Belief in God and Astrology the same..view of faith reflection of politics

[SaveElmer]

Great article in Salon today...don't know if this has been posted...didn't see it

Interview with Skeptics Society (one of my favorite groups) society founder Michael Shermer...

Shows there is no conflict between morality and religion, or religion and science...argues most forcefully for the primacy of science in discerning truths about the world, and of faith...among many other points...a really great read IMO.

A couple gems...

Do you think the impulse to believe in God is the same as believing in astrology?

Yes, it's a similar foundation of magical superstitious thinking. And our need to be spiritual takes all forms. Given that traits vary in populations, it's natural that some people will gravitate toward New Age spiritualism and others toward conservative Christianity. Even secularists believe in all kinds of transcendent things, such as "mind." This is the Deepak Chopra school. He says, I don't believe that Christian conservative stuff, but the universe is intelligent, it's alive, it knows we're here. What? You're goofier than the Christians!

At the same time, I don't think, as a lot of materialist atheists do, there's something wrong with the brain or genes, and if we could just fix them, we could get rid of all the silly religion. That's not going to happen. Besides, people believe in economic and political ideologies just as fervently as they believe in religious doctrines. Most political, economic, racial -- and racist -- ideologies have no basis in reality at all. They're articles of faith. And the best tool we have for discerning truth from all those false patterns is science.

Why do people fear it?

They've been sold a bill of goods by people who like the warfare model of science and religion, particularly fundamentalists and militant atheists. Both sides want to force a choice and debunk the other side. But it need not be so. It's an incorrect interpretation promoted by extremists. The tendency is for liberals to embrace science and conservatives to mistrust it. Conservatives like technology but tend to be leery about science because it threatens their religions. They fear the Darwinian worldview is the liberal worldview, which says that if there is no God, there is no absolute right and wrong. And without an Archimedean point outside of ourselves that says this is right or wrong, then anything goes, there's no basis for morality. Therefore America will go to hell in a moral handbasket.

[bryant69]

1. It was an interesting article

Very articulate gentleman.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Syncronaut Seven]

8. Link:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index_np.html

[SpiralHawk]

2. Astrology has nothing to do with belief

And everything to do with relationship. It's been around a lot longer than most religions, and there are good reasons why...

[Nozebro]

3. Exact.ly. Belief implies worship. I don't "believe" in Geometry, but

I know something about it. Astrology includes science and art. To put it very simply, it's the study and application of statistics.

[bryant69]

4. Isn't statistics the study and application of statistics?

Bryant

[Nozebro]

5. No. I take it you don't know what Astrology is, either.

nt

[bryant69]

6. To each their own.

[Bill McBlueState]

13. I do

It's the belief that the positions of celestial bodies influences events on Earth.

They don't, so it's fake.

[Random_Australian]

26. Ok then, what is this incredible scientific/ statistical/ artistic

definition?

Please to share.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Duh!

That is all.
The Professor

[Codeine]

228. Sure I do.

Astrology is pure bunk. Next question.

[asthmaticeog]

9. Belief does not imply worship.

Not even a little.

[Kailassa]

17. I agree. I believe in God,

but I don't worship God.

I don't believe God wants worship from us any more than
we would want worship from our children.

I brought my kids up to be able to stand up to me when they believed they should. Likewise I have the right to stand up to god. That's why I found the biblical story of Abraham being prepared to sacrifice Isaac stupid. There is a story in the old testament about a woman standing up to "the lord" when he is about to kill her husband, something to do with him not being circumcised, if I remember correctly. So, even in Christianty there is a precedent for arguing with god rather than worshiping him. ;-)

[SidDithers]

21. There's no science in astrology...

only pseudoscience.

Sid

[kiki]

22. Erm...

...exactly what statistics is astrology based on?

[IChing]

7. I think we need to do saveElmers chart

Astrology is based in higher mathematics and has been statistically proven in long lasting marriages, risk takers, race car drivers and other specific
professions.

[Kailassa]

10. I've never seen any proof.

Can you show me any?

[soothsayer]

12. astrology can't prove science is anything but an old superstition,

and vice versa (so far----but as physics approaches metaphysics, we might have a happy marriage at last!)

[Bill McBlueState]

11. no, it hasn't

It hasn't been statistically proven. It's not real; how could it be?

[greenman3610]

19. As Carl Sagan said re: Astrology

“That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant, but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.”

Astrology is not about rocks in space shooting invisible rays
that make you do something.
Think along the lines of synchronicity.

Two events happen at the same time, not
because one causes the other, but because the
universe is so made that they simply must
unfold simultaneously.

We're waiting for the next Einstein to explain this,
but when you've seen hundreds of charts that
open and tell stories about the people involved, the
possibility of pure chance just seems ludicrous.

[sendero]

20. I'd never read that..

... thanks for posting it. It mirrors my own belief, the universe is a giant connnected machine - an idea that is a major building block of many belief systems.

[kiki]

23. No offense, but

the third paragrpah of your post ("Two events happen at the same time...") seems utterly meaningless to me. It's based on nothing except the desire some people have to read too much into coincidences. It makes about as much sense as "rocks in space shooting invisible rays".

[Tesha]

25. I'll bet there's a bit more to that quote that you left off.

There is no possibility that Sagan was defending astrology.

Tesha

[SidDithers]

28. Where did Sagan say that?...

Having read some of his writings, I need a reference and context to believe that is truly what he said.

Here's an attributable opinion of his about astrology.

http://www.stmarys.ca/conted/webcourses/AST/Module1/page01.html

"Many thousands of years ago a pseudoscience called astrology was invented. The positions of the planets at the birth of a child were supposed to play a major role in determining his or her future. The planets, moving points of light, were thought, in some mysterious sense, to be gods. In his vanity, Man imagined the universe designed for his benefit and organized for his use."

snip

"We now know that the planets are worlds more or less like our own. We know that their light and gravity have negligible influence on a newborn babe. We know that there are enormous numbers of other objects-asteroids, comets, pulsars, quasars, exploding galaxies, black holes, and the rest-objects not known to the ancient speculators who invented astrology. The universe is immensely grander than they could have imagined.

Astrology has not attempted to keep pace with the times. Even the calculations of planetary motions and positions performed by most astrologers are usually inaccurate.

No study shows a statistically significant success rate in predicting through their horoscopes the future or the personality traits of newborn children. There is no field of radioastrology or X-ray astrology or gamma-ray astrology, taking account of the energetic new astronomical sources discovered in recent years. " Emphasis added.

And this was written in 1973!

Read "Demon Haunted World" to see what else Sagan thought about astrology. He most certainly didn't think that it was accurate, just not understood.

Sid

Edit: Found where Sagan said the quote in the post above. He said it when he refused to sign onto a 1975 anti-astrology declaration. A more full quote is:

“I find myself unable to endorse the objections to the astrological statement, not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatever, but because I feel the tone is authoritarian. That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant, but unconvincing...”

Emphasis added.

[Tesha]

34. I knew that was a "selective quote".

Thanks for finding the full quotation. But I'll bet that
doesn't stop the poster above from still using the fragment.

Tesha

[Bill McBlueState]

51. nice work

:toast:

You called the poster on a classic case of quoting someone out of context.

[greenman3610]

104. I object to the implication of dishonesty

Sagan's disbelief in astrology was, I thought, well known.

Sagan himself, was intellectually honest enough to object to the "Authoritarian"
tone of a particular declaration against Astrology.
He doesn't believe in astrology himself, fine and dandy.
I object here in the same way, and for the same reason.


The tone of some of the posters does not reflect any kind
of open minded consideration, pro or con.

I only believe in what I can see and experience, myself, and my experience
has taught me, along with people like Plato, Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Johannes Kepler,
Carl Jung, and others,
that there is something going on with Astrology.

I totally understand the skepticism
of those who have not had the relevant experience.

Another example. European astronomers of the 18th century were
proud to be on the cutting edge of the enlightenment, and doing
away with archaic ideas of the universe as spheres, bowls, a giant
cave, or a mystic turtle or whatever.
They took extreme exception to the reports of ignorant
peasants about stones falling from the sky.
They knew, after all, that there were no stones in the
sky.
All the peasants knew was what they could see with
their eyes.
Eventually, the astronomer's model of the
cosmos grew to encompass the peasant's observations.

I think in the next hundred years the same thing may happen
with astrology.

I'm just sayin..

[SidDithers]

111. You used Sagan's quote to suggest ...

that he thought the ideas of astrology and continental drift had similar scientific standing. That astrology is valid, it's just that we don't yet know why.

However, the part of the quote you left out was that Sagan thought that astrology had no validity whatever. That part of the quote is significantly more important about how Sagan felt about astrology, than why he wouldn't sign onto the astrology objection.

Sid

[greenman3610]

133. I think the quote speaks for itself

what you are reading into my use of it
speaks more about your frame of mind than
mine.



btw; -
Freeman Dyson was another who wouldn't sign the same declaration
simply because he had the honesty to say he didn't know.

[SidDithers]

141. If the quote speaks for itself...

why didn't you use the whole quote, or at least provide an attribution or source?

Misleading at best, dishonest at worst.

Sid

[GreenArrow]

172. the quote does speak for itself

That Sagan personally felt astrology had little or no validity did not prevent him from keeping an open mind to the possibility that it might.

[immoderate]

181. That's not what he said.

To Sagan, the possibility that it might have validity was the same as that Santa Claus was real. And Sagan did have a wide open mind. He didn't sign because it was authoritarian. I'm sure he wouldn't have signed a document that said Santa Claus wasn't real, and not because he was open minded on that question.

--IMM

[GreenArrow]

191. yes, it was authoritarian

While Sagan may have personally disbelieved in astrology he did not presume to know, and allowed for the possiblity that discoveries could be made at a later time.

[beam me up scottie]

204. Yep, just like while Sagan may have personally disbelieved in Santa Claus

he did not presume to know, and allowed for the possiblity that discoveries could be made at a later time."

:rofl:

[GreenArrow]

215. well, you're a better man than Carl Sagan then,

since he did not presume to know and you clearly know it all.

I refer you again to the quote posted by Greenman above:

“That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant, but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.”

The issue is not whether Sagan believed in Astrology (he clearly didn't as is implied in his statement that there is no known mechanism for it) but that he was willing to make room for it, i.e. he was able to balance his personal beliefs -- astrology doesn't work -- with a reasonable proposition that some mechanism for it could yet be found. He says nothing about probability, and the whole purpose for his statement was apparently that he found the anti-astrology paper too "authoritarian" (read: Dogmatic).

And on a side note, is that little laughing smilie supposed to impart something other than juvenility?

[beam me up scottie]

216. I guess the smilie must mean I "clearly know it all" since I don't

recall posting anything that even remotely resembles that statement.

Or it could just mean I find your obfuscating amusing.

Check with Occam.

[GreenArrow]

220. I'll give you a hint:

the smilie as you used it adds nothing constructive to dialog, but hey, they are here to use as you see fit. I'm not obfuscating anything. The only obfuscating going on is within yourself.

Occam? Occam has as much to do with this as Santa Claus, which is to say nothing. You might note I have not taken a position one way or the other on astrology. My only comment was that the Sagan quote was contextually accurate, (though obviously uncomfortable for some readers).

[beam me up scottie]

221. You're a scream!

Your post was funny.

I'm laughing.

:rofl:= BMUS at the thought of Carl Sagan allowing for the possibility that science would someday vindicate Madam FuFu.

[immoderate]

225. Sagan says astrology has no validity whatever...

I don't see that as "leaving the door open." He calls it a pseudoscience. Remember, he is being polite.

I'll allow as Occam has no relevance, because no relationship has been demonstrated! So there's no need to find the most likely explanation. Why explain what's not even there? Astrologers make many predictions. Ninety-nine percent of them are wrong. The rest are easily accounted for by chance. What's the argument here?

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

226. Actually,

when I invoked Occam, I was referring to the choice between my smilie meaning that I "clearly know it all" or meaning that I found his obfuscation amusing.

Amusement at obfuscation being the simpler and obvious conclusion.

:)

[immoderate]

248. Sorry. I wasn't paying attention to your reference.

Couldn't see your post while I was replying. :spank:

--IMM

[GreenArrow]

245. the only argument I had

was that Sagan was quoted within the correct context. His personal beliefs are irrelevant; otherwise he would have simply signed onto the statement. So the question at hand is why did Sagan not simply sign the statement? He makes it clear when he says that the lack of a mechanism was relevant but not convincing; i.e. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He then offers an analog, and implies that a mechanism explaining astrology could yet be provided. He doesn't say it will be. He doesn't say it's even particularly likely. He is enough of a scienctist to simply say that he doesn't know, making a clear seperation between his beliefs and what he knows. He refuses to make a dogmatic prouncement against it because he doesn't know that something won't come along later and give the argument for astrolgy validity.

[immoderate]

247. I think it begs the question.

A well known atheist, I think that he would be as circumspect about saying there is no god. I guess I am the same way. I think that saying he is open minded on the subject of astrology is really stretching it. I'm as open minded about Santa Claus.

--IMM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

176. Taking it out of context...

is misquoting Carl Sagan.

You owe him an apology.

[Kellanved]

16. I guess

the bookkeeping of your average stargazer (no ~logy in there, sorry) could be considered higher mathematics.

[Kailassa]

18. Some that I have seen is incredibly complex. n/t

[immoderate]

95. No better way to hide nonsense.

--IMM

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. Actually, it has everything to do with belief...

it's similar to the belief in the efficacy of prayer; people pray for something, and observe that SOMETIMES, the things they pray for actually occur. Same with astrology; people make predictions based on some nebulous and nonsensical 'alignment of planets' and observe that SOMETIMES, those predictions come true. The only reason that astrology has been around longer than 'most' religions is that the stars remain constant, but the names of gods have changed due to shifting cultural influences (but the underlying mythology remains similar though differing in detail; see for instance similarities of Mithras/Attis/Bacchus/Osiris/Jesus/Buddha/Krishna, Zeus/Jupiter/Wotan/Woden/Odin, etc). Religion has ALSO 'been around forever', and most of the differences between religions are cultural, not essential.

[Nikki Stone 1]

14. Maybe astrologers should apply for faith-based funding.

Of course, since Nancy Reagan is no longer in the WH, that might be hard to do. :)

[omega minimo]

15. Is that the author's response?

"This is the Deepak Chopra school. He says, I don't believe that Christian conservative stuff, but the universe is intelligent, it's alive, it knows we're here."

"What? You're goofier than the Christians!"

Is that the author's response to the recognition that the Universe is alive and conscious?

Honestly, the people who think they can stand outside the Universe that contains them, that they are a part of, and claim some stranglehold on the mechanistic view of reality forever, seem to be the deluded ones.

Including those here who disparage astrology rather than consider that it is a scientific reflction of that conscious Universe that we are part of.

:hi:

At first glance, this looks like a good bridge-building article, I look forward to reading. Don't understand, though, if the author is really ridiculing the Universe in that first bit.

[kiki]

24. I don't think that's his response...

...I think he's playing a somewhat tongue-in-cheek devil's advocate there.

I'm not, however. :) Just because we are "contained" within the universe doesn't mean the universe "knows" (let alone gives a shit) that we are here. It seems a bit rich to call people "deluded" just because they don't believe in some vague and utterly unproven (although admittedly rather pretty and romantic) idea of an "intelligent" universe.

[omega minimo]

55. Don't limit your understanding of conscious universe by entrapment in

small definitions of "know" "intelligent" and "give a shit"

[kiki]

57. Ah, it's my "small definitions" that are the problem.

Silly me - I tend to work under the crazy notion that anything that doesn't have a brain or central nervous system is incapable of "intelligence" or "knowing" anything.

Clearly I need to rework my definitions to include the idea that rocks and trees and space dust have intelligence - an idea based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Damn you, Webster's!

intelligence
a) the ability to learn or understand from experience; ability to acquire and retain knowledge; mental ability
b) the ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation; use of the faculty of reason in solving problems, directing conduct, etc. effectively
c) Psychol. measured success in using these abilities to perform certain tasks
d) generally, any degree of keenness of mind, cleverness, shrewdness, etc.

Seriously - if you want to redefine this word so that it can be applied to inanimate and even non-living objects, doesn't it become somewhat meaningless? If a thing is incapable of learning, understanding or acquiring knowledge, how can you possibly call it 'intelligent'?

How do you define 'intelligence', in a way that somehow includes giant balls of gas and the empty vacuum of space?

[omega minimo]

61. "giant balls of gas and the empty vacuum of space?"

"How do you define 'intelligence', in a way that somehow includes giant balls of gas and the empty vacuum of space?"

:spray:

[kiki]

66. Erm, yeah - great answer.

Right up there with some of the other watertight logical arguments in your posts, such as "That's just silly" and "Astrology IS science" (all caps makes it true!). Eat your heart out, Aristotle.

[omega minimo]

67. Your mind is closed. Why bother?

[kiki]

68. Uh huh.

I ask you to define your terms, and you reply by quoting my question with a "LOL" smiley - the internet equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?". And it's my mind that's closed.

But let me argue on your terms. Ready? Here goes.

"The universe is intelligent? That's just silly. The universe is NOT intelligent."

My mind is open to people who actually have an argument.

[omega minimo]

76. I have no argument. Why argue? Especially here. Esp. with those who

know it all already?

[kiki]

189. Fine...

...but check the posts. You really haven't tried to engage in an argument with me at all, unless you think posting smileys is an argument.

But fine, if you want to take your ball and go home.

[omega minimo]

210. So glad you understand that

"You really haven't tried to engage in an argument with me at all"


So this makes absolutely no sense:

"Fine....but check the posts." You're saying what I SAID!!

Amazing the lack of logic from the science-bound. :wow:

[kiki]

227. I have no fucking idea what that post was supposed to mean. n/t

[omega minimo]

255. Why are you confused?

I say:

"I have no argument. Why argue?"

You say:

"You really haven't tried to engage in an argument with me at all"


Maybe you need to "check the posts."

If you think this sort of hostile approach works, then bully for you, kiki.

[trotsky]

249. Oh kiki, your mind is SO closed.

Asking for things like "definitions" and "evidence" and "logic." If you just open yourself up to all crazy ideas and refuse to demand things like "proof," it will become clear to you that astrology IS science and the universe IS intelligent! :sarcasm:

[kiki]

254. The power of your upper-case letters HAS convinced me! n/t

[datasuspect]

268. the power of caps

the power of the wisdom of the ancients.

watertight. case closed.

[Random_Australian]

29. Recognition? The universe is not alive - just parts of it.

Too high entropy. Insufficient information to support life.

Conscious? Same deal, many times over.

However, if you want to believe, go ahead - I must admit that it does not stop you from leading a good life.

One last thing - I should like to hear this 'scientific reflection' - I know a lot of stuff about science but I have not heard nor seen this.

[omega minimo]

54. Not alive? That's just silly. Are we stuck on the Giant Pinball Machine?

You can "prove" a conscious universe via your own consciousness. Or not.

The mechanistic view is obsolete.



One other thing - Astrology IS a science. It is a reflection of the universe. Modern science is based upon the ancients' science.

The chauvanistic haughtiness of simplistic science advocates seems incredibly short-sighted. Science itself has moved past that about 100 years ago at least.

:hi:

[kiki]

58. 'Stuck on the Giant Pinball Machine'

Couldn't have put it better myself!

That's exactly what we are. It's a bit of a depressing thought, but I'd rather deal with it honestly than go down the path of making stuff up to make myself feel less insignificant.

[SidDithers]

74. I want some of whatever you're smoking...

'cause anything that can make you that far divorced from reality must be some good shit.

Sid

[omega minimo]

77. That's your delusion

[Tesha]

88. Yeah, it's just a "Science" that refuses to be tested using...

> One other thing - Astrology IS a science.

Yeah, it's just a "Science" that refuses to be tested using
the Scientific Method. The clear hallmark of a *PSEUDOSCIENCE*.

Tesha

[omega minimo]

99. Try "History"

today's science is based on the science of the ancients, including astrology B-)

[Tesha]

103. Try not avoiding the point.

Devise an experiment.

Predict the outcome of the experiment.

Run the experiment.

Report back.

Astrologers *NEVER* do this.

Tesha

[omega minimo]

121. Back to the Giant Pinball Machine

Devising experiments to "prove" astrology requires an open mind.

I'm not avoiding the point-- I refuse to argue about this with stodgy obsolete "scientific" reductionist attitudes. The hostility of these sorts of "arguments" on DU tend toward the same Balkaniztion and pointlessness as many other fights here.

It's too bad folks aren't looking for more common ground than ego gratification.

[immoderate]

108. Today's science started in the Enlightenment.

Generally credited to Francis Bacon. Science started when people realized astrology and alchemy didn't work.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

119. That's bullshit

[Tesha]

130. Nope, that's the truth. *ASTROLOGY* is what is bullshit. (NT)

[immoderate]

144. Back it up!

Name a scientific discovery of astrology.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

153. Where does math come from?

[SidDithers]

156. I'd like to hear where you think math came from...nt

Sid

[omega minimo]

157. I'd like to see DU have discussions instead of flamesfests

:hi:

[trotsky]

250. Then keep up your side of the discussion.

All you do is post smilies and mock people who are "science-bound." Support your assertions - make this a discussion that you allegedly crave.

[omega minimo]

252. I refuse to be bullied or play smackdown. I have responded to those

commenting reasonably and without attack

[trotsky]

263. "I have responded to those commenting reasonably and without attack"

:) LOL! :hi: ;) :toast:

[immoderate]

161. Gambling? Sports? Accounting?

Where do you think it comes from?

I would think that there must have been some concept of math before a notion of something like astrology could be formulated. You think primitives might have recognized a new born that didn't have the right number of fingers and toes?

Why would you assume that observers besides astrologers had no use for math? That is silly.

BTW, I taught high school math for quite a few years, and never came across any claim that astrologers invented math. They absolutely didn't know anything about logic.



Anyway, I asked for a scientific discovery. Buzzzzzzzzzzz! You didn't answer the question!

--IMM

[kiki]

240. LOL

Another stunning piece of logic from OM, backed up with... oh, absolutely fuck all. Again.

[datasuspect]

260. if you think what the poster before you said is bs,

then you are WOEFULLY uninformed. you might be better off brushing up on some remedial history of science rather than embarassing yourself further.

[omega minimo]

264. Again, that is a truncated view of the history of science

"Science started when people realized astrology and alchemy didn't work."

That is an idiotic and "woefully uninformed" -- embarrassing even -- statement.






The only embarrassment here is the rude arrogance of science chauvinists, proud of their limited views and hostile to discussion

[datasuspect]

265. most of the time

and i've noticed this from 10 years of web-based discussion boards and at least 20 years of usenet/BBS interaction, people who vociferously proclaim their ignorance while demanding "discussion" often want only to hear themselves babble.

just something i noticed.

[omega minimo]

269. More viciousness? Proves my point

[datasuspect]

270. what? that people are vicious?

well, yes, that is one interpretation.

[omega minimo]

109. Are people who don't "believe" in consciousness unconscious?

:hi:

[immoderate]

124. Can you point out a consciousness that doesn't have a brain...

and nervous system? I guess you would have to include some definition of consciousnes that goes beyon, "Everything is everything, dude."

--IMM

[omega minimo]

132. We are not just bags of skin

[immoderate]

139. We are when we're dead.

What's the difference between a house, and a pile of bricks, wood, and glass? I'd say it's the arrangement of those elements.

Similarly, a brain has function (consciousness) if it's integerity is not compromised. No brain, no consciousness. But you avoided my question. Give an example.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

155. "No brain, no consciousness."

If you believe that, nothing will sway you.

[immoderate]

162. Not so.

A reasoned argument or a concrete example might have an effect.

Seems to me that consciousness evolved as a survival trait. Why does a rock need to be conscious? Why would anything without a corporeal state need to be conscious?

--IMM

[Odin2005]

145. Yes we are.

there is just matter and energy, nothing else. You're arguments against materialism ("pinball machine") are BS. The universe is not conscious.

[omega minimo]

154. That's iinsane. How could it NOT be?

[Odin2005]

170. No, crazy mystical notions are insane.

[kiki]

242. Jesus Christ

Can't seem to stay away from this... do you honestly think that what you've posted above is an actual argument that anyone should take seriously?


Of course God exists. How could he NOT exist?

Of course the universe is situated on top of a stack of turtles. How could it NOT be?

Of course the universe was made out of cheese by the Giant Purple Cheese Monster that I just made up. How could it NOT be?


This would appear to be the sum total of your "argument". How could you NOT see how dumb you sound, particularly when you're so keen to accuse others of being dogmatic or close-minded?

[omega minimo]

256. Your choice

"This would appear to be the sum total of your "argument". How could you NOT see how dumb you sound, particularly when you're so keen to accuse others of being dogmatic or close-minded?"

How many times and ways to I have to tell you I won't "argue" with you, no matter how much you want a fight?

How could you not see how assholish you sound?

That prejudice is the cause of this viciousness, apparently.

[Marr]

160. The assertion is being made by those who claim the universe is

intelligent or self-aware, though there is no evidence to support the idea. At least, none that I'm aware of.

If someone has real evidence to offer, they should offer it. Otherwise, the deluded party is the one with a strong belief in an idea not supported by evidence.

Now- at the same time, I really don't mean to put down your own beliefs. It seems to me that spirituality is mostly just about perspective, or how we choose to interpret the world around us. If you find meaning in the patterns of celestial bodies, more power to ya. I don't myself- but I do see meaning in everyday kindness, which is no less a leap, I suppose.

[omega minimo]

257. Thank you Marr

"The assertion is being made by those who claim the universe is intelligent or self-aware, though there is no evidence to support the idea. At least, none that I'm aware of."

I wonder what the relationship between microcosmic and macrocosmic awareness is?

[LWolf]

31. The fundamentalist side of the skeptic coin:

insisting that anything that is not yet proven is "magical thinking," and ignoring the vast quantity of events we cannot yet explain and questions we cannot yet answer. Don't engage them with ideas and possibilities. Stay the narrow path of what has already been proven, or what is in the process of being proven. Don't stray into the skeptic "sin" of "magical superstitious thinking."

Perhaps it would be ok to say that people's beliefs are hypotheses and theories, based on their experience, and that their lives are the process of exploring those hypotheses and theories.

Who among us has started out believing one thing, and reshaped or replaced that belief as experience showed it to be erroneous? I, for one. It's the process of human learning, whether it takes place in a lab, a classroom, or a lifetime.

[bryant69]

32. People are just people

Whether you believe in a God or believe that there are no Gods, there are always going to be some who take pleasure in looking down their noses at people who have the wrong belief - in a sense the belief doesn't matter, it's just a framework that justifies what one wants to do anyway.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TheFriedPiper]

33. When the belief in superstitions spills over into

affecting other people, it becomes a problem.

Nobody cares if you have your own personal delusions, but when laws and social pressure are in place due to the prevelance of those superstitions, it angers the more logical thinkers.


There are most definately forces that we can't yet explain, but it is a pretty giant leap to think that someone figured it all out 2000 years ago.

[bryant69]

37. I guess that's the flaw in Democracy

It gives votes to people who don't deserve them.

Thank you for underlining my point, incidentally.

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

38. Some beliefs SHOULD be looked down upon

especially those based in superstition

you know, like the belief that some 'god' cares whether someone is gay or not

or like the belief that only white people were made in the image of 'god'

or the belief that 'god' wants them to diddle little girls



All this crap about respecting everyone's beliefs is just that.

Not ALL beliefs merit respect.

[bryant69]

40. No one expects the Atheist Inquistion!

But as I said earlier - to each their own.

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

41. i forgot just how opressed and persecuted religion is in the US

It's almost as if xtians didnt control ALL of government and most of television.

It's almost as if just simply stating that you don't believe in superstitions doesn't immediately get squeals of 'im being opressed'.


You cry that I don't respect your belief in superstitions, and yet you don't respect my belief that superstitions are bullshit.

I personally don't care if you don't respect my beliefs, because I am just not that sensitive about it. I will point out the hypocrisy in demanding respect for yours while you disrespect mine, though.

Silly superstitions
Writing on the wall

[stepnw1f]

43. You Nailed It There.

I agree.

[bryant69]

44. I think you read more into my post than I intended

I certainly don't think Christians are persecuted in America generally (look at my website around last christmas or my review of The Godless Constitution around thanksgiving of last year).

I was actually referencing a Monty Python sketch - the Spanish Inquisition? You haven't seen it? It's quite funny.

At any rate I certainly respect your right to sermonize in favor of your beliefs - while reserving the right to disagree with you publically should I choose to.

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

47. I've seen the Python sketch, it was just irrelevant to anything I said

I never advocated torturing anyone.

Just ridiculing superstition, which is a noble act.

[bryant69]

48. Yes exactly - you are filled with the Missionary spirit

and the desire to punish non-believers (in your particular creed of Atheism). Probably you wouldn't go as far as torturing in them, but you certainly aren't going to tolerate any heresay (or, as you put it, superstition).

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

53. bullshit, I TOLERATE it more than I should

That doesn't mean I won't make fun of things that cry out to be made fun of, such as beliefs in ghosts and goblins and demons and dragons and gods and rapture and tooth fairies and santa claus and easter bunnies and virgin births.

[bryant69]

114. I saw your post on my poor persecuted Xtian before the mods

took it down. Nice of the Mods to do you that favor, actually. Anyway allow me to clarify. Christians in 2006 are not persecuted. Atheists have a greater claim to persecution than we do, in all fairness. That said, you make it clear that if you had your way you would like to see situations reversed. You would like to see people of a religiuos presuasion bared from political office, and I suspect you would like there to be a strong social disincentive to be religious as well.

Let me also say that I don't believe that your particular beliefs on this issue are the same as all Atheists. I have a problem with you and your intolerance - not with atheists in general.

Bryant

[TheFriedPiper]

131. you are spinning what i say into something you can argue against

I do not want crazy people having power over me

period


that is all

I don't care if people want to have their superstitions

I don't want people that are crazy enough to think superstitions are real having power over me

Why should I want crazy people having power over me?



clear enough?

[bryant69]

136. How am I spinning?

Except that now it seems like you will allow people to be religious so long as they don't actually believe it?

"My fellow Americans, you should vote for me because, although I go to chuch every sunday, i don't really believe it."

So that's a pretty fine distinction in my mind.

Let me put it another way - I could vote for an atheist if I thought he would be a good and moral person and a good leader/administrator/legislator - you, at least according to what you've said, couldn't in good conscious vote for a believing Christian (or member of any other religion I suppose). Is that a fair statement?

[Kailassa]

207. Spare us the sight of ...

"people of a religiuos presuasion bared from political office"

please. :cry:

[bryant69]

241. If you could go and look at the thread we are reference

you would see that this is more or less what TheFriedPiper advocates. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1973962&mesg_id=1973962

I obviosuly know there is little chance of it actually happening, that doesn't mean I don't oppose it.

Bryant

[The Straight Story]

178. so....what are ghosts?

People can and do see them, and even hear them (or pic them up as evp's).

To me I get concerned when something millions have experienced is blown off without serious investigation to determine cause(s). Perhaps to science, if you can't replicate it - it don't exist (ie, replicate in a controlled environment).

We don't learn when we don't examine.

I have a hard time believing in spirits/ghosts myself - yet I have seen them before, recorded evp's of them, and still I struggle to find out what they could be; as a christian myself ghosts seem contrary to the faith, as a person who does love science they don't seem to make sense, basically, they don't fit into my world view - but then I am big enough to admit I don't know everything, lots of people have experienced them, and maybe - just maybe - there is something to it all.

I see sceince shows about theories of multi-dimensions, parallel universes, quantum stuff, etc - while much is not proven people do postulate and work towards proving their theories. I don't see why the scientific model cannot be used on other things.

[trotsky]

262. "I don't see why the scientific model cannot be used on other things."

But that's just it - the scientific model tells us ghosts aren't real. Where we run into problems is when the scientific model tells somebody something they don't want to hear, and they go on believing what they want to believe rather than what is supported by the evidence.

Really, the scientific model (or method) is nothing outrageous or overly-scientific. Observe, hypothesize, test, refine. Humans have been living by the scientific model from the first moment we had awareness. Now theories like parallel universes and string theory are certainly not proven, but they've been suggested as possible explanations for data that doesn't fit perfectly within our current theories. More data might come in that either proves or disproves them. But just because science has theories without firm evidence doesn't mean there is wiggle room for everyone's pet theory, either.

[LWolf]

35. Good point,

and more concise than I.

[Tesha]

All you have to do is suggest one plausible mechanism.

> The fundamentalist side of the skeptic coin: insisting that
> anything that is not yet proven is "magical thinking," and
> ignoring the vast quantity of events we cannot yet explain
> and questions we cannot yet answer.

All you have to do is suggest even one plausible mechanism by
which, for example, teeny tiny litle Pluto, a little rock
orbiting at 77 times the distance of Earth from the Sun
affects people's lives. Just one mechanism.

----

NPR was pretty funny yesterday afternoon. In a definite
"Jumping of the Shark" moment, they gave a huge amount of
airtime to some astrologer who was responding to the fact
that the IAU may de-planetize Pluto, and whether or not
this would affect anyone's charts.

It was amusing listening to him explain how much influence
Pluto had now, and how it must continue to be considered
in charts, even though people were drawing astrological
charts for centuries before it (and most of the outer
planets) was even discovered.

Tesha

[LWolf]

49. I don't have to suggest anything.

I'm not arguing for, or against, astrology here. My comments were about the followers of organized skepticism, which, in my observations, mirrors some of the structure of the faiths they love to ridicule.

It wouldn't matter if an astrologist suggested 10 weighty mechanisms, I doubt very much whether it would move the fundamentalist skeptic.

I say this, and I used to consider myself a skeptic. You know, someone who wanted to examine the facts, the history, the possible motivations behind any particular statement, idea, etc.. That was before I realized that there was an organized movement that seemed an uncomfortable reflection of the fundie religions I'd been exposed to. I dropped the "skeptic" label like a hot potato.

I'd suggest that perhaps it is the skeptic who needs to produce some absolutely definitive evidence that nothing beyond what can be discerned by human senses and tools exists.

[Finder]

63. What is evidence of nothing? n/t

[LWolf]

183. I don't think there is any.

That's why, even with copious amounts of hard evidence, theories remain theories rather than "facts." We can never prove that there is NOT something more out there that we haven't discovered yet that could change the known.

That's why I don't deal in absolutes, and that's why I don't discount things that haven't been "proved." Neither do I bet the bank on them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Superstition goes beyond saying "we can't answer this"

Superstition claims a reason that something happens (black cats are unlucky, Mars coming over the horizon when you're born means you will be angry, etc.) without any evidence. If you say "we don't know why this man is better at working in groups than that one is", that's not superstition; saying it's because a couple of planets are aligned is superstition. Saying that a vase fell off a table because the spirit of a dead person pushed it is magical thinking.

[LWolf]

50. I don't really need an explanation of this.

I know what skeptics mean when they diagnose something as "superstition" or "magical thinking."

Personally, I don't really care what the belief is, whether it be about black cats, astrology, disincarnate spirits, or the infallibility of science. I'd say that if skeptics don't have absolute evidence to disprove something permanently, then skeptics should be offering their comments as opinions, and should acknowledge that their definition of "superstition" and "magical thinking" are opinions, not facts.

Unless, of course, the labeling of something as "superstition" and "magical thinking" is done in a neutral way devoid of criticism. Something I've yet to see, but am willing to leave open for further evidence.

"Open for further evidence" is what seems to get left out. Everything has to be quantified as fact or superstition, either/or, black/white. It's 2-dimensional thinking.

[immoderate]

70. Let's do to the word "skeptic" what they did to "liberal"

Horribly twisting the meaning of words and demonizing the proponents of rational thinking by attaching the "fundamentalist" tag to skepticism is just ad hominem.

What do we know about astrology?

It has no coherent theoretical basis.
It does not explain any observed phenomena.
Every contolled study has shown its premises to be false.

Is that objective enough for you?

When I was young, my father's business partner wouldn't visit out house because my brother had a black cat. Can I call that superstitious without incurring your derision?

I think of myself as a skeptic. If you assert something that is irrational, and I say, "Show me," does that make me a "fundamentalist" skeptic?

--IMM

[LWolf]

174. I think it's already been done,

by organized skeptics themselves. I'd say it's more like what organized religion has done to the term "christian," horribly twisting the intent of their christ.

I use the term because I see a pattern of similarities.

If I assert something as fact, rather than opinion or personal theory, that, in your opinion, is not rational, I don't mind at all if you say "show me." If you're honestly interested, and not looking for another opportunity for arguing as a recreational activity. Otherwise it becomes a game, where "winning" trumps all. In my view, that's not rational.

I probably would have said "show me" to your father's business partner, myself. Or just considered it a blessing to the household.

As I know I've said here somewhere, I'm not asserting anything at all about astrology. Astrology wasn't the topic of my post.

[immoderate]

224. Could you be projecting?

"Organized" skeptics? Have you got any details on this organization? Chain of command? Location of headquarters?

Sure I enjoy the interaction. But the conceit is that I'm here to enlighten someone, or to be enlightened. I don't know what you mean by winning. There is no prize. I really don't spend time with things I am not "honestly interested" in (except for pay.) All up and down this thread I have asked for an example that will prove me wrong. And I will gladly admit I'm wrong. And then I will have had the benefit of learning something new. And I will treasure that moment. But you gotta have the goods.

So, you see a pattern of similarities. Are they significant? Analogies prove nothing. Do you also see differences? Why are they less significant? What I've seen here is that the problem with the scientific method is that it is too scientific. Is that what you're calling rational?

--IMM

[LWolf]

238. Here's an interesting article

discussing, among other things, the history of organized skepticism:

http://www.temple.edu/isllc/newfolk/skeptics.html

I'm presenting the article as just one source other than myself that recognizes organized skepticism; I've never read it before today, I just googled it. Since you asked.

Are the patterns significant? Good question. I don't have the answer, one way or the other. Are you suggesting that every time we notice a pattern, we ought to find the time and resources to conduct a controlled study, or that, if some organization hasn't already funded such a study, the patterns don't count? I don't think stating that I have noticed patterns amounts to claiming to have "proved" anything, and I don't think the fact that I haven't done, or paid for, a comprehensive controlled study "disproves" anything. Analogies don't "prove," but scientific reasoning involves the argumentative uses of analogy. It's a guidepost for further investigation. If the pattern of similarities bothers you, feel free to engage in some rigorous investigation.

I'm not sure where you got the bolded quote; is it yours? I can say quite openly that I'm not making sense of it.

[immoderate]

246. Thanks for that reference.

The bold is for emphasis and is general about the thread, not you.

Interesting. I guess I'm a disorganized skeptic. I was expecting a hierarchy like organized labor or organized religion, with a headquarters, lobbyists, etc. I guess this qualifies, but it is rather ad hoc. Like atheists, there are groups, associations, but not what I think of as organized, with a central authority and official protocols.

I could see how the notion plays to some fears. But, like liberals, what's the alternative?

--IMM

[Zhade]

152. Surely you mean "open for any evidence", right?

It can't be "further evidence", since there is none for such things as astrology or "disincarnate spirits".

'Open to evidence' (objective, verifiable, nonbiased) is my default. Using the phrase you suggested would be dishonest and misleading.

[LWolf]

175. Interesting point,

although I'll have to disagree about the "dishonest and misleading" part.

I think "any" or "further" evidence are both fine, depending on the idea under investigation and the evidence, or not, uncovered so far. I don't think I would ever say that there is "no" evidence for something; I could say that, in my experience and/or research, I have found no evidence, and that I don't believe there is any. It's problematic for anyone to say that they have gained access to all possible documented information about a particular topic, so to say that there is none might be "dishonest and misleading."

[TheFriedPiper]

36. As silly as astrology is, it has more credibility than 'god'

I mean, you can SEE stars, they actually exist.

I doubt they affect anything here on Earth, but, they DO exist, which gives them a HUGE leg up on 'god'.

[stepnw1f]

42. Belief is Also Based on Perception

After reading your post I thought a little about it. I'd say they really are the same... I believe in God for personal reasons. But my take on what God "is" is what defines "God's" existence. I see nature and I believe that is "God". I attribute God to all of life around us all.... not some man with a beard casting folks into hell and welcoming good folks to heaven. And I don't believe in angels flying around with harps, looking over our shoulders.

I say, to each his/her own... and may it have a positive eefect on your life, whether it be through science, excersise, or whatever else floats your boat. And no... I rarely go to church... I don't dig dogma.

[psychopomp]

45. You basically said what I would have liked to have written

Thanks! I am more into what in the West was called gnossis, or an immediate apprehension of...something. Jung put it a another way. Pythagoras another, etc.

[Tesha]

56. It was a case of attributing valid data to the wrong cause.

> As silly as astrology is, it has more credibility than 'god'
>
> I mean, you can SEE stars, they actually exist.

Astrology arose because, before the advent of central heating,
frozen food, and other modern conveniences, the time of year
in which you were gestated and subsequently born actually *DID*
have an effect on your outcome.

For example, if you were carried in winter, your mother got
fed a poor diet, especially in late winter/early spring. No
fresh fruits or vegetables for her (or you), just those root
crops that could over-winter. And the root crops grew increas-
ingly spoiled and moldy as the hard season dragged on. Ergot
anyone?

So when you popped out and were noticeably different in
development and deportment from the children born in late
summer and early autumn (during the time of plentiful
fresh harvests), the ancients attributed this to the stars
(because the stars varied in the same seasonal pattern as
the harvest and were, in fact, the mechanisms by which the
abcients timed planting and harvesting.

Then more and more BS got piled onto that basicly valid but
misinterpreted observation. And nowadays, we have people
drawing charts with Pluto and other Keiper Belt objects.

Tesha

[trekbiker]

163. that sounds plausible. Reminds me of the recent Acupuncture study...

a study to measure the effects of accupuncture on arthritic people. One group received no accupuncture, the second received traditional Chinese acupuncture where needles are placed in very specific locations and the third group received bogus acupuncture where the needles were purposely placed in incorrect locations. The results?? Acupuncture does have a quantifiable affect on pain reduction.. BUT... there was no difference between the traditional "correct" acupuncture group and the "incorrect" acupuncture group. Science will no doubt figure out how needles stimulate pain reduction in the brain but it looks like all those special energy centers or whatever the acupuncture specialists are attempting to manipulate might just be make believe..

Perhaps the observed phenomenon of pain reduction thru needle application may have been taken over by "specialists" thousands of years ago and turned into some sort of highly developed bogus "skill" reserved for a few specialized practitioners. I see the same tendencies in religion, astrology, most superstitions, etc. Ego and power corrupting basic observed phenomena. Its probably just human nature. I'll stick with basic good science and the scientific method.

[Chemical Bill]

46. As a chemist and an astrologer...

I resent all the attacks here on one of my chosen professions. Simply because one has not seen any statistical proof of the validity of astrology doesn't mean such proof is nonexistent.

How very like the planet Mars to start a war! In this instance, it was a war between the scientific establishment and a pair of French psychologists, Michel and Francoise Gauquelin. The Gauquelins conducted rigorous research over a period of thirty years that demonstrated that certain traditional astrological principles held true to a high degree of statistical validity. Possibly their most striking example was called The Mars Effect, in that they found that overwhelmingly the charts of sports champions tended to have the planet Mars within ten degrees of one of the four angles of the chart.

Imagine that beginning in 1949, this pair of painstaking researchers and statisticians hand-calculated thousands of timed birth charts, though eventually with the development of computers, they were enabled to do more advanced work. In time, their studies included over 60,000 timed charts of notables, and their findings extended to the angular positions of other planets as well.

<more>

http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/gauquelin.html

Astrology is a complex language of symbols that describes people's personalities and perceptions. The events of a lifetime can be timed with astrology. However, I can describe the choices that someone faces, but I cannot tell which choice that person will make. Astrology doesn't preclude free will or responsibility.

As for the mechanism behind the effect of the planets, I don't know, or care. I must remind people here that I do not know the true nature of gravity, that is, is gravity matter or energy? Gravity has characteristics that fit both categories. Yet I use gravity every day, so this lack of knowledge on my part is in no way a handicap.

If you actually care to become informed about astrology, try these threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=245x24831

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=245x25143

Bill

[Bill McBlueState]

52. Oh, but many of us can't try those threads.

The mission statement of that group says, "This group is intended as a positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of these stated topics and is not intended as a place to argue the merits of beliefs or choices."

So you can't make posts that question the validity of astrology in that group. But in addition to that, that mission statement has been interpreted to mean than people who have a history of skepticism are not even allowed to post in the group. People have been bannned over this.

The way the mission statement of that group disallows debate always leaves me wondering what the problem is with astrology. Practicioners of real sciences welcome debate.

[Chemical Bill]

59. I support that mission statement.

I didn't mean for anyone to come to those threads and bash astrology like some have been doing here. I only meant that you might want to actually study astrology before passing judgement. I read the bible before I discuss what it says....

Bill

[Bill McBlueState]

62. "studying"

But part of studying something is to ask critical questions.

[Chemical Bill]

143. And people here asked...

for statistical proof of astrology. I have provided a source for that. Yet I haven't seen any thanks, or statements of intent to read it.

You talk about critical questions, and I have no problem with critical questions. What I have a problem with is blanket condemnation. What I am reading here is that people say astrology is bullshit, no matter what. Part of studying is to start with no preconceved answers.

I was in high school, and I noticed that my three closest friends were all born within a week of each other. I thought that there may be something to this astrology stuff, so I looked closely.

Please don't think that I have no idea of the scientific method, as I do have a degree in chemistry.

BTW, what is the true nature of gravity, is it matter or energy? Or don't you "believe" in gravity?

Bill

[datasuspect]

232. surely, as a scientist, you of ALL people

should know there is a difference between criticising something and bashing it.

bashing implies a complete lack of thought in destroying something. a skeptic probably has put a lot of thought into their criticism.

[Chemical Bill]

244. Yes, I agree that there is a difference.

What do you describe the comments here as?

Bill

Edit: for example:
>It's the belief that the positions of celestial bodies influences events on Earth.

>They don't, so it's fake.
(BTW, try telling that to women whose periods are timed by the moon).
Or:
>Astrology is pure bunk. Next question.

[datasuspect]

259. saying "astrology is bunk"

sounds like a strong unqualified assertion, yes.

bashing, not so much.

[marions ghost]

122. what good is it to argue about this?

Too much distance between athiests and (quote)'magical thinkers.' It never ends up well. Debates on "beliefs" just degenerate into negativity. What defenses do those who believe in a spiritual realm have against someone who says "if I can't know it, see it, feel it, it doesn't exist?" None.

There's a skeptics group at DU...do astrologists pursue skeptics there to "debate" (or is it bait) others? Didn't think so.

[Bill McBlueState]

149. but astrological claims are not exclusively spiritual

Proponents of astrology make claims about the natural world. As such, those claims are subject to the same standards of evidence as other claims about the natural world. For example, one might claim that people who are born when Mars is in Aries are more athletic. You could do a double-blind study to determine the athletic abilities of people who were born when Mars is in Aries and evaluate (with error bars!) the likelihood that the athletic abilities of that population are above average. A positive result would constitute support for the astrological claim; a negative result would refute it.

If tests like these consistently come up negative, it says nothing about what is vaguely termed the spiritual realm. But it does limit the types of claims astrologers should expect the rest of us to believe.

By the way, there is a group to discuss skepticism, and its mission statement explicitly says, "Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner." So everyone is welcome. Whether anyone in particular chooses to accept that offer is beyond the control of the participants.

[marions ghost]

159. the OP's article lumps God

and astrology together as similar bogus belief systems. This indicates to me they are both seen as vaguely "spiritual."

Astrology is fun for some people and I don't think it has caused any wars. I am not an astrologer nor do I really care to defend it particularly, I just see it as harmless. If people want to put some stock in it, how does that bother anyone else? Is there some fear that it will mess up people's minds like Christianity, Islam or Judaism have? Yet people here want to throw astrology into the same pot as fundy Christianity...just looking for a scapegoat. It's a way to disparage Christianity. All I'm for is freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to be against religion-- within an atmosphere of tolerance.

Astrology is concerned with psychological or philosophical (spiritual)_questions. To equate astrology with the hard sciences is ludicrous. I'm not even sure that it's necessary to prove that astrology is "true" by statistical means. Astrology IS more logically associated with spiritual belief systems but it certainly has nothing fundamentalist about it. LOL--I'm imagining astrologers proselytizing and martyring themselves for Astrology...LOL

What person who professes to be interested in astrology would DARE to wade into the sharky waters of a Skeptics forum and get their heads chopped off? Maybe on moratorium days when target practice is not allowed? The two heads are just different. Skepticism is for some and not for others. Diversity is good.

All we need to do is peacefully coexist.

[immoderate]

180. "Skepticism is for some and not for others."

Granted, but what's the alternative, believing everything you hear?

--IMM

[marions ghost]

235. The alternative is keeping an open mind

and not getting stuck in black & white thinking. Flexibility. If something doesn't work for you, then reject it. But if it works for someone else (and does not harm you), then respect it.

I agree that extremist fundy religions need to be opposed WHEN they become dangerous, which they tend to do. You have to draw some clear boundaries. For example--Evolution should be taught under the category of Science. Creationism should be taught under the category of Religion. We do not teach religion in public schools, except in its impact on cultures. Teach it in churches if you want. End of argument.

About irrational beliefs: Worry about "rational" people who believed that Saddam had WMD, worry about "rational" people who believed that an election cannot be stolen, worry about "rational" people who believed that of course FEMA would save New Orleans.

I'll give you an example of your own "magical thinking"--you seem to believe that if you fight some noble fight against all the religions and pseudo sciences, the world will become more safe for skeptics. Good luck on stamping out beliefs that have persisted for centuries. Suggest to define the real threats to you. The biggest forces against us really have nothing to do with spirituality & pseudo sciences.

[datasuspect]

261. it's good to have an open mind

but not so open that your brain falls out; cf. crystals, astrology, phrenology, etc.

[marions ghost]

266. worry about the stuff

that really threatens you. Surely you don't sit around worrying about the attack of the astrologers and alchemists and witches, now do you? Persecuting them went out a long time ago.

People are not spreading astrology and crystals in the halls of government (Nancy's advisor notwithstanding...but I don't think you can blame the Reagan failures on her). Anyway, we'd probably be a lot better off with astrologers and crystal collectors running the country than we are now.

It's a freedom thing.

[datasuspect]

267. you are correct

i have no issue with them until they start to influence the laws and government.

that's when they need to be counteracted. not persecuted. having a mind that accepts that tripe would be punishment enough.

[muriel_volestrangler]

229. That is talked about in the article

You sound so benign. Yet your day job is debunking pseudo sciences like rain dances and astrology. There's no harm, then, in me thinking that because I'm a Libra I just might get what I wish for today?

(Laughs) No, for most people astrology is just light entertainment. But the problem with taking it seriously is it can lead to other irrational beliefs. And presumably in an educated democracy we want to have a certain level of education, as Jefferson says, so we can have a serious national discussion about problems. I mean, people who believe in astrology tend to believe all kinds of goofy things. All the pseudo sciences -- astrology, Tarot cards, psychics, mystic healing -- use the exact same principle. They work because we have a selective memory and a confirmation bias. We look forward to finding evidence for what we already believe and forget the rest. In an hour reading, a psychic will make 200 or 300 statements. If a person walks away with half a dozen things the psychic got right, he's ecstatic. It's like Skinner with the rats. You don't have to reinforce them every time. In fact, they'll press the bar even faster if you give them intermittent reinforcement. It's the same with slot machines. You just have to pay off every once in a while and it will keep us pulling the levers.

Astrology is a 'gateway belief', if you want. If you've believed six impossible things before breakfast, there's a good chance you'll go on to believe even more impossible things during the rest of the day. And if you listen to a Republican, that could be dangerous. The Bush regime really is anti-science, and people who say "pah, scientists - what do they know?" don't help fight that.

Yes, there were one or two DUers who went into the Skeptics group specifically to pick arguments and insult people. That caused admin to add that "in a respectful, non-disruptive manner" to the mission statement, and to ban those DUers from the Skeptics group.

[marions ghost]

231. oh BS

"Astrology can lead to other irrational beliefs." LOL horse laugh

LOL--you mean like believing in a fair election system? Like believing the govt works for the people? Like believing Saddam had "WMD"? Like believing the govt will help you in a natural disaster?
(I could go on but I don't have all day...)

Have I made my point? If you think you're going to eradicate all the "goofy thinking" in the world...and make the world safe for scientists--well you have more imagination than the average 'live and let live' astrologer.

I agree with you the Bush regime is anti-science and that is not OK. I think that is what this debate is about. They've got scientists on the ropes and scientists are defensive. I'm surrounded by scientists. I know some who work in environmental or marine science. They have been patiently demonstrating the degradation of the environment for years. Nobody listens to them. Yes, that is VERY disturbing.

Sure --this deplorable state of affairs has something vaguely to do with the fact that there's a fundy Christian nutjob in the White House. But he's more nutjob than Christian--these are not even "Christian principles" that he operates under. So it's not really fair to blame Christianity as a whole here. Bush worships Baal and his own inner demons. That's the real problem.

But it is an extreme over-reaction to blame Astrology for the tyranny of Bushco! (I just can't stop laughing about rational scientists blaming their problems on ...Astrology!?! This is hysterical.) Psychologically speaking, the scapegoating of "pseudo-sciences" seems to be a displacement activity for this legitimate frustration with the administration. And I thought scientists were supposed to be experts at defining the source of a problem. Well we ALL know that scientists can be as irrational as anyone else at times. LOL

As far as disrupters in the Skeptics group...well you have your disrupters everywhere. I seriously doubt they were Astrology buffs just hell bent to prove that "pseudo sciences" should be taken seriously by a bunch of skeptics and athiests. That would be about the biggest losing game going.

Do you actually think you're going to liberate all the 'magical thinkers' in the world? I don't think
you really understand the cultural imperatives for common belief systems. Organized religion has prevented social disorganization as much as it has caused it. People under duress---take American slaves for example--have found a solace in religion that has given them immense strength and social solidarity. Even medicine allows for the placebo effect and for the possibility of unexplained healings. Police departments use psychics. Astrology can be a fun way to look inside yourself, for a culture that doesn't have many ways to do that. In all of these examples, you don't have to believe anything. You just have to allow for possibilities, which the best scientists do. Science is a belief system in itself. There is nothing absolute about science. Less so than ever before. And that's a good thing. Flexible thinking is the way of the future.

Not everyone is going to think alike. Live and let live.

[muriel_volestrangler]

234. As you say, people not listening to scientists about the environment

People thinking scientists don't understand global warming. People thinking creationism has evidence, or that Intelligent Design is scientific. Police departments using psychics. People believing homeopathy is anything more than a placebo - that it can cure serious disesases. All these things are dangerous. Astrology doesn't cause them , but it's an early indicator of people who are gullible enough to buy bullshit without thinking.

Astrology not about "allow for possibilities" - it's about believing made-up stories that the conmen sell, in a multi-million dollar industry.

[marions ghost]

237. And so are you

interested in removing all con men from our midst? ...big job. How about the multi-billion dollar drug industry -- if you have a few hours to spare I can tell you about some spectacular con jobs there. And what about the con men in the US government? The con men in any government? They are a bit more dangerous to us at this point than people who consult astrologers ?!!

Yes --I think scientists have been ignored re. global warming etc and that is a huge mistake. Yes I think creationism doesn't belong in public schools.

Police Departments would not use psychics if they didn't give them clues. Police depts aren't interested in anything that doesn't work. People get some help from homeopathic remedies and millions of people wouldn't use remedies that don't work. The people of India and China for example would not give up their herbal remedies, because they get some measurable positive relief from them.

Astrology is an indicator of nothing about people's gullibility. It's gullible to believe in anything these days. Nothing is as it seems.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jeroen]

78. "sorry, your life's work is meaningless" ?

That is the worst thing I have read, here on DU, in the last few months.

[Hemperor]

82. well... it is

if someone spends their whole life trying to turn lead into gold.. would you not say that is meaningless? the same applies here... crackpot pseudo science deserves no consideration as meaningful work

[Tesha]

92. Actually, at leastthe Pb->Au transformation can be done

Actually, at least the Lead->Gold transformation can be done
if you're willing to invest enough time and energy at your
local proton synchrotron.

Which is a lot better a situation than making a scientifically-
testable astrological prediction; THAT apparently CAN'T
ever be done!

Tesha

[Jeroen]

151. If 'Mu!' gives my life meaning

then who are you to tell me that 'Mu!' is meaningless?

You could say: "'Mu!' is meaningless, we all know that! It is scientifically proven that 'Mu!'is nothing, meaningless, a delusion!"
I would answer: "well, perhaps you are right, but please excuse me, I like to get back to 'Mu!'."

You say: "but why 'Mu!'?. Are you ignorant? Stupid? You are wasting your time!"
I would answer: "perhaps I am, but it gives me joy, it makes me happy. I cannot resist it. I like 'Mu!'.

[Atman]

85. Gravity doesn't exist.

The earth sucks.

[Atman]

60. The Top Ten Atheist Myths (This answers several points in the essay)

Top Ten Atheist Myths

No, it's not a David Letterman bit. It's actually worth study for your next encounter with a non non-believer.

.

[TheFriedPiper]

64. That mus be a 'faith' based link: IOW: it doesnt work

[charlie]

69. Works fine

Try it again, maybe you'll get through this time.

[TheFriedPiper]

71. it has extra slashes in it

i'll try editing it to an actual URL

[charlie]

73. Huh

Plain old standard-issue link, as far as I can see. However you get there, give it a go. If you haven't seen it before, it's really worth a look.

[TheFriedPiper]

84. that worked, great page

[immoderate]

75. That link didn't work for me.

--IMM

[charlie]

79. Weird

Here's an alternate. Not as easy to read, but if you're using Firefox or Opera, you can turn off page styling for a plain page with normal sized fonts.

http://fans.papervixen.net/atheism/top10.php

[immoderate]

87. That's not it.

Seems there were extra slashes in the URL. You can see it when you show its properties. I edited it, and it worked fine. What puzzles me is why it worked for you.:shrug:

--IMM

[charlie]

91. Server must be belching up occasional munged links

with that forum <link> tag or something. There aren't any extra slashes in the URL I keep getting. Weird.

[immoderate]

100. Maybe it's the stars!

:hide:

--IMM

[fishwax]

190. it worked for me too

i think you're right ... must be the stars :rofl:

[SidDithers]

80. Another fave, The Woo Woo Credo...

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

It's fun to pick out which ones have been exhibited on this thread.

I see 3, 6, 12, 22, 38 and possible a 10. :)

Sid

[Atman]

81. To those having trouble with the link...

Here is a plain text version. The link is fine, but some seem to be having trouble with it. C&P it if need be...

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/top_10_atheist_myths.htm

[SidDithers]

83. That one works, Atman...

I think there may have been an extra "//" before humanist in the first one.

Thanks for posting :hi:

Sid

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. So a few thousand years ago...

some observant farmers noticed that the river flooded in periodic intervals. Judging what time of the year it is by noticing the weather is sketchy. You can guess the season, but getting a bit more accurate than that is tricky. The stars are much easier to go by. When that bright star over there rises over that mountain over there, then you can assume that the floods are a week or two away. Pretty damn important if you've just invented this thing you're calling "agriculture." So obviously the stars are magical and can influence your crops. But wait, there's more. If you've got lots of food then some of the people can waste time staying up at night making lots of interesing observations of the stars. Like, for example, there's 365 days in a year, and six of the stars seem to wander around a lot, and those damn eclipses are predictable. Good thing to, those things scare the shit out of people.

Of course there's a lot of bullshit to. Some goof who wasn't paying much attention figured that if wandering star happened to be passing through that patch of stars shaped like an elephant, well then that means he wouldn't get lucky for another month. He was wrong, of course. But a lot of other people who weren't paying much attention either believed him. And they keep believing him to this day.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is astrology.

[TheFriedPiper]

86. that is the basis for most religion

people making up shit and other people believing it

[immoderate]

89. Not to mention...

People making up shit, and then believing their own fantasies. There are a few instances even in this thread. Lots of people here admit that they made up their own god. Just visit R&T forum.

--IMM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. Sure.

But sometimes you get the Sistine Chapel.

[TheFriedPiper]

94. but most times you get war and oppression

wonder how long until the ylock this thread too?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. You get war an oppression without religion.

Look at Stalin.

War and oppression are aspects of human nature, not human religion. Relgion's just a convenient excuse and/or scapegoat.

[TheFriedPiper]

101. Religion is the enabler

the ONE example that all holy rollers use is Stalin

Stalin is the exception that proves the rule

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. There's also Mao.

And Pol Pot.

The problem is, the Holy Rollers have a good point.

And besides, institutionalized atheism hasn't been around that long.

[TheFriedPiper]

105. institutionalized atheism?

is that like organized chaos?



geez

[immoderate]

142. How long have there been non-believers?

Seems like all religions, no matter how ancient, have a bone to pick with them. Read some of the plays of Euripedes.

I'm an atheist, but I have not yet been institutionalized.

--IMM

[immoderate]

117. OK, let's look at Stalin.

He turned a political system into a cukt-like institution and an object of worship, where questions and alternate views were not tolerated. Not exactly free or critical thinking.

Is Stalin whom you think of when you visualize atheism? Does it matter that he was a fucking lunatic?

--IMM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. "Is Stalin whom you think of when you visualize atheism?"

No. No more than the crusades, Inquisition, and bin Laden come to mind when I visualize religion.

"He turned a political system into a cukt-like institution and an object of worship, where questions and alternate views were not tolerated. Not exactly free or critical thinking."

Bingo. He did that with politics. He did it without religion. Atheism isn't some cure-all for human stupidity.

"Does it matter that he was a fucking lunatic?"

That's my whole point. Evil bastard lunatics come around regardless of religion.

[TheFriedPiper]

127. he turned his politics into a religion

so his crimes were due to religion too

his cult was just different than the jesus cult

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. LOL.

Now you're just calling the things that you don't like "religion."

Not applying very good critical thinking skills, IMHO.

[TheFriedPiper]

135. just pointing out the hypocrisy of religion

im bored with this

superstitious people will continue to whine that their superstitions are only 90% saturating our culture and pine for the conversion of the other 10%

and they will always lash out when confronted with the obvious foolishness of believing in superstitions in the first place

[immoderate]

134. Skirts the issue.

Religions claim absolute knowledge without any basis. Such claims lead to the conflicts you mention. Stalin instituted Communism as a religion with the same results. He made it a dogma. You question, you're a heretic, you die. Religions typically invoke the same absolutism as Stalin, but that's considered OK.

--IMM

[ComerPerro]

93. As much as I hate to say this, I don't like to see this kind of thing

it only appeases the radical religious fundimentalists.

"See, even atheists believe in God".

It only adds legitimacy to their claims that we are a Christian nation.


Why can't people actually have the guts to stand up and say, "No, these views are not compatible, they think astrology is a load of shit, I think their religion is bullshit."


You can't win with these people by trying to strike some sort of compromise.

That's how Intelligent Design came about.

Proponents of Evolutionary Theory tried to appease the radical Christian right by saying "You can believe in God and Evolution at the same time", and they took it and created their own version of Evolution.

And now they insist that it should be taught as science, because "Even Evolutionists think God may have played some role"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Whua?

1. There's nothing wrong with believing in Evolution and God. Says otherwise underlines a serious misunderstanding of evolution to say the least.

2. Stating #1 had nothing to do with Intelligent Design. The movements been around since Darwin first published. Intelligent Design isn't a version of Evolution. It's the antithesis of Evolution.

[ComerPerro]

106. No, its their idea of a compromise

ID is a way evolution can be taught, as long as the teacher reminds the students that God guided every step.


And, yes, its nice to see people reach out to other faiths, but it only makes the fundies even more bold.

Ever hear the phrase "There are no atheists in foxholes".

This appeals to that line of thinking.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

No it's not.

It's their way of trying sneak the Bible into classrooms.

It's got nothing to do with Evolution.

Have I heard the phrase "There are no atheists in foxholes?"

Yes, it reminds me of "its nice to see people reach out to other faiths, but it only makes the fundies even more bold.
"

[ComerPerro]

116. What does evolution say? And what does ID say?

Far as I can see, the only difference is "natrual selection" vs. "God did it"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. Evolution says...

that all organisms are decended from a single common ancestor some three billion years ago via natural selection.

ID says God created Adam and Eve six thousand years ago and if we dress it up a bit we can sneak it past the school boards.

[ComerPerro]

126. No, that's creationism.

Its becoming apparent that you don't really know what you're talking about here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. ID and Creationism are the same thing.

It's apparent to people who do know what they're talking about.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kHN6hJ-ClGQJ:www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf+intelligent+design+judge+opinion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

[ComerPerro]

137. This is a court ruling that ID teaches religious doctrine

and therefore can't be taught as science.

It does not, however, indicate that ID and Creationism are the same. They are differnt theories, mainly because ID is a compromised version of creationism.

Which was my point in the first place.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

166. I was talking more...

about the "breath-taking innanity" of people trying to argue that ID is anything more than warmed over Creationism.

[TheFriedPiper]

97. if there was a god, there would be no religion

it just would not be necessary

religion's very existance is proof that god is fake



religion is a fraud

[ComerPerro]

107. I don't follow...

[TheFriedPiper]

110. well, the character 'god' in their fables is supposedly all-knowing

a 'god' wouldn't need preachers to get its message out

[ComerPerro]

113. Sort of like,

Why would an omnipotent, all-powerful being care if we worship him or not?

[datasuspect]

233. god is the ultimate alchoholic father

an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving creature that punishes you for not believing in him (sends you to hell), but never actually shows himself to you.

if i loved my children, i wouldn't hold a heaven and hell over their heads to coerce them into belief.

[Kailassa]

223. Exactly. I was five when I naively tried to explain that

to a minister after a church service.

He had preached that we needed to go to church to listen to the preachers,
because god only spoke to them, and their job was to convey what god said
to the rest of us.

It made no sense to me that god could-not/would-not speak to me personally
if he wanted to communicate to me, and the fury the minister screamed at me
with when I tried to discuss this only made me feel sorry for him.

There was no way a man who believed what he was saying would scream like
that at a little girl who questioned the idea.

[SaveElmer]

112. Evolution is not the origin of life...

It is the origin of species...

Darwin never claimed to explain where life came from, only what happened to it after it began...

There is no scientific theory which can claim to explain the origin of life...

[ComerPerro]

115. Exactly. And because of that

religious zealots have stepped in and used this to attack.

And they always take it back to God (which I'd really like to see them prove).


You can't negotiate with religious fundies or Republicans. And there is no compromise.

They just spit in your face.

[SaveElmer]

118. There are plenty of non-fundies...

And Democrats...Who believe evolution and religion or not incompatible...

It has no affect on the debate over ID in the schools...

As an explanation for the origin of species or the origin of life, ID is not a valid scientific theory...

[ComerPerro]

120. then why do supporters of teaching ID use that very logic

that's always one of the first things they say.

"Even many Evolutionists believe that god may have played some role in the creation".

[SaveElmer]

138. Because many do...

Thay aren't lying...

But that has no bearing on Intelligent Design or whether it is taught in the schools...

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, but a religious one disguised as science. A disguise that was ripped away in the Dover case. Non-fundies who do believe in God, also subscribe to Evolution and are among the most vociferous opposing ID in the schools. Barry Lynn, John Shelby Spong among many other religious leaders were out in front on it.

[ComerPerro]

140. I'm not saying ID is right or should be taught

My point is that this kind of rehtoric, "I still believe in God and we don't know what created the universe", only adds fuel to the fire for ID supporters.

[SaveElmer]

147. Well it is a valid religious belief...

I don't share it...but most religions require faith. And it is a credit to many, including ironically the Catholic Church that they are willing to incorporate scientific discovery into their theology...

[ComerPerro]

148. they are doing the opposite

they are trying to incorporate their religion into science

[SaveElmer]

177. Well depends on how you look at it...

Christianity is over 2000 years old....well before any of our modern scientific notions had been thought of. So some of these churches have been accommodating their belief structure to scientific discovery ever since.

[DrunkenMaster]

150. WRONG!

The "science has no theories about the origin of life" cliche is a falsehood concocted by fundamentalists and liars that has been slowly working its way into the zeitgeist. There are MANY theories about the origins of life on Earth. Here is one of the latest and most interesting:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm

Revolutionary New Theory For Origins Of Life On Earth
A totally new and highly controversial theory on the origin of life on earth, is set to cause a storm in the science world and has implications for the existence of life on other planets. Research* by Professor William Martin of the University of Dusseldorf and Dr Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, claims that living systems originated from inorganic incubators - small compartments in iron sulphide rocks. The new theory radically departs from existing perceptions of how life developed and it will be published in Philosophical Transactions B, a learned journal produced by the Royal Society.

Since the 1930s the accepted theories for the origins of cells and therefore the origin of life, claim that chemical reactions in the earth's most ancient atmosphere produced the building blocks of life - in essence - life first, cells second and the atmosphere playing a role.

[SaveElmer]

164. There is no accepted theory...

For the spark that initiated life...I am not saying there isn't a scientific explanation, but these theories are not widely held and are not proven. The article itself notes their radical departure and controversial nature. And these theories do not yet explain the catalyst for self replication.

Perhaps I should have worded my response better, there are clearly theories, but none accepted....yet.

Regardless, for evolution the point is meaningless as Darwin never intended to explain the origin of life.

[Kailassa]

217. "Proponents of Evolutionary Theory"

had Nothing to do with Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is a construct of the religious right who
found they could not get creationism taught in American schools.

So they invented sneaky creationism, otherwise known as
ID, in order to undermine the teaching of any science that
might encourage questioning of the literal interpretation of
the bible.

No scientist who published in genuine, peer-reviewed
scientific journals has shown any approval for Intelligent
Design.

[Odin2005]

146. Astrology = SCAM

most educated people stopped beleiving in that BS during the Enlightenment. Now all astrology is about removing fools from thier money.

[omega minimo]

158. This is a stunted view of history and culture

[immoderate]

165. Does history and culture include mythology and fantasy?

I have a friend who is a credophile. He says that anything he can imagine is true. He buys astrolgy, numerology, UFOs, ghosts, and all manner of woo-woo. Is it possible that he could be believing in something that isn't true?

--IMM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

167. Um, yes.

A significant portion of culture is mythology and fantasy.

:shrug:

[immoderate]

168. And are there those who accept myths and fantasies as reality?

--IMM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. Yup.

God bless 'em.

[omega minimo]

179. & there are those with no respect for the ancients who laid the foundation

for today's knowledge, including math and science.

Yup.

I'm sorry, but this sort of smug, safe, short-sighted scientific chauvinism-- even after all the revelations of the past 100 years of science-- seem just as stupid to me as astrology does to you.

[Odin2005]

182. The Ancients thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

The Ancients thought heavier objects fell faster then lighter ones.

The Ancients thought everything was made up of only 4 elements.

The Ancients thought diseases were caused by "unbalanced humours."

Most Ancients never thought of testing these assertions with experiaments.

[omega minimo]

186. "Science" chauvinists think their bag of skin is the center o the universe

:evilgrin:

[marions ghost]

239. yep

a lot of "the World According to Moi" there. Myopic.

[immoderate]

185. Stop calling names and give an example.

Can you furnish one discovery of astrology. Can you name one current scientific venture that does not rely on what you call "smug, safe, short-sighted scientific chauvinism?" What the fuck does that mean anyway, that you don't need evidence? Can you tender a clue what it is you're talking about? What has any astrologer predicted accurately or discovered?

If astrology is so scientific, why will no two astrologers get the same readings? Anything like that in science is immediately tossed out.

You haven't been able to answer any questions. I asked for one example, you have come up with zero.

I'll do part of your job. Astrologers made observations and collected important data. They just drew bogus conclusions because they didn't work within a logical framework. Their basic premise, that there were only four elements, is not true, so their conclusions are not true, and had to be modified to fit current knowledge. And prior to the eighteenth century, science as such, was known as "natural philosophy." Concepts such as replication, verification, peer review, were not used before then. We call it rigor. You call it chauvinism. Ironic, since science is a system of inquiry constructed to disallow chauvinism. You have to prove your assertions, something you fail to do. (Look up Lysenko for an example. That was an attempt to mix science and chauvinism.)

What science is being carried on today that uses the "ancient" methods? Note that I'm not saying that ancients didn't make useful discoveries, but that they didn't use astrology to get them. Astrologers didn't discover math either. Ironically, math is used to disprove their tenets.

So -- how about one example to illustrate what you are saying?

--IMM

[omega minimo]

198. Stop bullying folks & they may talk to ya

:hi:


"Can you name one current scientific venture that does not rely on what you call "smug, safe, short-sighted scientific chauvinism?"

Oh yeah, a whole century's worth, which is why it's amazing how limited the awareness of so many smug chauvinists actually is...........

"They just drew bogus conclusions because they didn't work within a logical framework."

btw that is an incredibly uninformed statement.

"What science is being carried on today that uses the "ancient" methods?"

All of it.

[immoderate]

222. So talk to me!

(Yes we will be on the same side tomorrow, kicking Republican ass.:pals:)

WTF, I'll give it one more try. Which of the findings in that century's work in, um, "alternative" science, do you think is the most significant?

--IMM

[muriel_volestrangler]

230. I'll give you an example of a prediction that astrology ought to have made

if there was anything to it: the position of Pluto. Shouldn't astrologers have been scratching their heads, saying "something is influencing people, but we can't see it. We know where it is in the sky, because we can see the period it has. Will someone train a telescope on these coordinates, please?" But that didn't happen. However, when astronomers discovered it, they started talking about it as if it had always been part of their plans.

What science are you talking about? You still haven't specified anything - you just say "a century's worth". Which century are you talking about? BC or AD?

[Goblinmonger]

195. Ancient astrologists "laid the foundation" for modern

math and science? That's a pretty big claim. Got any examples? I just watched The Jerk earlier today--do you remember the shit and shinola lesson he was taught by his father?

But again, let me have the foundation that was laid by ancient astrologists for modern math and science.

[omega minimo]

219. BMUS lays it out pretty well in #188

if you understand that the definitions in the first section for "scientist" apply to the activities of the ancients (in their own time) who are now considered superstitious neanderthals by today's uber-skeptics.

Note the definition of "mathematica." It is not for me to prove to scientists where the foundation of their knowledge derived-- it is up to them to acknowledge it.

:thumbsup:

[Orrex]

243. Sure, we can acknowledge it. To what end?

Of course science acknowledges its foundations--how could it not? But the mistake comes when people (pseudoscientists, mostly) insist that we must afford those foundations the same respect granted to modern, evidence-based practice and observation. Pseudoscientists also seem to have a need to cling to old knowledge--even if it's wrong, baseless, or entirely debunked--simply because it's old, which is the fallacy of provincial wisdom, of course. It must also be stated that the acknowledgment of a system's roots is not a declaration that those roots still have validity.

My four-cycle engine derives in part from a waterwheel-driven cam system, which was useful in its day but now hopelessly obsolete. For that reason, I don't drive a waterwheel to work each morning. By your reasoning, when our engine starts to fail, we should first make sure that the river is still flowing.

A dogmatic deathgrip on ancient (mis)understanding is the antithesis of wisdom.

[omega minimo]

251. That would be a start

"Of course science acknowledges its foundations--how could it not?"

Apparently many here have a problem with that concept.

"But the mistake comes when people (pseudoscientists, mostly) insist that we must afford those foundations the same respect granted to modern, evidence-based practice and observation."

If we could agree that there is a continuum of knowledge, we might also grasp that there is a range of quality and credibility in any discipline, rather than throw out entire disciplines and "insist" that others deserve no respect at all.

"Pseudoscientists also seem to have a need to cling to old knowledge--even if it's wrong, baseless, or entirely debunked--simply because it's old, which is the fallacy of provincial wisdom, of course. It must also be stated that the acknowledgment of a system's roots is not a declaration that those roots still have validity.

"My four-cycle engine derives in part from a waterwheel-driven cam system, which was useful in its day but now hopelessly obsolete. For that reason, I don't drive a waterwheel to work each morning. By your reasoning, when our engine starts to fail, we should first make sure that the river is still flowing."

Your points are well taken, but that is not my "reasoning," that is your interpretation of the relevance (or not) of those "foundations" to the form science now has.

"A dogmatic deathgrip on ancient (mis)understanding is the antithesis of wisdom."

A dogmatic deathgrip on anything is the antithesis of wisdom. That includes an arrogant, historically embedded scientific prejudice against most of what came before "The Enlightenment."

People were working on being "enlightened" long before that. :evilgrin:

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

[Orrex]

258. Continuum. Any word with two U's in a row is okay in my book.

If we could agree that there is a continuum of knowledge, we might also grasp that there is a range of quality and credibility in any discipline, rather than throw out entire disciplines and "insist" that others deserve no respect at all.

That sounds reasonable, as long as we bear in mind that there's a continuum of appropriate respect to be paid, too. That is, a system shown to have considerable verifiable reference to observed reality should be granted greater respect than a system that can't be verified within any certainty. That latter system might be worthy of respect for its historical significance or because it's a step on the path to understanding, but that seems greatly different to me from a system respected for its specific explanatory value, for example.

For example, no test to date has demonstrated the validity of astrology as a method of diviniation, outside of anecdotal testimony and "hits" whose frequency is no better than random chance. In contrast, every modern scientific theory is subjected to excruciating review and is only accepted after being verified independently and repeatedly. For this reason science should be afforded greater respect as a tool of understanding than should astrology.

Your points are well taken, but that is not my "reasoning," that is your interpretation of the relevance (or not) of those "foundations" to the form science now has.

Fair enough. My hope was to show (not you, specifically, but our multitude of eager readers) an example of a system which, while useful in its day and a foundation of some modern system, has nonetheless fallen out of use for another reason. In this case, because systems of greater efficiency were developed subsequently, thereby eliminating the need for continued use of the foundational system.

A dogmatic deathgrip on anything is the antithesis of wisdom. That includes an arrogant, historically embedded scientific prejudice against most of what came before "The Enlightenment."

Well, sure. But modern science rejects many pre-Enlightment teachings simply because they've been shown not to work. I don't doubt that, among individuals, prejudice exists as you describe it, but science-as-a-whole places greater value on pragmatism than on personal prejudice.

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

Hey, every so often I get it right! :)

[Odin2005]

171. Not believing superstion is a stunted view?

:rofl:

[Tesha]

173. And black is white and the sky is green! (NT)

[omega minimo]

184. OK, "truncated" then.............

You wrote:

"most educated people stopped beleiving in that BS during the Enlightenment. Now all astrology is about removing fools from thier money"

1. the suggestion that educated people dismiss everything prior to the Enlightment sounds -- uneducated, or miseducated. In today's hyper-specialized world, many "educated" folks have no idea that varied disciplines were more unified in other "enlightened" times.

2. you clearly don't know what "all astrology is about" and that broad statement is foolish

3. the Pinball Machine theory of the dead, arid, unconscious universe is more "superstition" than astrology is.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

192. How do "us scientists" ignore 100 years of post-mechanistic science on the

nature of the universe? :shrug: An honest scientist would incorporate that, including the areas where physics do not exclude the possibilities you may consider "crazy, mystical..........."

And don't you go lumping me with "you gullible fools" cuz you don't know who the hell yer talkin to or what I believe.

[Odin2005]

194. It's annoying how you people abuse quantum mechanics.

Adding probabillity doesn't make the universe any less materialistic. I don't support the Copenhagen Interpetation of the Uncertainty Principle (wave functions are collapsed by conscious observation); which you kooks use to help support your nutty ideas, anyway. I am a supporter of of Richard Feynman's Sum-over-Path's interpetation which doesn't need an observer to collapse a wave function.

[Goblinmonger]

196. My only hope

is that your post means as much to me as a post by me about in-depth analysis of Ulysses would mean to you. :evilgrin: Otherwise, I am now officially a moron.

[Odin2005]

211. The only thing I know about Joyce is that the term "quark" came from one..

...of his books. :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

212. I think he's talking about what this dude believes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami

Remember him from What the Bleep Do We Know?

[omega minimo]

206. I ain't "You People" BOY!!!!

Your misguided leap of logic puts the lie to the notion of worship to the Great God Science: Who said anything about ANYTHING you have plastered me with here?

"It's annoying how you people abuse quantum mechanics. Adding probabillity doesn't make the universe any less materialistic. I don't support the Copenhagen Interpetation of the Uncertainty Principle (wave functions are collapsed by conscious observation); which you kooks use to help support your nutty ideas, anyway. I am a supporter of of Richard Feynman's Sum-over-Path's interpetation which doesn't need an observer to collapse a wave function."

You can :rofl: NOT be serious
 

[GreenArrow]

218. today's superstition is often yesterday's fact

and today's fact may prove to be tomorrow's superstition. Science is not infallible.

[beam me up scottie]

188. Definitions for the cognitively challenged:

From Wikipedia:

Science

Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means.<1> The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on science in the latter sense.

Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.

Scientific method

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning. All such evidence is collectively called scientific evidence.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.

Astrology

Astrology refers to any of several systems, traditions or beliefs in which knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related information is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting and organizing knowledge about personality, human affairs and terrestrial events. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer or, less often, an astrologist. Historically the term mathematicus was used to denote a person proficient in astrology, astronomy, and mathematics.<1><2>

The word "astrology" is derived from the Greek αστρολογία, from άστρον, astron, ("star") and λόγος (logos), which has a variety of meanings generally related to "systematic thought or speech." The -λογία suffix is written in English as -logy, "study or discipline".

Although the two fields share a common origin, modern astronomy as practiced today is not to be confused with astrology. While astronomy is the scientific study of astronomical objects and phenomena, astrology is a study concerned with the correlation of heavenly bodies and earthly and human affairs<3><4>. Astrology is variously considered by its proponents to be a symbolic language,<5><6> a form of art,<7> science<7> or divination.<3><8> Critics, including the scientific community, consider astrology to be a pseudoscience<9> or superstition<10> as it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in numerous controlled studies. <11>.

Superstition

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.

[Goblinmonger]

197. You people with evidence to support your claims

are just so damn smug aren't you. How dare you question the ancients.

[beam me up scottie]

199. Yep. Damn skeptinazis and science worshipers.

I knew this would happen when the secularists threw Jesus out of the public schools and started teaching science to impressionable young children.

It's a cult!

[Goblinmonger]

200. And they took "under God" out of the pledge

Oh, wait, that hasn't happened yet. But damn secular progressives ruining Christmas for good Americans everywhere.

[beam me up scottie]

202. You make predictions, too? I'll bet you're a real psychic.

Not one of those fake ones.

[kiki]

253. Don't forget the Easter bunny

God damn long-ears trying to take Easter away from Jesus.

[salvorhardin]

201. I don't understand

I thought it was Mossad and it's American counterpart AIPAC that threw Jesus out of the public schools?

[beam me up scottie]

203. Well they did conspire with the IJC, but they shared a common goal.

We've been trying to get http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com/">them to link to http://www.evilatheistconspiracy.org/">our website but they've been pretty busy lately.

[salvorhardin]

205. Now look what you've done!

You've given away the secret IJC sign: http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com/images/secretsign_card.swf

And how come I don't know the EAC sign?

[beam me up scottie]

208. We don't have a sign.

You have to wear a pin:


Did you check out their http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com/links/index.html">links ?

I love the pickle.

[salvorhardin]

209. Very funny

I like the other meshuggineh goyim.

[beam me up scottie]

213. Yeah, somebody has fun with that website.

It's much better than ours.

[arwalden]

236. "How dare you question the ancients."

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[upi402]

214. Q1, A1 -perfect!

Out of the gate the thing is a winner!

[mvd]

271. Locking

Too many flames and circular arguments going on.

mvd
DU Moderator