By Vectron's Eyes! WTF is with people believing in Astrology?

[laconicsax]

:argh:

Every aspect of Astrology is 100% wrong. Seriously. Even the most basic premises of Astrology are predicated on fiction.

I submit that astrologers are demonstrably dumber than creationists.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. I disagree.

[laconicsax]

2. Creationism holds that the Earth didn't always exist. That much is true.

Astrology is 100% fiction.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. However, creationists believe creationism is "science."

I am not aware of astrologers who believe such. Also, I have never heard for astrologers demanding astrology be taught on the same level (or in schools) as astronomy as I have for creationism to be taught with the same equivalency of evolution.

[laconicsax]

4. I didn't say astrologers weren't less self-aware, just dumber.

Astrologers play the 'not science but you need to take us just as seriously' game.

Creationists (at least the professionals) know that what they promote isn't science, they just want their religion taught as fact. That's why they only go after evolution. They know that getting creationism taught in place of physics is impossible, so they present their anti-physics arguments as anti-evolution. It isn't ignorance, it's dishonesty.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Much respect for you, but I still disagree.

There is no science in creationism, none. Astrology may be a mix of things, but science is one of them, even if used incorrectly. Astrology gave rise (well, there was some help) to astronomy; creationism: G-d did it! IMO, it is much dumber to say "someone else did it," than "a complex (mis)alignment of stars and planets influence your behavior, etc." The latter may be more convoluted, but it shows at least some attempt to make sense of things around the person, the former is the excuse of bad lairs, criminals, and 5yos. Just my opinion.

[laconicsax]

8. There's no science in either.

Looking up at the sky and saying, "I had a good day, that group of stars must be responsible" is superstition, not science.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. True. But, astrology is not relegated to:

"Looking up at the sky and saying, "I had a good day, that group of stars must be responsible"." Astrology is complex, requiring a certain knowledge on inner workings, as well as, making adjustments. Creationism is just "G-d did it." There is no attempt to discover anything, the answer is always the same: G-d did it. I guess for me, someone who at least attempts to study something and reach conclusions, make adjustments and such, even if not scientific, shows more intelligence than someone who just says "G-d did it."

[laconicsax]

19. The complexity of astrology is no different than the garbage Hovind or Comfort spew.

There is nothing redeeming about astrology. It's simple fortune telling that trades chicken entrails for constellations.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. That is your opinion as is the other. I still disagree.

I don't think those into astrology are more ignorant than creationists. I feel it is the other way for reasons stated.

[laconicsax]

25. I gave three opinions in that comment. With which do you disagree? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Apologies for being unclear.

I disagreed with your orginal opinion: "I submit that astrologers are demonstrably dumber than creationists." Sorry about that.

[laconicsax]

29. No worries.

I was afraid that I was going to have to convince you that astrology is bullshit. That always takes time.

[HuckleB]

13. Do all creationists, or even most, "believe creationism is a 'science'?"

:shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I don't know about "all" but I have heard it referred to as the "science of G-d."

[HuckleB]

15. I know there is a minority that pushes such a version...

...but I'm not of the viewpoint that most creationists are in that vein.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Perhaps they are a minority. However, I have seen more than just a few.

It may not be all, there are some that do believe evolution comes into play but it still stems back to "G-d did it."

The original premise of the thread is those into astrology are dumber than creationists. I disagree.

[Lionel Mandrake]

31. Astrology IS taught at Kepler College

(formerly Kepler College of Astrological Arts and Sciences), but this so-called college is not accredited.

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

[laconicsax]

32. There's a great quote at that link:

"The fact is that astrology, whether judged by its theory or its practice, is bunkum. In a free society there is no reason to prevent those who wish to learn nonsense from finding teachers who want to make money peddling nonsense. But it is inexcusable for the government to certify teachers of nonsense as competent or to authorize — that is, endorse — the granting of degrees in nonsense."

[cleanhippie]

30. Wow. How very enlightening.

[trotsky]

5. The sun signs are now all a full month off, aren't they?

Due to precession or some such phenomenon. Doesn't stop the astrologers, they keep peddling the same nonsense.

[laconicsax]

6. Yep.

Your 'sign' is supposedly based on which constellation the sun rises in on your birthday and due to precession, it's one 'sign' earlier than it was when the system was set up and continues to slowly advance. Eventually (c.1500-2000 years from now), it'll be two 'signs' off.

Never mind that over time stellar drift changes the shape of constellations or that constellations aren't actual structures...

[semillama]

12. Not to mention the discovery of a new astrological sign, Ophiucus, right?

It's used in sidereal astrology but not tropical astrology.

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

[DavidDvorkin]

9. Spoken like a typical (fill in the name of an astrological sign)!

[SheilaT]

11. I keep on wondering why anyone

believes in what economists say. How about all the 'trickle down' ones? Overall, astrology may have a better track record.

[Odin2005]

16. I don't fit my sign (taurus) at all. It's complete hokey.

OK, I AM stubborn, but other wise I fit the profiles for Pisces and Aquarius better.

It amazes me that people believe this shit.

[laconicsax]

20. Technically, you're probably an Aries.

Your sign is supposed to be based on which constellation the sun rises in on your birthday. The tables that give a sign for a range of dates are off by one because while the Earth wobbles on its axis, no one in the astrology community noticed.

[Odin2005]

23. There are some astrologers that do take precession into account.

and I am an Aries according to them, LOL! (my birthday is April 28).

[laconicsax]

24. Are they persecuted as heretics by the greater astrological community?

[Odin2005]

26. No clue.

[realisticphish]

27. there are already schisms

planetary astrology vs star astrology, etc

[lazarus]

17. back when I would play with astrologers

one of my favourite things to do was give them a fake birth date, then watch them go off about this and that personality trait I exhibit matches perfectly. Of course, lying is probably a trait for my supposed sign. :evilgrin:

[onager]

18. My favorite astrology story

I read in that infallible reference - Somewhere - that "Persian Court Astrologer" wasn't a very secure career path.

One of the Persian kings had a nightly walk around the walls of Babylon with his Court Astrologer.

If the king didn't like the forecast, he whistled up a couple of guards. Who chucked the astrologer over the wall to his certain death.

Also read somewhere: when Alexander The Great conquered Babylon in 331 BCE, he captured centuries of written Persian astrological records. These records were turned over to the Greek astronomers, who ignored the woo and eventually made honest scientific documents out of them.