Astrologers fail to predict proof they are wrong

[In Real Time]

jww wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately, the widespread belief in sheer nonsense like astrology means the public can't be trusted to make rational decisions about anything else, either, so it has to be taken seriously.

Don't forget the general public includes Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

Oh, and Adolph Hitler.

[Phoenix]

This is proof that we need to invent robot overlords who are logical to look out for us. We poor humans will believe anything and need guidance from machines.

[Dixieboy]

And these same astrology nuts are voting.
May whatever god you believe in help us!!

[Curiouser-one]

Captain Obvious wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a SUCKER.

Maybe...

I know one has to work for what one wants, but I do enjoy gazing at the stars and dreaming. Doesn't looking to the stars relate to aspirations?

[In Real Time]

Curiouser-one wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe...
I know one has to work for what one wants, but I do enjoy gazing at the stars and dreaming. Doesn't looking to the stars relate to aspirations?

Astrology and astronomy are two different things.

Astrology is bunk, astronomy is all science and scientific theory.

Astronomers were the ones that debunked the flat earth.

Astrology and its assumed cosmic causes and effects was originally based upon a flat earth too but that was quickly adapted to a round earth.

If it was discovered the universe was square they would adapt to that also.

[jww]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, but there IS evidence for religion! It is highly subjective, based on personel accounts and all, but that is indeed evidence... just ask most of the population of the nation's prison system. What is lacking is some form of objective evidence...

Of course religion exists, just as astrology exists, but there is no evidence that the *objects* of these beliefs are the least bit real.

You tell me how you think anything can have an existence *outside* of nature and we can talk more.

[jww]

In Real Time wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't forget the general public includes Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
Oh, and Adolph Hitler.

I'm painfully aware that belief in astrology infects all levels of society, and was not at all surprised that real nutbars like the Reagans and Hitler were followers. GWB is a religious fundamentalist, even worse than astrology for its more pervasive and damaging effects.

It seems that too many people want answers whether they are right or wrong.

[SMALL PAUL]

I am 75 years old and I just found out that maybe - just maybe - a few people on this planet think that astrology is for real. WoW! Do you believer in fortune cookies, too?

[Liam R]

jww wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course religion exists, just as astrology exists, but there is no evidence that the *objects* of these beliefs are the least bit real.
You tell me how you think anything can have an existence *outside* of nature and we can talk more.

How accurate were Sir Isaac Newton's measurements of the radiation levels in the Van Allen Belts? Oh wait, he couldn't measure it, he didn't have the tools he would have needed.

Since all the tools we have available to us are part of the natural world, there is no way to measure or quantify any sort of supernatural thing or being.

Some people are color blind. Does that mean that it is impossible to prove that the color red exists? I heard mention of a "God gene" a while back. Those with it are more inclined to religious beliefs. One may postulate that those without this gene are akin to the color blind, unable to perceive the world in the same way as the "fully sighted".

Hmm, gene therapy as a path to uniting with the Divine...

[Liam R]

jww wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm painfully aware that belief in astrology infects all levels of society, and was not at all surprised that real nutbars like the Reagans and Hitler were followers. GWB is a religious fundamentalist, even worse than astrology for its more pervasive and damaging effects.
It seems that too many people want answers whether they are right or wrong.

It also comes down to a particular fallicy: count the right answers, ignore the wrong answers, make a big deal about all the right answers.

[NCC]

NASA, PLANET X, 2012

http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,2304046...
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpa...
*** Google (www.ufodigest.com):
- The Bible and the Third World War - the 1000 Year Kingdom
*** The book "Planet Eris and the Global Warming" (can be found at Amazon)

[In Real Time]

Nibiru. Lol.

[jww]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
How accurate were Sir Isaac Newton's measurements of the radiation levels in the Van Allen Belts? Oh wait, he couldn't measure it, he didn't have the tools he would have needed.
Since all the tools we have available to us are part of the natural world, there is no way to measure or quantify any sort of supernatural thing or being.
Some people are color blind. Does that mean that it is impossible to prove that the color red exists? I heard mention of a "God gene" a while back. Those with it are more inclined to religious beliefs. One may postulate that those without this gene are akin to the color blind, unable to perceive the world in the same way as the "fully sighted".
Hmm, gene therapy as a path to uniting with the Divine...

Playing Devil's Advocate, I see, with the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" schtick -- except that it is... Sure, you can't absolutely prove that something doesn't exist, but when no hint of it being there (and "belief" is not very good data) is found after centuries of looking perhaps a reasonable working hypothesis - until some evidence does show up - is that it just ain't there!

[Curiouser-one]

Just a thought -- the position of the stars can tell sailors which direction to go, and can tell farmers when to plant. Maybe looking to the stars to find out which stock to buy or whether to date a certain person is farfetched, but some very useful information has come from them. It's only natural that people will expand on that and try all sorts of other things (some not so good and some just for fun).

[Liam R]

jww wrote:

<quoted text>
Playing Devil's Advocate, I see, with the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" schtick -- except that it is... Sure, you can't absolutely prove that something doesn't exist, but when no hint of it being there (and "belief" is not very good data) is found after centuries of looking perhaps a reasonable working hypothesis - until some evidence does show up - is that it just ain't there!

Not the absence of evidence, but the purely subjective nature of that evidence. Much of my formal education has been in the hard sciences, so I do understand the difference between subjective and objective, testable evidence. I do not claim to have any objective evidence. On the other hand, as an ordained priest in my church, I have had experiences that confirm my beliefs, experiences that parallel those of my fellow clergy.

What is eyewitness testamony worth?

[Captain Obvious]

Curiouser-one wrote:

Just a thought -- the position of the stars can tell sailors which direction to go, and can tell farmers when to plant. Maybe looking to the stars to find out which stock to buy or whether to date a certain person is farfetched...

Astronomy is aa science. Astrology is a superstitious belief based on bad evidence.

If a large bunch of morons buys a stock based on its horoscope, and the stock goes up, what causes the rise? Does this prove that astrology works, or that a lot of suckers believe in it?