ForumTouchy Subjects ► Astrology
Ah yes but He's God

Do you expect him to always do things that us puney humans understand and can explain? Some things are unexplainable. Just because His work doesnt fit into human's criteria for us to wrap our lil brains around doesn't make it automatically false. If people gave up on everything that they couldn't begin to understand, then where would we be today?

The point is, you're so certain that God is fake and the religious theory is just a bunch of idiots believing in magic, but who are you compared to God? A fool. I may even find it comical that you think that you can explain God's creation while ignoring God, just as you find it comical that I even believe in such things.
Grayseff said:
I understand the religious argument and it's basically "take magic seriously." QED

However you dress it up, you're telling me I can't ask questions, the method is impossible for humans to understand, and that I should simply accept magic exists and take it seriously.

I've known religious physicists and chemists and biologists and mathematicians whose sole drive to research is to peak behind the curtain and see the face of God, and arguing with them is enriching and interesting, but the second I'm asked to stop asking questions all I see is "take magic seriously."
Ask all of the questions that you want but not if you don't believe the answers. If I, a mere dummy, ask enough questions about say Quantum Mechanics, I still may never be able to understand it. I'm not equipped with the ability to understand that stuff. That's a place for scientists. I'm also not equipped to understand a lot of things about creation and life. That's a place for God. People simply do not have the intelligence to understand God's work. One day, I will. You, my friend, need only to want to hear it.
Grayseff said:
Because science falls into the "this isn't certain" category, while the religious argument for creation falls into the "this certainly isn't" category.
Creationism is unfalsifiable, so it can't be in the "this certainly isn't" category.

Also, is it time to resurrect the existence of God thread? 😮 We haven't had one of those in years!
How about a no from me

[Grayseff's] attitude towards the whole subject and his certainty that there is no god tells me that there is nothing that I can do to change his mind. Your case may be similar. In these cases, there's only one thing that we can do.
You and I both believe in God actually, but you're probably right that no one's gonna change their mind on whether God exists based on a forum thread.
My bad, Hydrogen777. I originally thought you were Grayseff. After that, I just didnt pay enough attention to your comment and read it wrong. Sorry
I'm objecting to creationism being considered on par with evidence. I think at the point we pretend that consistently defined rules that match every observation are the same as magic and belief we've gone well past a reasonable discussion about God.

Rejecting the evidence for science is actually relatively separate from rejecting the case for God as 90% of sensible Christians who do not reject science would tell you.
I dont reject science. I understand that science has given us the technology that we use around the house in every day life along with medicine, flight, and many other things. Theres always a place for science. Taking credit for God's work is not science's place. That's what causes so many Christian's to deny science. If one part of it is corrupt, it's really easy to reject everything about it.
You realise the same science that leads to medicine and satellites leads to evolution and the big bang theory. It's actually almost incompatible this belief that one side is true and not the other.
One type is using materials and knowledge that we have to create new things and solve world issues, and the other is stretching what we know to try to fit an explanation over the unexplainable. The difference is that one is good and one is no good.
As I explained, not the case with those two theories. In Quantum Mechanics scientists have no explanation for what happens at the collapse of a wavefunction and admit it because there is no evidence, we have no idea.

For the two theories you mentioned they have so much evidence that fits all observations of thousands of scientists over a hundred plus years. if the science that we use to build satellites and radios is true, the science behind the big bang theory is just as true.
There is a really important difference between things like medical science vs. the big bang theory and evolution as the explanation for how things became as they are. BBT and evolution are historical claims and are therefore fundamentally not reproducible. They are still testable because we can use them to make predictions and retrodictions that could turn out false. We could theoretically even run a model that demonstrates that evolution could have resulted in the species we observe, but we could never be "certain" that's how it actually happened. God could have snapped his fingers six thousand years ago, or gnomes could have done it. On the other hand, something like special relativity or germ theory can be directly observed and the results reproduced in the present.

And just to be clear, evolution per se is reproducible, for instance in bacteria. But the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, while pretty obviously true if you consider the evidence and apply Occam's razor, is on slightly shakier epistemological grounds than the simpler claim that evolution occurs.
Both are in a sense the logical conclusion of the science behind a technological analogue, while we can't say for sure what happened in the past we can be sure that if the science behind modern technology holds forever, they or some better theory (which also accounts for modern technology) must have happened.

My argument was basically that if the rules by which science operates always hold, those theories are valid, and if you don't believe the science always holds then fine, but it isn't a theory on par with other theories.
Let's chill on the "does God exist" topic and let this thread go back to Astrology.

I looked it up today (for reasons unrelated to this thread), and I'm a Gemini, with Pisces moon & Libra ascendant/rising. The astrology websites explain to me that this means good things about me (as they do for every sign). This makes me happy to hear, because it's nice to hear compliments about yourself even when they're unearned.
The theory of evolution could hold for all time yet the common origin explanation of biodiversity could be incorrect. Here's a contrived illustration. Suppose you find the words "Jonathan wuz here" inscribed into a tree trunk. You might reasonably assume that a human being named Jonathan carved those words into the tree. You've observed humans carving graffiti into trees, and you've never observed any other cause for such patterns in trees.

However, it turns out that this carving was actually caused by a series of tiny meteors that struck the tree in just the right way and were then undetectably buried. Never again would this unlikely event recur before the heat death of the universe.

The claim that humans create graffiti is still true. Your belief that a human caused this instance of "graffiti" is strongly justified - but it's also false. Furthermore, the phenomena that caused this graffiti and other graffiti are unrelated, coincidental.

We can ask the question "what happens when we drop a rock" and test it repeatedly through new experiments. We can't repeatedly observe the evolution of life on earth after the fact. We can only validate historical theories through parsimony and consistency with observation, not through repetition.

Obviously I'm quibbling here, but I actually do think it's an interesting distinction. It's the one useful idea I gleaned from watching Ken Ham debate Bill Nye.
This is all true, and interesting, but also slightly different from the argument creationists make, which is that because we can't know (which is why we use the word theory and don't state this all as fact) that magic is equally probable or likely or justified, and I don't think that's true.

The truth would have to explain exactly what the prevailing theory does and more, which I don't believe creationism does. It's sort of a "you don't know exactly, so you don't know at all." That I find a bit odious, particularly from people who don't understand what the evidence is before dismissing it on hand.
people assigning shit to me at birth has done enough damage to me tbh so astrology really gets on my nerves when it's taken seriously and sometimes even when it's not. i mean i try to let people have their fun but if you assume literally anything about me based on my birthday please go straight to hell. probably it ticks me off more bc i do not even a little bit match the supposed qualities of my sign and i absolutely loathe people thinking things about me that aren't true
Gray: 🤝

Malcolm: Good point. I think astrology is mostly harmless as a personal hobby, but I can see how it could be a mild dick move to impose it on someone else by letting it affect how you treat them.
people assigning shit to me at birth has done enough damage to me tbh so astrology really gets on my nerves when it's taken seriously and sometimes even when it's not. i mean i try to let people have their fun but if you assume literally anything about me based on my birthday please go straight to hell. probably it ticks me off more bc i do not even a little bit match the supposed qualities of my sign and i absolutely loathe people thinking things about me that aren't true

Very good point. People can have their fun with it. I've seen it be a fun thing to talk about with friends, compare your compatibility with your crush, and marvel over the things that it gets right. I'm sorry that people seem to have assumed things about you that aren't true because of your zodiac. I will try to avoid doing that myself in the future since I have seen how it has negatively affected you. I personally don't think that zodiacs are all that, but I have dipped my toe into the water a little bit. Very sorry, I will be sure not to assume anything about you from your zodiac sign. I'm so very sorry that astrology is linked to other pain for you.
Astrology and other superstitions in most everyday cases are harmless but when it affects the decisions of voters, lawmakers and leaders, it's not so cool. In addition, I have to wonder how disconnected an astrologist is from reality; not just what they're willing to believe but also what information they reject. On the extreme end of fundamentalist religion you might see a bombed abortion clinic, evolution and sex-ed being removed from ciriculum, contraceptives being denied etc. In the extreme, someone who believes in astrology might be in office taking all their advice from a soothsayer looking at the stars to guide them on matters of national security.
Astrology is very popular for the same reasons that visiting psychics is popular, or reading tarot is popular, and so on: because many people struggle to grapple with chaos and the unknown nature of the future.

Actually reading a horoscope isn't so much, "Here's what will happen on x day," because that's more easily proven or disproven. It's more like, "If you want to do x thing, do it on y day because of these alignments." And then people go along, and do x thing on y day, and feel like it has all worked out very well without knowing whether or not it also would have worked out just fine during mercury retrograde.

Having a certain amount of assurance that doing x thing on y day will work out well is a psychological factor that is helpful to a lot of people, and so they buy into that belief. It's much more likely that one's own belief in something is what causes any associated effects - positive or negative - than the positions of the planets. For instance, I wouldn't say that the Great Conjunction of 1226 itself lead to the abrupt end of Genghis Khan, but rather than Genghis Khan knew about the Great Conjunction and the inauspicious message indicated by it.

But on the other hand, there's also the concept of something like the "Saturn return" - which is when Saturn appears at the same place in one's birthchart that it appeared at one's birth. The shifting of priorities and lessons that it is said to bring may actually just be attributed to the fact that everyone's Saturn return happens when they are 29-30 years old - and may very well happen for a lot of people anyway just because of how humans develop through the course of our lives.

People will do mental gymnastics to ignore the purely rational perspective on anything when they have within them not only belief, but a reason and desire to believe. And I don't really begrudge people who want answers to things that don't really exist unless they are using it to harm or oppress others. Because the chaotic and sometimes patternless reality of our existence is contrary to our entire pattern-based worldview, and that clash causes distress for a lot of people.
Fwip said:
Let's chill on the "does God exist" topic and let this thread go back to Astrology.

I looked it up today (for reasons unrelated to this thread), and I'm a Gemini, with Pisces moon & Libra ascendant/rising. The astrology websites explain to me that this means good things about me (as they do for every sign). This makes me happy to hear, because it's nice to hear compliments about yourself even when they're unearned.
I have a cuttingly witty book called Blame Your Planet that's basically where you look up your sign and the book tells you exactly and precisely in what ways you are a piece of shit. But, like, in a comedic and funny way.

This book has proven accurate, funny, and its all colorful and highly illustrated. Apparently I am born under one of the fucked up uh oh bad news bears signs (Scorpio). Then again, everyone's sign is an uh oh sign, they just don't know it yet sometimes! Which is delightful. Every strength has a weakness and every light casts a shadow, so on and so forth.

Definitely one of my favorite books. Which reminds me, I have a friend who is a professional astrologist, I gotta show him this book.
I have a pair of twin nieces. One is extremely girly-girl. She keeps herself clean, showering three times a day if she can. She wears tons of make-up, is always wearing classy clothing, gloms on to name brands, and tries to find jobs that don't involve her moving around much and getting all sweaty. She's also very quiet and keeps to herself, never wanting to really cause any trouble.

The other niece is very sporty. She is constantly active, was always into sports, wears little to no makeup, a complete animal lover, EXTREMELY vocal about politics, doesn't care if she gets a shower, only ever wears the latest fashion from the clearance aisles, and if you cross her wrong, you will definitely hear about it.

In other words, these two are radically different from each other. Yet... they are twins. They were born only five minutes from each other. That means they share every single star sign. Yet they have different personalities, have completely different days, and live completely different lives. Hell, even their sexualities are different. How is this even possible? Oh wait, if you look up the Leo personality, they both tick some of the boxes. But wait, if I look up the personalities for Cancer, then they tick some boxes there, too. Oh wait, if I look up the personalities for Saggitarius, they tick some of the boxes there as well. But Saggitarius isn't anywhere near Leo or Cancer. Oh wait, the same things happen in Capricorn as well.

And that's the problem with horoscopes. Their requirements paint an extremely broad picture so that you will agree with at least a few things that they list, and disagree with others, including things in your own star sign. You will also bend the rules to fit yourself into that requirement and overestimate your relation to that requirement. And if you don't fit any of the requirements, then you must actually be the star sign before your birth sign, or you were conceived under a different sign, or your spirit was actually a different sign in another life, or the website you are getting your information is a crackpot.

People know all of this as "confirmation bias", and that is exactly what is going on when it comes to horoscopes, tarot cards, spiritual mediums, and all the other alternative religious practices (aswellasmodernreligiousbeliefscoughcough). You are going to hunt and peck for any information that validates your theories about yourself, bending the rules in order to make it happen.

And you can thank my twins for all of this. They're the ones that figured it out and taught me better. I was never into this stuff, so I had 0 interest, but listening to them really got me thinking about it all.
I agree with that. I also get really annoyed when people who are into astrology try to tell me who I am, what my strengths are, what my weaknesses are, and my characteristics just based on the day and time I was born. Something that no human in history has had control over. People try to tell me "cancer this cancer that" or be like "it's because you're moon is in saggitarius" or "you're really outgoing because your saturn is at 27 degrees". Maybe I'm a certain way because I just have a unique personality that developed over time?

It especially annoys me when people try to say stuff like "you're feeling bad because mercury is in retrograde". No Sara, I'm feeling bad because I literally just had the worst day ever and nothing is going right today.

I don't mind astrology, I just get super annoyed when people try to use it to explain everything. Especially when they know I don't believe in it.
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Astrology