DU skeptics don't make thread after thread attacking astrology because

[ZombieHorde]

those who believe in astrology don't use that belief against other people or against scientific progress.

Generally speaking, people who believe in astrology don't try to get schools to teach astrology in science class. Generally speaking, people who believe in astrology don't attack the civil rights of gay people for astrological reasons. Generally speaking, people who believe in astrology don't care if their child marries someone who does not believe in astrology.

The same cannot be said for some other supernatural based belief systems, such as Fundamentalist Christianity.

Generally speaking, the belief in something supernatural is not what is offensive to skeptics. We are not upset just because someone holds a different belief than us, though we may challenge opposing beliefs when appropriate; e.g., when the subject comes up on an internet debate forum.

What does upset us, is when supernatural beliefs are used against us; e.g., abortion, gay marriage, science education, personal bigotry, etc.

Unfortunately, liberal Christians, who usually do support gay rights and science education, use the same label (Christian) and source material (Holy Bible) as conservative Christians. The cool people are standing under the same umbrella, and are holding the same trappings, as the assholes.

Sometimes, the cool people seem to be enabling the assholes, such as when people support the Vatican.

So I am sorry liberal Christians have their faith attacked, but the faith attacked us first. We have a right to attack the evidence presented to us. We have a right to defend ourselves with argumentation, with humor, and if need be, with lawyers. We have a right to vent.

Please understand we are not upset because some people pray to Jesus when they are sad or sick, just as we are not upset some people turn to astrology in times of personal confusion. We disagree with the logic, but not the motivation of liberal Christians.

Liberal Christians often find themselves in a crossfire they did not ask for, and this is unfortunate, but skeptics did not ask to be attacked either. We are not your enemies, but we may often appear that way.

To my fellow skeptics: I apologize if I misrepresented your point of view. Please feel free to contradict anything I have written.

[laconicsax]

1. Recommend. n/t

[yellerpup]

2. Good post.

Thanks! :kick: & Rec.

[Deep13]

3. Astrology is not a salvation religion.

There is no imperative to convert the world--including imposing those repressive doctrines you mentioned--for their own good. I'm not saying belief is astrology is good. Basing personal decisions on something that has no bearing on reality will only lead to trouble. For that reason, I discourage it just as I discourage belief in other irrational things including Christianity. But I'm not going to tell people they are damned for all time if they disagree. Likewise, I'm not going to pester some if I have no reason to think he or she wants to discuss it.

[MineralMan]

4. As always, with me it is not the belief but the behavior that

is the issue. I'm an atheist, but that is meaningless to anyone but myself, unless I behave in a way that harms someone. The same is true for whatever people believe. The belief is irrelevant. Only actions affect others.

[cleanhippie]

5. I think you nailed it! But...

Except this one part:

Liberal Christians often find themselves in a crossfire they did not ask for


They may not have "asked" for it, but instead of getting off the battlefield and joining non-believers in the fight against the fundamentalist, they have chosen to stay cowering on the ground with bullets whizzing over their heads, until they get "offended" at the ammunition being used. They have it in their power to take a stand, but most don't.

[Deep13]

12. +1 nt

[Rowdyboy]

6. Actually, IIRC there was sort of a war on astrology in DU's early days....

I have hazy memories of an early astrology area here where battle was done daily between people who only wanted to be left alone to talk about astrology and several people who found the subject beneath contempt and jumped into every thread with ridicule.

[laconicsax]

14. It's hard to not view astrology as beneath contempt.

Astrology has been known to be bullshit for hundreds of years. It's as dumb as the geocentrism that it relies on.

[Rowdyboy]

15. I t've never felt the need to harrass people because they believe things I find stupid....

I think people that spend their free time watching organized sports are incredibly stupid but I've never seen the need to go on a sports forum and tell them so. They're not hurting me with their idiotic obsession so why should I give a damn. Let them talk all they want.

Same thing with me and astrology. I don't believe in it but its no skin off my nose if you do. So you waste your time-its your life to waste. Have a blast

[laconicsax]

16. Do you feel that teabaggers shouldn't be corrected on the stupid bullshit they believe?

You call it harassment, I call it education.

Anyone who believes in astrology is obviously ignorant of basic science and I consider it a good deed to educate them so that they can make better-informed decisions in the future.

[Rowdyboy]

23. I wouldn't waste 5 minutes of my life trying to correct a teabagger on anything.....

You and I together have over 25,000 posts here at DU since 2002. How many of your posts have changed someones mind on an important issue? For myself, I don't remember even one of mine, and thats on a board full of supposedly open-minded, intelligent people. So how am I supposed to convince a fundamentalist or a teabagger or anything? People who think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs are not really amenable to logic and reason.

Look, if you want to spend your life accosting strangers and educating them to the inherent superiority of progressive politics then I back you 100%. Don Quixote is one of my hero's so if I run into you I'll buy you a couple of drinks. For myself, my time is too valuable to waste on the foolish. I don't need the stress. But have fun....

[laconicsax]

27. I look at it this way:

Taking the time to carefully lay out the facts provides a resource for Internet passers-by who are undecided. DU threads do show up on Google and if someone is looking something up, they may come across a thread here and learn something.

As to "accosting strangers," someone who puts themselves on the open forum of the Internet is inviting strangers to respond.

[Rowdyboy]

33. Thats true in some instances but not in others....For example, if you go to the GLBT forum here

you're not welcome to start threads opposing gay equality. DU has several groups that don't allow antagonistic discussion including one for astrology buffs, Christians, Muslims, and Jews. There're protected by the mods because otherwise they would be filled with angry, hateful posts like most of the rest of DU.

All these people wanted to do was discuss their interest, however trivial or meaningless you may find it. They don't need nor want to hear how stupid they are from their superior peers. Whats the problem with just leaving people alone? Why is insulting them so important? I've never really understood that.

[trotsky]

48. The problem you appear to be having...

is distinguishing telling someone they're wrong from insulting them. You evidently think that's the same thing.

[Rowdyboy]

55. Being insulting isn't hard to distinguish at all....The posters I refer to were incredibly insulting

to other DUers for no reason other than a desire to appear superior. Instead they revealed their immaturity and several were banned. That really made them look smart.

I could care less about astrology but assholes always irritate me.

[trotsky]

61. Everybody on DU should probably be banned then.

People want to appear superior on just about every thread. From veganism to breastfeeding to circumcision to Laura Branigan, I can't think of a DU thread that doesn't involve someone pushing their opinion above others. I bet I could even find a thread where YOU were promoting your superior opinion.

WELCOME TO THE INTERNET.

[Rowdyboy]

66. Not at all.....Most people on DU post as adults, arguing a point. Only a handful

resort to harassment and belittling. I've hated bullies since childhood and still do. That you choose to defend such behavior speaks for itself.

Feel free to search my threads. If you find a case where I have harassed, belittled or bullied anyone please bring it to my attention. I'll be happy to apologize to the offended party.

Thanks for your welcome but I've survived quite nicely on the internet for a dozen years or so without being an jerk. I guess you get out of it what you put into it. Perhaps thats the difference in our experiences.

[trotsky]

68. Accusing me of defending bullying is a form of bullying, I think.

Why are you bullying me?

[Rowdyboy]

69. Because you make it so easy.....

And I'm bored.

[cleanhippie]

71. So, in one post, you blast others for being a "jerk", then in the next, you do JUST THAT?

"Because you make it so easy...and I'm bored"



And THAT is not being a jerk?



Maybe, maybe not, but its DEFINITELY being a hypocrite.

You have a nice day.

[Rowdyboy]

72. Apparently you have aa hard time understanding sarcasm....

But you have a nice day too, Try out your special talents on someone else.

[cleanhippie]

75. Is that just more sarcasm or your attempt to start a new streak?

And don't be jealous just because you don't have any special talents. I'm sure you are a fine person just the way you are.

[Rowdyboy]

78. Serves no purpose to talk to someone who never listens nor responds to the

points I made. DU has way too many intelligent, interesting people to relate to.

My original point stands unchallenged: A group of DUers engaged in an inane discussion on astrology faced months of harassment from assholes. Finally the admins stepped in and gave them a place where they would not be bullied. Same deal with the GLBT forum. If they hadn't many more people would have left DU long ago.

Thats not my opinion, thats a fact.

[trotsky]

80. Cool enough.

My point is proven.

[cleanhippie]

70. "I've survived quite nicely on the internet for a dozen years or so without being an jerk"

And you chose TODAY to end that streak?

[Rowdyboy]

73. Why not? When pushed I can be just as big an asshole as anyone else....

I just don't go looking for it.

[cleanhippie]

74. I didn't see anyone "pushing" you, but hey, you gotta be what you gotta be.

If it's an asshole, so be it.

[Rowdyboy]

76. If thats so, then I've certainly found the right people waste my time with....

Now haven't I.

[cleanhippie]

77. Who do you think you have found?

[Rowdyboy]

79. In this thread? No one of any significance

[trotsky]

28. That's too bad.

Because even 2 minutes in a supermarket checkout line gives you the opportunity to pass along a nugget for a teabagger to chew on. You know, mentioning the "socialist" services that he uses or pointing out the direct impact of government on his life. Just plant the seed - sometimes it will sprout.

[Rowdyboy]

30. Its the equivilant of planting seeds on an asphalt parking lot and expecting it to grow.. ....

I live in small-town Mississippi. Need I say more?

[trotsky]

31. Cracks develop in asphalt all the time.

And grass and other plants shoot right up.

[Rowdyboy]

35. 35 years ago when I graduated college I was so full of hope for my home state....

One of my professors begged us to stay here and work to make the state better. Many of us did and we failed in every conceivable way. The potential that was there in 1976 is long gone, replaced by a bland white-baptist-Republican monolith. The tali-bornagains are in firm control and the people are satisfied in their poverty and ignorance. Let freedom ring.

[trotsky]

36. I guess we should all just give up and hide in our basements then,

waiting for the end of the world.

[Rowdyboy]

37. We don't even have basements to hide in down here.....

And I doubt the world will end anytime soon so that whole strategy is seriously flawed.

Most people, the VAST majority, aren't interested in learning anything but if you think you can make progress with them, I wish you all the best. At this stage of my life I have neither the time nor the patience to educate anyone.

[trotsky]

38. Enjoy your defeatism.

I'm just saying, it's worth a try once in a while. I realize that you are forced to disagree, since it will undermine your initial comment on this thread.

[Rowdyboy]

39. What you call defeatism is my reality....

As the great Kurt Vonnegut said "and so it goes....."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. I remember that, too

There was one DUer in particular (not a participant in R&T) who just couldn't leave that forum alone.

[HuckleB]

108. And you find it odd that people who want to improve the world would be...

... of the type who would find fictional BS to be a problem?

Really?

:shrug:

[rug]

7. Then you won't mind when your attacks are attacked.

You're setting up a vicious circle with questionable assumptions.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Mind? I prefer it. I love to argue.

If R/T was an echo chamber, I would get bored and post elsewhere, like the health forum. I absolutely love disagreement. Feel free to attack every single thread I make. I would love for you to search my arguments for fallacious thinking. You're only increasing my critical thinking skills.

Give me something to think about. Make me pause, and question my own beliefs. Shatter my reality.

[Thats my opinion]

9. Solid thoughtful post

A few observations. Comparing religion to astrology is bit over-put. Clever, but strained.

I too am offended when religion is used as an attack against gays etc. The real fight against the spurious use of religion comes right from the central religious tradition. Atheists and others may have plenty of room to argue, but the real struggle must take place within the religious community.

When all religion is attacked as a scam etc. we are facing on one hand the same sort of fundamentalism we face on the other hand from biblical literalists. I would that the openness you exhibit when you say, "We disagree with the logic but not the motivation of liberal Christians," formed more of the basis for serious discussion.

We know that "you are not your enemies," when you post this sort of thoughtful statement, even though we may radically disagree..

[ZombieHorde]

10. Perhaps I should have said New Age, instead of astrology.

But some New Age cults don't have a lot of supernatural beliefs, even though most of them do.

Belief in the supernatural is optional in the O.T.O. and TOPY, and many of the members are die-hard skeptics. There was some infighting in the O.T.O. when the heads applied to be recognized as a religion in the US. Some people left the cult because of it, but the O.T.O was ultimately turned down. No tax breaks for them.

[dmallind]

13. Mostly agree, but to meet in the middle both sides must move

Atheists, me certainly included, often do a poor job of overtly distinguishing between harmful and harmless Christian behaviors, and yes even helpful too. We can tell the difference of course, but far too often the liberal believers spend far more time and effort pretending that the harmful behavior is not Christian at all (or failing that to falsely pretend that it is a tiny fringe) than working out why the different behaviors arise from the same group/motivation and how the harmful can be minimized/helpful maximized. I honestly think DU R/T does more to educate lurkers in the no true Scotsman fallacy than all the freshman logic courses in academia, because it is incredibly rife, and entirely one-sided.

If (and in many cases that's wishful thinking I know) believers want atheists to understand and even support their motivation, or their struggles against fundamentlism as that occurs, it would help if the vast majority of the motivation they displayed was not pretending that no Christians ever did anything unworthy of understanding and support.

[Thats my opinion]

29. How right you are.

The worst enemies of Christian faith are Christians who are narrow, exclusivist, bigoted, war mongering, on and on and on. And there are plenty of them. Christian history if replete with prejudices, pogroms and support of tyranny. Somehow, however, there are a growing number of Christians who follow the one who was the Prince of Peace, defended all the left out, was ethically centuries ahead of his tradition and lured his followers beyond the commonalities of a cultures mired in bigotry.

As a pope in the middle ages remarked,w hen asked how he could stay in the church with all its evil, "It's is like Noah's ark. The only way to tolerate the stink inside is to know about the storm outside.

[rrneck]

11. Good post

and much appreciated.

But much like Stradlater in Catcher in the Rye the cool people are "secret slobs" who decry the antics of the fundamentalists but nevertheless benefit from them.

While fundamentalists would like to see the privatization of defense and law enforcement placed in their hands, the liberals seek to claim as much of the social services pie as they can - and brag about it. Thus they stand to benefit from Norquistian ideology as much as their conservative brethren.

Liberal churches profit from federally mandated holidays as readily as fundamentalist churches. They take their cut, in their own way, through increased attendance, tithes, and most important of all - devotion - from the national orgy of spending and leisure time in which to do it.

Liberal churches are just as willing to act as lobbyist organizations as conservative churches, which makes them defacto intercessors between the faithful and government rather than between the faithful and God.

If liberal christians want respect they need to earn it. They need to police the ranks of their own Christian faith and work to end the outrages of those who share it rather than attempt to fabricate cosmetic differences that are little more than a distinction without a difference. Unfortunately, to do so would damage their power and wealth as much as their more bombastic cousins.

But of course they prefer to worry about dreaded atheists who, as you have done here, merely point out the obvious contradictions between what they profess and where they profit.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Does anybody really truly believe in astrology?

Never met anyone who gave it more than lip service or as a pick up line

[laconicsax]

19. There are DUers who do.

There's even an astrology forum.

[Remember Me]

21. Hello, Professor, I'd like to introduce myself to you.

You've now met someone who firmly "believes in" astrology.

You either have a very narrow circle of friends (or a circle of friends w/very narrow interests), or some of them haven't outed themselves to you.

Let me give you a tip: Any system of knowledge or study that has been around for millennia isn't something to dismiss lightly. There's a REASON it's still current, still growing, still vibrant, still describing truth.

But no, it doesn't match western science in science's current configuration. I have hopes for science, though, that it will eventually grow and develop enough to include astrology. I've seen a lot that surprised me in my years on the planet. Chiropractors, for example, were once mostly scorned. Now they even have a place in some MD's practices. Healthfoods is a billion dollar industry and some MDs are promoting their use (just watch "The Doctors" on daytime TV, or Dr. Oz) whereas once upon a time the whole notion was mostly frowned upon or dismissed.

So, I have hopes for science as well.

[laconicsax]

22. Hello. I'm not ProgressiveProfessor, but I'd like to say something.

Astrology is a disproven, thoroughly debunked system that has only a superficial relation to reality. Every aspect of astrology (beyond 'there are stars') is wrong. The most basic premise of astrology is predicated on a falsehood--the Earth is not at the center of the universe and the stars are not laid out for our convenience.

It's based on a geocentric universe, something that's been known to be false for hundreds of years. No horoscopes included Uranus or Neptune (or Pluto for that matter) until after they were discovered, yet if the position of those planets make a difference, astrologers should have been able to figure out that there were more than six planets long before astronomy worked it out.

(Interestingly enough, the discovery of Neptune highlights the difference between valuable knowledge and garbage: When astronomers and physicists looked carefully at the orbit of Uranus, they realized that there must be another large planet beyond Uranus' orbit. They did the math, pointed their telescopes where this new planet was predicted and lo-and-behold, there was Neptune. Apparently the gas giant didn't start affecting peoples' lives until after it was discovered. Why else wouldn't astrologers have known about it?)

There's frequently mention of a planet being in retrograde in horoscopes, but the reality is that planetary retrograde motion is just an optical illusion resulting from Earth orbiting the sun. The whole idea of planetary retrograde motion came about back when the Earth was the static center of the universe. Why should an optical illusion affect the lives of people on Earth?

Astrology also fails to take into account the actual position of the sun! If I were to go to an astrologer for a horoscope reading, they'd tell me that I'm a Libra, even though the sun was in Virgo when I was born. Yes, I know that some astrologers take precession into account, but the fact that only some do shows a sincere lack of concern for reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDhxcIaC23k">Here's a video of a professional astrologer giving Hugh Laurie a 'full' horoscope reading and being nearly 100% wrong about everything. There is zero correlation between the position of astronomical objects relative to the Earth and a person's personality. Astrologers will even admit this--identical twins born minutes apart can have radically different personalities. They attribute it to "moon signs" or "ascendants." If a a person's horoscope can drastically change because the moon has traveled less than a foot in its orbit, why don't full astrological readings take the precise position of the moon (to fractions of a degree) into account. Not only that, but why don't astrologers use precisely updated star-charts, accurate to the second? The stars are all in motion, but the distances involved make them appear stationary.

Oh, and the process by which the position of astronomical objects relative to the Earth affects people must be simultaneously super and sub-luminal (impossible) since everything we see in the night sky has moved in the time it took the light to reach us, but the slightest change in a position somehow has instantaneous effects. Not only that, but the stars in a constellation aren't equidistant from the Earth. For a constellation to have any effect, the astrological force (kinda catchy, isn't it?) needs to act independently of the vast distances between neighboring stars. If the change in position of the moon between birth of identical twins can make a significant difference, the 8 minutes an 20 seconds it takes the light of the sun to reach us is hardly trivial let alone the years it takes the light from other stars to reach us).

Here're some images from an astronomical simulation program (you can get it free at http://www.shatters.net/celestia /):

Here, you see Virgo, with Saturn as seen from Earth on May 30th, 2011 (I already had these images on my computer and am too lazy to make new ones).


Here's the same view 7 light years closer to Theta Virginis (the star in the middle of the image). Note how things already appear distorted.


Here we are another 8 light years on.


...and another 5 light years. You may have noticed that the star that if we keep going, we'll pass Gamma Virginis (AKA: Porrina, Postvarta, or Arich).


Now, let's turn back and look at our solar system from a distance of 20 light-years. Notice how distorted the constellations appear?


A great example is if we turn and look at Ursa Minor (Polaris is highlighted). Looks a bit different, doesn't it?


Would you like to explain how these stars work together across enormous distances to affect things on Earth based on where they were in the past? No astrologer or astrology enthusiast has done so without invoking what is essentially magic.

The only known force that acts over such vast distances is gravity (which isn't really a force, but a curvature of space-time)

Newton's law of universal gravitation is accurate enough for our purposes here. (If we needed extra precision, we'd need to use general relativity.) It is stated as:
F=Gm₁m₂)/r² This equation tells us that the force of gravity between two objects is equal to a constant (G) multiplied by the masses of the two objects and divided by the square of the distance between them.

Let's see how much the nearest star in the constellation Cancer might affect us, shall we? For starters, we'll assume a 80 kg (176 lbs) person (m₁). The nearest star in that constellation is DX Cancri, which has a mass of roughly 1.79x10³⁰ kg (m₂) and a distance of 11.8 light years or 1.11x10¹⁷ meters (r). G is the gravitational constant which is equal to 6.67x10^-11m³/kgs². If you do the math, you'll find that it exerts a force of 8x10^-13N on the 80 kg person.

For comparison, another 80kg person standing 1 meter away is exerting 4.27x10^-7N of gravitational force. That's 533,750 times more force. What? Two 80 kg people standing 1 meter apart are exerting on each other 533,750 times the gravitational force of the nearest star in the constellation Cancer and the other stars in that constellation are exerting even less force!

Put another way, the nearest star in the constellation Cancer exerts about the same gravitational force as a 150 mg object sitting on a table 1 meter away from our 80 kg person. For reference, a penny is about 2,500 mg.

Now again, you may think that the astrological forces operate differently than gravity, but in order to work (as stated earlier) it must propagate at both super and sub-luminal speeds simultaneously (again, this is impossible) to fulfill the requirements of astrology.

I hope you found this post enlightening.

[trotsky]

25. A reasonable, rational, comprehensive post.

However,

[laconicsax]

57. Nailed it.

Did you consult a horoscope to make that prediction?

I've found that casting horoscopes is most accurate when combined with reading entrails on top of tarot cards.

[trotsky]

62. The world is a cold, uncaring, random place.

Shit happens. Some people have great difficulty dealing with this, so they latch on to the idea of a god who has a plan, or other known, predictable forces that govern what kind of person we are and what will happen to us. Even if they don't personally understand it, just knowing that a system is there (as opposed to shit just happening) puts their mind at ease.

[Remember Me]

50. Yes, I did find it enlightening

To see the time and energy and lengths someone who thinks his worldview is superior to another's will go to. You're wasting your time. I KNOW better. I'm not a child, I'm not stupid, I'm not superstitious. I've studied and used astrology for many years, though these days I "use" it somewhat infrequently.

You CANNOT fit astrology into the narrow paradigm of western science. But you can have a good ole time trying to pretend you're superior to those who DO know astrology is entirely, 100% valid (and unlike the Professor's friends are willing to say so) by throwing that ole science stuff around with abandon. Wheee!!!

Look, this is as far as I'll go trying to help you -- or anyone here -- to "get it" why everything you've said is utterly and totally irrelevant:

If you needed spiritual counseling (hmm, I wonder if you would even recognize such a need in yourself? but no matter, play along with me anyway). would you expect or demand scientific proof and validation of the counseling you're given?

What about marriage counseling -- looking for scientific proof there?

Art? Do you need science to approve of art and weigh in on what is and is not GOOD art?

Astrology is a system of knowledge that deals with symbolism. I just don't think you're going to get much scientific proof out of symbolism.

But you can keep on demanding it -- spitting in the ocean -- if you like.

[laconicsax]

56. To quote PZ Myers:

"This is what you get when you try to pretend that reality is a "worldview".

Astrology is not a system of knowledge that deals with symbolism, it is a system of superstition that deals with the beliefs of ancient humans too provincial to see the Earth as anything other than the center of the universe.

You say that Astrology is 100% valid, but by its own metric, it's an abject failure. It applies the human tendency to see patterns where none exist and confirmation bias to astronomical observations. The positions of the stars and planets don't guide events on Earth, and it's incredibly egocentric to believe otherwise--the notion that the universe is there for our convenience is as self-centered and arrogant as you can get without going to "God created the universe for our convenience."

But either way, you've already stated that you aren't at all interested in reality for the love of your fantasy which is too bad--reality is vastly more interesting and beautiful than the superstitious nonsense that Astrology promotes.

[Remember Me]

86. YOUR interpretations of what astrology is

are full of beans, and offensive to boot, for example:

The positions of the stars and planets don't guide events on Earth,

who said they do? Where did you get that? Most astrologers I know don't suggest that they do. Why are YOU mischaracterizing it??


and it's incredibly egocentric to believe otherwise--

well, EVEN IF that were what astrologers believed, I'm not sure I'd agree, but read on for more on that...

the notion that the universe is there for our convenience is

utter and total nonsense, that's what it is. I can see how you got there -- anyone SO deeply biased against a system of knowledge they know farkin' nothin' about will go to any lengths, I suppose, to malign it. But sheesh, your mischaracrterization is nonsensical, in my opinion.

It's YOUR people who are more the ones who see the universe and its parts as something to be poked and prodded and torn apart and conquered. Who was the genius "scientist," for instance, who thought up the BRILLIANT idea of blasting the earth into an orbit slightly farther away from the sun than it is now as a "solution" to global warming. (LOL -- it probably WOULD be quite a solution, one we might call the "final solution" for life on earth. But no matter.)

Conversely, astrologers are, for the most part, quite liberal politically (though may or may not be interested in politics), and deeply reverent about the universe and our place in it. I don't think you can study these ancient truths and not be awed out of your mind, especially when you start seeing them work not only in your own life but in others' lives as well (as yu do charts for others, OR just study anyone else's chart -- famous people, for example -- and see the relevance, without doing readings).

as self-centered and arrogant as you can get without going to "God created the universe for our convenience."

The mind reels at such idiotic, misguided, self-serving calumny.

[laconicsax]

91. You should look up two things:

I'll post Wikipedia links for you since they're easy to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

100 points to Gryffindor if you can figure out what they have to do with your argument.

If the positions of the stars and planets don't guide events on Earth, then why do horoscopes rely on them to make predictions? Hmm? If the positions of the stars and planets have no bearing on what goes on here on Earth, then why do astrologers make claims like http://www.stariq.com/pagetemplate/article.asp?PageID=10981">these?

"But Mercury Retrograde is all about the superficial (albeit at times consuming) interruption of regular routines through a maze of delays and detours."

"The Uranus/Pluto square is disrupting time at a much deeper level because it is previewing what is to come by pointing out the problems with what is. But that's not all. It is also insisting on a new paradigm that will transform the paradigm of the past."?

100 more points to Gryffindor if you can figure out what it is about that last prediction that invalidates astrology as a system of knowledge.

As to your two paragraph red herring, I seem to recall that it was Hubert J. Farnsworth who came up with the solution of moving the Earth into a higher orbit around the sun in the episode "Crimes of the Hot." I get it though, astrology enthusiasts are liberal and love the Earth whereas scientists are all conservative assholes who hate the Earth. Great straw man!

[cleanhippie]

63. You have chosen a great screen name, because no one who reads this will ever forget you.

:rofl:

[Silent3]

67. Why shouldn't marriage counseling be subject to scientific proof?

On the basis of individual couples, success or failure of various counseling techniques can be difficult to judge, but aggregate success should be measurable statistically.

To use a simpler example than marriage counseling, suppose one group of baseball player's starts wearing "lucky socks" to improve their batting, along with improved training, and another group only uses the improved training. Both groups end up showing roughly equal improvement. Do "lucky socks" help? Well, if they do, you'd have to conclude that any effect from lucky socks, if one exists at all, is small enough to be lost in statistical noise.

If you don't look at the statistical picture, and simply use individual success as the measure of success for each individual case, then you might conclude that the lucky socks worked for the people who wore them whose batting also improved. This leads to thoughts like, "there are some people that lucky socks work for" as a rationalization for a superstition surrounding something which is far more likely to be neutral in effect, where any associated failure or success is mere coincidence.

If you claim "astrology works", it works by what metric? Your comparison of astrology to art doesn't apply unless, like art, you're prepared to admit that the success of astrology is largely subjective.

There's an experiment that's been conducted many times where an instructor distributes "personalized" astrological readings to a classroom full of students, and the students are asked to rate how well the readings apply to them. Typically a majority of students will report that the readings were fairly good, some even considering the readings surprisingly accurate. Once the students ratings are in, the instructor reveals that everyone has been given exactly the same reading, utterly unrelated to their own time and date of birth.

Is that kind of subjective self-assessed measure of success the kind of thinking you're hoping science "will eventually grow and develop enough" to accept?

Astrology makes predictions, and does so in a way that should be entirely measurable by standard scientific statistical experiments. The only way to escape that burden of proof is to make the predictions so vague, and the interpretation of success and failure so entirely subjective that there's nothing about astrology's claims that can be pinned down to measure. What's left might "work", but only in the sense that some people might obtain satisfaction from going through the motions of astrology, with the specific astronomical calculations being entirely superfluous.

[Remember Me]

88. I think your post is silly, but

I will respond to one thing:

By what metric does astrology "work"?

By the profound personal experience of millions and millions of people all over the world over the last who knows how many millennia. That's all. Nothing serious, nothing to worry your pretty little head about.

:evilgrin:

[darkstar3]

90. Fallacious appeal, not only to ignorance, but to numbers.

That's OK, though, because I don't think you could possibly be serious.

[laconicsax]

92. "By what metric does astrology "work"?"

By no metric. That's the point.

[Silent3]

97. That's a non-answer

A "profound personal experience" of what, exactly?

Oh, I'm pretty sure you won't answer that question, it's far easier to hide the fact that you don't really have an answer under the guise of unspeakable mysteries that you can't hope to explain to "the likes of me".

And then there's the arrogance of blithely dismissing my post as "silly", but without one scrap of explanation of how, why or in what way. It apparently is silly simply because you say it is so, and that's supposed to be enough.

It's a cowardly dodge and pathetic posing.

[Odin2005]

104. If Astrology works then why is the description of my Venus in Gemini dead wrong?

Why does my Libra rising sign not describe me at all? Why does my sun in the 7th house not fit me at all?

It's all cognitive bias.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Nice to meet you

I have lived all over the US and in several foreign nations with a broad and diverse group of friends, None of them have ever admitted to taking it seriously.

[edhopper]

26. Chiropractory

is based on a false and disproven premiss. The manipulation of the spine does not do anything that they claim it does.
They are however good masseuses and make people feel a little better temporarily.

There is a lot of snake oil out there.

As for healthfoods. The idea that MDs have not ALWAYS said that nutrition is one of the most important factors for good health is just silly. Diet and exercise have always been advised.

[Remember Me]

49. Oh hell, and then whadja dream?

ROTFL.

Most MDs STILL don't say nutrition is important, aside from suggesting their patients lose weight, perhaps, or cut down on salt because for their high blood pressure. And they don't know a bleepin' thing about it in any case.

Of all the responses, this one made me actually LOL.

[Odin2005]

105. What do they call a failed Physical Therapist? A Chiropractor.

[backscatter712]

34. Modern science did evolve in part from astrology.

People watched the sky very closely, putting the stars into imagined shapes, aka constellations. They then saw that some stars moved slowly over time, and sometimes for a few weeks, they'd loop and go backwards. They tried to correlate movements of the stars and planets with events on earth. Turned out those attempts at correlating never panned out into anything measurable. But the stargazing continued, then along came Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and what started as skygazing to predict events on earth became the science of astronomy.

Carl Sagan got it right. The universe as we understand it today scientifically is far grander than anything the old astrologers could have imagined.

Religion as a way is the first science. The first attempt to explain the world around us. Of course, like many early theories, the evidence didn't fit. Now instead of God created the world in seven days, we refined our scientific methodology, and we've got the Big Bang theory and Darwin's theory of evolution. Psychology had some false starts, like phrenology, but it too became a modern science, and the current research dovetails with neurological research.

[Deep13]

46. Oh my gods, my mother genuinely thinks it's real.

She sees all human relationships through the lens of sun signs. I don't want to sound like I'm gloating and saying "I told her so" because it actually makes me sad, but she has been divorce 4 times and is presently living alone. So something about her relationship analysis isn't working, but she has never questioned astrology. And like a true believing Christian or Muslim, she is offend if anyone dismisses her belief.

[Remember Me]

51. She has a right to be offended

Even if you were right -- which you're not -- it's terribly offensive to tell someone else that their spiritual beliefs are wrong.

[trotsky]

52. Why?

What if their spiritual beliefs include the belief that other races are inferior?

[ZombieHorde]

65. An excellent point. The Christian Identity Movement is extremely, and openly racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

[Remember Me]

82. But it doesn't. No racism or bigotry in astrology.

No homophobia either.

Ridiculous straw man.

[trotsky]

98. Only a straw man because you just moved the goalposts.

You said: "it's terribly offensive to tell someone else that their spiritual beliefs are wrong"

You had absolutely NO qualifiers in there. So it would appear you agree with me, that it's OK to tell someone else their spiritual beliefs are wrong. I'm glad you see your error.

[Deep13]

53. You have got to be kidding me.

I AM right and her spiritual beliefs are in fact wrong. That's what matters, not whether or not it's offensive. And they've caused her naught but trouble. Basing relationship decisions on horoscopes instead of on how that person really is?! Astrology is a quack, geocentric idea based on the solipsistic and impossible idea that the positions of other parts of the universe have some predictive bearing on how the talking apes on dust speck Earth live. Yeah, she may have a right to be offended, but she'd be wise to accept that the whole thing is bullshit. Anyway, I have never really tried to change her mind. I only push back when she tries to push that crap on me. Just like I do when she tries to sell me on Tea Party racism.

And don't you tell me that I'm just ignorant of how it really works. I'm not. I'm taking about the "real" astrologers who cast charts and do individual readings. Jesus, astrology has not even kept up with seasonal precession! I rather think you are ignorant of cold readings, hucksterism and plain, gullible human nature.

[Remember Me]

83. I was a "real" astrologer for awhile, and my clients were

aghast and seriously delighted at how much I could tell about them and how much I could help them.

That is precisely, in fact, why I studied astrology in the first place. I myself was aghast at how much the astrologer I consulted was able to tell me knowing just time, date and place of my birth. She knew nothing else about me at all. Nor did we sit and 'chat' at all before or during the reading. She had it all laid out, I sat down and she spewed forth amazing, intimate details about me and my life -- past, present and future.

And as a lifelong student of human nature, I said to myself, "any system of knowledge that can reveal that much about someone is something I've GOT to know myself. I'm going to study astrology." And I did.

You wanna call me ignorant of cold reading, hucksterism and plain, gullible human nature? Go right ahead and let's see who looks the fool at this point (to the objective observer, not your friends and cohorts, that is).

[laconicsax]

93. You're proud of the fact that you bilked people out of money?

Wow.

[laconicsax]

58. Why?

Why is it offensive to tell someone that their beliefs are wrong? Republicans believe that Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents ever and they believe it religiously. Should we not tell them that they're demonstrably wrong?

[Remember Me]

84. I said SPIRITUAL beliefs

They're personal; they're subjective; they're none of your damn business.

As long as they're not hurtful -- e.g., they don't prey on children (Davidian cult, that Mormon polygamist Jeffries cult), espouse harm to or the oppression of others (Christian Identity already trotted out as a strawman); seek political control (so-called religious right in our country, especially Christian Reconstructionists); require handing over all your money (Moonies, others); promote self-harm (Jim Jones's cult, Heaven's Gate cult); or the breaking of any other laws (non-violent civil disobedience for civil rights aside).

[laconicsax]

94. Oh, I see. It's because of special pleading.

Beliefs politics are personal and subjective; they're none of anyone's business.
Beliefs about favorite bands are personal and subjective; they're none of anyone's business.
Beliefs about which Bond was best are personal and subjective; they're none of anyone's business.
Beliefs about the interpretation of poetry are personal and subjective; they're none of anyone's business.
Beliefs about restaurants are personal and subjective; they're none of anyone's business.

Need I go on?

[Odin2005]

81. I know a philosophy professor who is also a professional astrologer.

He uses astrology to predict events and claims that his predictions have a high level of accuracy, LOL.

[Remember Me]

85. Why don't you ask him for some details, since you're so eager

to laugh at him without having ANY "proof" that his accuracy isn't?

[Odin2005]

106. He claimed that Kerry would win, and other things that never claim true.

And many of his other claims are either vague or are obvious to anyone with a good eye on current events and historical trends.

[NMMNG]

18. Indeed

People have sometimes asked why I don't take on Buddhism, Satanism, Shintoism, Paganism, etc, in the same way I do Christianity, Mormonism and Islam. It's because no Buddhist or Satanist has ever tried to take away my rights as an LGBT citizen. No Satanist has ever demanded I be put on a special "registry" for atheists or said I wasn't a true citizen of the USA because I didn't believe in his deity. No Pagan has ever sought to take away my control over my body. Christians, Mormons and Muslims (as well as a handful of Orthodox Jews) on the other hand, have done all of the above and more.

[edhopper]

20. Interesting

I was thinking of writing a post comparing Theology with Astrology. Both have volumes written to support concepts conceived thousands of years ago in which no real evidence has ever been found and in which many of the foundation ideas have found to be false.

[backscatter712]

32. You know, the world would be better if people took religion as seriously as they took astrology.

For most people, astrology's a bit of a cultural trope, something fun they read in the paper, something they talk about when they're on a date, but they don't really believe in it.

Maybe if the major religions got framed that way, we'd see a positive change.

Sure, people would still wear crosses around their necks, or claim to be a Christian or a Muslim, but they don't really believe in invisible men in the sky, or people coming back from the dead, or in heaven or hell - they're just stories people tell each other now for fun. Church becomes an excuse to get together, shoot the bull with friends, maybe even get drunk. The pastor emcee's the thing, but even he doesn't take it seriously - maybe he wags his finger in sermons at people being jerks to each other.

People would lose the motivation to shoot each other in the face or saw each other's heads off over a fight over which invisible man in the sky has the biggest penis.

[rrneck]

41. "Church becomes an excuse to get together, shoot the bull with friends, maybe even get drunk."

Exactly right.

That's what religion is supposed to do. People had to go and turn it into a cash cow.

[Thats my opinion]

42. Or in the case of M. L King Jr.---

Get shot!

[rrneck]

43. James Earl Ray

was a criminal and a racist. MLK's assassination had nothing to do with his faith.

[Thats my opinion]

44. What King did with his life always put him in danger.

And his life from first to last was founded in his belief that God willed freedom for oppressed people. His death had everything to do with that commitment. Just reread his speech in Memphis on the night before he was killed.

[laconicsax]

45. You are skirting a very important point.

Namely that there was considerable religious opposition to civil rights going back to the abolitionist movement.

For every progressive believer who felt that the Bible said that African Americans should be equal, there was a conservative believer who thought the exact opposite.

[rrneck]

47. Did his religion make him who he was? nt

[rrneck]

64. There is

a simple, courteous question in post #47 still waiting to be answered.

[rrneck]

99. Made good your escape I see. nt

[Silent3]

40. The absurdity of astrology bugs me.

I don't talk about astrology nearly as much as religion because (1) the topic doesn't come up as often, (2) fewer people take it seriously, and (3) I haven't run into, as you discuss, anyone who might be called a "fundamentalist astrologer" trying to impose astrology on me or others.

That said, astrology still annoys me, and I wish it would go away, along with a lot of other woo and pseudoscientific bunk. I am perhaps not quite so placid as yourself about the existence of astrology and the like, even when they aren't directly having an impact on my life.

[Deep13]

54. So here's a question about discussing astrology.

Why is it perfect acceptable in the polite company of DU to assail astrology for the fraudulent psuedoscience that it is despite the fact that few DUers fervently believe in it? Yet, when pointing out the demonstrably fraudulent thinking of some other belief systems we get shut down on DU and branded as offensive or even bigoted in the real world? I gottah tell you, the paper trail for one belief system is so recent that it's fraudulent nature cannot really be questioned by anyone examining the historical evidence. And other one is sufficiently derivative to cast serious doubt on the honesty of its founder. Is it just the number of followers. Is it the claim to a commanding god? Is it the fact that astrologers don't break windows, throw elections and have never tortured or killed anyone in memory and have never blown up a bus?

[laconicsax]

59. +1

[deacon_sephiroth]

60. here's why...

from what I'm seeing in the replies, it's nto a matter of not WANTING to make post after post tearing down the thinly veiled farse of astrology and exposing it for the world's oldest flash game that it is, it's just that we don't have time yet.

You see, we WANT to smash astrology, like a fragile vase containing the misguided beliefs of the easily decieved and basically illogical, but we're FAR TO BUSY still doing the same to mainstream religion. Once that's out of the way (shouldn't be long now), brushing aside the other archaic, ancient, and random trivial mental masturbation of the centuries past will be child's play.

So please, don't chide we atheist for failing to stomp on ant hills while there's still a rampaiging lion on the loose that must be stopped for the sake of all mankind (if they have ANY hope of progressing).

[onager]

87. "...the narrow paradigm of western science."

You CANNOT fit astrology into the narrow paradigm of western science.

:rofl:

Oh, you mean that "narrow paradigm" that has taken us from the Moon to the bottoms of the oceans, allowed us to even fly over the oceans, extended our lifespans by decades, turned darkness into light, etc. etc.?

And the same "narrow paradigm" that allows you to hit a keyboard and defend pseudoscientific claptrap in front of an international audience?

Right. We should have depended on the astrologers and their cousins, the priests, for human progress. We'd still be living in caves and pissing ourselves whenever the Thunder-God paid us a visit.

[laconicsax]

95. +1

[darkstar3]

89. Just because I can't get it out of my head

"Now you may find it inconceivable or at the very least a bit unlikely that the relative position of the planets and the stars could have a special deep significance or meaning that exclusively applies to only you, but let me give you my assurance that these forecasts and predictions are all based on solid, scientific, documented evidence, so you would have to be some kind of moron not to realize that every single one of them is absolutely true. Where was I?"

[Boojatta]

100. Kick

[humblebum]

101. Definitely a fundi - atheist POV. You have a lot of housecleaning to do

before your ctiticism of any group can be taken seriously.

[ZombieHorde]

102. Although I do appreciate your use of a religious term as an insult,

if you really wanted to insult my thread, you should claim to like it.

[humblebum]

107. Oh I do, I do. nt

[ZombieHorde]

112. Noooooooooooo!!!!! nt

[HuckleB]

109. Are you saying that those who criticize fictional world beliefs can't be taken seriously?

That does seem odd.

[cleanhippie]

110. I'm not sure he KNOWS what he is trying to say anymore.

He is all over the map. Incoherent, bizarre, irrational blathering.

Its really quite fascinating to watch.

[HuckleB]

103. I'm confused.

Why should anyone fail to call out irrational BS for what it is?

[ZombieHorde]

113. Call out what you will. I was simply interpreting an observation, and opening the door for

dialog between various people who frequent R/T.

[AsahinaKimi]

111. I find Astrology interesting .. especially Chinese

But do I believe it to be true? No. Also Japanese love to talk about blood types. If you look at nearly every pop star listed in the Japanese tabloids, publications or web sites, their blood type is listed. Again, this is all interesting, but has no basis in fact. I have grown to learn my ancestors were and still are today very superstitious, but that is fine for its part of the culture and allows for the expression of creativity.

[Humanist_Activist]

114. I think that is part of the point, as long as it isn't taken too seriously...

or adversely affects the lives of believers and non-believers alike, its a harmless cultural quirk, nothing more.