whst's your zodiac sign

I should mention that the Seasons change date for the same reason.
The Spring Equinox that coincides with Aries,
Winter, when it is most dark, coincides with Capricorn.
Summer, most light, Cancer.
Autumn, Libra.

@Pro_PrarthanaR_2009 said in #37:
> But I am actually cancer! Not leo! But my birthday shows it is leo according to the list! How's that possible?!

I actually did give an answer.
I understand that you believe strongly in what Phil Plait have written.
I respect that and naturally I will not try to make you believe anything else.
Do you expect Me to change My views?
You would appear a nicer person if you showed respect for what other people think,
and didn't talk shit about it.

@Katzenschinken said in #50:
> Why is this question silly? Astrologists are basing their forecasts and their characterizations of people on celestial bodies - or to be more precise, on the viewing angles under which celestial bodies are seen from the Earth. So there should be some rationale behind which celestial bodies are used. Apparently there isn't.
>
>
>
> Yeah, looks like you don't want to answer it either. Just like the astrologists in that thread.
>
> BTW: Did you read the piece from Phil Plait?

@Human77 said in #52:
> I actually did give an answer.

Maybe you could point me to it so I could learn something new.

> I understand that you believe strongly in what Phil Plait have written.

It is not about "strongly believing", it is about what astrologists claim and which evidence they have for their claims. Phil Plait discusses several possibilities what they could mean but I've never seen an astrologist talking about those. You didn't either, BTW. You know why? Because I think they have no foundations for their claims and if they got involved in talking about any natural explanations they would make themselves a laughing stock.

> I respect that and naturally I will not try to make you believe anything else.

Oh, you could. Just do what other astrologists failed to do so far: Deliver some strong evidence.

> Do you expect Me to change My views?

No.

> You would appear a nicer person if you showed respect for what other people think,
> and didn't talk shit about it.

Tell me why I should have respect for something which I think is complete hogwash and in many cases a scam?

What would be strong evidence to you?

If you are open to change your views, then learn Astrology.
Neither Scams nor Hogwash is an inherent part of Astrology.

Astrology is proven to me, so I would like to know if I can help you in some way.

@Katzenschinken said in #53:
> Maybe you could point me to it so I could learn something new.
>
>
>
> It is not about "strongly believing", it is about what astrologists claim and which evidence they have for their claims. Phil Plait discusses several possibilities what they could mean but I've never seen an astrologist talking about those. You didn't either, BTW. You know why? Because I think they have no foundations for their claims and if they got involved in talking about any natural explanations they would make themselves a laughing stock.
>
>
>
> Oh, you could. Just do what other astrologists failed to do so far: Deliver some strong evidence.
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> Tell me why I should have respect for something which I think is complete hogwash and in many cases a scam?

@Human77 said in #54:
> What would be strong evidence to you?

LOL. You didn't answer the initial question how you know which celestial bodies are important for astrology. You claimed to have answered that question but didn't want to show me where. You had nothing to say about that piece of Phil Plait which had a lot of talking points for someone who wants to discuss the basics of astrology. You especially didn't deliver any hint why the viewing angles under which we see the celestial bodies referred to by astrology might have an influence on the future or the character of people.

So far there is absolutely no base of anything I could discuss with you. So why the hell are you now asking what would be evidence to me?

So here is my prognosis (and completely done without any astrological help): You didn't deliver anything worth of talking until now and you will not deliver anything in the future.

> If you are open to change your views, then learn Astrology.

You mean I should learn a system for which nobody can deliver any reasonable explanation? (Apart from: It was used by ignorant peasants of the past who didn't know the Earth orbited the Sun.)

> Neither Scams nor Hogwash is an inherent part of Astrology.

Of course it is. When someone takes money for claiming he knows the future of someone else when in reality he doesn't then this is both hogwash and a scam.

> Astrology is proven to me, so I would like to know if I can help you in some way.

That's because your concept of what constitutes a proof only has to serve your worldview but doesn't have any connection to reality.

@Katzenschinken said in #55:
> LOL. You didn't answer the initial question how you know which celestial bodies are important for astrology. You claimed to have answered that question but didn't want to show me where.

I did say that we are human and have limitations, we cannot know every detail. That is always the case when explaining something, we summarize and do not explain everything.

>You had nothing to say about that piece of Phil Plait which had a lot of talking points for someone who wants to discuss the basics of astrology.

I did not read it. I do not see the point in doing so.

>You especially didn't deliver any hint why the viewing angles under which we see the celestial bodies referred to by astrology might have an influence on the future or the character of people.

The Sun and the Moon are two of the most important planet-points in Astrology.
The Full Moon lightens up the Night and make it easier for predators to find prey.
This has of course an influence on the nature on the Planet.
It is a cycle of 28.5 days and has always been.
The influence is there even on cloudy nights.
Cycles in Nature is what Astrology is about.

>
> So far there is absolutely no base of anything I could discuss with you. So why the hell are you now asking what would be evidence to me?

Please do not use words like why the hell if you want to have a discussion with me.
Your attitude is why I too think it would be a bad idea to try to explain to you. Also it should not be necessary, since we have internet and most of info you want to find can easily be found if you are at all interested. But your discussion seems to be about something else.

I am asking what would be proof to you.
You asked for proof, or said there is no proof. But Astrology is proven to me.
I did not believe in Astrology, but some friends of mine did, and said I cannot say it isn't true if I haven't tried it.
So ok, you are right about that, Print out my Astrological Birth Interpretation (or whatever it is called) and my older brothers, and I shall see if I can tell which is which. I am Gemini and my brother is Capricorn, but the interpretation included much more than that. He had removed words like "Gemini". I could easily tell which was which. So naturally I wanted to know more.
22 years later someone writes on lichess blog that astrology is hogwash and this discussion started.

>
> So here is my prognosis (and completely done without any astrological help): You didn't deliver anything worth of talking until now and you will not deliver anything in the future.

I have not asked for your prognosis.

>
>
>
> You mean I should learn a system for which nobody can deliver any reasonable explanation? (Apart from: It was used by ignorant peasants of the past who didn't know the Earth orbited the Sun.)
>
>

I do have logical explanations for part of astrology, but I do not know the reason for everything.
Knowing is experiencing. You have to give it a chance. Don't be afraid of making mistakes.
Astrology has to be learned hesitatingly. If we were afraid of errors we would not learn anything, not chess or anything else.

>
> Of course it is. When someone takes money for claiming he knows the future of someone else when in reality he doesn't then this is both hogwash and a scam.
>

But I do not take money for anything, because I am not that kind of person. Which is why I earn five swedesh kronor per hour where I work (less than a dollar). What you are talking about are evil people, but they are everywhere. It says nothing about astrology. It says something about that person. "Sciientists" can have the same attitude as the one you are talking about.

>
>
> That's because your concept of what constitutes a proof only has to serve your worldview but doesn't have any connection to reality.

Where is your "proof" of that?

@Human77 said in #56:
> I did say that we are human and have limitations, we cannot know every detail. That is always the case when explaining something, we summarize and do not explain everything.

There is a difference between "everything" and "anything". So far you haven't explained anything.

> I did not read it. I do not see the point in doing so.

If that were true (which I don't believe) that would show a level of ignorance and non-willingness to learn on your side barely comprehensible for any curious person.

> The Sun and the Moon are two of the most important planet-points in Astrology.

The Sun and the Moon are not planets.

> The Full Moon lightens up the Night and make it easier for predators to find prey.

What does that have to do with astrology and its foundations? Nothing.

And what about the other planets - you know, the real ones? Saturn, Mars, Venus, Mercury - they don't have any influence on Earth, apart from maybe Jupiter which to a certain degree protected the Earth from incoming asteroids.

> It is a cycle of 28.5 days and has always been.

That's not even true. The distance to the Moon is constantly growing so the orbital period of the Moon was a lot shorter in the past.

> Cycles in Nature is what Astrology is about.

Empty blabberings without any substance.

> Please do not use words like why the hell if you want to have a discussion with me.

I am done anyway. Trying to discuss anything concrete with you is - like we say in Germany - trying to nail a pudding to the wall. It's a useless exercise.

@Human77 said in #56:
> You asked for proof, or said there is no proof. But Astrology is proven to me.
> I did not believe in Astrology, but some friends of mine did, and said I cannot say it isn't true if I haven't tried it.
> So ok, you are right about that, Print out my Astrological Birth Interpretation (or whatever it is called) and my older brothers, and I shall see if I can tell which is which. I am Gemini and my brother is Capricorn, but the interpretation included much more than that. He had removed words like "Gemini". I could easily tell which was which. So naturally I wanted to know more.
> 22 years later someone writes on lichess blog that astrology is hogwash and this discussion started.

Sorry for chipping in after a week, but let me get this straight:

You and your brother got your Astrological Birth Interpretation made. And then you tried to guess which one is which (after someone had anonymised them)? So there were two interpretations in total? You made your pick after you both felt like it matched and indeed the star signs were assigned correctly to the two of you?

And you found this to be impressive or convincing? I mean ... it's literally a 50/50 chance! Even without reading the Astrological Birth Interpretation, you'd have a 50% chance of assigning it correctly blindly.

Are you also super impressed by someone correctly predicting the result of one single coin toss? Because that's essentially what you're telling Katzenschinken here. That an event with 50% probability of happening actually happened. And that this has convinced you that something more than chance must be going on with astrology.

You might as well conclude that your friend is a psychic if they ever guess the outcome of a coin toss correctly.

I'm sure I must have misunderstood you.

> But I do not take money for anything, because I am not that kind of person. Which is why I earn five swedesh kronor per hour where I work (less than a dollar).

Sounds like you're a kind and earnest person to me! There was no doubt in my mind about this before you spelled it out either.

The point Katzenschinken was probably making though is not that there are evil people in astrology (indeed, there are evil people doing all sorts of things as you rightly point out). It was that astrology makes it so very easy for evil people to fool others, to abuse their trust. Astrology is a great avenue for evil people to prey on those in emotional turmoil or those with ailments. It's a systemic problem. Astrology attracts evil people, because it's easy to fool people who already want to believe (and make money off of their plight). Being in Nancy Reagan's position, I too would want to believe that there was someone out there that could give me certainty that my husband will be OK at his next appearance in public. That he won't be shot in the face by some lunatic. A terrorised person wants the terror to end. A person living in constant fear of what may come wants to have easy answers. And evil people go into astrology precisely because they want to be the ones profiting from the desire for security of vulnerable people.

That of course doesn't mean that there aren't honest and kind astrologers or sceptical (or emotionally secure) clients. There of course are. But there's still a problem with those who aren't. That's the point. And it should be openly criticised.

no my brother was not involved he is not interested.
I came to think about an analogy, try to convince a person with perfect eyes that he cannot see, that he is blind.
I don't even want to read what is written here it is not funny.