Astrological Signs Change

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I can see Leo in you.. Leos love to be the center of attention and have pretty big egos.

On the other hand, I am a Pisces through and through and I'm only off by one day now (March 10th) so that would put me on the cusp.. I'm sticking with Pisces.

Maybe there's something to this new list

Originally Posted by BluPhire

No we don't need no soft Leos on the team. Stay a Virgo.

LOL

Just messing with ya.

lol

[whiteandblack]

me in league with Gemini? ah hell no

[Drolefille]

The only thing sillier than taking your astrological sign seriously is taking it so seriously that you would attempt to adjust it to the modern sky.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The only thing sillier than taking your astrological sign seriously is taking it so seriously that you would attempt to adjust it to the modern sky.

Birthday wisdom!

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The only thing sillier than taking your astrological sign seriously is taking it so seriously that you would attempt to adjust it to the modern sky.

*like*

I don't get all the hulabaloo over it. I think Zodiac signs are fun, at times, but really to get so defensive on t_witter and FB about it? Sheesh.

ETA: Ok so I read the article, and I STILL don't understand where the 13th Zodiac sign comes in. According to this article they just moved each sign up like a month, but no mention of this Orpheususesuseus crap (yeah I don't know the name, deal! ha)

[naraht]

Originally Posted by epchick

ETA: Ok so I read the article, and I STILL don't understand where the 13th Zodiac sign comes in. According to this article they just moved each sign up like a month, but no mention of this Orpheususesuseus crap (yeah I don't know the name, deal! ha)

Ophiuchus.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The only thing sillier than taking your astrological sign seriously is taking it so seriously that you would attempt to adjust it to the modern sky.

Some people study astrology. There's nothing "silly" about it and while I don't study it myself, I have respect for those that indeed take their astrological signs seriously. All I know is I'm 100% textbook Taurus in every way so there's definitely something to it...at least for me.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

Some people study astrology. There's nothing "silly" about it and while I don't study it myself, I have respect for those that indeed take their astrological signs seriously. All I know is I'm 100% textbook Taurus in every way so there's definitely something to it...at least for me.

Studying astrology =/= studying signs of the zodiac

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Studying astrology =/= studying signs of the zodiac

True but you get what I mean

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

True but you get what I mean

Yea, I know

Just pointing out that it's not silly to study the physics of the universe, but getting all OMG MISS CLEO crazy can come off as silly.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

Some people study astrology. There's nothing "silly" about it and while I don't study it myself, I have respect for those that indeed take their astrological signs seriously. All I know is I'm 100% textbook Taurus in every way so there's definitely something to it...at least for me.

If Taurus 100% describes you, but does not 100% describe every person within the Taurus sign, then no, it's called coincidence. The human brain likes to see patterns, that doesn't actually mean there is true causation, or even true correlation. Particularly since the human brain also ignores things that disagree with the conclusions it already has and retains the things that agree. So when the horoscope is 'right' then we remember how AWESOMELY right it was and when it was wrong we remember how AWESOMELY RIGHT IT WAS LAST TIME.

So yes, it is silly. It's not science. It can be studied as a practice the same way many other things are studied, but if it is anything it is purely faith based. As I've never seen anyone actually claim a zodiacal faith, I'm not particularly concerned with calling it silly.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to read a horoscope for entertainment, or to read up on the historical and religious beliefs of the time of Ptolemy when the western zodiac was created and understand the concept... but basing one's life on it, complaining about having to relearn one's life as a ________ because they're no longer a ____________ is silly.

And k_s appears to be mistaking astrology with astronomy.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If Taurus 100% describes you, but does not 100% describe every person within the Taurus sign, then no, it's called coincidence. The human brain likes to see patterns, that doesn't actually mean there is true causation, or even true correlation. Particularly since the human brain also ignores things that disagree with the conclusions it already has and retains the things that agree. So when the horoscope is 'right' then we remember how AWESOMELY right it was and when it was wrong we remember how AWESOMELY RIGHT IT WAS LAST TIME.

So yes, it is silly. It's not science. It can be studied as a practice the same way many other things are studied, but if it is anything it is purely faith based. As I've never seen anyone actually claim a zodiacal faith, I'm not particularly concerned with calling it silly.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to read a horoscope for entertainment, or to read up on the historical and religious beliefs of the time of Ptolemy when the western zodiac was created and understand the concept... but basing one's life on it, complaining about having to relearn one's life as a ________ because they're no longer a ____________ is silly.

Do I hear an AMEN? Oh, wait...

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If Taurus 100% describes you, but does not 100% describe every person within the Taurus sign, then no, it's called coincidence. The human brain likes to see patterns, that doesn't actually mean there is true causation, or even true correlation. Particularly since the human brain also ignores things that disagree with the conclusions it already has and retains the things that agree. So when the horoscope is 'right' then we remember how AWESOMELY right it was and when it was wrong we remember how AWESOMELY RIGHT IT WAS LAST TIME.

So yes, it is silly. It's not science. It can be studied as a practice the same way many other things are studied, but if it is anything it is purely faith based. As I've never seen anyone actually claim a zodiacal faith, I'm not particularly concerned with calling it silly.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to read a horoscope for entertainment, or to read up on the historical and religious beliefs of the time of Ptolemy when the western zodiac was created and understand the concept... but basing one's life on it, complaining about having to relearn one's life as a ________ because they're no longer a ____________ is silly.

And k_s appears to be mistaking astrology with astronomy.

I don't even read horoscopes very much; they're never dead on with me but I do believe there is something to the zodiac, for some more than others of course. Some people are 100% their sign and others are to a certain extent or on the cusp with another or more. I have a book on Taurus which I purchased a while back just for fun, based on the study of several Taureans, both men and women and was totally amazed at the intimate details it revealed about my personality; things most people don't even know about me. Now, will every Taurus prove to be the same way, probably not but all the Taureans I know (and I know a few, both men and women) share the same personality traits and there also seems to be a slight difference (but the same difference) regarding April Taureans vs. May Taureans and males vs. females. Is this coincidence? I don't see it that way but we can agree to disagree since all opinions are valid.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I don't even read horoscopes very much; they're never dead on with me but I do believe there is something to the zodiac, for some more than others of course. Some people are 100% their sign and others are to a certain extent or on the cusp with another or more. I have a book on Taurus which I purchased a while back just for fun, based on the study of several Taureans, both men and women and was totally amazed at the intimate details it revealed about my personality; things most people don't even know about me. Now, will every Taurus prove to be the same way, probably not but all the Taureans I know (and I know a few, both men and women) share the same personality traits and there also seems to be a slight difference (but the same difference) regarding April Taureans vs. May Taureans and males vs. females. Is this coincidence? I don't see it that way but we can agree to disagree since all opinions are valid.

But if it only describes some Taureans then what is the point?

I mean, for example, I'm a Capricorn. I'm very stubborn, but I'm not organized at all. If I want to believe in the zodiac I'd probably say, well I'm such a Capricorn and if it weren't for my ADD I'd be really really organized too. So I've created an explanation.

But the real question is, how do constellations which are random groupings of stars that kind of looked like certain beings to the Ancient Greeks (for the Ptolemeic zodiac) have any effect on the personalities of people born during 'their' months.

It's not surprising you see patterns, because as I said, that's what the brain does. It's really common, but that doesn't mean there's actually something TO the zodiac.

Sorry, it's just that differing opinions don't come into play when it's about evidence and science. If you want to believe in it, fine, but it's essentially religious.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If Taurus 100% describes you, but does not 100% describe every person within the Taurus sign, then no, it's called coincidence. The human brain likes to see patterns, that doesn't actually mean there is true causation, or even true correlation. Particularly since the human brain also ignores things that disagree with the conclusions it already has and retains the things that agree. So when the horoscope is 'right' then we remember how AWESOMELY right it was and when it was wrong we remember how AWESOMELY RIGHT IT WAS LAST TIME.

So yes, it is silly. It's not science. It can be studied as a practice the same way many other things are studied, but if it is anything it is purely faith based. As I've never seen anyone actually claim a zodiacal faith, I'm not particularly concerned with calling it silly.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to read a horoscope for entertainment, or to read up on the historical and religious beliefs of the time of Ptolemy when the western zodiac was created and understand the concept... but basing one's life on it, complaining about having to relearn one's life as a ________ because they're no longer a ____________ is silly.

And k_s appears to be mistaking astrology with astronomy.

Thanks for pointing this out. Knight_Shadow was trying to confuse me.