Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

I hate astrology!

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» I hate astrology!

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

It really annoys me that people still believe in the most childish and nonsensical things these days. I have an intellectual problem with any beliefs that cannot be justified, especially in terms of their relation to reality, but this one really annoys me. Most people today have no idea where these signs come from. Another thing they have no idea about is the fact that astrology is completely subjective and not an actual feature of reality. Astrology relates to the belief in days and months, both of which are not actual features of the objective world. Calendars also vary depending on time and culture, which means that someone can be born in the very same month as you and not have the same star sign. In short, it is frankly stupid to believe that star signs have any effect on a person's personality and what will happen to them in their day to day lives. This is yet another intellectual error that I believe human beings could and should overcome.
YouTube - Astrology Debunked - Richard Dawkins in Enemies of Reason

@hue-man,

Quote:

It really annoys me that people still believe in the most childish and nonsensical things these days.

I think this statement can encompass religion and still be a true statement. I think there is something similar between astrology and religion. People want to feel better about the world or themselves even if it fools them into feeling more comfortable, that is the only thing that is important. Weather or not it is true, takes a back seat to the warm and fuzzy feelings.

@hue-man,

Can you explain the accuracy of natal charts, then?

Jamie

@Twistedgypsychil,

Twistedgypsychil;85995 wrote:

Can you explain the accuracy of natal charts, then?

Jamie

No; but I can explain why they're not accurate and why some people believe that they are accurate.

@hue-man,

Please enlighten me Smile

Jamie

@hue-man,

Doesn't Dawkins have something better to do than to go around debunking astrology? (It's been debunked for quite some time now) He should go back to being a biologist.

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;86161 wrote:

Doesn't Dawkins have something better to do than to go around debunking astrology? (It's been debunked for quite some time now) He should go back to being a biologist.

Maybe he thinks it's fun. Biologists have to have fun, too.

@hue-man,

I think Dawkins is just annoyed that people are willing to spend so much time and effort into horoscopes than reading an actual scientific article. It seems absurd that a pseudo science gets so much attention and page space while actual science gets pushed out.

I think he is an educator first and a biologist second. In fact I think he has been quoted as saying that very thing.

@Twistedgypsychil,

Twistedgypsychil;86124 wrote:

Please enlighten me

Jamie

I should be asking you to prove your proposition (the supposed accuracy of natal charts), but let's get this out of the way. For starters, the Dawkins video disproves the 'accuracy' of astrology. Secondly, studies have been done on the subject of natal charts a long time ago and they were proven wrong rather successfully. Below is a link to an article that discusses the scientific tests on the accuracy (or the lack thereof) of natal charts.

Skeptical Astrology

@hue-man,

Krumple;85441 wrote:

I think this statement can encompass religion and still be a true statement.

I really am sorry.

Krumple;85441 wrote:

I think there is something similar between astrology and religion.

I think there is something similar between science and astrology. I think there is something similar between a cockroach and a black hole. I think there is something similar between something and nothing.

Krumple;85441 wrote:

People want to feel better about the world or themselves even if it fools them into feeling more comfortable, that is the only thing that is important. Weather or not it is true, takes a back seat to the warm and fuzzy feelings.

Maybe in the case of astrology, but religion has a long history of causing people serious distress. Heck, even the stories of religion attest to the distress - Jesus tempted in the desert, eventually undergoes crucifixion. Crucifixion is not exactly a warm and fuzzy experience, ya know?

Or how about Augustine's intense and distressing spiritual experiences? I could go on, but you get the point. Religion can and does make people feel better, but religion can also compel people to make difficult changes in their lives and in the world. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated for his religious activities - again, far from warm and fuzzy.

I do not know much about astrology - but I do know those horoscopes in the newspaper are trash. There are analogous religious printings and teachings, but to judge all of religion based on them is nonsense - it's no different than pointing to Dahmer and concluding that all humans are terrible monsters, cannibals, and demented sexual perverts. I think you know better.

@hue-man,

Quote:

it's no different than pointing to Dahmer and concluding that all humans are terrible monsters, cannibals, and demented sexual perverts. I think you know better.

Quite humorous that you say such a thing to me, while a majority of Christians make comments to me like this every day. That people are nothing but sin and will never be anything other than sin in the eyes of god.

Perhaps you should also realize when I am saying religion, I am not referring to teachers of actual wisdom. I am talking about when those wisdoms are distorted into, "Pay us to teach you bigotry and hatred." Or it is alright to kill abortion clinic doctors because our bible tells us it is morally our duty to.

Or that we should strap on a bomb and walk into a crowded public place to injure, maim or kill so we can receive seventy two virgins in heaven. Or we should hijack some air planes and crash them into some buildings because we don't like your standards or ways of living. Or how about, we condemn you to house arest or a burning at the stake for saying the earth is not the center of the universe?

Do you want to keep going with this, or continue your denial?

@hue-man,

hue-man;86179 wrote:

I should be asking you to prove your proposition (the supposed accuracy of natal charts), but let's get this out of the way. For starters, the Dawkins video disproves the 'accuracy' of astrology. Secondly, studies have been done on the subject of natal charts a long time ago and they were proven wrong rather successfully. Below is a link to an article that discusses the scientific tests on the accuracy (or the lack thereof) of natal charts.

Skeptical Astrology

They can conduct a study of that in any linear fashion as they did, but that still does not prove that natal charts are not accurate. It shows that the study figures were inaccurate. Natal Charts themselves, minus the interpreter, are accurate. They have been proven to be accurate in the many accounts of many people around the globe.

Jamie

@Twistedgypsychil,

Krumple;86500 wrote:

Quite humorous that you say such a thing to me, while a majority of Christians make comments to me like this every day. That people are nothing but sin and will never be anything other than sin in the eyes of god.

Do you see no humor in the fact that, while you get a chuckle, you persist in the error you comment upon? That you, in response to me exposing your logical error, commit yet again that same error?

Whether or not a majority of Christians believes something is beside the point - a majority of Christians is not the same as "religion" unqualified. As to where you get this figure of a majority, I have no idea. It is central to Christian teaching that people can overcome sin. That's why that fellow died on the cross, recall? Or do you just pick out the worst examples of something and judge the whole based upon those examples.... oh, wait a second, you're just gonna laugh and repeat that obvious mistake.

Krumple;86500 wrote:

Perhaps you should also realize when I am saying religion, I am not referring to teachers of actual wisdom. I am talking about when those wisdoms are distorted into, "Pay us to teach you bigotry and hatred." Or it is alright to kill abortion clinic doctors because our bible tells us it is morally our duty to.

Oh, so when you say "religion" you mean something other than what the word "religion" happens to mean in the English language. :rolleyes:

Krumple;86500 wrote:

Do you want to keep going with this, or continue your denial?

Do you want to try and chose your language so that the language expresses what you mean, or do you want to continue to use language in such a way that negatively, disrespectfully, and spitefully generalizes about a massive and diverse population of other human beings?

I'm not going to deny the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but I will make a point to consider the definitions of the words I use rather than sloppily type to reveal puerile stereotypes.

Speaking of denial, would you like to address or deny me a response to my actual points in the previous post - specifically, the points of similarity between concepts, and the non-warm and fuzzy aspects of religious practice like Dr. King? Or do you prefer baling up straw-men to serious discourse? Of course, I wont deny that the straw-men are easier; I sympathize with you on that point.

@hue-man,

There was a large study done at Berkeley some time ago, published in Science magazine I believe, that tried to make every accommodation for the astrologists and their "methods". They still found that the astrological predictions were no more reliable than random chance.

@Twistedgypsychil,

Twistedgypsychil;86502 wrote:

They have been proven to be accurate in the many accounts of many people around the globe.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

@Krumple,

Krumple;86500 wrote:

Quite humorous that you say such a thing to me, while a majority of Christians make comments to me like this every day. That people are nothing but sin and will never be anything other than sin in the eyes of god.

Perhaps you should also realize when I am saying religion, I am not referring to teachers of actual wisdom. I am talking about when those wisdoms are distorted into, "Pay us to teach you bigotry and hatred." Or it is alright to kill abortion clinic doctors because our bible tells us it is morally our duty to.

Or that we should strap on a bomb and walk into a crowded public place to injure, maim or kill so we can receive seventy two virgins in heaven. Or we should hijack some air planes and crash them into some buildings because we don't like your standards or ways of living. Or how about, we condemn you to house arest or a burning at the stake for saying the earth is not the center of the universe?

Do you want to keep going with this, or continue your denial?

Are you sure you don't have a problem with specific people and their errors (their own acts rather than the belief system itself)? I find its common to criticize religion by simply pointing out foolish acts committed by individuals. Would you blame the Bible itself? Or the ones who act wrongly through their misunderstanding of its contents? (all this excluding your criticism on original sin...I'm with you on that)

The difference with astrology seen here in this thread is that people criticize its method itself instead of pointing out the foolish crimes certain astrologists commit.

@hue-man,

I think horoscopes in the paper are trash because when you read your own horoscope you can apply what it says to pretty much anything that's going on in your life but I've often wondered about things like character traits, for instance, I'm a sagittarius which is a fire sign and I am definitely a fiery person so is there some truth in it, such as character traits?

@Caroline,

Good point. Spiritists, oracles, things of this nature rely on ambiguous predictions that could go either way or have flexible application. Its the "heads you win, tails you lose" type of thing.

@hue-man,

hue-man;86571 wrote:

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Neither are small studies. If you are going to prove something false, it needs to be global, not a simple random study of picked and chosen participants.

Jamie

@Twistedgypsychil,

Twistedgypsychil;86589 wrote:

Neither are small studies. If you are going to prove something false, it needs to be global, not a simple random study of picked and chosen participants.

Jamie

Get real. The study doesn't need to be global in order to falsify the proposition. You can accept it or reject it but evidence is evidence. I presented evidence for my claim, but you did not. If you don't accept the scientific method then we have nothing more to discuss on this topic.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» I hate astrology!

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

I hate astrology!

Quick Links

My Account

able2know