News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I was an astrologer by ako on Thursday November 07, 2019 @09:32AM (#21473482)
As far as i'm aware, there's no proof in the world that suggests that astrology and religion are not completely interchangeable in this respect... Especially the part where "they are praying on peoples innocent stupidity".

It's really frustrating how some people can go from completely rational on something like astrology, to completely irrational when it comes to religion, when they are basically the same thing.

Re:I was an astrologer by cies on Thursday November 07, 2019 @10:02AM (#21473756)
I beg to differ. Astrologers think that some planetary constructions yield some kind of personality traits. This should be easy to test! So Mars is associated with strong sports/soldier skills: then prove it! Same for Gemini and abstract thinking skills. Maybe I'm off with my understanding of astrology, but my idea is always that they cannot prove what they claim should be provable.

Now lets consider a proof for God's existence. Do most religions claim to have such proof in hard terms? I don't think so. The say it's a belief, a faith.

Not saying that the two not have many things in common, but I also see a strong contrast.

Re:I was an astrologer by Pete_D on Thursday November 07, 2019 @01:32PM (#21475894)
Interestingly, star sign can be shown to correlate with some life outcomes. For example, here's a chart that shows that players in qualifying teams for certain youth soccer tourmanents are over twice as likely to be Aquarius than they are to be Sagittarius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Month_of_birth_distributi.... They phrase it a bit differently though. (half-joking, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect).
Re:I was an astrologer by yetanotherjosh on Friday November 08, 2019 @12:31PM (#21484540)
> Do most religions claim to have such proof in hard terms?

Do most people into astrology claim to have scientific proof in hard terms?

I know a lot of people casually (and some pretty seriously) into astrology, none of them claim that. It doesn't stop them from believing it. They just aren't thinking in a scientific mindset at all. They use confirmation bias to prove it to themselves anecdotally, and many also have a deep irrational distrust of science that has really not been thought through.

So I think holding astrology people to scientific standards is just as meaningless as holding religious people to scientific standards. And plenty of religious claims are eminently testable: the earth was created in 7 days, some holy book is the literal word of god and not written or even tampered with by humans, some religion is the one true path and all others are evil, etc. These things admit themselves to clear debunking scientifically and/or rationally.

To be both religious and scientific means retreating your religious beliefs to all but the most abstract and untestable ideas, something like "god is the universe itself" or other such ultra-generalizations that leave no trace of casual claim of interference with material reality. And the vast majority of religious people on earth do not do that.

Re:I was an astrologer by RichardCA on Thursday November 07, 2019 @06:23PM (#21478431)
It was tested back in the 70's and there was no correlation between what "expert" astrologers predicted and the results of more commonly accepted psychological tests.

Carl Sagan mentions this in his writings and on the Cosmos TV show.

https://youtu.be/pDYMF1RGthQ

Re:I was an astrologer by mdavidn on Thursday November 07, 2019 @11:02AM (#21474351)
Religions make testable claims as well, mostly with respect to events in the past and in the future.
Re:I was an astrologer by cmonnow on Thursday November 07, 2019 @04:05PM (#21477235)
Yes, however people who are not willing to do the test, simply call sour grapes.

For e.g., suppose you make a claim "strawberry tastes sweet", and I have never eaten strawberry before, I'll say "can you prove it?". You'll say "Sure, here just take a bite, and you'll know for yourself". And I respond "Nah, I don't want to do that. Can you still prove it? The burden of proof is on you".

No, the burden of proof doesn't always rest on the person making the claim. Once he outlines the method to verify it, his job is done. The burden of verifying the proof now rests on the skeptic.

Re:I was an astrologer by yetanotherjosh on Friday November 08, 2019 @12:46PM (#21484743)
Are you saying that religion offers proof and skeptics just don't want to verify it? For example?
Re:I was an astrologer by cmonnow on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:05AM (#21502549)
Correct.

There is a way to remember your past lives, if you do a certain penance for 12 years - not impossible, not complex, very simple, but very hard - do not utter a lie for 12 years consecutively. There are no loopholes - if you are born dumb, or lose the ability to speak, that doesn't count. you must be able and willing to speak, but still not utter a lie.

Do it for 12 years without a single break continuously, and on year 13 day 1, you can remember your previous births. Some have done it (hence the claim), but not many in the western 'modern scientific' world care to verify it, and just pooh-pooh it. Of course, it's not a loss for those who made the claim. Whoever wants it can go after it.

Re:I was an astrologer by sixstringtheory on Thursday November 07, 2019 @05:47PM (#21478104)
I'm interested to see an example of a claim made by religion that can be experimentally reproduced.
Re:I was an astrologer by coldtea on Thursday November 07, 2019 @09:57AM (#21473713)
>As far as i'm aware, there's no proof in the world that suggests that astrology and religion are not completely interchangeable in this respect... Especially the part where "they are praying on peoples innocent stupidity".

Well, religion has been studied for evolutionary advantages.

And of course religion has shaped and sustained whole civilizations, arts, philosophy, etc, in ways which astrology did not, and in many ways that people still identify as beneficial.

Re:I was an astrologer by icebraining on Thursday November 07, 2019 @11:10AM (#21474448)
> And of course religion has shaped and sustained whole civilizations, arts, philosophy, etc, in ways which astrology did not

Many religions that have shaped civilizations were heavily based on divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects (i.e., astrology). Multiple Rome emperors had court astrologers, for example.

Re:I was an astrologer by coldtea on Thursday November 07, 2019 @01:13PM (#21475683)
>Multiple Rome emperors had court astrologers, for example.

Yes, but not of the major religions are about that -- Christianity, Bhudaism, Jewism, Islam, etc.

Nor where the religions like the ancient Greek, Egyptian etc that did contain such rituals, predominantly about those.

So we can quite easily consider astrology as something either separate or a very small subset of any religion that shaped civilization...

Re:I was an astrologer by ako on Thursday November 07, 2019 @10:01AM (#21473745)
Yes, it has evolutionary advantages, just like placebos have advantages. Again, not so different from astrology. Depends on how gullible the believer is. And how much force the religious institutions use to enforce the correct behavior of the supposed believers (and now for something completely different... ;-).
Re:I was an astrologer by coldtea on Thursday November 07, 2019 @01:18PM (#21475728)
>Yes, it has evolutionary advantages, just like placebos have advantages

The simile being that the various reglious Gods are also not real?

That's irrelevant, because religion, as a human practice, and the actions, practices, decisions taken based on them are actually existing and actually modifying the world. So that would be more like a placebo that made you do X (e.g. go on a diet) and you see effects from that. In that case, it's not a placebo anymore.

Re:I was an astrologer by ulisesrmzroche on Thursday November 07, 2019 @11:44AM (#21474779)
A placebo works whether you like it or not that’s the beauty about placebos
Re:I was an astrologer by JackFr on Thursday November 07, 2019 @10:09AM (#21473827)
> It's really frustrating how some people can go from completely rational on something like astrology, to completely irrational when it comes to religion, when they are basically the same thing.

Or perhaps consider the possibility that it's a shortcoming of your understanding.

How do you choose to order your life? It's not a scientific question.

Re:I was an astrologer by yetanotherjosh on Friday November 08, 2019 @12:52PM (#21484823)
Where's the shortcoming? When someone talks about astrology as b.s. because, hey, we have science to show as much, then they go and talk about virgin births and resurrections and holy books that are pure revelation of the word of god, etc, they're being hypocritical in so far as appealing to science as a guiding principle in the search for truth.
Re:I was an astrologer by icebraining on Thursday November 07, 2019 @11:02AM (#21474347)
No, it's a philosophical one. But religion is more than philosophy.