Jump to content

Zodiac Signs

·Toot

By ·Toot
in General

Recommended Posts

Frunk Newbie

Frunk

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Deathly Fiend Of YMC' timestamp='1302182377' post='5120308']
None of your signs have changed, it is only for the newborns after 2011.
[/quote][quote name='<~BlackFire~>' timestamp='1302202411' post='5120822']YMC's right[/quote]

No. They haven't changed - they've always been defined incorrectly by Astrologists.

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302158886' post='5120024']The Sun has always passed through Ophiuchus, but starting with the ancient Babylonians, it has been omitted by Astrologers from their calculations for reasons unknown.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
FTW (For The Wynn) Newbie

FTW (For The Wynn)

Posted
Posted
Well, now I am technically Ophiuchus instead of Sagittarius. Not that it really means anything to me. The kinds of fortunes you get based off of this give me the same opinion that fortune cookies do: You can make anything seem true if you keep the wording of it as generic as possible. It's funny to read, but it isn't something that I necessarily believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bahamut - Envoy of the End Newbie

Bahamut - Envoy of the End

Posted
Posted
For those who actually take reading their horoscopes seriously:

Do you really think that the same piece of vague advice can be applied to 1/12th (or 1/13th, whatever) of the worlds population every time?

And that every one born within the same 30 day period has the same personality? Really?

Still ,could believe in Chinese system, where apparently everyone born in the same year long period as each other fits into the same 'generalised' personality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CinnamonStar Newbie

CinnamonStar

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Clause' timestamp='1302230704' post='5122076']
i stayed Sagittarius. Also, why the crap did they do it?
[/quote]

They didn't do or change anything. Ophiuchus is a rightful and correct star sign if you're building a horoscope according to the constellations.

But if you don't like it, you can still go by the "old" horoscope with 12 signs, the one that mostly follows the months and seasons. 12 signs because 12 can be divided by 3 and 4 into even categories without having a 13th sign blurting out like that.

And if you still don't like your star sign, then look up your Chinese, Celtic, Indian one or whatever. There are tons of others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
~ P O L A R I S ~ Newbie

~ P O L A R I S ~

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302158886' post='5120024']
The Sun has always passed through Ophiuchus, but starting with the ancient Babylonians, it has been omitted by Astrologers from their calculations for reasons unknown.
[/quote]

http://www.astro.com/astrologia/in_ophiuchus_p.htm

[quote name='Frunk']
Whatever the reason, it's not relevant anyway, as Astrology is a lie. The position of the Sun in relation to the constellations behind it when you are born has no effect on your personality, life or fate in anyway. It is, in a word, bullsh*t.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.

[quote name='FTW (For The Wynn)' timestamp='1302247392' post='5122375']
Well, now I am technically Ophiuchus instead of Sagittarius. Not that it really means anything to me. The kinds of fortunes you get based off of this give me the same opinion that fortune cookies do: You can make anything seem true if you keep the wording of it as generic as possible. It's funny to read, but it isn't something that I necessarily believe.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.

[quote name='Bahamut ZERO' timestamp='1302288332' post='5123040']
For those who actually take reading their horoscopes seriously:

Do you really think that the same piece of vague advice can be applied to 1/12th (or 1/13th, whatever) of the worlds population every time?

And that every one born within the same 30 day period has the same personality? Really?

Still ,could believe in Chinese system, where apparently everyone born in the same year long period as each other fits into the same 'generalised' personality.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.

[quote name='Anger Level' timestamp='1302305490' post='5123601']
I don't give a flying [acronym= f***']f***[/acronym].
[/quote]

Then don't f***ing post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frunk Newbie

Frunk

Posted
Posted
[quote name='~ P O L A R I S ~' timestamp='1302333065' post='5124569']
http://www.astro.com/astrologia/in_ophiuchus_p.htm

You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.
[/quote]

Neither should you, imbecile. I have plenty of knowledge on the subject as I am an amateur Astronomer. Anyone who knows anything about Astronomy knows that the very principle of Astrology is BS. What possible knowledge do you possess that leads you to believe in the merits of Astrology? Why don't you sir try and make a rebuttal to my claims with your own supporting evidence, as you are the one whose claim requires such support? Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CinnamonStar Newbie

CinnamonStar

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Trident Dragon/Assult Mode' timestamp='1302305327' post='5123597']
[size="2"][font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]i thought it was 12 because 13 was bad luck?[/font][/size]
[/quote]

IDK. But from what I read, 12 is just more convenient as a number.

[quote name='FTW (For The Wynn)' timestamp='1302247392' post='5122375']
Well, now I am technically Ophiuchus instead of Sagittarius. Not that it really means anything to me. The kinds of fortunes you get based off of this give me the same opinion that fortune cookies do: You can make anything seem true if you keep the wording of it as generic as possible. It's funny to read, but it isn't something that I necessarily believe.
[/quote]

And what's wrong with this post? Just saying that he personally doesn't believe in it without saying that it's universal bullshit? I don't think that's huge self-entitlement.

If something has so vast a history, it doesn't mean that it's automatically correct. It means that it's a fascinating or controversial topic, yes. But beyond that, there isn't as much evidence to astrology than to astronomy so I think people are open to interpret it the way they want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
~/Coolio Prime\~ Newbie

~/Coolio Prime\~

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302353257' post='5124783']
Neither should you, imbecile. I have plenty of knowledge on the subject as I am an amateur Astronomer. Anyone who knows anything about Astronomy knows that the very principle of Astrology is BS. What possible knowledge do you possess that leads you to believe in the merits of Astrology? Why don't you sir try and make a rebuttal to my claims with your own supporting evidence, as you are the one whose claim requires such support? Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.

[quote name='Opalmoon' timestamp='1302355073' post='5124815']
IDK. But from what I read, 12 is just more convenient as a number.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.

[quote name='FTW (For The Wynn)' timestamp='1302373843' post='5125392']
I was stating a personal belief Polaris, nothing more. It doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true, there are odd coincidences that I cannot account for. I will never bash anyone for believing it, I'm just saying why I don't believe it.
[/quote]
You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FTW (For The Wynn) Newbie

FTW (For The Wynn)

Posted
Posted

@Atlas, yes, copying verbatim another person's insult makes you look great <_<

As I already said, it is a personal belief of mine. I don't have to believe it, but I respect those who do. That was my opinion on it. No, it is not based on any facts, because I don't have enough interest in the subject to look up facts on why to love it or hate it. If you wish to prove me wrong, by all means. I shall listen to any and all you have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
~ P O L A R I S ~ Newbie

~ P O L A R I S ~

Posted
Posted

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302353257' post='5124783']
Neither should you, imbecile. I have plenty of knowledge on the subject as I am an amateur Astronomer. Anyone who knows anything about Astronomy knows that the very principle of Astrology is BS. [/quote]

Do you now? Perhaps you'd enlighten us with an actual argument in place of your blatant fallacious appeal to authority.

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302353257' post='5124783']
What possible knowledge do you possess that leads you to believe in the merits of Astrology? Why don't you sir try and make a rebuttal to my claims with your own supporting evidence, as you are the one whose claim requires such support? Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.
[/quote]

Except that I haven't made any claims on the subject at all. Whatever's impregnated you with such a psychotic delusion's beyond me. You're trying to convince us that Astrology's bullshit, I'm a part of the attentive on-the-fence audience eagerly demanding a follow-through from someone with the apparent potential to put the debate in question to a close with their strong supported arguments. I'd like you to show me said arguments please as you're the one with a claim pending support and I'm not. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.

[quote name='FTW (For The Wynn)' timestamp='1302374707' post='5125433']
@Atlas, yes, copying verbatim another person's insult makes you look great <_<

As I already said, it is a personal belief of mine. I don't have to believe it, but I respect those who do. That was my opinion on it. No, it is not based on any facts, because I don't have enough interest in the subject to look up facts on why to love it or hate it. If you wish to prove me wrong, by all means. I shall listen to any and all you have to say.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be permitted to assume so much authority over a subject with so vast a history to make claims anywhere near the ones you're making with as little research as you've done.
Read more. Gather some supporting evidence for your arguments. Alternatively, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frunk Newbie

Frunk

Posted
Posted
The only thing that is blatant is the fact that I have made no fallacious appeal to authority. You sir are the one trying to suggest such in a pitiful attempt to discredit me, and believe me, when it comes to the Astronomy community I am certainly not the one requiring support for my "claims".

You fail to understand that I am not the one who needs to make the case as the alternative is complete absurd. There are 7,000,000,000 people in the world, and 12 star signs recognised by mainstream astrology. You are "on the fence" about the possibility that every day, 580,000,000 people are having the same day, while everyone else is having one of 11 other "possible" days?

If an Astrologer can show me two charts from different Astrologers that use the same "method" to predict the same thing, I'll ban YCMaker. If you've seen Carl Sagan's (a highly respected and noteworthy Astronomer and Astrophysicist, among many other things) "Cosmos", which I highly doubt, you'd have seen him repeatedly show the differences from noted Astrologer to noted Astrologer, and how the percentage of accurate "predictions" conducted by such Astrologers is well below 10%. To any person with half a brain, that's clearly guessing.

The way Astrologists convince so many people they can "predict their future" is by both using broad words that can be applied to almost anyone, and being incredibly vague. It's an impressive skill, but the "alignment of the planets and stars" has nothing to do with it. Astrology leeches off Astronomy for information about new dwarf planets so they may quickly update their charts and apply the "changes" to their readings and predictions. Surely, either they should have "magically known" planets like Sedna existed before they were found by Astronomy, or anything they "predicted" before "updating" is inaccurate in at least some way.

When you take more than half a second to consider it, how can inanimate objects innumerable light years away effect people differently depending on when they were born however many years in the past, and differently on different days? It's absurd.

Simply, if you're so adamant about being "on the fence", this isn't something I should need to explain to you, lest I be hounded for the sake of your gargantuan ego. Rather, go on YouTube and look up Sagan's views on Astrology, or Randi's views on Astrology, or any other credible name I can drop (more credible than "Felicity the Fortune Teller", certainly!). Indeed they have done far more research than I have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iunr4B4wfDA

Unfortunately I can only add so many links to this post so I've removed some of the videos. Try Bill Nye, Derren Brown or simply open your lazy eyes and look for Astrology critics like them.

How about some comedy to show just how absurd the concept is?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x36PQxXydg8

On the off chance your attention span is great enough to take on more than YouTube, try Google, and you'll find sites like this:

http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/arguments_against_the_astrologers.htm

If you've really got some balls on you, how about an actual scientific study? You're the one who preaches "read[ing] more":

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.017 (let me know if the link doesn't work)

If you're still on the fence or have some humourless rebuttal ad verbatim to all the simple facts, citations and suggestions I've given you, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you. I care not if you are too lazy or too stupid to continue your ignorance.

You lose! Good day sir!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CinnamonStar Newbie

CinnamonStar

Posted
Posted

[quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1302374456' post='5125417']
blabla I'm copying another member's butthurt stuff that was directed towards a specific post and not towards any kind of personal opinion (not fact) that people have the right to speak out
[/quote]

Are you dumb, unable to read or just trolling? <_< Or alternatively, did you just learn some new cool phrase on the Internet by heart and decided to apply it on everything?

12 signs were chosen because each of them is associated with one of the 4 (western) elements and one of the 3 qualities (cardinal, fixed and mutable, related to the seasons). Pisces for example is a mutable water sign. Since a Pisces person is born between winter and spring, s/he's also said to be of a changing nature, easier to move on to something new.

If you want the whole chart, you can read it up on an astrologer's site or ask any astrologer who uses the traditional 12-signs system.
A 13th sign would and does stand out like a sore thumb. I'm not sure where they put the Ophiuchus down anyway.

Fyi, I said that above already. There might be other reasons to not include the Ophiuchus immediately too (like the meaning of the number, like Trident Dragon suggested).


FTW: Don't worry, there's nothing you have to abologize or justify yourself about.

Years ago I spent quite a lot of time with various astrologies, numerology and tarot reading. I used Farsi l'Oroscopo by Ursula Lewis most of all.
And then I decided what I want to believe and what not, and as long as a subject isn't based on facts but on speculations, people have the choice to take it or leave it. There's no proof that the constellations or time of the year or the element that's supposed to run through that time influences your personality and there's no proof that it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mehmani Newbie

Mehmani

Posted
Posted
Everyone knows that Astrology is absolute bull. The little Astrology predictions are worded in such a way that they can apply to anyone. They have done various experiments, my favourite being the one where they took a Capricorn prediction and showed it to people of entirely different star signs (whilst telling them the the prediction was for their sign). All of them said it applied to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
~ P O L A R I S ~ Newbie

~ P O L A R I S ~

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
The only thing that is blatant is the fact that I have made no fallacious appeal to authority. You sir are the one trying to suggest such in a pitiful attempt to discredit me, and believe me, when it comes to the Astronomy community I am certainly not the one requiring support for my "claims".
[/quote]

Of course you have. "I'm an amateur Astronomer so I can tell with 100% certainty that Astrology is bullshit." "Anyone who knows anything about Astronomy knows that Astrology is bullshit." You're not telling us [i]WHY[/i] Astrology is bullshit, you're just telling us that you have the credibility to do so without a real argument because you're an amateur Astronomer. Claiming that your word is law on a historically debated topic without any supporting evidence because you hold such and such a position's as transparent an appeal to authority as it gets. That's ALL you were doing to justify your argument.

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
You fail to understand that I am not the one who needs to make the case as the alternative is complete absurd. There are 7,000,000,000 people in the world, and 12 star signs recognised by mainstream astrology. You are "on the fence" about the possibility that every day, 580,000,000 people are having the same day, while everyone else is having one of 11 other "possible" days?
[/quote]

If I may play devil's advocate for a second, it's horribly wrong to confuse your Star Sign with an Astrological chart. Although it's true that only 12 Sun Signs exist, charts are very much unique each person. They're based on the exact locations and times of your birth, so the argument that there're only 12 possible days is totally batshit ludicrous and only stands to serve as evidence that you don't know anything whatsoever about what you're arguing so vehemently against, which is a batshit ludicrous thing to do. "Mainstream newspaper clipping Astrology" shouldn't serve as any kind of representation of real Astrology as it isn't real Astrology.

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
If an Astrologer can show me two charts from different Astrologers that use the same "method" to predict the same thing, I'll ban YCMaker. If you've seen Carl Sagan's (a highly respected and noteworthy Astronomer and Astrophysicist, among many other things) "Cosmos", which I highly doubt, you'd have seen him repeatedly show the differences from noted Astrologer to noted Astrologer, and how the percentage of accurate "predictions" conducted by such Astrologers is well below 10%. To any person with half a brain, that's clearly guessing.[/quote]

Astrologists as opposed to the authors of Sun Sign horoscopes use charts based on the current positioning of the planets as well as other factors (like the location, date, and exact time of your birth for Natal Charts) to make predictions.

If you're interested in the actual astrological arguments as opposed to ones you make up in order to discredit the field, you can find them here: http://www.astro.com/ and more specifically here: http://www.astro.com/faq/fq_faq_e.htm as well as others that might interest you by searching.

Here's some information about the site, which uses methods representative of actual astrology as opposed to star sign horoscopers. http://www.astro.com/people/in_about_e.htm?midx=2

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
The way Astrologists convince so many people they can "predict their future" is by both using broad words that can be applied to almost anyone, and being incredibly vague. It's an impressive skill, but the "alignment of the planets and stars" has nothing to do with it. Astrology leeches off Astronomy for information about new dwarf planets so they may quickly update their charts and apply the "changes" to their readings and predictions. Surely, either they should have "magically known" planets like Sedna existed before they were found by Astronomy, or anything they "predicted" before "updating" is inaccurate in at least some way.

When you take more than half a second to consider it, how can inanimate objects innumerable light years away effect people differently depending on when they were born however many years in the past, and differently on different days? It's absurd.[/quote]

There've been so many astrological traditions in so many different cultures. The Greeks used it. The Persians used it. The Chinese used it. The Hindu used it. We have Western Astrology today. Why would so many people in so many cultures put it to use if it didn't have some sort of significance? Although the methods by which it was applied DID vary from culture to culture, they all had the common trait of being able to make sense of things based on how the stars and planets aligned. Each approached the same questions through varying methods with similarities. It's somewhat analogous to how one can solve a mathematical question through different methods. Should any of these methods be contributed to and researched further, (as they have been to an extent) they have the potential to shed some light in what they do.

Nick Campion's survey on how Astrologers view the function of Astrology in two seperate conferences in Britain and the US produced similar results. It asked in what ways the Astrologers believed Astrology should be used. It asked the Astrologers whether or not they thought it should be used in any of these nine different ways: as a science, as a divine science, as a psychological tool, as a form of divination, as a religion, as a path to spiritual growth, as a form of counselling, as a healing art, and as a means of predicting the future. [url=http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_lifeview_n.htm?lang=n]The top four functions among both sets of Astrologers were that Astrology should be used as a psychological tool, as a path to spiritual growth, as a form of counselling, and as a healing art.[/url] The number of Astrologers who thought it a way to predict the future was under 42% at the British conference and 43.4% at the American conference, under 50% in both cases. Astrologers agree that using Astrology as a means of predicting the future isn't its main function.

I do not claim to know that Astrological methods work, but I can't claim to know that they don't and neither can you. Given its significance in so many different cultures, we'd do well to consider its legitimacy if not as a means of predicting the future than at least as a psychological tool, a path to spiritual growth, a form of conselling, and as a healing art.

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
Simply, if you're so adamant about being "on the fence", this isn't something I should need to explain to you, lest I be hounded for the sake of your gargantuan ego. Rather, go on YouTube and look up Sagan's views on Astrology, or Randi's views on Astrology, or any other credible name I can drop (more credible than "Felicity the Fortune Teller", certainly!). Indeed they have done far more research than I have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iunr4B4wfDA
[/quote]

Although I admit the existence of various "Felicity the Fortune Tellers" who work under the name of Astrology as a way to heighten their mystique and scam people, I charge you to keep an open mind with regards to people like [url=http://www.astro.com/people/greene_e.htm]Liz Greene[/url] who works very much within Academic fields and recognizes that methods like the ones used throughout the ages can potentially reveal insight into who we are. I want you to consider that Astrology's methods could possibly deserve more than claims of certainty that they're bogus and deserving of nought but ridicule.

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
Unfortunately I can only add so many links to this post so I've removed some of the videos. Try Bill Nye, Derren Brown or simply open your lazy eyes and look for Astrology critics like them.

How about some comedy to show just how absurd the concept is?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x36PQxXydg8
[/quote]

I think we're mature enough to drop the constant reductio ad absurdum at this point. My goal isn't to discredit you, but rather to have you consider a historical controversy more seriously than you've done. Nor do I want you to believe in any benefit from Astrology. I just want you to think about it and not pretend you have the authority to dismiss everything that it is. By the way, all Bill Nye's got is a Master's in Mechanical Engineering. He's a Disney-sponsored hack and as much of a legitimate scientist as The Jonas Brothers.

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
On the off chance your attention span is great enough to take on more than YouTube, try Google, and you'll find sites like this:

http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/arguments_against_the_astrologers.htm[/quote]

Upon skimming the article I largely found skepticism towards Astrologers' abilities to predict the future, which is perfectly reasonable. However, let's remember that the majority of the Astrologers approached in Campion's survey don't even consider future prediction to be a use of Astrology. Moreover, I'd like to clarify how it is that Astrologers who DO use it as a means of predictions make predictions. Predictions are based on the past, this is true for all predictions, Astrologcal or not. When the planets and stars are aligned in such a way, one can compare them to the effects and significances that those alignments had previously. This, in combination with other factors based on the type of prediction in question like the alignments during the births of those involved in the prediction paint a picture with patterns that the Astrologer can use in prediction. Astrological predictions don't reach into a bank of predetermined events and grasp images that tell them what will happen in the future.

I also found an argument with regards to twins' differences, for which a rebuttal can be found [url=http://www.astro.com/faq/fq_gen_twins_e.htm]here[/url].

[quote name='Frunk' timestamp='1302442729' post='5127782']
If you've really got some balls on you, how about an actual scientific study? You're the one who preaches "read[ing] more":

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.017 (let me know if the link doesn't work)
[/quote]

The link worked, but the links within the link didn't. All I could get was that they did a study and "didn't find cases in which the date of birth related to individual differences in personality or general intelligence." Of course they'd have to relate in one way or another, whether it be poorly, well, or what have you. Furthermore, as they haven't made it clear with the information on the page from your link, we can't assume that they're comparing these differences to those marked by Astrology. We can't even assume that they're even trying to find any differences whatwith the vague as hell information they've given.

However, I have the full details an "actual scientific study" conducted by motherfucking Jung right [url=http://www.astromasks.co.cc/]here.[/url] Right before your eyes.

[quote]
Noted psychiatrist Carl. G. Jung was also an astrologer. In an astrological experiment that had revealed amazing results, he had examined the horoscopes of his patients as a shortcut aid to diagnosis of root causes of mental and emotional disturbances. He could also predict unerringly either harmony or conflict between any two personalities simply by examining their horoscopes and making critical comparisons. In order to demonstrate the reliability of astrology as a workable tool in predicting harmony or discord between individuals, a crucial test was set up wherein he examined the planetary patterns in the horoscopes of 483 married couples, 966 individuals in all.

"For his control group he used 966 horoscopes of people who were not married or even acquainted - a purely random selection. He did not know which was which, except that 1,932 horoscopes were stapled together and mixed so that only by the rules of astrology could he determine the married couples from those who were not married. Dr. Jung scored an amazing [b]97 percent[/b] in choosing the married couples because of the harmonious contacts among [certain planets]. The fact that he chose ... unacquainted couples as being married was an interesting error. Two couples of the random group Jung had mistaken as lovers eventually did meet and were subsequently married!

"At the time of the completion of the experiment, Jung wrote:

'The statistical material shows that a practically as well as a theoretically improbable chance combination occurred, which coincides in the most remarkable way with traditional astrological expectations![/quote]

You'll find that where your "actual scientific study's" vague as hell, mine's not only precise in but is also conducted by a man with unassailable credibility. Also [size=7]NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT[/size] when he should be expected if we were to consider no Astrological influence that he'd score at around 50%, surely some consideration for the implications of this are in order.

Suck it?

[quote name='Frunk']
If you're still on the fence or have some humourless rebuttal ad verbatim to all the simple facts, citations and suggestions I've given you, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you. I care not if you are too lazy or too stupid to continue your ignorance.

You lose! Good day sir!
[/quote]

In no way have I lost anything, but by the same coin I'm not trying to win either. Again, my goal isn't yours, it isn't to defeat you or weaken your resolve. I want only for you to think about the implications of pretending that you have sufficient knowledge of historical controversies to make conclusive assertions in favour of any given side.

If you're too arrogant or afraid to even consider that Astrology has any effect whatsoever after all history and science have brought to the table, GTFO and take your disproportionate sense of self-entitlement with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...