I read the description for my star sign which describes me very accurately. But then I also read descriptions for the other star signs and I can identify with at least 4-5 of them to varying degrees. I think star sign interpretations are general enough so a person can be described by more than 1 star signs. In my opinion, whether astrology works or not is not important or relevant because you can't change your time and date of birth; what matters is that you believe that you can change and improve. So what if you are born a Cancer and you are emotionally unstable. You have the power to change this personality trait and become stronger.
Is astrology effective in a person and is it 100% true?
- Thread starter FriendlyShadow
- Start date
Flanscho
Well-known member
You can consider my arguments primitive, that's alright. But I've never ever heard so far any argument that would sound to me logical enough that I'd believe in any sort of god, heaven, soul, spirit, angel, afterlife or whatnot.
All that stuff makes absolutely no sense to me. One single good proof that I'm wrong, and I'd change my opinion the very second. I could write hundreds of pages about the reasons why I'm an atheist, why I don't believe in any sort of god or other stuff of the like.
Thanks for the offer. But since I'm 100% convinced that astrology doesn't work, nothing but a hard scientific proof could convince me otherwise. I appreciate your offer though.Btw do you want me to do your natal chart, I am doing now one for NathanielWingatePeaslee who asked me to because he is curious.
Englishman
Well-known member
No way is it true... it's just another way to make money of one another. Doesn't stop me from looking up my star sign in my horoscopes though.
Lea
Banned
You´re no fun :thumbdown:
ChatNoir
New member
The Chinese zodiac is very accurate for describing personalities born under a given sign...but if you mean "today you'll want to keep friends close and watch your money..." No....But I swear by the zodiac, and unfortunately, the Year of the Snake 2013 is a dangerous one for us poor sheep.....
Laura
Laura
destructoroflife
Well-known member
Pseudoscience is bull****.
theslowesthand
Banned
Yes, the religious/esoteric stuff is from times gone by. The "new-age" is stuff that we've uncovered in modern times. Mind you, there can sometimes be "overlap" (for instance a "technology" that was known way back then, but has since been lost). And some of that ancient stuff makes a lot of sense (to me anyway). As i've said, perhaps most of the stuff from the past, and the new-age stuff from the present, may be a "load of codswallop", but not all.
May i refer you to Crystal Clear – Messages from Water. This is an example of a new-age belief that has actual scientific evidence. This is just to point out that are are a few "exceptions to the rule" if you will.
Flanscho
Well-known member
If all this stuff wouldn't end up in making people pay lots of money, I wouldn't judge it as harshly. But do serious scientists print their name on all kinds of overpriced stuff and refuse to let other scientists check it?
Also, scientists criticized Emoto for:
- insufficient experimental controls
- not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community
- designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings
Also:
- In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.
- In 2005, Kristopher Setchfield published a paper that analyzed deeper motives regarding Emoto's study. In his paper, Setchfield writes: "Unfortunately for his credibility with the scientific community, Dr. Emoto sells products based on his claims. For example, the products page of Emoto's Hado website is currently offering "geometrically perfect" "Indigo water" that is "highly charged hexagonally structured concentrate," and supposedly creates "structured water" that is "more easily assimilated at the cellular level" for $35 for an eight-ounce bottle. Without providing scientific research references for the allegedly amazing qualities of his Indigo Water."
- A "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls. Crystals from all three groups were not considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.
- Physician Harriet A. Hall wrote that "This watery fantasy is all very entertaining and imaginative, full of New Age feel-good platitudes, holistic oneness, consciousness raising, and warm fuzzies; but it's hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science."
- Emoto's work is widely considered pseudoscience by professionals, and he is criticized for going directly to the public with misleading claims that violate basic physics, based on methods that fail to properly investigate the truth of the claims.
In short: There is no evidence that his stuff works, he does not want other scientists to check it, and he wants to make a buttload of money of it.
Last edited:
theslowesthand
Banned
Perhaps that's what separates "conventional" medicine from new-age/alternative - the scientific, "laboratory-tested" evidence?
With religion/spirituality of course, there possibly might never be this "scientific evidence", well not in the foreseeable future anyway. That's probably why the terms "belief" & "faith" exist no doubt.
Personally, i'm not too concerned about "proof". As i almost never buy anything, i'm not worried about being "ripped-off". I usually just read about all these things out of pure interest, or sometimes out of searching for answers to various problems, or to try to gain some spiritual progress. I am a fairly extreme perfectionist, but in these areas i seem content with the imperfection of not knowing if they are really true or not. I find that this makes them more interesting or exciting. And if they help me a little, that's fine, if not, that's also fine.
As for knowing whether they are true/factual or not, sometimes i flip between yes/true & no/false, but generally i start off as believing that it's possible or probable/likely to be true/correct (ie give benefit of doubt to), and then as i read (and maybe apply it in my own life) that belief in the degree of truthfulness will gradually move in one or the other direction.
About Emoto: "Hado" is some kind of "life force", and Emoto hasn't "invented" that, so that concept is "free" (no monetary gain involved), and is an idea shared by many people & groups out there, so theoretically that "hado" is more likely to be true than the water-crytals stuff. He is a scientist, and has supposedly "invented" (actually has just "uncovered") this thing about water crystals being able to be influenced by human thoughts, and drinking specially-created water being able to give us health benefits.
I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, and i believe (from what you've stated above) that he could be trying to keep his methods secret for commercial reasons (like KFC never giving out their secret recipe).
Also, he is only a scientist, not a metaphysician, energy worker, or anything else, so maybe even he himself doesn't have all the necessary "tools" to bring this project of his to a "complete, comprehensive conclusion"? He might still be "missing" certain things about it. Who knows. But he certainly has uncovered something special, it seems. Time will tell. And the proof will be in the pudding...
With religion/spirituality of course, there possibly might never be this "scientific evidence", well not in the foreseeable future anyway. That's probably why the terms "belief" & "faith" exist no doubt.
Personally, i'm not too concerned about "proof". As i almost never buy anything, i'm not worried about being "ripped-off". I usually just read about all these things out of pure interest, or sometimes out of searching for answers to various problems, or to try to gain some spiritual progress. I am a fairly extreme perfectionist, but in these areas i seem content with the imperfection of not knowing if they are really true or not. I find that this makes them more interesting or exciting. And if they help me a little, that's fine, if not, that's also fine.
As for knowing whether they are true/factual or not, sometimes i flip between yes/true & no/false, but generally i start off as believing that it's possible or probable/likely to be true/correct (ie give benefit of doubt to), and then as i read (and maybe apply it in my own life) that belief in the degree of truthfulness will gradually move in one or the other direction.
About Emoto: "Hado" is some kind of "life force", and Emoto hasn't "invented" that, so that concept is "free" (no monetary gain involved), and is an idea shared by many people & groups out there, so theoretically that "hado" is more likely to be true than the water-crytals stuff. He is a scientist, and has supposedly "invented" (actually has just "uncovered") this thing about water crystals being able to be influenced by human thoughts, and drinking specially-created water being able to give us health benefits.
I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, and i believe (from what you've stated above) that he could be trying to keep his methods secret for commercial reasons (like KFC never giving out their secret recipe).
Also, he is only a scientist, not a metaphysician, energy worker, or anything else, so maybe even he himself doesn't have all the necessary "tools" to bring this project of his to a "complete, comprehensive conclusion"? He might still be "missing" certain things about it. Who knows. But he certainly has uncovered something special, it seems. Time will tell. And the proof will be in the pudding...
Flanscho
Well-known member
Well, as said, I think that everyone should do/think whatever he/she wants to, as long as that makes him/her happy and doesn't cause harm to others. But the "causing harm" part is quite tricky.
For example: if someone believes that the Earth is rotates around our sun because some huge invisible insect pushes it through space, then I don't care. If that makes the person happy: why not? If that person runs around, searches for gullible/naive people, and sells them bracelets for 2.000$ the pieces, that bring you in harmony with the huge invisible insect, then that person IS harming others, by ripping them off.
You claim that there is scientific evidence for Emotos water theories. But there ain't. If you keep telling people that this stuff is scientifically proven, you help those people getting ripped off.
The number of people believing something is no proof that it is true. There has been a time when billions of people considered the earth to be flat, or that diseases were the result of curses, or that the solar eclipse meant "doom". None of that is true, no matter how many people believe it. There is no evidence that this "life force" exists.
"herapies that purport to use, modify, or manipulate unknown energies are therefore among the most controversial of all complementary and alternative medicines.
Theories of spiritual energy not validated by the scientific method are usually termed non-empirical beliefs by the scientific community. Claims related to energy therapies are most often anecdotal, rather than being based on repeatable empirical evidence."
When you believe his stuff to be true: why not? Everyone needs a hobby.
When you spend your money on his stuff: your money. It's a pity, because it could have been used for better stuff, but if it makes you happy: why not. Though you are also supporting someone who rips off others, and that is quite questional.
When you convince others that his stuff is true, then you waste their money and support him. Which is more than questionable.
For example: if someone believes that the Earth is rotates around our sun because some huge invisible insect pushes it through space, then I don't care. If that makes the person happy: why not? If that person runs around, searches for gullible/naive people, and sells them bracelets for 2.000$ the pieces, that bring you in harmony with the huge invisible insect, then that person IS harming others, by ripping them off.
You claim that there is scientific evidence for Emotos water theories. But there ain't. If you keep telling people that this stuff is scientifically proven, you help those people getting ripped off.
That's ok. But as long as you keep advertising expensive new age products as scientifically proven, you do hurt others. Whether you buy them yourself or not.
The number of people believing something is no proof that it is true. There has been a time when billions of people considered the earth to be flat, or that diseases were the result of curses, or that the solar eclipse meant "doom". None of that is true, no matter how many people believe it. There is no evidence that this "life force" exists.
"herapies that purport to use, modify, or manipulate unknown energies are therefore among the most controversial of all complementary and alternative medicines.
Theories of spiritual energy not validated by the scientific method are usually termed non-empirical beliefs by the scientific community. Claims related to energy therapies are most often anecdotal, rather than being based on repeatable empirical evidence."
That he is a scientist doesn't mean that everything he claims is true, unless he got scientific evidence, which he doesn't.
According to himself and certain believers. Not according to any scientific evidence.
When you believe his stuff to be true: why not? Everyone needs a hobby.
When you spend your money on his stuff: your money. It's a pity, because it could have been used for better stuff, but if it makes you happy: why not. Though you are also supporting someone who rips off others, and that is quite questional.
When you convince others that his stuff is true, then you waste their money and support him. Which is more than questionable.
aquarius86
Well-known member
I believe astrology to be true but I don't shove my own beliefs on anyone's throat -- a true aquarian
but people easily dismiss astrology without really looking into it and its history. In terms of compatibility, on the most shallow general basis, yes, a Leo would be compatible with an Aquarius but for one to really determine one's compatibility, you must look into your complete astrological natal chart against a certain individual. You can get your natal chart on most astro website, all you'll need is your place of birth and the exact time of birth.
Once you have this, you need to determine the placement of planets and angles between you and your chosen individual. I think if you're looking for some good compatibility, you need to look into where your Venus (how you deal with love) Mars (how you deal with lust/passion/anger) Mercury (how you think) Moon (How you deal with your emotions) and finally your Sun sign (your ego)...you see...most things you read on newspapers and magazines focuses solely on sun signs but astrology is far more complex than that.
Some people say that they don't feel like their sign and that's because if they actually look into their natal chart, another sign dominates their chart. I, on the hand have Sun, Mercury, Venus and Jupiter all conjunct Aquarius and funny enough my Chinese horoscope is the fire tiger which is their Aquarian equivalent.
BlueWeepingRose
Well-known member
I've read a few astrology books I won't lie but I don't grip onto anything I read about. It's rather interesting, I don't read hororscopes but the books go in depth about it. To each their own I guess. Although I get confused about my astrology sign.
It says I'm aquarius but I don't feel as I am cause I'm always daydreaming a lot. I'm really caring and sweet, I don't believe I fit my sign. Does anyone else feel this way?
It says I'm aquarius but I don't feel as I am cause I'm always daydreaming a lot. I'm really caring and sweet, I don't believe I fit my sign. Does anyone else feel this way?
Last edited:
I also don't think my sign describes me accurately. My sign says I'm communal, nurturing, quick to show affection, and "whiz with food", but I'm neither of those. People who I've interacted with actually think I'm the opposite of those qualities. I think another sign fits me better.
Lea
Banned
It also depends on what ascendant you have. I am a leo with cancer ascendant for example, they say it´s like water on fire. The water ascendant might dampen the fire sun sign, etc.
I don't believe in astrology. But I think there could be some truth to things like birth signs and character development, albeit on a minuscule- possibly irrelevant, scale.
In the sense that being born in a certain season exposes you to specific weather conditions, food supply/availability/traditions, and moods (which tend to sway between seasons). Kids soak up information, even information that we deem irrelevant and mundane in adulthood. Who is to say a baby isn't sensitive to things like light colour, humidity, all the fore mentioned thing, and so forth.
And so providing a local life-base from which experience and development branches, on a mass scale. The conditions of summer might persuade a baby to develop ever so slightly different then a baby that is born in winter conditions. Perhaps causing some overlapping and shared character quirks in people.
In the sense that being born in a certain season exposes you to specific weather conditions, food supply/availability/traditions, and moods (which tend to sway between seasons). Kids soak up information, even information that we deem irrelevant and mundane in adulthood. Who is to say a baby isn't sensitive to things like light colour, humidity, all the fore mentioned thing, and so forth.
And so providing a local life-base from which experience and development branches, on a mass scale. The conditions of summer might persuade a baby to develop ever so slightly different then a baby that is born in winter conditions. Perhaps causing some overlapping and shared character quirks in people.
Last edited:
I don't take astrology seriously. How can they generalize personalities and people's future just by your birth date? That's silly.
On the other hand, I believe that people took intensive studies to come up with this idea. So I kind of believe some of it. Like the personality description of each signs. However, I don't base my sign to my birthday but to the sign which really fits my own personality description. So maybe you're birth date says you are a 'Cancer' but you really behave like a 'Libra'. There's even an online test that matches you with your real 'sign' based from your personality not by birth date. And I feel that it's more reliable logically speaking because it's like MBTI if you'll think of it.
So let's say I found out that I'm a 'Libra'. Then I read what sign is compatible with Libra. Then I read the personality of those compatible signs and impressively those descriptions mostly describe my close friends.
But I don't really believe with the fortune telling part of astrology, I can't see any logic from it.
On the other hand, I believe that people took intensive studies to come up with this idea. So I kind of believe some of it. Like the personality description of each signs. However, I don't base my sign to my birthday but to the sign which really fits my own personality description. So maybe you're birth date says you are a 'Cancer' but you really behave like a 'Libra'. There's even an online test that matches you with your real 'sign' based from your personality not by birth date. And I feel that it's more reliable logically speaking because it's like MBTI if you'll think of it.
So let's say I found out that I'm a 'Libra'. Then I read what sign is compatible with Libra. Then I read the personality of those compatible signs and impressively those descriptions mostly describe my close friends.
But I don't really believe with the fortune telling part of astrology, I can't see any logic from it.