Isn't it a bit egocentric to believe that rocks in the sky, billions of kilometres away, actually have an impact on your love life...? :/

^Isn't it close-minded not to even attempt to understand the unknown?

We do attempt to understand the unknown... through evidence-based research. That is, biology, chemistry, physics, geology, zoology, maths, archeology, anthropology, epidemiology, climatology, sociology, psychology, etc. These all have evidence, while astrology has none. Not exactly a shortage of "understanding the unknown", with all due respect.

Well I dont exactly not believe it but I dont exactly believe it.

I think it would be cool for it to be real and I am willing to believe it and give it some credit, but Im not going to be really truly believing it. I see it like I see God, and that is given Im an Agnostic leaning Atheist.

I also think that the similarities that can be found in some of them are actually derived from a technique a lot of 'psychics' use to get a lot of things you might relate to. I forgot what it was called but I researched it at some point.

Youll still see me parading around with the title of a Libra though cause its actually quite fitting for me XD

@The Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it is bullshit. I understand what you're saying but understand this. You cannot prove everything. And it is a shortage of understanding the unknown and based on that so called logic psuedo-sciences has no grounds or anything else that requires alot theories of than facts because not all of their finding can't be proven.. Just because it isn't necessarily proven 100% doesn't mean it's invalid. To be quite honest you'd be like the people in around the New World exploration time period who thought the earth wasn't round and thought it was flat. People also thought great men like Gallileo were crazy. Just because their idea wasn't completely 100% proven at certain points of their experiments. Facts are proven because someone DARED to try to prove them. If everyone had the same mentality as you. No one would bother to try to prove something wrong or right. They would just assume "Oh well it isn't 100% fact so therefore it has no ground".


"To deny possibility is to deny thought"

You're denying the possibility that it might be true without even trying to remotely understand it. I am not saying you have to be an avid astrologer or even like/stand the stuff but what you said had a ton of logical fallacies. An insane amount.

Likewise with all due respect.

^

But by the same token, it is a logical fallacy to the shift to burden of proof. It lies with the people making the claim that astrology is real, not with the rest of us to disprove it. I could claim that there's an 100-foot high invisible pink elephant prancing around the middle of Australia as we speak, and just because no one could disprove it, that doesn't make it a valid proposition.

The Galileo argument is often put forward to advance tenuous ideas, and it is of course an example of a disbelieved idea that turned out to be correct. But for all the "Galileo"s, just think of the hundreds of thousands of theories throughout history that haven't been right. Astrology is likely to be one of them. There's never been a shred of evidence presented for its validity. The high degree of variability between the same day's horoscope would suggest otherwise. As would link by a former astrologer which thoroughly debunked it.

Not trying to come off as argumentative, dissenting opinions are important in healthy discussion :)

Edit: typo

I'm not really one to completely believe or disbelieve in anything (I don't know everything, after all, and I'm sure there's a lot of things that I find plausible that other people find ridiculous), but astrology is one of those things that I, personally, can't say makes a lot of sense to me. At least, not enough sense for me to say I believe in it like I can other things.

Do I disbelieve it? No, I don't disbelieve in anything. But I can't really say that I believe it, either.

I don't know everything, after all, and it would be absolutely foolish of me to sit here and fully deny the existence of something when in reality, I don't know hardly anything.

Anyway, that's a topic for a different day.

So short answer is no, I can't personally say that I believe in it even if I can't say I doubt it, either.

@ThePrincessTale. You're still proving what I said to be right. I never said it shown 100% evidence but the fact you're holding on to what "it is" mentality.. Instead of also looking to possibilities means you're probably won't see proof even if it did hit you in the face. Because proof means different things to different opinions. You have no idea if astrology is likely or not to be right because you are not being objective whatsoever and being objective is key to discerning truths and fallacies. I pointed out why I go with astrology but you're still using the whole if I don't see it. it's false. it could very well be a pink elephant above you. You wouldn't believe it unless someone literally showed it to you right there. And based on your arguments. I'd discern you'd still won't believe it even if it was right in your face. You'd try to prove that it doesn't make sense and why it is there. You'd also probably think you were imagining something.

Like I said. Also I have read the claims vs astrology and for it. Even I though I agree with astrology I can see both sides. To be quite honest. There's aspects that astrology doesn't account for but that doesn't mean it is false. Like I said. You still proved what I said to be accurate. You won't believe anything unless it is proven to you to your satisfaction whereas I have a different quota. I choose to experiment and find out along with taking facts from other sources to gauge my eventual conclusion. Rather than being on the outside looking in which is what you're doing. You think it's so far off from being accurate that you aren't even willing to look at it from both sides. Whereas I look at both sides. You have no proof if it being not likely to be factual so in your own argument. You really can't use that. You can say I don't believe so. But there's no likelihood that astrology is wrong or right. Astrology simply appeases to certain people. Just like anything else. I will take all information and not censor any of it to eventually come to a conclusion. I will not judge an entire subject on one man or woman's viewpoint.

And that test wasn't breaking any boundaries for either side. Mainly because it didn't debunk it. it is still a theory. And it has also been done numerous of times. it's nothing different than before. People have been trying to disprove or prove astrology for years. Just like they have with tons of other pseudo-sciences. Astrologers have gotten people's personalities right at times and other times they were wrong. That still doesn't mean astrology is debunked in any way. I have looked up my own birthday and found 90% was true. I think I know how I would normally act on an everyday basis. if it anything I won't try to prove or disprove it. I am only saying there is a possibility for it to be true. While I believe it in to a point. I am not against it being proven wrong if such really conclusive evidence was against it and not a test they have used quite a few times over. I rather infer that it is a possibility rather than completely blocking any notion of it and halting my thought process to consider the myriad of possibilities.

I don't swear by it, but it is something I really enjoy looking into.

^^^ Same.

I believe in it to an extent, anyway. A lot of it fits/makes sense for me.

I understand where you're coming from, BlindBandit. People do have different standards of proof in order to believe something. Me being of the more cynical/scientific type, I want a reasonable hypothesis, and some evidence supporting it. In true science-y fashion, I try to be objective in assessing presented evidence, and deciding whether or not this evidence is sufficient to reasonably support its existence (as opposed to insufficient to disprove its existence, the standard you seem to be applying, which is completely fine and valid as well). If someone really, truly showed me evidence of astrology- if it was "right in my face", as you say- I like to think I would be quite open to accepting it. That's an essential element of an evidence-based approach. But I don't believe there is evidence for astrology, and indeed, that there is evidence against it. Therein lies the reason for not believing in its legitimacy. I respect that you have a different quota, as you described.

However, I don't agree that there's "no likelihood that astrology is right or wrong", and that it "simply appeases certain people". Facts are not subjective (Only standards of proof are, as we've agreed). But the question of whether astrology is accurate for describing phenomena, is not relative to different people's stance on it, it's an objective element of nature. Example: It doesn't matter if people believe the Flat-Earth Theory is legitimate, the Earth is still not flat. It doesn't matter if people disbelieve in evolution, all evidence known to mankind suggests that it's valid. At the end of the day, theories are correct or incorrect, or partially correct. Truth is objective, not subjective.

Peace :)

^Ugh you've completely twisted quite a few of my words around. That isn't what I was saying at all. To sum up what I was saying. You're completely doubting the existence of something without understanding it. It's not just about proof. It's not about whether something is factual or not. You're being extremely adverse to believing something. There was no proof of astrology not having a likelihood of being accurate. That is a theory. That is a theory that was NEVER proven. Sciences and pseudo-sciences are at a stalemate.

Food for thought.:
link

It's literally oxymorons like this that prohibits things to be understood.

link (This gif is simply an analogy. I do not need a long winded debate on religion. Just understand the basic principles of this gif.)

"Once again, such an idea sounds preposterous to the scientifically trained, unless of course they discover it for themselves, at which point it's all suddenly very "scientific." Instead of calling it "astrology," they're now referring to it as "seasonal biology."

An excerpt taken from that very article that I found.

Virtually the way I feel about astrology is on par of on how 8theGreat opinion was with some more leaning to towards astrology. There's no 100% accurate analysis of proof to support either stance. Just the ABSENCE of proof. The absence of proof doesn't mean the denouncement of xyz existing. That is the my actual reasoning. Don't twist my words around.

Anyways I am done discussing this. You don't have the mind of the scientist like I said your mind is akin to those believing something without further discussion because there is no proof so you lean towards what you know. THEREFORE you have a absolutism mentality towards it. Absolutism isn't always proof. It's a placebo sometimes to give people peace of mind so they don't try to comprehend complex things. This is the same mentality that was back then. There is no proof to support either side. But the absence of proof. You are simply willing to believe something because it's easier and you don't want something you find weird to potentially govern things you care about so you want that independent feel. That aforementioned
thing is not proof. It is a placebo. Nothing much other than that. And if you claim you're a scientific type. You're the kind of scientist that doesn't see potential paths. You only want facts and nothing more. Theories aren't just black and white. There are many shades of grey. You cannot use one test and claim it's debunked.
Feel free to believe what you want. Being a scientist is understanding there are different paths and unknown truths to potentially discover along with facts. Or some sort of variation of such. Many theories work on variety of principles. Not just partially accurate,accurate or not at all.

A true scientist sees every path. Even paths they do not agree with.

Anyways I am done with this discussion. Like I said feel free to believe or think whatever you want. I think if you are a cynical/scientific type. We are very different types of scientists and we probably would never come to a mutual agreement. Because our basic thinking patterns clash with one another.

I do not "completely doubt" the existence of astrology. Due to the the absence of evidence, I see no reason to believe in it. That's a pretty large dichotomy. I think you misunderstand my stance, with all respect.

As for the source, "NaturalNews" is a very, very discredited website. It peddles anti-science conspiracy theories then tries to sell you its own products, and has been instrumental in the rise of the anti-vaccination movement (ie. children dying of preventable disease). It promotes disgraceful ideas such as HIV/AIDS denialism, fake cancer cures that end up killing people that would otherwise have lived, is against all modern medication and even doctor visits. Its other conspiracy theories consist of denying the Sandy Hook tragedy happened, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that Barack Obama isn't an American citizen. Even other alternative medicine practitioners think it's a quack site. Just want people to keep that in mind when they cite from it.

I am currently doing a university course of which interpreting scientific journals is a key component. I can tell you at first glance of the actual research article that they've completely misrepresented it for their own agenda (unsurprisingly, given the above context of the website). The conclusions are that perinatal photoperiod (the duration of daylight during gestation) has lasting effects on the circadian clock (daily biological clock) and this affects, amongst other things, the behaviour of mice (not all mammals). A biological clock having different settings is a HUGE jump to the position of constellations dictating the specifics of one's personality. The author of that article is knowingly misleading people for his own gain, which is quite frankly disgusting.

If seasonal variation of birth affects one's life (and science is quite receptive to the fact that it does) is is likely due to the time of year and the season one was born into. This is due to the seasons affecting chemical secretion in the brain, such as seratonin and dopamine, which in turn affect mood. However, this "seasonal biology", contrary to what the article tries to claim, does not support astrology. I would say that it does the reverse, by explaining any observed differences due to birth month by actual biology and psychology, as opposed to the "position of heavenly bodies". For the latter, also consider that you'd have to throw quite a few fundamental physics concepts into the bin. Ultimately, science doesn't support astrology at all, and IMO does quite the opposite.

Anyway, note that I’m not antagonising you don’t want it to seem that way at all. I’m merely exasperated at the author of that article for his obvious and shameless misinterpretation of science for his own financial profit. Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate a good debate. No hard feelings.

^I have found similar articles on other websites. I am not so sure about it being fake at all. That guy has made extremely disturbing articles and has a shady point of view which I wouldn't doubt because. I have also checked the legitimacy of the site. But that doesn't mean this may or may not be accurate in some way. If you look up seasonal biology and astrology you see similar reports of it. Unless I find more evidence. I am not simply rebuking said thing. Yea I figured you're not antagonizing me but like said before you have twisted my words a bit in previous paragraphs which I made mention of. If you're going to debate you shouldn't twist people's words around. I rather keep my options open than just completely denying something because there's no proof. Like I said I am a different minded individual as opposed to you. regardless if different biochemicals were used at the same time. Whose to say as a theory astrology might extend to that notion. I rather keep my options open.
BUT if you don't completely doubt the existence of astrology my point was made. No hard feelings to you as well.

Somewhat. Most people that I have met do match the pros and cons of the signs, but some people are waaaay off. I'll stay on the fence on that one until I'm presented with hard proof one way or another.

I don't believe in it
Mine doesn't apply to me at ALL
So personally, no, I don't believe in astrology signs