Astrologers fail to predict proof they are wrong

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
38
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#42
Which means what? You were the one saying that you didn't have astrology and astronomy mixed up TODAY, because they were integrated 300 years ago.
Not BECAUSE they were integrated 300 years ago, but because the separation is recent and up until modern times, people viewed astrology and astronomy as one in the same. I believe you have to take that into account when studying past cultures as well as when studying astronomy, science and everything that led up to the way they are today. Is that really too hard to understand or am I just not a good explainer?
 
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
38
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#43
did the mayans use their astrological/astronomical studies for the same type of BS that people use astrology for today? as in relationships and if you are born under a certain sign you wont get along with people born under signs x,y, and z? or was it completely different?
First off, get the idea of astrology in a modern sense out of your head. Start off with an open and clear mind. Now, the only point I am trying to make is that our ancestors like the Mayans studied the stars and recorded data much like the astronomers of today, but they did not ignore the idea of "supernatural" activity and the idea of the cosmo's. Not in the same bull shit way that people today view astrology having to deal with peoples' individual personalities, but in a way that has to deal with the Earth, the Sun, the stars and the rest of the planets in their relationship to human existence. Their "astrology" had nothing to do with individual peoples' personality, it had to do with learning about the world and the explanations they came up with given their available knowledge and technology.

Astrology today is a form of entertainment, astrology to them was a form of explaining the world to go along with orthodox astronomy. THAT is the difference...
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#44
Not BECAUSE they were integrated 300 years ago, but because the separation is recent and up until modern times, people viewed astrology and astronomy as one in the same. I believe you have to take that into account when studying past cultures as well as when studying astronomy, science and everything that led up to the way they are today. Is that really too hard to understand or am I just not a good explainer?
No. I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand why you're saying it. I said "I think you're confusing astronomy and astrology." You responded by saying you weren't because a few hundred years ago they were considered one and the same. My point is that by TODAY's definitions, you confused them.
 
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
38
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#46
No. I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand why you're saying it. I said "I think you're confusing astronomy and astrology." You responded by saying you weren't because a few hundred years ago they were considered one and the same. My point is that by TODAY's definitions, you confused them.
I didn't confuse them though, I realize that they are different in modern times. I was just making a point that it's only fairly recently that it's been this way, and the ideas taken away from modern astronomy (astrology) used to be part of the way people explained the world. That has changed now, but I am just making it a point to not forget that not long ago, people used supernatural explanations of the world and they were widely accepted. The intellectual and scientific revolution and evolution that led to the way we are taught to think in schools today is ignored in a lot of cases, and people get the idea that we have ALWAYS thought like this. When in fact, not too long ago, we (as in humanity) thought of the world as completely different. Obviously, there is new evidence and new technology allowing us to observe the earth and nature more closely these days, but let's not forget HOW we got to this point.

"That'll do dunkey..." -Shrek
 
Mar 4, 2007
2,678
5
0
#48
uuhhmm, that's exactly the BS in the magazines:confused:
no, its not.

hehe.


i've never used a magazine to help me in any way.
maybe with what kind of lipstick looks best with my skin tone, but hey..

naw, tho...its not the same shit.

the stuff in magazines is very over-generalized, and far from truth, hey just like corporate rap!
soulja boy *cough cough*
 
Mar 4, 2007
2,678
5
0
#49
the main point i'm tryin to get across is that, everyone believes, especially from our form of healthcare, which is to "take care of one thing at a time" is very particular and not very holistic. We forget things are related, and from the epidemic of stress related diseases, people are starting to realize the truth in taking care of the entire body. To me, i think this relates to the fact that everything is related, our body is all related to itself in how it functions, and our relationships with those in our family, work, etc. This goes along with the entire universe around us, and the hype about global warming is making this more evident, unfortunately in more of a scare tactical way.(its a touchy subject because of the politics behind it), but i see everything as relating to one another.

I do believe in 'psychic' abilities, even tho i would never call it that name because whenever i have experienced it, i immediately did not think of naming is psychic-ness, but rather 'just knowing' because i was receptive to it and the person i was 'reading'.

We have degraded ourselves into believing that "every man for himself' is the way to live, while those who are wise, and have lived, long, happy lives, have already realized that that only allows your soul and physical body to die at a quicker rate.

Whatever, what do i know, i'm just a woman.:ermm:
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#51
no, its not.

hehe.


i've never used a magazine to help me in any way.
maybe with what kind of lipstick looks best with my skin tone, but hey..

naw, tho...its not the same shit.

the stuff in magazines is very over-generalized, and far from truth, hey just like corporate rap!
soulja boy *cough cough*
it is, you just refuse to admit it

and what's the difference in terms of validity between something false and something else just as false?
 
Feb 1, 2006
3,864
6
0
#53
I dont know about all this but a friend of mine had a book with every birthday in it and it had a page describing you and all kinds of shit, and mine was right on. it was creepy.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#54
I dont know about all this but a friend of mine had a book with every birthday in it and it had a page describing you and all kinds of shit, and mine was right on. it was creepy.
Did you read the first pot of the thread?

There has been also other studies on how well those predictions match people and they were conclusive - the accuracy of predictions of astrologers is not greater than the expected by chance alone

It is the human tendency to only see the "hits" and ignore the "misses" that makes you think there is something in astrology
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#56
I didn't confuse them though, I realize that they are different in modern times. I was just making a point that it's only fairly recently that it's been this way, and the ideas taken away from modern astronomy (astrology) used to be part of the way people explained the world. That has changed now, but I am just making it a point to not forget that not long ago, people used supernatural explanations of the world and they were widely accepted. The intellectual and scientific revolution and evolution that led to the way we are taught to think in schools today is ignored in a lot of cases, and people get the idea that we have ALWAYS thought like this. When in fact, not too long ago, we (as in humanity) thought of the world as completely different. Obviously, there is new evidence and new technology allowing us to observe the earth and nature more closely these days, but let's not forget HOW we got to this point.

"That'll do dunkey..." -Shrek

But accepting the "supernatural" is not science. We got to where we are now by embracing science and the observable, not outlandish, unobservable superstitions. It is important not to forget that.
 
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
38
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#57
But accepting the "supernatural" is not science. We got to where we are now by embracing science and the observable, not outlandish, unobservable superstitions. It is important not to forget that.
The part in bold is true for modern times, but I'm talking about the times of the Mayans, remember? The people of those times used God's and Constellations and stories about them in order to explain them. This was useful in the evolution of science and astronomy getting to where it is today. I'm stopping here, because otherwise I feel like I'm just going around in circles trying to make a point to you that I thought I made a while back...
 
Feb 17, 2005
1,729
2
0
#58
ok Lamberto, that perfectly answered my question, thank you. so they DID NOT use it for the BS people use it for today...

and im sorry rekomstop, your use for it is BS as far as i'm concerned. thats exactly the kind of BS i was talking about!!! using it for help in relationships! you can believe it if you want to, but anthropology class or no anthropology class, its all lovey dovey BS, and you make yourself look like an extremely ignorant person by admitting that you use it as guidance.

so it is actually seeming like the idea i had in my head originally from that philosophy book was pretty much correct. even if they might have had unscientific explanations for the mechanisms of what they were watching and recording, they attempted to accomplish practical goals with it i.e. more efficient farming. thats pretty much all the book was saying, that they were more scientific with their use of astrology than the relationship nonsense it gets used for today.
 
Mar 4, 2007
2,678
5
0
#59
ok Lamberto, that perfectly answered my question, thank you. so they DID NOT use it for the BS people use it for today...

and im sorry rekomstop, your use for it is BS as far as i'm concerned. thats exactly the kind of BS i was talking about!!! using it for help in relationships! you can believe it if you want to, but anthropology class or no anthropology class, its all lovey dovey BS, and you make yourself look like an extremely ignorant person by admitting that you use it as guidance.

so it is actually seeming like the idea i had in my head originally from that philosophy book was pretty much correct. even if they might have had unscientific explanations for the mechanisms of what they were watching and recording, they attempted to accomplish practical goals with it i.e. more efficient farming. thats pretty much all the book was saying, that they were more scientific with their use of astrology than the relationship nonsense it gets used for today.

i said, thats what i've found it USEFUL in, but not the ONLY USE I HAVE FOUND IT FOR....

its just been the only thing that has produced results since, in a sense relationships come and go very quickly so its the easiest thing, imo, to find results in. BUt it is part of a larger pattern, IMO, because i see it as all part of one another....I believe i take a part in this whole cycle of life, and this transition that we are soon to take into the next age in 2012. I'm sorry you believe love, and all that comes with that emotion is BS...well i'm glad you got your question answered.:ermm:


btw, anthroplogy teaches you a lot. i think you would have a lot of fun in that class because of the information you seek, my take on it is of course going to be different than yours, many people don't believe in christianity taking that course, and some do, its ok, we all got our own beliefs but you gotta remember w/ anthropological studies that you can't be ethnocentristic...but nonetheless, i suggest if you don't go to college to just take one anthropology class, or something in that subject..
 
Feb 17, 2005
1,729
2
0
#60
i do go to college but my schedule is pretty full of all engineering courses until i graduate. i have taken one anthro course in college but the teacher was unbelievably horrible, and the class was at 8 AM so yeah i didnt learn shit. so at this point it looks like im just going to have to read on my own...