Do you believe in Astrology?

[Megaton666]

Many people today still believe in Astrology. Im curious as to how many people on the forums believe in it.

 

[The_Boss_Giygas]

It's interesting, but no way is it accurate so no I don't believe in it.

 

[FocusPresenceEndurance]

I think that the "many" people you speak of see astrology as a hobby. But don't actually take it seriously. =P

I won't doubt that people exist who actually believe in astrology. But not nearly as many as you are implying I think.

 

[natie]

Of course not.

 

[Charmander#4]

Why should I? I'm not even American...

 

[CSolarstorm]

It's a hobby to me, and I take it somewhat seriously based on how many observations about the people I know end up true. I'm a Taurus, so I'm stubborn and simple like a bull, and I know a prideful Leo, a persnickity Virgo, sometimes it can help you gain insight, or aid in your idea of what the people you know are like.

Of course with any belief system you have to take into account -

- Something might be a self-fufilling prophecy, as in by believing it you'll condition yourself to make it true.
- You have to interpret it a certain way to connect it to reality or it becomes implausible.
- You can't take anything to extremes or you might make a bad choice completely overlooking common sense for some claim you saw in a book.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Frankly I find the idea of labelling people based upon their date of birth to be an abhorent practice. The idea of saying "Oh, he's like that because he's a so-and-so" is, I think, despicable. It completely ignores the real reasons behind someones personality; it reduces people from complex, interesting individuals to arbitrary dates-of-birth.

 

[Aquadon]

Some of it has dumb luck accuracy, but it's not really something to believe in.

Like Zap Cannon. Or Dynamicpunch. Or, what's that new move... Purgatory? Yeah, that.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Frankly I find the idea of labelling people based upon their date of birth to be an abhorent practice. The idea of saying "Oh, he's like that because he's a so-and-so" is, I think, despicable. It completely ignores the real reasons behind someones personality; it reduces people from complex, interesting individuals to arbitrary dates-of-birth.

If that's how astrology was, I'd agree with you Tim, but it doesn't have to be a threat to understanding the real reasons behind someone's personality, and the way you use it determines whether it is reductory or not. That's why you don't want to use the western zodiac in that way. It's possibly to believe that someone's personality developed in synchronicity to astrological criteria.

In my mind there's two kinds of faiths; faith that bends to reality and continually changes to adapt to real, scientific realizations, and faith that takes over reality and attempts to bend it to justify itself. I don't think the first kind hurts anything.

And you may find labelling in general as abhorrent, and certainly it has done abhorrent things, but for whatever reason it's sewn consentually into the way we tend to think. Labeling can be normal and non-damaging as long as we don't let it lapse into blind stereotype.

 

[PsychedelicJellyfish]

God, no. I'm supposed to believe that the other planets in the Solar System have some kind of ancient influence over my life? Even Pluto, which wasn't discovered until 1930 but apparently could easily just be made to fit the equation, and now isn't even a planet any more, which must surely mean that Ceres and Eris and Sedna and all their dwarf planet pals must fit in somewhere as well? And if the planets in this solar system can affect my life, that what about all the exoplanets and the planets in all the other galaxies? Surely they must fit somewhere! AND AS FOR HOROSCOPES, they're so vague that they could made to apply to fricking anyone who wants to believe them.

THE END.

 

[Skiks]

Nah mostly because I pretty much know all the tricks used in things like this. Also I'm pretty sure this more of a poll then a debate...

 

[Profesco]

Despite Tim's and SunnyC's natural inclinations, this is not a debate.

I don't believe astrology is a legitimate method of personality prediction, myself. Fun and amusing, but nothing more.

 

[surfer treecko]

I think the concept of star signs is interesting, but I don't believe any of it.

 

[Ichi]

I don't indulge it nearly as much as I used to. As a kid I thought it was real and would religiously listen to the radio/read the paper for my daily horoscope to figure out how the day was going to go.

I haven't looked at a horoscope in years.

 

[Tim the turtle]

If that's how astrology was, I'd agree with you Tim, but it doesn't have to be a threat to understanding the real reasons behind someone's personality, and the way you use it determines whether it is reductory or not. That's why you don't want to use the western zodiac in that way. It's possibly to believe that someone's personality developed in synchronicity to astrological criteria.

Saying that someone's personality developed in sych with their zodiac does not actually invalidate my point. It simply sets up a Euthryphoan dilemma. Why does one's personality develop in synch with astrological criteria? Is it because of those criteria? Or were those criteria chosen(?) because they synched up with your life? If it's the former then it is reprehensible, if it's the latter then it's arbitrary and has no meaning.

In my mind there's two kinds of faiths; faith that bends to reality and continually changes to adapt to real, scientific realizations, and faith that takes over reality and attempts to bend it to justify itself. I don't think the first kind hurts anything.

I can accept that the former doesn't hurt anyone, but do you honestly think that's the line taken up by most practitioners of astrology? Of course there are those in it for fun, or just because they find it interesting, but there are also those who are going to be using the latter definition.

And you may find labelling in general as abhorrent, and certainly it has done abhorrent things, but for whatever reason it's sewn consentually into the way we tend to think. Labeling can be normal and non-damaging as long as we don't let it lapse into blind stereotype.

And defining people based on their date-of-birth is not a blind stereotype?

 

[Haruka]

It's a hobby to me, and I take it somewhat seriously based on how many observations about the people I know end up true. I'm a Taurus, so I'm stubborn and simple like a bull, and I know a prideful Leo, a persnickity Virgo, sometimes it can help you gain insight, or aid in your idea of what the people you know are like.

Of course with any belief system you have to take into account -

- Something might be a self-fufilling prophecy, as in by believing it you'll condition yourself to make it true.
- You have to interpret it a certain way to connect it to reality or it becomes implausible.
- You can't take anything to extremes or you might make a bad choice completely overlooking common sense for some claim you saw in a book.

Agreed.

Yeah, I'm a little bit ashamed to admit that astrology is a bit of a hobby for me, too. Not that horoscope bullshit, but there's not one person I know that doesn't act in a way that doesn't remind me of his or her sign. Yes, even when they have no idea what their sign is, for those who would cry "self-fulfilling prophecy". I just find it fun to see how it relates to their personality and how deeply.

I'm a Sagittarius though. Figures I'd like this kind of thing.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Despite Tim's and SunnyC's natural inclinations, this is not a debate.

Aw man, I was ready to debate Tim...okay this post is on the house. And maybe the next post, since I've offered too many questions and I'll probably get a reply.

Saying that someone's personality developed in sych with their zodiac does not actually invalidate my point. It simply sets up a Euthryphoan dilemma. Why does one's personality develop in synch with astrological criteria? Is it because of those criteria? Or were those criteria chosen(?) because they synched up with your life? If it's the former then it is reprehensible, if it's the latter then it's arbitrary and has no meaning.

Wow. Okay, well I looked up the dilemma. If it is because of that criteria, than that criteria can't be chosen to synch up with your life at the same time. I...sort of reject the idea that this dilemma exists...I think it can be the former and latter at once and any degree between the two. Why can't the criteria be the same entity as that which chose the criteria itself? Cannot the thing exist simply because it does?

And I also reject the idea that either of the horns can be meaningless. Even if I take reductive astrological beliefs and cherry pick the ones I like for my own purposes, that is not "arbitrary" - and even if it was arbitrary, what is arbitrary will affect something and therefore accumulate meaning. So it isn't, and cannot become meaningless.

I can accept that the former doesn't hurt anyone, but do you honestly think that's the line taken up by most practitioners of astrology? Of course there are those in it for fun, or just because they find it interesting, but there are also those who are going to be using the latter definition.

Okay, imagine that line isn't taken up by practitioners of astrology, and there were a bunch of astrologers who judge everyone according to their birthday. In today's merit based world, if their system of judging people works, then they become successful and benefit the people they've judged, so what would be wrong with that? If it doesn't work, then they will fail accordingly in their lives, so what damage does it actually cause?

And defining people based on their date-of-birth is not a blind stereotype?

And I already said, as long as it's not used to define someone in their totality, it's not a blind stereotype. There are volumes and volumes of complex and varied criteria toward describing each of the twelve signs to where you can interpret anyone's personality without enslaving your perception of them to a single quality. And if you want a precise astrological reading, you have to provide your exact birth minute, meaning, it gets even more complex.

And like I said, I reject the idea of this dilemma, but logically I suppose I shouldn't.

 

[Dr. Leggs]

Profesco said it best. Celestial bodies have no relevance to my personality nor my life, so no, I don't believe in astrology.

 

[AzukanAsimbu]

the fact that I am an Aries, and my element best at learning to control (Pyrokinesis) is a complete coincidence now that I think about it

 

[Tim the turtle]

Aw man, I was ready to debate Tim...okay this post is on the house. And maybe the next post, since I've offered too many questions and I'll probably get a reply.

If you don't want to carry on I don't mind. I won't think you're retreating or anything like that.

And I also reject the idea that either of the horns can be meaningless. Even if I take reductive astrological beliefs and cherry pick the ones I like for my own purposes, that is not "arbitrary"

I ws under the impression that that was completely arbitrary.

I think it can be the former and latter at once and any degree between the two. Why can't the criteria be the same entity as that which chose the criteria itself? Cannot the thing exist simply because it does?

I'll be honest here, I have no idea what you're trying to get across. Could you perhaps explain this idea in more depth?

- and even if it was arbitrary, what is arbitrary will affect something and therefore accumulate meaning. So it isn't, and cannot become meaningless.

I meant meaningless in that it has no inherent meaning, only that which people attatch to it. The problem with that is that you could do that with pretty much anything. The fact that you can place (unjustified) meaning in something does not mean that you should.

And I already said, as long as it's not used to define someone in their totality, it's not a blind stereotype.

If there is no evidence for it then it is blind. Totally and utterly. The complexity of the system doesn't at all matter, why would it? Neither does how much you describe a person with it, it is still an arbitrary label if there's no logical connection. And, well, there isn't a logical connection to peoples personalities and the movements of the stars except in any case where it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In today's merit based world, if their system of judging people works, then they become successful and benefit the people they've judged, so what would be wrong with that?

If it did happen to work to the same extent as a traditional meritocratic system then you'd probably have proven astrology right, at which point it would not become arbitrary But in all seriousness, without having any proof that astrology actually works what you're essentially doing is discriminating against whole swathes of people based on nothing more than assumptions with no evidence using arbirary criteria that have no relevance to what is being judged. Dicrimination is not inherently wrong, but it is wrong when the basis you are using is totally irrelevent to what you want to discriminate someone from. So not allowing a known paedophile to become a teacher is damn good discrimination. Not allowing a known Virgo to be a teacher is, I think, unfair and thus immoral. The fact that your system might achieve results is besides the point if it doesn't achieve the results in a moraly upstanding and fair way.