Do you believe in the signs of the zodiac, etc

[CβL]

I never said I had the truth, only that I was trying to illuminate it.

And it's fine to have that feeling. But it's not rational, given the numerous statistical, psychological and scientific evidence all pointing in the favour that it's nothing but confirmation bias.

Of course 'whatever the f is out there at the moment of your conception and/or birth' play a factor in who you become. But it's not of course that they are a linear, cyclical relationship, such that being born one second either side of a "zodiac" automatically changes the baby into being "conservative, concrete" from being "challenging, impulsive".

Many seasonal effects in behaviour are explained through epigenetics (here's a real easy example):

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/epigenetics-feast-famine-and-fatness

Conclusion

While famine is an extreme case of altered nutrition – all nutrients are scarce — it gives scientist a pretty useful tool to look at how nutrition can change our epigenetics.

This is the first study to show that the short-term environmental conditions at time of conception affects people’s epigenetics.

Not to over-dramatize, but epigenetics will be the next major biological frontier.

Don’t believe me?

What if I told you scientists found that whether or not your paternal grandfather had enough food as a teenager would change how long you lived, but only if you were male. Or that being born after your mother’s gastric bypass surgery is better for your health?

Same-sex grandparents and starvation

Swedish scientists found that if your grandfather or grandmother went through a famine as teenagers, you would have higher mortality risk ratios, but only if you were the same sex as the grandparent who starved.

Grandfather starvation only changed the grandson’s mortality risk and grandmother starvation only changed the granddaughter’s mortality risk (9). Wow.

Gastric bypass surgery and children’s obesity

Another study looked at mothers who had gastric bypass surgery and obesity in their children.

Do you think it would matter whether the children were born before or after the surgery? Since it was surgery and not a change in lifestyle, I would have guessed there would be no difference (10).

Possibly because of epigenetics, the study found that children born to women post-gastric bypass surgery were 52% less likely to be obese compared to their brothers and sisters born while their mother was obese. Wow, again.

Bottom line

We probably have more control over our DNA than we’ve been led to believe.

While you can’t change the sequence of your DNA, you may be able to change whether or not it is activated.

As it turns out, eating poorly and restrictively can have effects not just for you but your children as well.

Here's a constellation:

Which as you can see, is not what you think it is when you look at the night sky. Many constellation members aren't even stars - they're ENTIRE GALAXIES!

The moon has huge orders of magnitude greater influence over the Earth, but alas - astrology doesn't give a crap. It's exactly the same as me pretending I can know the winners of a horse race based on the numbers of people shopping at the supermarket across town, who have bought peanut butter. There's some effect of those people, and I strongly believe it affects the horse race. I feel it, so it must be true - but you just can't see it like I do, I have a connection that's deep, but it's subtle, some people can't even notice it even if they practiced for years. I think that the characteristics of the winners of the horse race will be based on whether the peanut butter is crunchy, or smooth. If the peanut butter is in a jar, then the winner will probably be riding a horse. If the peanut butter is brown, well then the rider will face competition from other riders. If the peanut butter has salt, then the rider will have potentially confronted some salt in his lifetime, and the horse too. If the peanut butter was crunchy, then the winning horse had eaten food before riding.

[toby]

another sag.. i believe to some extent, at least to the extent that i always seem to be fascinated by virgos, even before i know they are virgo i usually pick up some air of mystique about them..

[incognito]

same man! actually toby, your pretty awesome for a sag!!

[The Dude]

For one, most of the "constellations" only appear the way they do from our perspective, when in reality, members of the constellation are 3-4 times further away than other members. So there's no animals in the sky. They don't even resemble animals, about every civilization has their own unique interpretation and they're almost all different.

 

Well, that's the whole idea right? To interperet it through OUR perspective. The relationship of heavenly bodies to us, the time/place our spirit was birthed within the context of the rest of the material world (all from the same spirit origin), like all of existence it is only a matter of perspective.

It's not important that the real shape of these constellations is not how we see it, it's all about HOW WE SEE IT. Astrology is not a technical science, it is a spiritual endeavor at understanding, it's mechanisms are that of spiritual interpretation not to be recorded as physical measurements.

For two, the "astrologers" seem to forget that we happen to live in a constellation, with the Sun as the centrepiece. Astrologers do not even care about the sun. Wtf? Why? So then they come up with some hocus about "undetectable force, doesn't get weaker with distance". Well then, astrologers are useless, because there are a million billion trillion quadrillions more stars than there are visible ones.

 

Without awareness of these million billion trillion quadrillion stars their spiritual significance is nil. Astrology is an imaginative and interpretative investigation of the unknown, through its visibly cyclic manifestations, it is an attempt to divine or imagine the psychic processes that are reflected in the known cycles of the universe that we are aware of; their physical manifestation as cycles in relation to our terra firma is attempted to be understood as a reflection of psychic or spiritual movements. It is NOT a science. No spirituality can be seen as that, however the modalities of investigation get just as technical and there are known techniques that may as well prove this as an empirical reality, a valid perspective.

For three, the actual horoscopes are vague and apply to everyone. A nice little experiment by Randi showed this. He asked for a class to give him, in a sealed envelope, their star sign. He then placed in a horoscope, and handed them back out. Almost all of the class agreed they were quite accurate. Then he asked them to pass their individual horoscope to their classmate opposite them... Where they found everyone had received identical horoscopes.

 

The experiment found what it was looking for. Self validation is not proof of anything to those with an open mind and a wider perspective of the possible. You can only see what you can see. You see what you want. A spiritual mystery that transcends logical and known rules is something that some shy away from.

For four, twins (not identical ones) often have completely different personalities. This removes almost 100% of the deterministic predictability that star signs claim to have. How could 10 seconds have so much variation? The stars were the exact same alignment pretty much.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gravity and light have infinite range, so of course those stars have an effect on Earth. But the effect is not something a bozo can estimate, nor an astronomer with a supercomputer can calculate.

Astrology is FAKE.

 

Astrology is not something one calculates as forces of gravity from star systems light years away, nor is it guess work, it is intuition; a holistic perspective using mythological motifs to paint our collective existence. It is a perspective of non-linear causation, that the universe suggests its own existence. "The stars impel. They do not compel", there is room for spontaneity within the clockwork, chaos always remains, it is determined to - The twin example: Each twin has their own free will, their own volition, their own interpretation of the clockwork within which they abide. IMHO we are all totally enmeshed in an ineffable synchronous machine, that we can personally interpret in infinitely creative ways, Astrology doesn't interpret the story for you, it just reminds you what page you're on in a book that writes itself, yet was always already written.

There is no objective ground of being, everything is relative - so the constellations aren't about their real shape, it is only their perceived shape that is important to us; in an infinite universe knowing all possibilities is impossible, you focus on your own connections. The interpretation is not a physical calculation, it would be more in line with tea leaf images or looking through entrails for a message. The conclusions are far from rational or logical, so don't look at it that way.

[edit] relative reality, true and false are absolutes that don't interest me much, dependent on context and perspective everything is relatively true or false.

Edited July 17, 2011 by The Dude

[The Dude]

A sense of rythm! Perfect! We can all play our own instruments but we have a place in the larger song. Now do we play in time or not? You will always have free will, some people will never have a sense of rythm though.

Edited July 16, 2011 by The Dude

[CβL]

You seem to think that there exists a spiritual world and a scientific world, which are mutually exclusive, although related. Once you see that they are the exact same world, and that they must agree, as duality does not exist outside of the mind - only then can you cast away your superstitions.

I have tried to help, because I know you people are better than petty superstitions. But alas, I can only do so much. At the very least, please read 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan. He is a brilliant and articulate writer, and definitely someone with a left-field perspective. He'll light your path better than I can.

[Gunter]

Vedic astrology is rather scientific to me than the western version.

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

The sidereal zodiac is an imaginary belt of 360 degrees (like the tropical zodiac), divided into 12 equal parts. Each twelfth part (of 30 degrees) is called a sign or rāśi (Sanskrit: rāśi, 'part'). Jyotiṣa and Western zodiacs differ in the method of measurement. While synchronically, the two systems are identical, Jyotiṣa uses primarily the sidereal zodiac (in which stars are considered to be the fixed background against which the motion of the planets is measured), whereas most Western astrology uses the tropical zodiac (the motion of the planets is measured against the position of the Sun on the Spring equinox). This difference becomes noticeable over time. After two millennia, as a result of the precession of the equinoxes, the origin of the ecliptic longitude has shifted by about 22 degrees. As a result the placement of planets in the Jyotiṣa system is consistent with the actual zodiac, while in western astrology the planets fall into the following sign, as compared to their placement in the sidereal zodiac, about two thirds of the time.

In the western system I am the sun, in the Indian system I am the moon.

[The Dude]

Different perspectives of the same thing. I guess that any mythology or ontological framework is valid, they validate themselves; seek and ye shall find.

For the record I do not see a "scientific" world and a "spiritual" world, I know they are one and the same, yet both perspectives give a different view of the world. I've always maintained that it's best to have both eyes open.

The scientific world view is limited by data and pattern recognition, and it's own self-consistent formulas. It is the linear rational world we habitually remind ourselves of (for orders sake) during our waking consciousness. When we slip into dream we allow the world to breathe without constriction, from this perspective what is seen as "fake" is the limiting filter of reality, which ironically is the only proof of anything real within said filtered view. Beyond rationality and logical consistency is not beyond truth.

The spiritual is always a matter of personal interpretation, hence it needs not be retarded by the need for proof, or logical consistency. Demanding said validation is shouting down the mystery that you yourself are whispering to yourself and may have you believing that such a reality does not really exist if it cannot survive the onslaught of questioning.

Like any relationship, if an idea/entity must defend their existence chances are they'll disappear from your view. You can only receive insights if you are receptive to them. As far as ego control trip goes, you remain correct and a novel potential of being remains false.

We're all pretty defensive of what is, for all intents and purposes our whole reality, a pre-written reality is abhorrent to our ideas of free-will, and therefore ignored, yet a lack of personal responsibility is also attractive to some and a reason for embracing the idea, which is also off the mark. As always for me the answer is the mystery and the paradoxical entanglement of free-will and determinism is a satisfactory unanswered answer for me.

It is nice to be out of your mind; you are free to interpret as you wish, to listen to all possibilities without the unconscious defense mechanism need to censor, filter and sanitise reality.

Edited July 17, 2011 by The Dude

[The Dude]

...from some random website

Sun-sign astrology, the stuff in newspapers and magazines, is so incomplete that it is actually inaccurate.

Actual astrology, done on a birth chart for day-mo-year, hour-minute, and location of birth is as complex as the individual it describes.

However, even then, astrologers say, "The stars impel. They do not compel". In other words, the chart and other astrological influences are only that -- influences. You have the ultimate say and ultimate choice, if you choose to live your life in open awareness and to choose to make your own choices. Astrology is only a tool, to help guide you in examining yourself, your relationships, your situations, and your timing.

Source(s):

Professionally-certified astrologer, 40 years.

Edited July 17, 2011 by The Dude

[mescalito]

What would you say if I said there were 13 signs?

I was a Sagg...but now it seems I'm an Ophiuchus....awesome nonetheless

[qualia]

i'm a "libran", just thought you'd all like to know.....

[tipz]

The constellation prevailing at conception is vastly different from the one at birth. Which of the two is the decisive one, or must somehow both be reconciled? Are we not a living being well before birth ?

[tipz]

double post

Edited July 17, 2011 by tipz

[Gunter]

What would you say if I said there were 13 signs?

I was a Sagg...but now it seems I'm an Ophiuchus....awesome nonetheless

 

I would say that you were up to date.

[Rabaelthazar]

There are a lot of nay-sayers in this thread.

If you identify yourself as a hardcore atheist, then feel free to dismiss astrology as you do the concept of god. If you believe that there is nothing outside the physical world that you can observe, then feel free to dismiss it.

If, however, you entertain the possibility that there is something beyond the physical world, regardless of whether that's god, plant spirits, telepathy, life after death then how on earth can you be so black and white about astrology? I'm surprised by how dismissive people on this forum have been in this thread when there are multiple other threads in "Spirituality and Philosophy" about topics which are just as unprovable.

Jesus, if Mutant can consider the possibility anyone can!!

Also, from what I understand, the constellations were named after astrological signs, not the other way around. I mean, have a look at the constellations that are supposed to resemble the signs. The shapes made by the stars hardly resemble the entities they're meant to. Here's the Pisces constellation. Does it really look like a fish?

I believe (feel free to prove me wrong) that the constellations were more used as reference points to identify the sections of the zodiac. If this is in fact the case, all arguments against astrology on the basis of the constellations shifting are moot.

From wiki

It is important to distinguish the zodiacal signs from the constellations associated with them, not only because of their drifting apart due to the precession of equinoxes but also because the physical constellations by nature of their varying shapes and forms take up varying widths of the ecliptic. Thus, Virgo takes up fully five times as much ecliptic longitude as Scorpius. The zodiacal signs, on the other hand, are an abstraction from the physical constellations designed to represent exactly one twelfth of the full circle each, or the longitude traversed by the Sun in about 30.4 days.[12]

 

Once upon a time, Astrology and Astronomy were the same discipline. It's only in fairly recent times (say the last 500 years) that the two fields have split. Astrology is something that has held many cultures' faith for millennia. That's not to say it's valid, but jeez, don't dismiss it without actually looking into the history of it. A lot of the nay-sayer arguments on here are based on newspaper horoscopes which, as I've outlined in a previous post, are quite different from in depth astrology and undoubtedly a load of crap.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Rabaelthazar

[incognito]

someone needs to do a poll of members star signs, im betting 60% sagittarian. i almost cried a few weeks ago when my sagittarian mug ive owned for 12 yrs smashed in works dishwashing machine. it really really hurt

[Rabaelthazar]

Re: Carl Sagan vid

Nice and impartial. I particularly liked his vocal inflections and omissions of any depth on the opposing point of view.

Again, he's focussing on horoscopes. How many times do I have to point out that horoscopes are not the same thing as astrology?

FAIL.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Rabaelthazar

[tipz]

someone needs to do a poll of members star signs, im betting 60% sagittarian. i almost cried a few weeks ago when my sagittarian mug ive owned for 12 yrs smashed in works dishwashing machine. it really really hurt

 

I would REALLY like to see the results from such a poll - because if there is any percentage higher than 10 percent of members on here that are sag's - then that would have to be some form of affirmation in itself. Would that not be more than mere coincidence ?

[mutant]

Good posts Raba

yeah that poll on zodiac signs would be great! Sags are supposed to do plenty of things, multi talented mofos

now hear some recent beatz by ΒΘ

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6074540/New%20Folder%20%282%29/b8%20-%20pu%20fytevw%20to%20sporo%202011.mp3

Look. I am a radical atheist. Nowdays I know the god lives in the brain.

I wanna prove these things wrong, Ι made fun of them when younger! I never liked strologies aesthetics and now that I delve into it I dont like its philosophical complications either.

Behaviour is something well analysed, I mean why characters and behaviours occur. by psychology. I dont need any other explanation.

now if something this irrelevant - planets and suns etc - comes and suits with these astrological mumbo jumbo, and is noticed statistically, then it's... well its pretty interesting!

but you have to look for it.

I am also aware that I am currently in love [which equals with a phase of temporary madness , lol, and that I tend to look at the zodiacs more when I am like that: having met a girl with which we both like each other and have a special chemistry. But I am also looking at the rest of the zodiacs I hadn't looked at before, like Libran, Scorpion [the girl].

I am thinking of making a question list to determine the zodiac. But I am not sure it's gonna work without real life contact...

[FancyPants]

Just like Numerology, I can use astrology signs as a general idea, not gospel. That said, I've never done a proper birth chart but I'd love to out of curiosity one day.

Pisces here, though after looking at the new 13-sign indication; apparently I'm really an Aquarius. Both fit me pretty well actually.

[mutant]

aquarius, that's why I've liked you lol

[Rabaelthazar]

Horoscopes are part of astrology. Both are horseshit.

In astrology, a horoscope is a chart or diagram representing the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, the astrological aspects, and sensitive angles at the time of an event, such as the moment of a person's birth.

 

So, Greencavefloat, do you also unequivocally declare that the concepts of god/synchronicity/plant spirits are horseshit? Just curious as to why you're so adamant about this one. As I've mentioned, I'm not convinced that astrology works, but I'm certainly not in a position to declare it 100% confirmed untrue. Is it not unknowable?

As an example, from the "Have humans evolved to believe in God?" thread, Bluntmuffin states:

So, how can you know that your belief of God is not a delusion? I simply don't think it can be done. Essentially, existence of God is unknowable.

 

yet in this thread, Bluntmuffin declared astrology "FAKE", in capital letters no less. I'm really curious as to why people are so adamant about this topic.

About the Carl Sagan video, Greencavefloat, my issue is that he's not actually providing any proof against the validity of astrology although he speaks as though he has provided proof. It's a very biased video, with a mocking tone of voice whenever he talks about what astrologers believe, a carefully chosen set of images to accentuate astronomy's scientific foundation and to illustrate astrology as an ancient superstition, and a straw man argument to "prove" that Astrology is unfounded.

Yes, as you pointed out, he does very briefly explain that a natal chart represents the positions of "the sun, moon, planets, the astrological aspects and sensitive angles at the time of an event" but then "proves" astrology fake by comparing two newspaper horoscopes.

This is like me saying: "DNA is a complex map of genetic information. A group of scientists have suggested that by manipulating a particular section of the DNA we are able to find a cure for cancer. Through practice we have discovered that their suggestion is unfounded. Therefore no possible cure for cancer can be found by manipulating DNA"

Not a logical conclusion, not a proof.

I'm totally open to anybody here proving that astrology is unfounded, but unless you have actual proof (which is highly unlikely), please don't declare your beliefs as indisputable fact.

[Gunter]

all denouncements of belief systems as horse shit are themselves horse shit

wacko atheists are no better than religious fundamentalists, if they are actually distinct from them

anyone who claims to know what is and isn't is clearly delusional

[Psylo]

all denouncements of belief systems as horse shit are themselves horse shit

 

In other words, if it looks like horse shit, feels like horse shit and smells like horse shit, then it probably is.

Welcome to my approach to belief structures.

[Gunter]

I think our species has terrible judgment in general, those who believe they have good judgment are often the worst at it.

Those who believe they are smart... well dumb people never doubt their own intelligence.