Poll: Astrology

[Zombie_Fish]

Impressive, although I find I do better in controlled environments sometimes. I prefer to know a deadline, otherwise I linger about, thinking I have all the time in the world. Also the job thing was completely wrong (I want to work in ICT, not charities, civil service or law) but apart from that it was pretty accurate.

Oh, and if you're wondering, I'm Pisces, so you can look it up.

 

[crypt-creature]

I personally prefer the Chinese method of sorting people by the year. According to it I'm a rat and rats are survivors..... Despicable little rodents also, but at least it's something different from all these 'noble' or 'good' western astrological signs.

Still a load of BS, but at least a different load.

Eh, my sign is generally one that makes people weary. And for good reason, multiple descriptions I've read for a Scorpio fit me very well, as does the Chinese zodiac of the fire tiger. They are basically the same in many ways.
I've also read descriptions of other signs, for both zodiacs, and they don't fit well or at all.

I don't live my life by them, but my signs happen to fit.

Let's break it down.
astrology is a load of bullshit, it's so vague that it describes everyone.

They aren't as vague as you think, it really depends on where you get your sources.

For the good descriptions, it will be painfully obvious what makes that sign unique. Certain people have very specific drives, likes and dislikes. Some more extreme than the others. This is where the Zodiac tries to separate types of people into a specific sign. Yes, everyone has the same basic emotions and traits, but what drives people is vastly different. It's basically a personality chart, divided into twelve different types and what drives the sign, and whom that person might be compatible with.

The bad descriptions will make it seem like the signs are almost exactly alike, which wasn't the point of the Zodiac. Yes, the descriptions of the signs will usually contain the same emotions and interests, but the emphasis on which one is stronger or more important to the sign will change.

No, the sign a person is born under will not always match with their personality. But it was never something that was set in stone, and never will be. Simply just a guess to the type of personality a person might be born with.

 

[Cxizent]

I mean, to who does that NOT apply to? Essentially correct but horrendously generalized. Everyone over the age of 15 can tell that most people don't like dirty, hard work. Doesn't exactly take a genius to figure that one out.

I don't mind dirty, hard work =[. It's more rewarding when it's finally finished, and it helps me vent frustration when I can exhert myself physically.

That said, I hate washing my hair afterwards.

P.S. I just read what I wrote from a nymphomaniac's POV. Freudian much.

 

[Yassen]

Listen, I once believed in astrology but after taking a Scepticism course at university it's changed my views quite a bit. Like for example, the lecturer gave us profile sheets when we handed in our time of birth and location of birth. He handed our profile sheets back and everyone found their profiles to be completely or mostly accurate. Guess what? Everyone's profile sheets were exactly the same.

By being incredibly vague, anyone can find a grain of truth in any astrological reading. People may even fashion themselves off their profile readings rather than the profile readings being descriptions of them, which is completely opposite to what astrology claims to do.

A final note, the old Babbilonian(sp?) astrology charts are incredibly out of date. A star sign is a constillation in the sky which the planets pass through. They marked theirs over 4000 years ago, things have changed. As a matter of fact, the star sign you think you are is probably wrong, there are even 2 extra star signs which are strangely ignored by modern day astrologers. Make of that what you will.

 

[sms_117b]

I normally think they are a load of rubbish... but that was quite accurate for a load of rubbish.

Cool story, bro. Seriously, this stuff is load a of bollocks.

I thought it was a load of rubbish anyway

Not to defend astrology or perform any action so radical, but do you have some ultimate truth, some means to back up your views?

If you do I would like to be enlightened as to why you hold such strong opinions and are willing to present them without any reasoning.

Well initially I always thought they're just suns miles away and if they effect out life in ways like this then why can't our sun?

Then there is the fact that the 12 star signs are selected randomly out of 13 that are in line with the sun and the Earth at some point during it's orbit.

The stars within constellations are Mega Parsecs apart, the stars within clusters, which are Astronomical observations are light years apart, (a Parsec is about 3 light years), now at these distances, the resultant force on the Earth is completely negligible.

Then we have the idea of gravitational lensing, the fact that a lot of those stars only appear to be there, they could be anywhere in that general direction. To put the idea of lensing across to those that don't know, on one of the Hubble pictures, sorry I can't remember which. There is a single Quasar that appears 5 times in different places. This is due to gravity bending light.

Our perspective, if we left Earth the constellations would look completely different, and due to lensing some stars might not appear at all then again other starts might appear in it's place or near.

Astrology is there, in my opinion, to try and help relax you if anything, I can't remember a negative prediction. Even the lecturer that ripped Astrology apart read her horoscope the day her final degree results were out. It calmed her down, even though it was completely vague.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I would have hoped that anyone reading my post would have seen that I picked those three deliberately; they attacked astrology with only their negative preconceptions, not willing to listen to it as a means to understand ancient cultures.

In many ways people who act so rashly in their dealings with what is, in essence, a truly benign religion are as arrogant as any adamant follower.

In relation to your post: the reasoning you have presented makes sense, which is more than I can say for most atheistic arguments.

First of all, I don't see what this has to do with atheistic arguments, since when is astrology a religion and has anything to do with deities?
Secondly, I wouldn't be so sure about the benign part as well. Apperantly, astrology influenced President Reagan heavely. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html] And when something as nonsenical as astrology dictates a president's schedule, it's FAR from benign.

 

[Mr.Terious]

Surprisingly, that was actually pretty good.
....or was it? Was I lying?
Not bad Astrology, not bad at all.
...or was it really bad?

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

That one was a fairly poor one, but I've had other places that do a lot better at describing me.

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

I would have hoped that anyone reading my post would have seen that I picked those three deliberately; they attacked astrology with only their negative preconceptions, not willing to listen to it as a means to understand ancient cultures.

In many ways people who act so rashly in their dealings with what is, in essence, a truly benign religion are as arrogant as any adamant follower.

In relation to your post: the reasoning you have presented makes sense, which is more than I can say for most atheistic arguments.

First of all, I don't see what this has to do with atheistic arguments, since when is astrology a religion and has anything to do with deities?
Secondly, I wouldn't be so sure about the benign part as well. Apperantly, astrology influenced President Reagan heavely. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html] And when something as nonsenical as astrology dictates a president's schedule, it's FAR from benign.

Religion does not have to include deities.
A religion is, at its most basic level, a series of guidelines that show "the right way to act" and promise some form of meaning granted by a higher power. Thus astrology is a religion and any statements decrying it are atheistic in nature.

I am somewhat amused that America would have elected a TV cowboy president, but history tends to be something of a non sequitur if you look too closely at a particular part. Is taking advice from an astrologer so different from using the teachings of Christianity to form laws?

At least an astrologer should have been a better advisor for Reagan than those that Bush jr. had.

 

[ThreeWords]

I normally think they are a load of rubbish... but that was quite accurate for a load of rubbish.

Pretty much this. For Leo, it had a load of things that were very vague, and could apply to anyone, but were surprisingly accurate to me

 

[Slash Dementia]

It was really accurate but I don't believe in it.

 

[Spirit_Of_Fire]

That was quite amazingly accurate of my personality. I can relate to everything it says about my star sign.

 

[HuntrRose]

*throws himself on the generalized bs train and hands out beer*

 

[HuntrRose]

Voted 50/50 btw. Seriously, with that amount of generalization they had to get something right =P

 

[TiteAce]

Well I never really cared about it but looked it up a while ago and it is really accurate descrition of me.

 

[Erana]

I'm a near-perfect sheep, but hardly a Saggitarius.

 

[Fairee]

I couldn't be bothered reading all of mine, but basically some of it was right and some of it was wrong, like most people have said or will say.

Something more interesting I found on that site though, I share a birthday with Charlie Chaplin, he was born 101 years to the day before me.