Can Physics Disprove Horoscopes?

[Mephisto]

I had a pretty big fight with my sister today about horoscopes. She is a pretty strong christian, and believes in all kinds of other weird stuff and energies, and of course, I took a few physics courses so i know better.

anyways, she thinks that people born on the same day must share a lot of things in common because... of the horoscope, and the constellations of the stars and all that. My argument was that the constellations of stars in the outer space can only affect us by gravitation and some electromagnetic radiation. Now since the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun is so tiny relative to these distant starts, treating it as a point should be a very good approximation, and hence all effects on us from the outer space should be constant at any time of the year. I mean, it could be that something drastic is going on in the outer space that DOES affect life here, but can it have a period of exactly one Earth year? That sounds so implausible to me...
Now if the horoscope has also ties to positions of sun/moon/other planets, i still can't see how gravitation could affect a human being, magically fixing his characteristics somehow... I mean, we are just a bunch of atoms, and we are always oriented in random ways with respect to the sun, or moon, etc. just by facing different directions, and we even have the effect of Earth rotating on it's axis, so on average, any bigger effects like that should cancel out.

Naturally though, neither she, nor my family understood anything about my argument, and they now think that I'm just weird that way. Anyway, it sparked my interest, is there some physical phenomena that could explain horoscope?

 

[mgb_phys]

the constellations don't have any effect - the good way to test this is that since the horoscopes were defined a few thousand years ago they have moved on one position due to movements in the Earth's orbit - ask the astrologer if they account for this, or even ask them which direction it changed!

There have been studies which found possible coincidences - such as the majority of olympic athletes were born in the same few months. There was a suggestion that (assuming the same hemisphere) spednign your first 6 months wrapped up warm indoors or outside crawling around on the grass could shape your development.
I don't think there was a big enough sample to test if athletes from the southern hemisphere were clustered 6 months later.

 

[nicksauce]

Here's how horoscopes work:

1) Make a blanket statement, such that no matter what it says the outcome will be true.
2) Some people without critical thinking skills will be amazed
3) ?
4) Profit

No physical phenomena, just good old fashioned manipulation.

 

[Ki Man]

i agree with nicksauce

if you look at a horoscope for ANY sign, even if its not your own, it is probably general enough to describe anyone. same thing with most fortune cookies. "You will meet someone new" ? as opposed to living under a rock and seeing the same people every day? Meeting someone new is a bit inevitable isn't it. Even in I am legend, will smith meets new people

 

[_Mayday_]

I had a pretty big fight with my sister today about horoscopes. She is a pretty strong christian, and believes in all kinds of other weird stuff and energies, and of course, I took a few physics courses so i know better.

anyways, she thinks that people born on the same day must share a lot of things in common because... of the horoscope, and the constellations of the stars and all that. My argument was that the constellations of stars in the outer space can only affect us by gravitation and some electromagnetic radiation. Now since the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun is so tiny relative to these distant starts, treating it as a point should be a very good approximation, and hence all effects on us from the outer space should be constant at any time of the year. I mean, it could be that something drastic is going on in the outer space that DOES affect life here, but can it have a period of exactly one Earth year? That sounds so implausible to me...
Now if the horoscope has also ties to positions of sun/moon/other planets, i still can't see how gravitation could affect a human being, magically fixing his characteristics somehow... I mean, we are just a bunch of atoms, and we are always oriented in random ways with respect to the sun, or moon, etc. just by facing different directions, and we even have the effect of Earth rotating on it's axis, so on average, any bigger effects like that should cancel out.

Naturally though, neither she, nor my family understood anything about my argument, and they now think that I'm just weird that way. Anyway, it sparked my interest, is there some physical phenomena that could explain horoscope?

Why do you feel the need to get into a massive fight? Religion is based on faith, you can't disprove it with science, because a faith is not necessarily based on any scientific fact. What you are saying to her, means nothing. Firstly because as you said she doesn't understand it, and so you might as well be talking in a different language and secondly, her beliefs may not be based on what yours are?

As others have said, horoscopes are usually just blanket statements, that cover most people, and people who believe they hold any factual significance, are only looking for the bits that fit them, and not the one that don't, sometimes even exagerating their own impressions on who they are just to fit the reading.

That aside, it really isn't going to help, talking about things she has no idea about. If she is a strong christian let her be.

 

[f95toli]

It is might be good to remember that back when astrology was mainstream "science" people actually believed that the stars and the planets were VERY close to Earth (kilometers, if that).
Furthermore, some people (e.g. Paracelsus) believed that "fumes" (presumably gases etc) followed the stars and the planets around and that these fumes could affect both Earth itself and the people on it (which is why it mattered when you were born). Hence, astrology was not so much about predicting the future as it was about understanding the effects of these fumes (or whatever you thought the effect was due to).
It was also thought that these fumes could affect the minds of people, hence certain constellations would increase the risk of war because the combination of "fumes" would make the people more aggressive. Other combinations would cause plauges etc.

Hence, there was no great "mystery" to why the stars and the planets had an affect events on earth; in many ways astrology made sense and there was nothing supernatural about it (which is why it was, for a long time, accepted by the Church).
Furthermore, this worldview lead to a very "mechanistic" universe where there was always "natural" causes and effects. Only God could intervene and change the natural order of things.

Philipp Ball has written an excellent biography of Paracelsus where he discusses this in some detail. Highly recommended!

Modern horoscopes complettely misrepresent the "science" of astrology and tend to invoke supernatural explanations for why the planets and stars affect us. But this is a modern invention and has little to do with traditional astrology as practiced by e.g. Kepler and others.

 

[_Mayday_]

Here's how horoscopes work:

1) Make a blanket statement, such that no matter what it says the outcome will be true.
2) Some people without critical thinking skills will be amazed
3) ?
4) Profit

No physical phenomena, just good old fashioned manipulation.

I think it would be interesting, to mix up the star signs, but keep the description, or prediction. It would be interesting to see how many people still felt they were accurate. i think it would be quite difficult to set it up though, as people would probably get what the experiment was about, so the results may not prove accurate.

 

[setAI]

Here's how horoscopes work:

1) Make a blanket statement, such that no matter what it says the outcome will be true.
2) Some people without critical thinking skills will be amazed
3) ?
4) Profit

No physical phenomena, just good old fashioned manipulation.

these are true but let me fill in number 3 which makes the whole astrology business not so easy to ignore:

3) complex sociological and psychological conditioning factors cause an individual's personality traits and behaviors to converge on some of the general attributes of their astrological sign-


"oh he is a sagitarius so tends to do his own thing" if heard and thought often enough will tend to cause a sagitarius to become more of an independent thinker- for example

as with many occult concepts- they end up being 'true' because culture tends to reinforce them on many many subtle levels which directly modulates behavior in individuals

 

[CEL]

Have your sister ever heard about the Forer effect http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html ?

 

[russ_watters]

Just saw this thread - it's ironic for a strongly religious person to believe in astrology. The superstition element is common to both, but most religions strictly forbid competing superstitions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Superstition is an an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear. Religious faith is a choice based on personal experiences and the claimed experiences of others.

 

[Evo]

Superstition is an an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear. Religious faith is a choice based on personal experiences and the claimed experiences of others.

Don't forget that to the non-religious, belief in religion is an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear. To those that believe in things like astrology, it's a choice based on personal experiences and the claimed experiences of others.

Basically, if it can't be scientifically proven, it's all the same. Superstition, faith, there is no difference.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have religious faith but no fear. I am also fully aware of the arguments against faith. Also, faith is also something that requires effort; unlike fearing black cats or ladders.

I guess if you are guided by fear and ignorance then it may apply. To assume that this is what drives everyone to believe in God is fallacious, ignorant, and arrogant at best.

 

[Evo]

I have religious faith but no fear. I am also fully aware of the arguments against faith. Also, faith is also something that requires effort; unlike fearing black cats or ladders.

I guess if you are guided by fear and ignorance then it may apply. To assume that this is what drives everyone to believe in God is fallacious, ignorant, and arrogant at best.

But you're the one that chose those terms.

Astrology in some cultures is equivalent to religion. To denounce their belief in the unscientific and unfounded while placing esteem on other unfounded, unscientific beliefs is not fair.

How is believeing in a God(s) goddesses different than a belief in astrology?

People that believe in astrology don't believe out of fear. They have faith in astrology. I don't see the difference.

 

[siddharth]

Regarding astrology, this made my day.

THE ASTROLOGICAL MAGAZINE

Founder Editor (1936-1998)
Dr. B. V. Raman

We regret to announce that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, the publication of The Astrological Magazine will cease with the December 2007 issue.

http://www.astrologicalmagazine.com/

 

[russ_watters]

Superstition is an an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear. Religious faith is a choice based on personal experiences and the claimed experiences of others.

[separate posts]

I have religious faith but no fear. I am also fully aware of the arguments against faith. Also, faith is also something that requires effort; unlike fearing black cats or ladders.

I guess if you are guided by fear and ignorance then it may apply. To assume that this is what drives everyone to believe in God is fallacious, ignorant, and arrogant at best.

Not all religious people view their faith in the same way and that's fine. But the definition of "superstition" says nothing about fear. It just says 'ominous symbols'. Religion is chock full of them. In fact, the lack of fear is pretty much the entire point: they use fear to pull people in - since once you're in, you have nothing to fear from the apocalypse. But if you're not in, you're doomed.

More generally, every one of the definitions of "superstition" applies to religion:

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition

Evo is right - the philosophical bases of these belief systems are indistinguishable from each other.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it would be interesting, to mix up the star signs, but keep the description, or prediction. It would be interesting to see how many people still felt they were accurate. i think it would be quite difficult to set it up though, as people would probably get what the experiment was about, so the results may not prove accurate.

You mean something like these?

 

[CJames]

I'm very skeptical of astrology and, in particular, horoscopes. The idea that the constellations could have any affect on us is completely ridiculous. I think it can largely be explained with the Forer effect.

However, I've wondered if it's at all possible that, for other reasons, a person's birthday could somehow effect their personality. Their are many factors that could indeed have an unforeseen effect on a neonate imprinting with its environment. The length of day, the temperature, the general mood of people surrounding him/her during that time of year. I'm sure any effect would be mild, but you might be able to detect a statistical correlation if you looked. I'm not sure if their have been studies on these possibilities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How is believeing in a God(s) goddesses different than a belief in astrology?

People that believe in astrology don't believe out of fear. They have faith in astrology. I don't see the difference.

For one, the difference is that astrology does not enjoy the luxury of omnipotence. One can defeat any logical argument against the existence of God by using the definitions of God, but astrology can be tested and falsified. No such test can be applied to religion.

This is why astrology is not a subject of philosophy, but the existence of God is a classic problem.

There is also the problem that astrology does not produce claims of divine interventions or direct personal encounters with the divine. It is entirely dependent on interpretations of events and nebulous predictions. For example, the Catholics have a long history of documenting alleged miracles. They then use these as a basis for faith. The same cannot be said of astrology. At most it claims to be predictive, but not interventional. And coincidence can never be ruled out as an alternative explanation for any allegedly accurate prediction.

Then of course we find millions or even hundreds of millions of people who will swear that accepting God into their life immediately changed their life - that their state of joy was vastly increased. Also, the history books are full of claims of profound religious experiences, including claims made by many scientists, but I have never heard of a profound or life changing astrological experience.

In the end, there is a logical justification for having faith in God - based in part on how one chooses to interpret history and specific events - but there is no way to justify faith in astrology because it can be falsified.

 

[_Mayday_]

You mean something like these?

Thanks for those links! I'm not really sure about the way in which these experiments are conducted though. Let's say that there was no bias in the person who asked the question, which in itself can be difficult to achieve. I just think that the fact that someone is asking you about the accuracy of astrology, would tend to suggest that enough people do not believe in it for the survey to take place, so will possibly raise doubt in the person taking the reading. If someone walked upto me and asked if a reading matched my personality, that would raise suspisions in my mind, as to what they were actually testing, and would lead me to believe there could be a possible bluff.
It would be interesting to know what scale that survey was done on aswell, though I think it was more just a simple little test than a major survey in which people would analyise them and try and pull any truth out of it.

 

[a Mind at a Time]

Thanks for those links! I'm not really sure about the way in which these experiments are conducted though. Let's say that there was no bias in the person who asked the question, which in itself can be difficult to achieve. I just think that the fact that someone is asking you about the accuracy of astrology, would tend to suggest that enough people do not believe in it for the survey to take place, so will possibly raise doubt in the person taking the reading. If someone walked upto me and asked if a reading matched my personality, that would raise suspisions in my mind, as to what they were actually testing, and would lead me to believe there could be a possible bluff.
It would be interesting to know what scale that survey was done on aswell, though I think it was more just a simple little test than a major survey in which people would analyise them and try and pull any truth out of it.

Is this in the realm of what you had in mind?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8816927243656203975&q=Darren+brown&total=339&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

 

[vmaier]

mbg phys made a comment about coincidences. Along those lines you might find this interesting. Many years ago when I was a college teacher, one of my math colleagues noticed that most of the math majors were born in the winter months. Furthermore 3 out of 4 of the math/physics faculty were also. Hmmm. I spent a few hours going through Rouse Ball's "A /Short Account of the History of Mathematics". It turns out that the birth dates of the many mathematicians listed was pretty uniform across the seasons. Small samples don't prove much.
Vince

 

[Lacy33]

i agree with nicksauce

if you look at a horoscope for ANY sign, even if its not your own, it is probably general enough to describe anyone. same thing with most fortune cookies. "You will meet someone new" ? as opposed to living under a rock and seeing the same people every day? Meeting someone new is a bit inevitable isn't it. Even in I am legend, will smith meets new people

Realizing that any argument against astrology will be strong enough to keep it far from entirely believable, but I do think some signs have traits that are indeed distinguishable like Scorpio for only one example. Yes the study needs be worked on a LOT and one needs go back to the source which is the Torah.
But for general signs I really think some do stand out.

 

[CEL]

Realizing that any argument against astrology will be strong enough to keep it far from entirely believable, but I do think some signs have traits that are indeed distinguishable like Scorpio for only one example. Yes the study needs be worked on a LOT and one needs go back to the source which is the Torah.
But for general signs I really think some do stand out.

What are the distinguishable traits for Scorpio?

 

[Lacy33]

What are the distinguishable traits for Scorpio?

In order to recognize the traits one would have to look at a good definition of the energy these people have and after that compare it to others. One can not do a study of anything without comparison. But I brought up Scorpio because it is the most intense or Leo that is also very visible.
If you want to really look at Scorpio, I would suggest finding a few that you know personally that you can actually be with physically and look at the eyes. Billy Graham is often used as a Scorpio example. Google images, enlarge photos you can see his eyes and you will see what is considered to be Scorpio eyes. Again its a study, not a science. And I am not pushing it. I only wanted to share what I have begun to notice.
http://www.scorpiosite69.freeserve.co.uk/Scorpio2.html

 

[CEL]

In order to recognize the traits one would have to look at a good definition of the energy these people have and after that compare it to others. One can not do a study of anything without comparison. But I brought up Scorpio because it is the most intense or Leo that is also very visible.
If you want to really look at Scorpio, I would suggest finding a few that you know personally that you can actually be with physically and look at the eyes. Billy Graham is often used as a Scorpio example. Google images, enlarge photos you can see his eyes and you will see what is considered to be Scorpio eyes. Again its a study, not a science. And I am not pushing it. I only wanted to share what I have begun to notice.
http://www.scorpiosite69.freeserve.co.uk/Scorpio2.html

From the site you suggested:

Scorpio people are variously described as powerful, weak, independent, clinging, passionate, and cold.

Wonderful! A fit all characteristic.

 

[vmaier]

Some years ago, the results of a study was reported in The Skeptical Inquirer. The study was done by asking astrologers to name the leaders in their field. These leaders were asked to participate in the study, which they did. They were given the necessary information to cast horiscopes on test subjects and to predict their personality traits. The subjects were then given a standard personality test (I forget which one). All of the questions on the test were approved by the astrologers. The test results were compared to the astrologers' predictions. The result was that the astrologers would have done just as well by guessing. Every time astrology is put to the test it fails.

 

[lisab]

Scorpio people are variously described as powerful, weak, independent, clinging, passionate, and cold.

That's UNCANNY! I'm a Scorpio and I AM all those things!

 

[Lacy33]

From the site you suggested:


Wonderful! A fit all characteristic.

CEL, I should have expected this kind of sass after all this was posted on a scepticism thread.
You asked me to give you characteristics of a Scorpio. That you did not spend any time looking into the subject before coming back with a jab saying something as strange as "Wonderful! A fit all characteristic." shows me that you were not interested in the subject but only to argue.
Go spend twelve years learning about a sign not your own and then I will take all the sass you want to give me.

 

[_Mayday_]

Scorpio people are variously described as powerful, weak, independent, clinging, passionate, and cold.

That's UNCANNY! I'm a Scorpio and I AM all those things!

I am all those things! And I am a Scorpio!

 

[TVP45]

For one, the difference is that astrology does not enjoy the luxury of omnipotence. One can defeat any logical argument against the existence of God by using the definitions of God, but astrology can be tested and falsified. No such test can be applied to religion.

This is why astrology is not a subject of philosophy, but the existence of God is a classic problem.

There is also the problem that astrology does not produce claims of divine interventions or direct personal encounters with the divine. It is entirely dependent on interpretations of events and nebulous predictions. For example, the Catholics have a long history of documenting alleged miracles. They then use these as a basis for faith. The same cannot be said of astrology. At most it claims to be predictive, but not interventional. And coincidence can never be ruled out as an alternative explanation for any allegedly accurate prediction.

Then of course we find millions or even hundreds of millions of people who will swear that accepting God into their life immediately changed their life - that their state of joy was vastly increased. Also, the history books are full of claims of profound religious experiences, including claims made by many scientists, but I have never heard of a profound or life changing astrological experience.

In the end, there is a logical justification for having faith in God - based in part on how one chooses to interpret history and specific events - but there is no way to justify faith in astrology because it can be falsified.

I think that, if people only believed in G-d without that belief requiring any observance of social norms and justice, that one might equate that belief to astrology. However, in general, people who believe in G-d and who also follow some of the basic tenets (don't kill, don't steal, do good to your neighbor, etc) can be arguably said to be better off than those who do not follow those tenets. Of course, many secular humanists also observe the same values, but the point is astrology has no such intrinsic value.

 

[Moonbear]

Scorpio people are variously described as powerful, weak, independent, clinging, passionate, and cold.

That's UNCANNY! I'm a Scorpio and I AM all those things!

Talk about throwing about a bunch of adjectives and hoping a few will stick. Powerful and weak. Independent and clinging. Passionate and cold. Oy!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that, if people only believed in G-d without that belief requiring any observance of social norms and justice, that one might equate that belief to astrology. However, in general, people who believe in G-d and who also follow some of the basic tenets (don't kill, don't steal, do good to your neighbor, etc) can be arguably said to be better off than those who do not follow those tenets. Of course, many secular humanists also observe the same values, but the point is astrology has no such intrinsic value.

So you are saying that socially redeeming qualities can supercede the requirement for scientific evidence in order to logically justify belief? Or are you speaking more to the social value of living the philosophy of Christianity, for example, rather than actual belief?

 

[Lacy33]

What are the distinguishable traits for Scorpio?

"Article 7 - General.

Astrologers consider Scorpios to be energetic, passionate, deep, intuitive, and secretive, with a great deal of self-control. They also believe that Scorpios can be willful, stubborn, and easily made jealous. Scorpios are thought to be keen observers of people, and potentially calculating and manipulative. Seeing more of people's deepest motivations than others do, they have a tendency to be cynical. They are sensitive and never forget a hurt or a slight. For the typical Scorpio, forgiveness can be difficult.

Astrologers consider Scorpio perhaps the most extreme of all signs. The intensity and focus of Scorpios gives them great ability to see a project through despite all obstacles. Their strong leadership qualities, incisive analytic abilities, energy, and desire for financial security can make them motivated career people. Many Scorpios also like to flirt with danger and push themselves and those close to them to their limits. Professions traditionally associated with Scorpio include forensics, law enforcement or detective work, the military, medicine, psychology, big business, and recycling."
http://www.scorpiosite69.freeserve.co.uk/Scorpio2.html#art2

And I might add it's easy enough to P-ss one off!~ Well enough that you wish you had not ever started up with one.
{yawn}

 

[Moonbear]

"Article 7 - General.

Astrologers consider Scorpios to be energetic, passionate, deep, intuitive, and secretive, with a great deal of self-control. They also believe that Scorpios can be willful, stubborn, and easily made jealous. Scorpios are thought to be keen observers of people, and potentially calculating and manipulative. Seeing more of people's deepest motivations than others do, they have a tendency to be cynical. They are sensitive and never forget a hurt or a slight. For the typical Scorpio, forgiveness can be difficult.

Astrologers consider Scorpio perhaps the most extreme of all signs. The intensity and focus of Scorpios gives them great ability to see a project through despite all obstacles. Their strong leadership qualities, incisive analytic abilities, energy, and desire for financial security can make them motivated career people. Many Scorpios also like to flirt with danger and push themselves and those close to them to their limits. Professions traditionally associated with Scorpio include forensics, law enforcement or detective work, the military, medicine, psychology, big business, and recycling."
http://www.scorpiosite69.freeserve.co.uk/Scorpio2.html#art2

And I might add it's easy enough to P-ss one off!~ Well enough that you wish you had not ever started up with one.
{yawn}

It got the cynical part right (but then, we have lots of other cynics here who are not Scorpios). Passionate, stubborn, self control, yeah. Secretive, easily made jealous, calculating and manipulative, no. Sensitive and never forget a hurt or slight, no.

Again, if you throw out enough adjectives, the gullible will notice the ones that stick. The rest of us see how general they are and notice all the ones that don't fit too.

In case you didn't catch on, I'm a Scorpio, but don't buy into astrology nonsense. It's nothing more than amusing entertainment.

 

[Evo]

Shoshana, I am Taurus, but I've been told that my rising sign overpowers my sun sign. Taking into consideration how much sun signs have changed in the past two thousand years what sign would a Taurus actually be born under, since obviously it is no longer Taurus.

 

[binzing]

If any of that is true, then why is the girl I really like and very similar to born a few months earlier than me? EXACTLY! One word for your sis


B O G U S

 

[CEL]

"Article 7 - General.

Astrologers consider Scorpios to be energetic, passionate, deep, intuitive, and secretive, with a great deal of self-control. They also believe that Scorpios can be willful, stubborn, and easily made jealous. Scorpios are thought to be keen observers of people, and potentially calculating and manipulative. Seeing more of people's deepest motivations than others do, they have a tendency to be cynical. They are sensitive and never forget a hurt or a slight. For the typical Scorpio, forgiveness can be difficult.

Astrologers consider Scorpio perhaps the most extreme of all signs. The intensity and focus of Scorpios gives them great ability to see a project through despite all obstacles. Their strong leadership qualities, incisive analytic abilities, energy, and desire for financial security can make them motivated career people. Many Scorpios also like to flirt with danger and push themselves and those close to them to their limits. Professions traditionally associated with Scorpio include forensics, law enforcement or detective work, the military, medicine, psychology, big business, and recycling."
http://www.scorpiosite69.freeserve.co.uk/Scorpio2.html#art2

And I might add it's easy enough to P-ss one off!~ Well enough that you wish you had not ever started up with one.
{yawn}

I am a Scorpio and of course some of the traits listed apply to me. Others are very far from my personality.
That is the beauty of bogus theories. Selective thinking make believers to cling to what applies and forget what does not. A satisfied customer is not proof of a theory.

 

[Lacy33]

Well at least we know who a lot of the darling little Scorpio's are around here and how UNpassionate they are about things, hahahahahahahaha TA!~
I have to go study Scorpio now cause not only do I also have a sun and other planets in Scorpio but a a North Node in Scorpio and now a days the focus is on the north node.
Been fun...

 

[DominicConnor]

Actually the OP's sister is quite right, your time of birth does affect your life. For a start the Earth shields you from some of the radiation from the core of the galaxy. So the amount you get exposed to varies according to your orientation, and that will have a significant annual component.
It is not enough to merely call religious people ignorant, and feel smug. To counter their argument you need facts, reason, and most importantly experimental evidence.
A simple way of refuting astrology is to read out each of the predictions made yesterday, and ask her which apply to her. If she does not much better than 1/12 then it's coincidence.
Indeed, you should be able to see how to make money out of this.
As for religion you might judge it's utility in society by taking some objective measure of quality (like infant mortality or murder rates), and notice that countries like the USA which have high religious observance rates have high murder rates and truly dreadful infant mortality. Indeed the child death/religious curve is quite remarkably good. But even that is not enough. It cold be coincidence that a rich country like the USA has huge numbers of the faithful, but the same child mortality rate of countries that have people living in mud huts.
So research other correlations. For instance religious observance vsliteracy (also negative).
But the best way is to do it blind. Ask someone who advocates religion to describe (say) 3 "good" measure for a society, and see if there is any correlation. Actually, you can drive them mad that way, since it's damned hard to find any, except maybe one.
Religious countries seem on average to be richer. To be sure their children die more often, or are raped by priests (or both), and they are less likely to be able read & understand the word of their local God, but are more likely to be able to afford a big TV. I doubt if that is a correlation religious people feel proud of.

 

[TVP45]

So you are saying that socially redeeming qualities can supercede the requirement for scientific evidence in order to logically justify belief? Or are you speaking more to the social value of living the philosophy of Christianity, for example, rather than actual belief?

Yes. I choose to believe in G-d because I believe I am better off by that belief. I deliberately suspend any skepticism about whether a supernatural entity exists; that doesn't mean I buy into stories about Joshua blowing down the walls of Jericho with horns or other such allegories that have little to do with religion.

I live in a Judaeo-Christian, western culture and so I believe in the god of the Hebrew Bible. If I lived in SE Asia, I would believe as fervently, and calculatedly, in Buddha. The essential thing to me is that we somehow find an intrinsic worth to life and civilization so that we don't end up like the Nazis or embroiled in a nuclear holocaust.

 

[CEL]

Yes. I choose to believe in G-d because I believe I am better off by that belief. I deliberately suspend any skepticism about whether a supernatural entity exists; that doesn't mean I buy into stories about Joshua blowing down the walls of Jericho with horns or other such allegories that have little to do with religion.

I live in a Judaeo-Christian, western culture and so I believe in the god of the Hebrew Bible. If I lived in SE Asia, I would believe as fervently, and calculatedly, in Buddha. The essential thing to me is that we somehow find an intrinsic worth to life and civilization so that we don't end up like the Nazis or embroiled in a nuclear holocaust.

Remember that Hitler was a catholic. Suicide bombers are Muslims. Several Christian missionaries have perpetrated crimes against Native Americans and Africans.
Faith in a deity is not a guaranty of good deeds.

 

[TVP45]

Remember that Hitler was a catholic. Suicide bombers are Muslims. Several Christian missionaries have perpetrated crimes against Native Americans and Africans.
Faith in a deity is not a guaranty of good deeds.

In my earlier post, I said that faith coupled with adherence to basic values (no-kill, no-steal, no-lie, etc) was what made it worthwhile to me to suspend skeptical disbelief. BTW, I think Hitler was born a Catholic but was certainly not in good standing at the time of the war (Can you imagine him going to confession? "Forgive me father, for I have killed seventeen million people.")

In any event, I strongly differentiate between blind lip-service to religion and actual practice of religion.

 

[TVP45]

Actually the OP's sister is quite right, your time of birth does affect your life. For a start the Earth shields you from some of the radiation from the core of the galaxy. So the amount you get exposed to varies according to your orientation, and that will have a significant annual component.
It is not enough to merely call religious people ignorant, and feel smug. To counter their argument you need facts, reason, and most importantly experimental evidence.
A simple way of refuting astrology is to read out each of the predictions made yesterday, and ask her which apply to her. If she does not much better than 1/12 then it's coincidence.
Indeed, you should be able to see how to make money out of this.
As for religion you might judge it's utility in society by taking some objective measure of quality (like infant mortality or murder rates), and notice that countries like the USA which have high religious observance rates have high murder rates and truly dreadful infant mortality. Indeed the child death/religious curve is quite remarkably good. But even that is not enough. It cold be coincidence that a rich country like the USA has huge numbers of the faithful, but the same child mortality rate of countries that have people living in mud huts.
So research other correlations. For instance religious observance vsliteracy (also negative).
But the best way is to do it blind. Ask someone who advocates religion to describe (say) 3 "good" measure for a society, and see if there is any correlation. Actually, you can drive them mad that way, since it's damned hard to find any, except maybe one.
Religious countries seem on average to be richer. To be sure their children die more often, or are raped by priests (or both), and they are less likely to be able read & understand the word of their local God, but are more likely to be able to afford a big TV. I doubt if that is a correlation religious people feel proud of.

I quite agree that there is probably no correlation between piety and social utility. I do, however, think that the honest practice of any value system, whether religious or secular, that is similar to Mosaic law, leads to a better society. How else could I explain the events at Nickel Mines, PA over the past year and a half?

 

[DominicConnor]

Almost everyone believes that they are following a value system, even members of organised crime gangs. They will regard certain acts as unthinkably bad, and other actions as their duty under a code.
I don't think a human being can long function if he genuinely believes what he is doing is wrong. It's not a case of good/evil simply a matter of rationalising your position.

Indeed I would go further, and assert that the problem is not that one set of values is "better" or worse than another, but comes from "value-based" morality.
Most of the bad consequences of religion do not come from belief in God, which is simply just another model of reality but from the idea that values are more important than people, and so often these values are more important thanother people.

That of course is not restricted to religion, but neatly unifies religion, socialism and fascism all of which have killed terrible numbers of people in pursuit of "values".
Most Nazis genuinely believed in their values, and were prepared to die for them, indeed many kept on fighting for a while after Hitler had died, and most of Germany was occupied.
Many Russians and Chinese still genuinely believe socialism was a good thing, with both Stalin and Mao having millions of followers.
When confronted with their senior clergy admitting openly that they helped the rape of thousands of children, Christians find a way of continuing to support them without any obvious problems with their values.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, we are waaaaaay off topic now. This thread is about horoscopes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

LONDON, England (AP) -- Desperate for a glimpse into Adolf Hitler's unpredictable mind, British spies hired an astrologer during World War II to write horoscopes for him and other Nazi leaders, documents declassified Tuesday show.

They soon regretted it.

The file released to Britain's National Archives catalogs the frustrations of MI5 handlers as they tried to prevent the astrologer, Louis de Wohl, from publicly embarrassing high-ranking intelligence and military officers.

"I have never liked Louis de Wohl -- he strikes me as a charlatan and an imposter," reads the first line in the astrologer's file. The letter is typical and appeared to be signed by Dick White, who went on to become the head of Britain's domestic spy agency, MI5, in the 1950s. [continued]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/03/hitler.horoscope.ap/

 

[SF]

is there some physical phenomena that could explain horoscope?

Explain what about them?

One counter-argument invalidates the pseudotheory.
Counter argument: brothers born in the same day may live totally different lives.
There.

You might want to check these out:

 

[Pythagorean]

Apparently I'm a freaking badass supersleuth genius porno star. And I'm twice as passionate as any other sign:

Scorpio:

* Passionate • Powerful • Penetrating
* Intense • Determined • Compelling
* Purposeful • Keenly perceptive • Brave
* Deep • Complex • Analytical
* Inquisitive • Sensual • Mysterious
* Resourceful • Ambitious • Magnetic
* Hypnotic • Creative • Intriguing
* Profound • Loyal • Supportive
* Protective • Generous • Compassionate
* Humble • Quiet • Encompassing.
* Self-critical • Investigative • Passionate
* Caring • Tenacious • Dynamic
* Probing • Emotional • Concerned
* Shock-proof • Intense concentration • Understanding of their failings. [7]

When frustrated or unhappy, Scorpios can be:

* Self-destructive • Ruthless • Overbearing • Suspicious • Obsessive
* Jealous • Possessive • Dangerous • Quick-tempered
* Obstinate • Moody • Sadistic • Insulting • Violent • Hateful
* Secretive • Sensitive • Intolerant • Cunning • Vengeful • Vindictive.
* resentful • Devious • Agressive • Death wish • Gloomy

 

[_Mayday_]

SO many Scorpios in this thread!