|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:12 am
Just tell me if you believe any of itSo... stars that are light years away determine our fate, personality and so on and so forth. It's according to the 'sign' we were born under. We're told that Sags are this and that...the party animals. Scorpios are the angriest ones, the most irascible. --But examining the evidence. Namely data or 'generalisations' made by astrologers two thousand years ago. We are left with a faulty system of correspondences and sympathetic magic of sorts. It just seems very half-arsed. What do ya think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:07 am
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that it is silly. Astrology has it's interesting coincidences and points behind it. When you look at something with only one point of view you can miss things that are positive about what you are against.
I am not the type to read my horoscope everyday or base my life around the stars but I am not going to ridicule the ones that do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:41 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:04 pm
Underworld Priestess Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that it is silly. Astrology has it's interesting coincidences and points behind it. When you look at something with only one point of view you can miss things that are positive about what you are against. I am not the type to read my horoscope everyday or base my life around the stars but I am not going to ridicule the ones that do. Am I ridiculing them? I am just saying that it is a system that has no basis in reality. Stating a fact.Looking at the evidence it presents me with. We can all choose to believe what we want about what we want... just like I can see the world in a positive or negative manner. Or that all people belonging to a certain sign are my sworn enemies and therefore I will always box them as this or that. It just sounds very pretty and quaint and mysterious. Holding such notions does no harm... unless people center their entire lives around them. I am not against it, I simply do not see the point of it. Kings consulted astrologers who were mostly wrong. By mere chance...and by chance alone...meaning they got something remotely right, were they able to 'predict' or rather invent an outcome concerning that certain day or whatever...and it just happened to be close to the actual events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:24 pm
How about you give me an actual,published,peer-reviewed study? ^^. This is quite neat and dandy, but it shows me very little. There is just as much of a chance for the silver and gold to have changed due to chemical reactions than to whatever other cause. That is a very poor hypothesis. And citing wikipedia? Mars has no effect upon athletes or wars. Just like the moon does not affect the menstrual cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:11 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX How about you give me an actual,published,peer-reviewed study? ^^. This is quite neat and dandy, but it shows me very little. There is just as much of a chance for the silver and gold to have changed due to chemical reactions than to whatever other cause. That is a very poor hypothesis. And citing wikipedia? Mars has no effect upon athletes or wars. Just like the moon does not affect the menstrual cycle. I don't have one on hand or I would. I don't think people do research on it anymore. If they do then I'm not privy to it. I just thought you might be interested in those links. What's wrong with Wikipedia? It has citations, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:19 pm
Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX How about you give me an actual,published,peer-reviewed study? ^^. This is quite neat and dandy, but it shows me very little. There is just as much of a chance for the silver and gold to have changed due to chemical reactions than to whatever other cause. That is a very poor hypothesis. And citing wikipedia? Mars has no effect upon athletes or wars. Just like the moon does not affect the menstrual cycle. I don't have one on hand or I would. I don't think people do research on it anymore. If they do then I'm not privy to it. I just thought you might be interested in those links. What's wrong with Wikipedia? It has citations, you know. Oh,quite interested... it's just, whatever 'studies' have been made appear out-dated and unreliable. No control group. No metals left undiluted or whatever and then kept somewhere dark where no light can reach them. Nothing but dubious photographs that could have been fabricated in order to fill in alleged 'proof'. Same with the Mars effect. Where are the doctor reports --- the written testimonies of physicians. Mars is too far away. And when is a person 'born'? the moment he or she exits the uterus and takes his or her first breath? How can anyone accurately tell which planets were in that position,say, 20 years ago?--- that to me sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy and wishful thinking. Fallacious conclusions derived from --you guessed right, faith that this will effect that when it's a non-sequitur. So in order for there to be athletes all must be born under Mars-- or gold will only react to the solar influence and not, to say just the laws of physics ,gravity or changes in temperature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:26 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX How about you give me an actual,published,peer-reviewed study? ^^. This is quite neat and dandy, but it shows me very little. There is just as much of a chance for the silver and gold to have changed due to chemical reactions than to whatever other cause. That is a very poor hypothesis. And citing wikipedia? Mars has no effect upon athletes or wars. Just like the moon does not affect the menstrual cycle. I don't have one on hand or I would. I don't think people do research on it anymore. If they do then I'm not privy to it. I just thought you might be interested in those links. What's wrong with Wikipedia? It has citations, you know. Oh,quite interested... it's just, whatever 'studies' have been made appear out-dated and unreliable. No control group. No metals left undiluted or whatever and then kept somewhere dark where no light can reach them. Nothing but dubious photographs that could have been fabricated in order to fill in alleged 'proof'. Same with the Mars effect. Where are the doctor reports --- the written testimonies of physicians. Mars is too far away. And when is a person 'born'? the moment he or she exits the uterus and takes his or her first breath? How can anyone accurately tell which planets were in that position,say, 20 years ago?--- that to me sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy and wishful thinking. Fallacious conclusions derived from --you guessed right, faith that this will effect that when it's a non-sequitur. So in order for there to be athletes all must be born under Mars-- or gold will only react to the solar influence and not, to say just the laws of physics ,gravity or changes in temperature. I think that the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect goes over the various problems as far as when a person is born, what constitutes success as an athlete, etc. Also take note of the controversy. It bugs me that CSICOP seemed to intentionally not follow the protocols laid out in the initial experiment. You're making general assumptions about the claims. The claim is not that there can be no athletes without Mars' influence; the claim is that athletes born under a certain influence are more successful as athletes than those not born under that influence. The same thing with the metals: The claim is that gold behaves differently under a specific influence than it does when not under that influence. I don't think anyone is claiming that the laws of physics are coming undone with this; they're just pointing out that maybe there is something going on that happens to correspond with the effects alleged of astrology. Kicking something under the rug because it doesn't accord with current scientific knowledge is not scientific at all. If anything it should be studied more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX How about you give me an actual,published,peer-reviewed study? ^^. This is quite neat and dandy, but it shows me very little. There is just as much of a chance for the silver and gold to have changed due to chemical reactions than to whatever other cause. That is a very poor hypothesis. And citing wikipedia? Mars has no effect upon athletes or wars. Just like the moon does not affect the menstrual cycle. I don't have one on hand or I would. I don't think people do research on it anymore. If they do then I'm not privy to it. I just thought you might be interested in those links. What's wrong with Wikipedia? It has citations, you know. Oh,quite interested... it's just, whatever 'studies' have been made appear out-dated and unreliable. No control group. No metals left undiluted or whatever and then kept somewhere dark where no light can reach them. Nothing but dubious photographs that could have been fabricated in order to fill in alleged 'proof'. Same with the Mars effect. Where are the doctor reports --- the written testimonies of physicians. Mars is too far away. And when is a person 'born'? the moment he or she exits the uterus and takes his or her first breath? How can anyone accurately tell which planets were in that position,say, 20 years ago?--- that to me sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy and wishful thinking. Fallacious conclusions derived from --you guessed right, faith that this will effect that when it's a non-sequitur. So in order for there to be athletes all must be born under Mars-- or gold will only react to the solar influence and not, to say just the laws of physics ,gravity or changes in temperature. I think that the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect goes over the various problems as far as when a person is born, what constitutes success as an athlete, etc. Also take note of the controversy. It bugs me that CSICOP seemed to intentionally not follow the protocols laid out in the initial experiment. You're making general assumptions about the claims. The claim is not that there can be no athletes without Mars' influence; the claim is that athletes born under a certain influence are more successful as athletes than those not born under that influence. The same thing with the metals: The claim is that gold behaves differently under a specific influence than it does when not under that influence. I don't think anyone is claiming that the laws of physics are coming undone with this; they're just pointing out that maybe there is something going on that happens to correspond with the effects alleged of astrology. Kicking something under the rug because it doesn't accord with current scientific knowledge is not scientific at all. If anything it should be studied more. Just saying it is highly unlikely. I did not dismiss it entirely. And why should anyone have the upper hand because of a planet? That seems a bit ,you know, presumptuous. Yet again, I cannot claim to know such things. Only time will tell if children born under a full moon have better whatever-- if I am generalising is because the article is overly vague. And if it does, science will someday reach that conclusion that alters the current view on such subjects of planetary influence upon elements and the human body/structure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:35 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX Obscurus XxrationalsexybitchxX How about you give me an actual,published,peer-reviewed study? ^^. This is quite neat and dandy, but it shows me very little. There is just as much of a chance for the silver and gold to have changed due to chemical reactions than to whatever other cause. That is a very poor hypothesis. And citing wikipedia? Mars has no effect upon athletes or wars. Just like the moon does not affect the menstrual cycle. I don't have one on hand or I would. I don't think people do research on it anymore. If they do then I'm not privy to it. I just thought you might be interested in those links. What's wrong with Wikipedia? It has citations, you know. Oh,quite interested... it's just, whatever 'studies' have been made appear out-dated and unreliable. No control group. No metals left undiluted or whatever and then kept somewhere dark where no light can reach them. Nothing but dubious photographs that could have been fabricated in order to fill in alleged 'proof'. Same with the Mars effect. Where are the doctor reports --- the written testimonies of physicians. Mars is too far away. And when is a person 'born'? the moment he or she exits the uterus and takes his or her first breath? How can anyone accurately tell which planets were in that position,say, 20 years ago?--- that to me sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy and wishful thinking. Fallacious conclusions derived from --you guessed right, faith that this will effect that when it's a non-sequitur. So in order for there to be athletes all must be born under Mars-- or gold will only react to the solar influence and not, to say just the laws of physics ,gravity or changes in temperature. I think that the Wikipedia article on the Mars Effect goes over the various problems as far as when a person is born, what constitutes success as an athlete, etc. Also take note of the controversy. It bugs me that CSICOP seemed to intentionally not follow the protocols laid out in the initial experiment. You're making general assumptions about the claims. The claim is not that there can be no athletes without Mars' influence; the claim is that athletes born under a certain influence are more successful as athletes than those not born under that influence. The same thing with the metals: The claim is that gold behaves differently under a specific influence than it does when not under that influence. I don't think anyone is claiming that the laws of physics are coming undone with this; they're just pointing out that maybe there is something going on that happens to correspond with the effects alleged of astrology. Kicking something under the rug because it doesn't accord with current scientific knowledge is not scientific at all. If anything it should be studied more. Just saying it is highly unlikely. I did not dismiss it entirely. And why should anyone have the upper hand because of a planet? That seems a bit ,you know, presumptuous. Yet again, I cannot claim to know such things. Only time will tell if children born under a full moon have better whatever-- if I am generalising is because the article is overly vague. And if it does, science will someday reach that conclusion that alters the current view on such subjects of planetary influence upon elements and the human body/structure. I'm not sure why anyone should have the upper hand because of a planet. The best explanation I've seen for it is the doctrine of correspondences, which is an old occult principle and hardly convincing to the totally secular mind. If there's anything physically going on then I have no doubt that it will eventually be understood in a scientific way. The trick is getting someone to actually study it in an unbiased way first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
