple question to attacking people who believe in it. This was done under the "Science is all powerful and there is nothing more powerful" guise.

I opened it up to all metaphysical, supernatural, religious, etc beliefs because the same arguments are used for them all.

I added what I felt I could and needed to and from there it grew. Threads evolve.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

SecretMethod70

Sorry, but you've just proven you know very little about some of the basics of science. The first is just plain wrong, and the second shows a severe misunderstanding of the scientific method and, specifically, what a scientific theory is. Just as one can't reasonably choose not to believe in the theory of gravity, it is equally unreasonable not to believe in the theory of evolution. In both cases, not believing in it (regardless of what you think when it comes to the working details) is simply wrong, plain and simple.

You can't go around claiming people fall under the same umbrella as you just because you'd like them to. You'll have a hard time finding a single Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, scientist, or atheist who is interested in being associated in any way with the term paganism. Stop trying to claim that they are pagans. You can point out the technical difference between paganism and neo-paganism all you want, but I think you're intelligent enough to know that pretty much everyone here who ever refers to "pagans" is really referring to neo-pagans. (And we've already gone over this in another thread.)

Congratulations. Though, I have to wonder how you scored that high when you apparently don't know the most basic workings of an atom that are taught in elementary school science. Either the test had more to do with procedures than science, or I'm genuinely concerned for the state of our nuclear program.

As far as the "Law of Attraction" is concerned, it is true that hostility breeds hostility. On the other hand, sometimes something is just wrong, and there are only so many ways to approach it. Debating the existence of god is entirely different from debating astrology, because one can only speak in terms of the probability that god exists. There is no way to test the question. Astrology, on the other hand, can and has been tested, and it has failed. Now, saying that something makes you feel good, but simultaneously recognizing that it has no actual basis in reality is one thing (I think that's what roachboy thinks you're arguing, but I haven't seen anything to convince me of that). I'm all for respecting that - do whatever you damn well please. But making public claims about something that can be and has been refuted is not something that will typically go unchallenged.

The argument that keeps being made regarding science amounts to "science isn't perfect, so why should we believe it?" This has already been addressed more than once, but what the hell, let's try again. I'm lazy, so I'll just plagiarize myself. Two simple thought experiments show the flaw in this logic: 1) The argument will continue to be made so long as science does not say what you want it to say, but then what happens if one day it does? I don't believe you would continue not to accept it - rather, you'd point to it as validation for what you've been saying all along. 2) The only logical conclusion to be made from arguing that current scientific observations shouldn't be given weight because past observations were proven incorrect in some capacity is to say that no scientific observations should be given weight whatsoever, because the past cannot be changed and the future is always unknowable. Not knowing everything is not an excuse to act like we know nothing.

It seems to me that you're more interested in talking at one another than talking with people. You'd like to state your beliefs, have other people state their beliefs in a way which has the least friction with your own, and then...I don't know what, because there's nothing of any benefit that can come from that sort of interaction. I'll say it again, if you're not willing to have your beliefs challenged, don't talk about them, and especially not on a public discussion forum. Not all things can mutually exist, and a discussion between open-minded individuals is one in which both sides are open to the possibility of rejecting the entirety of their previously held thoughts, based on new arguments and evidence. In the case of this thread, evidence has been provided in opposition to astrology, and there are only a few truly open-minded, "willing to learn from other people" reactions: provide counter-evidence that is at least almost equally compelling as the evidence given, or discard your old thoughts in favor of those supported by the newly provided evidence.

Of course, you say you don't even believe in astrology, so I have to wonder why you're really even bothering in this thread. Then again, you also claim that you no longer "have to win arguments" and that you now simply speak your mind and don't care whether people walk away thinking they're right. Yet, you've participated in this thread more than anyone else in the past 2 days...that doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't care whether or not they "win the argument."

Unless you're being true to and standing up for what has been shown to be true (or at least more true than anything else we know) through science?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

pan6467

So evolution has been PROVEN to be right? We have found the missing link? There is incontrovertible proof that we evolved from Primordial soup and through many differing species each one growing farther along. There's proof of that? If not, then I think I know exactly what I was talking about.

I'm not talking about how we have evolved since, developing antibodies within ourselves to fight bacteria or how we have evolved intelligently and creatively throughout time growing as a species.

No, that is pretty much fact, now was it physical environmental or sociological environmental factors, is the question. I would argue IF solely physical then you have a better argument for Evolution. IF solely sociological, based on the fact up until the "age of enlightenment" religion was the predominant factor in ALL societies, then it was religion that evolved man. However, I believe it was a combination of both and thus stating it was directly a result of one or the other is IMHO only recognizing the factors YOU wish to. Thus, since no one truly knows or will ever be able to prove, we'll never know the truth.

Gravity is fact.

The point I replied to was how schools are being dictated to teach either Evolution theory (man evolved) or the theory of creationism. BOTH ARE THEORY, neither CAN BE PROVEN.

OK, doesn't change the fact that Neo-Pagans or Wiccans or any group has the right to be disparaged and have their religion belittled or not represented. The whole argument there was about freedom of worshipping how you want. I don't agree with special needs for each religion, the Constitution doesn't guarantee that.... but it does guarantee the right to worship and as long as it hurts no one.... who are you to say "no".

Really? You are more than welcome to take the USTwo challenge and give me a test if you so desire and are so sure I am not all that intelligent. Just remember, I'll give you a test also.

Feel free to open the thread, we'll hash out how, a neutral party and see.

Again, to me this has become far more about being open minded and respectful of others beliefs than Astrology.

I see people making claims all day... 0 down, 0 payments for a year 0 interest for 5 years....... comes to mind. I choose to ignore claims like that, I may tell a friend who buys into it to read the fine print, but overall, I don't see any reason to fight it, argue against it and give it my time. I have more pressing things.

I could argue why all the protestations and carrying on over something you think is phony?

Do you really think you're helping anyone by belittling people, mocking their faiths and beliefs?

Why are you so against having an intelligent, respectful discussion with each side giving their pros and cons and then letting others decide?

Psychologically, people do this for one of 2 basic reasons: they desire to put themselves above the other side either for ego, intellectual or in some cases social gains.... or they do so because they themselves are that insecure in their own beliefs they have to try to make others insecure in theirs.

No did you truly read what I wrote? I think you need to reread what I wrote.
I have answered posts directed at me, yes.

I don't really follow astrology, not my bag, but I will take a stand for someone's right to believe it. And as I stated:I don't have to win arguments. But I will respond to people talking to me, quoting me and trying to condemn me. I will also call out people who are trying to belittle another's beliefs.


Again, where did I once belittle science in anyway? I said there were small minded people on BOTH sides who refuse to acknowledge that their are beliefs different than theirs and instead of belittling them, why not try to discuss, educate and respect each other's views?

In the end it's a microcosm of what society deals with. I am simply showing how tempers flare negativity begat further negativity, name calling, talking down to, trying to elevate self over others happens simply because people refuse to accept another's right to believe in what they want and to treat that person and belief with respect.

I wonder how much safer and how far this world would truly advance if everyone just talked to one another with respect.

In a case like this thread it all would have been over if Wheel had gotten her answer and the debunkers stated their side and let the people reading decide what to believe for themselves. Instead of belittling, degrading and basically treating anyone who supported it in anyway with disrespect and as though they were charlatans, fakes, frauds or stupid.

In the end, it's a statement on TFP in general. When I came in ging on 4 years ago, discussions like this were welcomed and people weren't attacked for their beliefs. People conversed and showed respect for each other... teaching and learning from each other. (Except Politics that has always been a war zone... but I think that's part of the fun in there.)

Now we see a thread like this where a simple, innocent question from someone who was interested in a subject enough to ask members what they thought turned into a warzone, disrespecting others beliefs, attacking others intelligences and just negative.

Not sure I like this place anymore.... used to be fun, now everyone wants blood. Not exactly sure that's what I want in a message board, at least non-political messages (except sports... always have to talk smack in sports... that's the fun part.)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Johnny Rotten

I think perhaps you read into peoples' intentions and statements. As I said before, some people objected to the claim that astrology was a defensible predictive system, and they offered up scientific explanations for why they felt that way. Again, astrology was not positioned as a belief, therefore there were no beliefs to attack. There was some anecdotal evidence, but nothing testable or anything repeatable.

Respectfully, you do not appear to have a full understanding of evolutionary science. Australopithecus afarensis has been put forward as a transitional fossil.

If you want incontrovertible proof, however, you're not going to find it in science. You're not going to find it anywhere, since it only exists as an abstract concept. Fortunately, we have evidence -- commonly misunderstood as "proof" -- of certain things. And the origin of Man in a pool of primordial soup is one of them. Is it ignoble to have such humble beginnings... or is it beautiful and amazing that we have gone from there to here? I vote the latter.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

SecretMethod70

The nice thing about this reply is that I don't even need to waste time addressing the stuff with evolution, all because of one little sentence: "gravity is fact." Scientifically, gravity is a theory. Have you seen gravity? You've seen its effects, but have you seen gravity? Gravitons? They're theorized, but they've never been seen. Perhaps it's a force...but we can't see forces. Which is the reason electromagnetism is also classified as a theory. A scientific theory is not the same as a hypothesis, which is what you seem to think it means. A hypothesis is, essentially, an educated idea of how something works. A theory, on the other hand, is one step before observed fact (of which there are few). Wikipedia sums this one up pretty well (emphasis mine): "A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory." (And, yes, this means that "string theory" is a misnomer because, scientifically, it is not really a theory but closer to a hypothesis.) Point is, you've only confirmed that you don't understand how the scientific method works. This isn't bad - a lot of people don't understand the difference between a theory in scientific terms and a theory in laymen's terms - but it makes a difference if you're going to be making arguments about what science does and does not know, especially if your entire opinion is based on the fact it's called the "theory of evolution." That homo sapiens is the result of evolution, branched off of a common ancestor with other great apes, is as much an understood fact as the existence of gravity. And, just like we don't know exactly how gravity works - is it a force or is it a particle? - we don't have an exact understanding of how evolution works. That said, the whole "missing link" thing is completely irrelevant. Evolution works far too gradually for there to be any such thing. Again, Wikipedia explains this misconception fairly well and concisely (thank god science nerds tend to be geeks too! ).

Irrelevant. No one here has made any claims that you shouldn't be allowed to have your rock altar or anything like that. Discussing your beliefs on an internet forum isn't worshipping, and you should have no expectation of not having to interact with people who disagree with you or being asked to defend your beliefs.

It's too easy to just look up now, but you already answered just one question which shows that however knowledgeable you may have been in the past regarding science, you've clearly forgotten some of the fundamentals. That question: do protons repel neutrons? Your answer, of course, was that they do. They do not, and as I pointed out that's a very basic element of scientific understanding. In fact, I can't remember exactly, but I think I learned it around 5th grade. Hell, the answer is even in their names. Now, again, a lot of people don't remember things like that, but it makes a difference when you're trying to claim an understanding of what science does and does not know, and how strong the claims it makes are. And not only did you get that question wrong, you went on to claim above average knowledge in nuclear matters, which only makes your error even more significant.

Why are we going through this again. People have provided cons. They're looking for people to provide pros. But, unless I'm reading this wrong, you are looking for exactly what I thought you're looking for: basically, for people to compile a list of opinions in this thread and then let some imaginary "other" reader make a decision based on those opinions. I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of a discussion forum is to have discussions with the people who are participating here, not some imaginary other reader who we're trying to convince and put on a debate show for. Discussion forums aren't debate panels with audiences, where each side is vying to win the audience's loyalty.

Honestly, I find myself participating in threads like these because ignorance bothers me, and I don't mean that in the sense of feeling superior. What I mean is that the human race has advanced so much over the past 100 years, and will advance so much more over the next 100. We've put people on the moon, we've sent robots to Mars, we've taken pictures of the farthest reaches of our galaxy. We've learned to split the atom and, literally, harness the power of the sun. We've created a world wide web which allows us to connect with almost anyone from around the world in mere seconds. We've learned about some of the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, and continue to learn more. We've figured out, generally speaking, how we slowly came into being as humans from the basic life that originated on this planet. Yet...there are still people who believe that a 4 leaf clover, or a penny from their birth year, or special underwear will bring them luck. There are still people, especially in America (when compared to other developed and sometimes not-so-developed countries), who lack a sufficient understanding of science and its relationship to the world around them in order to understand that just because a book they find special in their lives says the universe was created in 6 days, that doesn't make it true. These things sadden me. I see the amazing potential of humanity, and then I'm reminded of just how much further we could be if we didn't have to waste time still trying to convince otherwise intelligent people that dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time. I imagine how much more advancement we could make if those otherwise intelligent people could redirect the energy they currently spend on their biblical literalism, or superstition, and instead put it towards any of the other things going on right now that will lead to the next significant development. Frankly, I think I'm over-optimistic regarding other people much of the time. I come here, and make long posts, and repeat the same things over and over (I don't know how many times I've bothered to point out the "theory" issue on this site), because, somewhere in my head, I feel like eventually people will "get it." I know from experience that this is almost never true. Yet, I still try, because like someone in a bad relationship I come back and think..."maybe this time something will sink in." I, frankly, probably give people too much credit to expect that they will see evidence, digest it, and either provide counter-evidence or change their mind accordingly. I should know by now that anyone who thinks in that manner already doesn't believe these things in most cases. Anyway, my point is that I come into these threads and I post because I care about the direction in which humanity is moving, not out of any need to feel superior. If I wanted to feel superior on this site, I'm in a pretty good position to do so without spending so much time and energy in a thread like this, but that's not why I'm here. I defer to Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."


In principle, I agree with you. But all "beliefs" are not created equal. Someone can believe in anything, but it doesn't change the reality of the world we live in. Like Ustwo said, believing in things which evidence exists against "embraces a lack of critical thinking on the part of the individual which I think is unhealthy. There are other ways to learn to deal with life's problems."

Again with "the people reading." Who are these people, if not the participants in this thread? What is the purpose of a discussion forum if not to interact with the people doing the discussing. I don't care about the lurkers who are reading right now. I care about the people who are actively participating. They're the ones I'm interacting with. If I wanted to proselytize to lurkers, I'd go and create a blog.

Having been here since just about the beginning, I can confidently say that the general user attitude toward superstitious topics hasn't changed. The only difference is that now there's a whole forum for people to make threads on such things, and therefore many more threads for the average TFP user to come in and debunk

We're all ignorant about something. Some people are incapable of getting a date. Others stay in abusive relationships. Still others believe that stars alter their personality. Pointing out that ignorance isn't an attack when an effort is made to fill it with valid information, and for the most part I've seen that done here. People have provided links to studies and various other things. That's far different from "you're stupid!"

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

pan6467

You're right, I acted in passion and wrote before thinking.

You win.... I bow down to you're feet and pray to your God now...... You win. You defeated all I said because I lost it and let emotions control instead of thought.

Now, um besides me looking like a fool what was accomplished? Did you really debunk anything? In all honesty didn't change my beliefs.... made me lose control and I find TFP not user friendly any longer... in fact.... the numbers as they keep falling kinda prove that.

The attitudes of staff, the way people are now bullied on the boards.... you win. Not sure what....maybe more people leaving but...you win.

One final edit...... your last posts, showed the arrogance of not wanting to debunk anything, but to destroy someone who disagreed with you.

I allowed it to happen. You proved my point, it wasn't about debunking anything, it was about destroying those who disagree with you.

Now, ask yourself..... how many members will see this exchange and realize that TFP is not a friendly atmosphere anymore, that it has become a blood letting and take no prisoners attitude..... even from the mods and admins.

I allowed emotion to become involved on my part, you chose to go from debunking to making sure the person disagreeing with you was buried.

In the end.... TFP loses, because I see this exchange as basically turning a lot of people, even those who may have originally agreed with you, away.

But you won.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

i have no fish to fry in this, as the saying goes---the extent that i am interested in astrology begins and ends with (a) its function as a historical artefact and (b) a vague curiousity about natal charts, which are in some accurate, though the claims generated tend to be vague enough that you can easily argue that they seem accurate because situationally you want them to seem so.

what i was interested in was seeing if there was a way to move this curious trainwreck of a thread away from its present standing as a ritual in which people simply talk past each other.

aside:

as for my style of writing--well, ustwo, like you i am a product of my training and interests---and my training and interests happen to be in philosophy and history---part of that training is familiarity with a kind of abstract shorthand for staging arguments--which i alternate between using here and trying to stay away from because it doesnt fit well within these little limiting boxes --but i dont think it's up to you to determine what is or is not affected, what is or is not "erudite-sounding"--you might consider the possibility that this is simply how i write. the fact that you do not have a parallel familiarity with the shorthand means only that you do not have a parallel familitarity witht he shorthand--you should consider not projecting your lack of familiarity with it back onto some suspicion that this is all some pretense--any more than i treat your biology background as a pretense.
i dont write as i do with any particular idea in mind about putting you or anyone else in a position that requires them to defend themselves by way of projections.
it's how i write.
i hope that is clear enough.

philo and the harder science have a kind of antagonistic relation at times because the former claims that it can questions the semantic and logical underpinnings of the latter's claims. same thing with the philosophy of mathematics. problem is that more often than not, the result is an undermining of the claims at the level of form. from there, the real problem becomes one of disciplinary competence. it doesnt have to be like this--it is not productive for folk in either field, but it is.

as for this thread--i confess that i have no idea what is really happening here any more--it seems like mostly a theater where what is actually being performed is not the arguments, but something else, which is playing out across the arguments. and it seems like the dynamic is that folk who attack astrology--often to my mind justifiably--operate in one register, with one set of assumptions about what is at hand, and those who defend astrology operate with an entirely different set of assumptions about what is at hand. it isnt even really about astrology at this point.
i dont know what is about.
most strange.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Bill O'Rights

Pay attention here, kids. 'Cause it ain't all that often that you're gonna see me agree with roachboy, with the tenacity that I now do. I find myself in virtual 100% agreement with his assesment of this thread.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

DaveOrion

I agree too, but Pan had already stated that the exact same arguments have been posted in countless other threads. I find it odd that so many of the admin sect decided to refute any and all comers.... and was very surprised at their responses. I found many condescending and immature, blatant flame bait, the good ole "if you do or don't believe in so & so, you're just wrong, period". Instead of discussing the topic, they resort to personal attacks on individual posters. Not that there were many who dared challenge the authority base, either most people agreed with the TFP majority, weren't interested in an endless circular argument, or didn't have the balls to post, if they did disagree.

Is this indicative of the eclectic mix of people on TFP???

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Cynthetiq

I'm taking umbrage to one spot here....

Where are there personal attacks? Because they aren't allowed...

Disagreeing and refuting positions are not personal attacks. That's all that I see in this thread.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

DaveOrion

I'm sure you wont see these as personal attacks, although I do....

When an admin states that anyone who doesn't believe in a "theory" is "wrong, plain & simple", and that Pan has a severe misunderstanding of scientific method is making a very personal attack. But it gets better.......

Another personal attack....IMO. This post alludes that Pans knowledge of science is less than that of an elementary school student.....thats personal.

I don't think I'll continue to dig up all the personal attacks in this thread. That would take all day & fill up pages. I already know what will be said about this anyway.......

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Bossnass

This thread has actually restored some of my faith in the TFP. An impartial observer/lurker who takes the time to read the entire thread should appreciate the time and civilized manner that most the responses required.

wheelhomies

jazz...you posted on the second page...:P

secondly...i know no one really cares, but i'd just like to re-emphasize that i meant absolutely nothing by starting this thread in the paranoia section. i guess philosophy would have been ok, but there's no paranormal section, so i figured here was a somewhat relevant place...and besides, it doesn't have much going on...moving along...

there's no need to say that other posters are closed minded simply because they don't believe the same things you do. if you refuse to see the validity of the scientific arguments, you're not being any more open minded, really...and yes, arguing a subject like this is just as bad as arguing religion - cause it's faith based. it's not scientific, although there are certain patterns that may be observed or systems that may be employed when using it...at most, it's a pseudoscience. as the experiments that ustwo posted prove, when tested, it fails. period.

however, as shauk posted...people have accused him of acting like a "typical taurus". don't wanna get too personal, but lemme guess: stubborn, standoffish, maybe even a little self-centered? of course those are the negative things, and those are usually what people bother to point out...

i have noticed that certain elements of astrology apply to myself as well. i don't think it's because they're so general or vague because, as onesnowyowl said earlier, charts aren't vague. they are much more specific than predictive astrology and the highly generalized sun sign astrology. of course, they are full of contradictions, but aren't people too?

i just don't understand how something that is so nonsensical (let's face it: the alignment of planets when you're born and NOT conceived, for whatever reason...actually influences your personality? ridiculous) can be eerily accurate, to the point when people actually recognize patterns in the way others behave.

__________________

DaveOrion

This thread may have started about astrology but it quickly turned into one about Respect, Plain & Simple, at least for me. Most members will probably agree that they don't think planets and stars can influence their lives, but will also agree that they find it somewhat interesting. If for no other reason than to have a little fun & break up the monotony of this board. The same topics are endlessly repeated, the same opinions are expressed over & over, and there seems to be very few original thoughts anymore. Its all been said a thousand times before. So having a little fun, getting my chart done maybe, then seeing how well that actually matched my view of myself, would have been very interesting. But theres no fuckin way thats gonna happen now, is there??? Since the best astrologer on the board will no longer post.

Nothing fun & interesting now, just an endless war of words. And it didn't have to be that way.......sad & pathetic.

IMO, it has nothing to do with who or where this thread was started. The exact same thing has happened in countless threads. I'm not even sure why there is a paranoia section, it serves no purpose on this board. The same thing that happened in this thread, almost always happens to every other topic started in this section. Might as well be the 'skeptics board' w/porn.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

wheelhomies

i'm sad that lady sage left too. she's probably full of info.

__________________

sapiens

I agree with the post above that the discussion of astrology specifically seemed to derail quite a few posts ago. I that it is a waste of time to apply scientific ways of knowing to a domain like astrology, a domain that does not use the same standards of evidence. It may have been interesting to look at astrology from more of a humanities standpoint, but that never happened (and I don't know enough about the topic to start a discussion).

I do know a bit about what a scientist means when they refer to a theory. Lay people often think of theories as guesses or speculation. Wikipedia has a reasonable definition. When scientists refer to a theory, they typically are referring to
So, theory for a scientist is different from theory for a layperson.

It is equally a waste of time to apply scientific ways of knowing to a concept like creationism, a concept that does not use the same standards of evidence as science. To put evolution by natural selection and creationism on the same scientific level is absurd. Again, it might be interesting to examine creation stories from a humanities or cultural perspective, but scientifically, it is a waste of time.

An aside: I think that the scientific responses to astrology have been restrained. Regarding possible personal attacks, when you make an argument from authority, you shouldn't be surprised when someone questions your authority.

I didn't see a lack of respect. The OP was general enough to allow scientific discussions of the merits of astrology. Several people seemed to make claims about the predictive validity of astrology. If you are going to make such claims, you shouldn't be surprised when people are skeptical. I still think that it is possible to examine astrology in a "fun" way. A new thread, with an explicit topic might make that easier.

Ustwo

I have to disagree.

Unlike the typical untestable questions like 'Is there a God' astrology produces results that can be measured.

The fact that astrologers don't use the same standards of evidence as do scientists is irrelevant.

Astrology can be examined scientifically and it fails miserably.

There is a reason whey they have to add the 'For entertainment purposes only' tag.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

It wouldn't matter how specific the topic was, members are still free to post wherever, whenever, & in whatever manner they so desire. Some members just get off on provoking others into an emotional response. This may stem from environmental conditioning, a generally mean & cynical disposition, or a very small penis, who the fuck knows???

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Baraka_Guru

Oh, the irony.


I think for the most part, the discussion has been rational. It's too bad it got as emotional as it did. I really hope it can be put back on track, because I've been reading this thread closely. It has been enjoyable so far.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ustwo

Oh I know its your writing style, trust me. I have constantly tested in the 99+% for reading comprehension on several major standardized exams (ACT, GRE, MCat, DAT, Norton Anthology) starting when I was 12, and I normally need to reread your posts a few times to try to make heads or tails of it, unless you are mad in which case you tend to be very clear

I frequently need to change my language in biology postings in order to suite a more general audience and achieve clear communication. I think were you to do the same, you would still be able to convey your thoughts while at the same time reaching a larger audience.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

If members would discuss the topic instead of other posters, it would always remain rational. An emotional response seems to be what everybody wanted anyway, from the responses I read. When members are attacked personally they tend to get emotional & defend themselves. Thats to be expected.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

sapiens

I agree with you. The scientific validity of astrology can be evaluated (and has been found lacking). For me, arguing with proponents of astrology regarding this is still a waste of time.

Baraka_Guru

I think it would be akin to arguing with proponents of alchemy and/or homunculi.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ustwo

I think it depends. Yes it can be a waste of time but many people have really never been exposed the cold readings and the like. These people can be educated on the subject and not fall victim to it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

And discussing anything with logic & science fanatics is akin to arguing over how thin to slice a loaf of bread. Thats how much sense all this scientific over-analysis makes.

And how exactly can one fall victim, when no money is charged & the reading is simply done for fun??? Or did you miss that part in LadySages post way back when??? I suppose you're merely concerned with the welfare of all those poor people who may fall victim to the horrible astrological charlatans of the world.....what a laugh riot.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

amonkie

This is your friendly warning.

Lets get this thread back on track... the original OP was "Just wondering how astrology is generally received here on TFP, so what are your thoughts about it?".

It was NOT about how you feel about the people who have different thoughts about astrology than you, and one person being more right than the other.

Focus on the words, not the face.

__________________
Calling from deep in the heart, from where the eyes can't see and the ears can't hear, from where the mountain trails end and only love can go... ~~~ Three Rivers Hare Krishna