What Makes A God?

WOW talk about putting words in someone's mouth. Once again, I recommend picking up a Logic and Rhetoric book

 

How am I putting words in your mouth? You're the one calling the system of Astrology retarded, when it was dominant from Ancient Egypt all the way up to the Age of Reason.

 

Since the location of birth determines the Ascendant, which in turn determines much of your chart, I would imagine that the 2,000 people have radically different charts. Unless they were all born in the exact same location at the exact same minute. And even then, as I already said, Astrology doesn't determine your future. It shows you aspects to yourself that you can choose to embrace and use to your advantage or ignore.

 

For one I mentioned nothing in regards to it's context of popularity throughout history, I even mentioned how the article suggests astrology is still a lucrative practice. But even if astrology has a storied history, it suggests nothing of it's validity. There are other practices such as ritual sacrifice which have a storied history as well, doesn't mean they necessarily say anything about reality in their claims.

 

Well I simply disagree. And your study says nothing about the validity. 2,000 people are going to have 2,000 different charts. So the study is quite obsolete and missing the mark. Even if they would have approached it in the correct manner, no two people are exactly the same. Comparing 2,000 Sun Sign similiarities would be like taking different racial backgrounds, or psychological personality similarities, or other general similarities and studying their lives for decades only to determine that they all lived different lives.

 

Now . . . is that really what God said?

 

You disagree because you exhibit confirmation bias and are led by a bordering blind faith in astrology.

 

Whatever you say. The modern mindset insists on being close minded to something that literally created and led to the modern mindset.

Saying I exhibit confirmation bias and bordering blind faith to Astrology is like saying i exhibit a confirmation bias and blind faith to Rock music. Doesn't really make any sense. Some people gravitate towards certain things. Some people jive with Astrology, and others don't.

 

Wait, I thought astrology was the foundation of all science and has knowledge to offer the world in regards to biology and cosmology, just to begin. Did I misunderstand? Now astrology is just "something you jive with" like rock music? And yet a scientific study involving a massive organization of PROFESSIONAL ASTROLOGERS was NOT scientific enough for you?

 

I have difficulty with the term personality trait being some sort of measurable metric.

 

I don't have a problem with the study sight unseen. I do have a problem with the editorial conclusions. The astrological hypothesis is not that human characteristics are molded by astronomical influences but influenced by them. Natal alignments are calculated using geographical position as well as date. An element not accounted for in this blurb about the study. The rhetoric ensures a false negative. Also there are different astrological systems. No matter how rigorous a single study it's results do not warrant the sweeping editorial conclusion of this piece.
Published in Nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis".
Scientists have once and for all debunked astrology’s central claim — that our human characteristics are molded by the influence of the sun, moon and planets at the time of our birth — in the most thorough scientific study ever conducted on the subject

 

As I already stated, since the 2,000 people were born all in different locations, they were all going to have different charts. Not my fault that the Scientists didn't approach the study correctly. It was inevitable from the beginning that the traits would be different. Nice, try, though.

Now please explain to me why you choose Tao over God, when they are both Metaphorical and Phenomenological. Enough of you simply ignoring my questions when I've shown you where you're wrong.

 

Massive organization of professional astrologers numbered 28. Sometimes the adjectives are too much.

 

Or you can just sign off. That works too.

 

90 astrologers "held in high esteem" were chosen by their peers in the astrology organization for the study, all were welcomed to participate. Many apparently dropped out, perhaps to preserve some egos.

 

Or perhaps they realized that 2,000 different charts and 2,000 different personalities doesn't prove anything as far as a study is concerned.

 

You're confusing the studies there ChinaCat.

 

well it was posted as 1 study so that was bound to get confusing. Either way, I've looked at both studies.

 

I clearly stated "studies" and have a link for each one. I've already discussed all I need to on the astrology issue with you, it's almost getting disturbing you are failing with this stuff and so persistent at it.

Like a heavy psychedelic trip: Let it go!

 

I'm not the one persistent about the studies. You guys keep bringing it up. And I'm not even confusing the studies. One deals with matching charts to psychological conditions, the other involves the 2,000 people being followed for decades. Correct?