What is the evidence for and against the validity of astrology

[Muffled]

Astrologers have been using it for years.



Well how general do they have to be to apply to a 12th of the population? Yet people read them in news papers, and amazingly don't see how irrational it is to lend such claims any credence.


So the hokum superstition of astrology was not needed at all then, quite obviously. Predicting a danger to either mother or baby in pregnancy is hardly prescient, even now and without knowing their blood groups were an extra risk factor.

Astrology is simply hokum.

The article I read on female mortality in childbirth was 18 in 100,000. I don't think they measure danger. It has increased in recent years probably because of abortion.

 

[Sheldon]

The article I read on female mortality in childbirth was 18 in 100,000. I don't think they measure danger. It has increased in recent years probably because of abortion.

How can a woman who doesn't go through childbirth be more at risk of dying in childbirth? That makes no sense.

Astrology is hokum, this has been demonstrated by sufficient objective evidence.

 

[joelr]

I believe the planets were named after gods but you are right they can't do much because as gods they are dead and if reincarnated they don't remember how to be gods.

Dead Gods. How do you know they died? Why are they just not planets?

 

[Muffled]

How can a woman who doesn't go through childbirth be more at risk of dying in childbirth? That makes no sense.

Astrology is hokum, this has been demonstrated by sufficient objective evidence.

I believe the supposed objective evidence is hokum.

 

[Muffled]

Dead Gods. How do you know they died? Why are they just not planets?

I believe I do not know that they died. I can't even be sure they existed. However the evidence is that they are not in the public realm at this time which could mean that they died.

Planets are just planets. I don't see any reason to mystify them.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe the supposed objective evidence is hokum.

Well your choice I guess, I will go with NASA'a mathematics and astronomy, over unevidenced superstition, Ouija boards, bone shakers, witch doctors, and the hokum of astrology.

You seem to have missed the question you were asked about your claim:

Muffled said: ↑
The article I read on female mortality in childbirth was 18 in 100,000. I don't think they measure danger. It has increased in recent years probably because of abortion.

So again then, how can a woman who doesn't go through childbirth, be more at risk of dying in childbirth?

 

[joelr]

I believe I do not know that they died. I can't even be sure they existed. However the evidence is that they are not in the public realm at this time which could mean that they died.

Planets are just planets. I don't see any reason to mystify them.

I thought you were saying planets were Gods, then that they were dead Gods? Now they are just planets? Well that's that. So where is the magic coming from?

 

[Muffled]

Well your choice I guess, I will go with NASA'a mathematics and astronomy, over unevidenced superstition, Ouija boards, bone shakers, witch doctors, and the hokum of astrology.

You seem to have missed the question you were asked about your claim:



So again then, how can a woman who doesn't go through childbirth, be more at risk of dying in childbirth?

I am sure those sciences have merit in their own sphere of influene but they don't apply to astrology.

I believe that is what you propound.

I believe it didn't work for me because I was not spiritual at the time and didn't believe in it but having my wife contract a demon through one changed my mind.

I don't have any experience with that nut Nicky Cruz in his book said that it worked by demonic power.

I believe your hokum is simply your lack of understanding and your refusal to hear evidence.

I believe the person I referred to did go on to have children but I do not have the details.

 

[Muffled]

I thought you were saying planets were Gods, then that they were dead Gods? Now they are just planets? Well that's that. So where is the magic coming from?

I believe there is no magic. I believe God holds all things together in harmony.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[Sheldon]

I am sure those sciences have merit in their own sphere of influene but they don't apply to astrology.

NASA already used mathematics and the science of astronomy to demonstrate you are wrong, and I linked this, more than once.

I believe it didn't work for me because I was not spiritual at the time and didn't believe in it but having my wife contract a demon through one changed my mind.

Oh dear, I am sorry you have this kind of unevidenced delusion and fear in your life, but it has nothing to do with the fact that astrology is hokum superstition.

I believe your hokum is simply your lack of understanding and your refusal to hear evidence.

I don't care what you subjectively believe, I will accept the science of astronomy and the mathematics from NASA over what you subjectively claim to believe.

I believe the person I referred to did go on to have children but I do not have the details.

Who cares, your claim was unevidenced, and this one is equally unevidenced, and of course you don't have details, that's how superstition always operates.

 

[Muffled]

Sheldon listed this statement: "186 prominent scientists have issued a statement calling astrologers charlatans and asserting that there is no rational basis for the belief."

I believe that is just a bunch of people being illogical. It was like old time scientists saying it was irrational to think that men could fly. I have the experience of flying so I know it is real.

 

[Frank Goad]

What about Judges 5:20?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon listed this statement: "186 prominent scientists have issued a statement calling astrologers charlatans and asserting that there is no rational basis for the belief."

I believe that is just a bunch of people being illogical.

I don't care what you believe, especially balanced against a scientific consensus. Your posts have also been relentlessly irrational, so I am dubious you have even a basic understanding of logic.

It was like old time scientists saying it was irrational to think that men could fly.

Another dubious straw man fallacy, and for the record, men can't fly, did you not know this? They can fly planes though, but only because of science. Which hilariously you think is illogical, I'd love to see plane fly without using science. Science puts planes in the air, religion flies them into buildings.

 

[Muffled]

I don't care what you believe, especially balanced against a scientific consensus. Your posts have also been relentlessly irrational, so I am dubious you have even a basic understanding of logic.



Another dubious straw man fallacy, and for the record, men can't fly, did you not know this? They can fly planes though, but only because of science. Which hilariously you think is illogical, I'd love to see plane fly without using science. Science puts planes in the air, religion flies them into buildings.

I believe logic was a main element in my career which was Computer Programming and analysis. I also Had a logic course at university.

Of course I know that is true under normal circumstances. In airplanes they can or on paragliders or parachutes or simply on a thrust of air.

I believe that is a false assessment. There is nothing in that religion that advocate that. More likely it is a lie of the devil that motivates such actions. From a scientific viewpoint it was neither right nor wrong but simply a feat of engineering.

 

[Muffled]

What about Judges 5:20?

I believe that is poetry. I believe it is personification of an inanimate object.

 

[Sheldon]

I also Had a logic course at university.

That didn't teach you about common logical fallacies? I have to say I find that claim dubious.

 

[joelr]

I believe there is no magic. I believe God holds all things together in harmony.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

So you believe it because a book says so?
Then what about other books like the Upanishads that say Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe",

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you believe it because a book says so?
Then what about other books like the Upanishads that say Brahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe",

And do you believe this is true, because wikipedia says so:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

And do you believe this is true, because wikipedia says so:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

The question was answered but you cherry -picked your quote.


"The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.".[50] "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[51] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.

But we can also demonstrate objective facts about this reality. Facts that can be duplicated and agreed on. We can demonstrate gravity and map rules that are consistent. Even if it's a shared dream we can still demonstrate consistency. However I cannot do this with Morgoth. I can find words that are about him, gives his deeds and actions, but I cannot show Morgoth exists anywhere outside of a story.
We can test an objective reality. A God maintaining reality we cannot.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The question was answered but you cherry -picked your quote.


"The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.".[50] "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[51] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.

But we can also demonstrate objective facts about this reality. Facts that can be duplicated and agreed on. We can demonstrate gravity and map rules that are consistent. Even if it's a shared dream we can still demonstrate consistency. However I cannot do this with Morgoth. I can find words that are about him, gives his deeds and actions, but I cannot show Morgoth exists anywhere outside of a story.
We can test an objective reality. A God maintaining reality we cannot.

No, you assume that you are not e.g. a Boltzmann Brain variation. So there might not be a we.
Further read the words: "It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption.". That is not evidence, that is first person singular psychology.
Here is a variation - "It seems more beneficial to assume that God exists than to live without the comfort of the belief in God, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption."
It is the same as it ends as psychology as first person singular.