Zodiac Changes

this.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB88HnlLgZ8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Carl Sagan on the pseudoscience of Astrology[/ame]
 
neptunesguns said:
I am a Scorpio, and with those changes I would be a Libra. I don't really feel much like a Libra at all, but I definitely am a fence sitter on a lot of issues, which is apparently a pretty Libra-esque sort of trait.

That said, I only read up on astrology for fun.
Click to expand...

Hey if you use this new method and become Libra, I'll keep the old and stay Libra.

Libra FTW!
 
From what I know, it's more important what you were born under. It might change for new births, I suppose. Unless that chart includes the time periods we were born during.

Oh and I also don't really buy astrology. Anyone giving a good reading is doing it for one individual, which is to say they're influenced by other sources outside of the chart itself. Let's call it spiritual intuition. The chart is just a starting point, the real insights are coming from the astrologist himself.
 
Razare said:
From what I know, it's more important what you were born under. It might change for new births, I suppose. Unless that chart includes the time periods we were born during.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this vast shift took over a couple of thousand years and not just within the 24 years since I was born.
 
tronpaul said:
What is this astrology bullshit doing here?
Click to expand...

You do realise this is in Philosophy and Religion > Magic and Mysticism?

That's like a quadruple helping of bullshit in itself. Topic has every right to be here.
 
88chaz88 said:
I'm pretty sure this vast shift took over a couple of thousand years and not just within the 24 years since I was born.
Click to expand...


True that... and only those practicing Jyotish use astrology based on the sidereal zodiac.

It has no relevance to Western astrology at all.

So if you were concerned, don't be.

If you don't care, then ignore this post.
 
Never, I shall never surrender to the Ophiuchus...NEVER!!! :m140:
 
IndigoSensor said:
Astronomers don't control what astrologists use. Astrologists control with astrologist use. What I have read so far is that most astrologists said that this does not effect much at all. Some may intergrate the system, but many won't (including me).

This isn't the first time this has shown up either, it's popped up several times before (not exactly like this) and astrologists do not focus on it. The current system works for astrology.
Click to expand...

The reason they don't focus on it is because it essentially invalidates their entire system if they do, just sayin'
 
Last edited:
dream echo said:
True that... and only those practicing Jyotish use astrology based on the sidereal zodiac.

It has no relevance to Western astrology at all.

So if you were concerned, don't be.

If you don't care, then ignore this post.
Click to expand...


Agree to this.
 
woot woot~ I'm a Taurus now lol~

What does that mean?
 
Sali said:
The reason they don't focus on it is because it essential invalidates their entire system if they do, just sayin'
Click to expand...

You're again speaking of astrology as if it's a hard science.

Science is not the only thing in the world, nor is it the only valid thing in the world.





...in the western world, it seems that science and math are all that matter. They're very masculine principles. Emotion, intuition, art... these things aren't valued as highly in western society... so I'm not surprised that people think astrology is not useful because it is not a hard fact.
 
"woot woot~ I'm a Taurus now lol~

What does that mean?"

It means you didn't read this thread.
 
CorLeonis said:
...in the western world, it seems that science and math are all that matter. They're very masculine principles. Emotion, intuition, art... these things aren't valued as highly in western society... so I'm not surprised that people think astrology is not useful because it is not a hard fact.
Click to expand...

The reason I question it isn't because it's not a hard science, neither is quantum physics, MBTI or Evolutionary Phycology. The difference is that I can actually see where the conclusions and inferences are coming from in those situations, they give reasons why, I haven't seen any reasons why from astrology, perhaps I'm missing something about the history or development of these systems though.
 
Sali said:
The reason I question it isn't because it's not a hard science, neither is quantum physics, MBTI or Evolutionary Phycology. The difference is that I can actually see where the conclusions and inferences are coming from in those situations, they give reasons why, I haven't seen any reasons why from astrology, perhaps I'm missing something about the history or development of these systems though.
Click to expand...

I think so. Each sign is strongly connected to mythology, archetypes.



And, just as it boils down to people, it is also used for the study of history, of the human unconscious. Ever heard of "the age of Aquarius" or anything of the sort?
 
CorLeonis said:
You're again speaking of astrology as if it's a hard science.

Science is not the only thing in the world, nor is it the only valid thing in the world.





...in the western world, it seems that science and math are all that matter. They're very masculine principles. Emotion, intuition, art... these things aren't valued as highly in western society... so I'm not surprised that people think astrology is not useful because it is not a hard fact.
Click to expand...

+1. Also people fail to realize that science is about few hundred years old while astrology existed in many millenias. Science in itself begs the same type of outward defense mechanism as religion.If it does not fall within the scientific hypothesis followed by strict guidelines for evidence; it must be unscientific and not worth studying?:m075: I am all for science but trying to disapprove or approve everything through science is fruitless.
 
Sali said:
The reason I question it isn't because it's not a hard science, neither is quantum physics, MBTI or Evolutionary Phycology. The difference is that I can actually see where the conclusions and inferences are coming from in those situations, they give reasons why, I haven't seen any reasons why from astrology, perhaps I'm missing something about the history or development of these systems though.
Click to expand...


You are seeking a rigid scientific answer and you will not get it. People have actually answered this query you present and you fail to receive it as answer because you have predetermined idea of the answer you wish to hear. Astrology is not a hard science is the answer. hence if you accept this; you are also accepting the notion that science will never be able to approve or disapprove astrology. It's like asking why does the Moon wane and wax? and why do people seem to be more tense, emotionally charged, or even feeling full of life or full of anything when the Moon is full? And why do people seem to end things, move or say goodbye when the Moon is waning?
 
Razare said:
From what I know, it's more important what you were born under. It might change for new births, I suppose. Unless that chart includes the time periods we were born during.

Anyone giving a good reading is doing it for one individual, which is to say they're influenced by other sources outside of the chart itself. Let's call it spiritual intuition. The chart is just a starting point, the real insights are coming from the astrologist himself.
Click to expand...

This is true. Everything is dependent on the astrologer. It is an intuitive tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top