# What is your star sign?



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

A new thread for TC's population growth.

Because I am short of time to write up my own descriptions of each sign of the Zodiac, I will supply this website as it is the best I can find (but still not up to my psychic standards. )

Also, RIP L'enfer who was a Taurus.


----------



## PetrB

If you'd have made the poll so others could not see which I clicked on.....


----------



## Kopachris

PetrB said:


> If you'd have made the poll so others could not see which I clicked on.....


I think that would defeat CoAG's purpose in making the poll.


----------



## Hayze

I'm guessing there's going to be an equal distribution of all 12. (Unless we're going to find out there's a zodiac sign for classical music fans).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Hayze said:


> I'm guessing there's going to be an equal distribution of all 12. (Unless we're going to find out there's a zodiac sign for classical music fans).


I think Taurus is actually the most common from what I have heard, but last time a poll like this was created others were more common...


----------



## clavichorder

You spelled Aries wrong. That's me.


----------



## TxllxT

:angel: The star of Bethlehem appeared where in the zodiac? :angel:


----------



## clavichorder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Because I am short of time to write up my own descriptions of each sign of the Zodiac, I will supply this website as it is the best I can find (but still not up to my psychic standards. )


That website is the first google hit with some searches. That must mean its good or something...


----------



## Crudblud

That website is yet further proof that astrology is ********.


----------



## aleazk

Nonsense, of course (and as usual ). But I must say I'm intrigued, and disturbed lol, with that peak at cancer.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I don't put much stock in astrology, but having said that, I'm a down-the-line Cancer.


----------



## clavichorder

Crudblud said:


> That website is yet further proof that astrology is ********.


The commenters on every single sign all make similar looking comments with similar spelling and grammar errors.


----------



## clavichorder

aleazk said:


> Nonsense, of course (and as usual ). But I must say I'm intrigued, and disturbed lol, with that peak at cancer.


That being said, the cancers who voted seem to me to all be very different people.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

clavichorder said:


> You spelled Aries wrong. That's me.


I did! 
whoops...


----------



## Renaissance

That's weird, really weird. I don't even know a single "cancer" in real life.


----------



## elgar's ghost

We are Cancer. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile....


----------



## jani

I am libra so is Franz Listz .
So being libra means.
- Being physically attractive
- Will be a great musician
- Will make a lot of money


----------



## Renaissance

Mahler was Cancer...Also Respighi and Janacek. But astrology....****s


----------



## violadude




----------



## Cnote11

There sure a lot of cancers answering this poll... count me as one.


----------



## aleazk

lol, this cannot be true!.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *What is your star sign?*


My first thought... Ophiuchus.

Then, I saw that 'Bill Nye' clip and thought- he might _really be_ an Ophiuchus!


----------



## kv466

Virgo, the Maiden


----------



## Xaltotun

My mother's cousin, a very learned gentleman, sort of bases his whole life philosophy on astrology. I'll have to ask his opinion on this Cancer domination of ours...


----------



## Cnote11

I've always wanted to purport my superiority based upon some marginal claim.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Funny how we live in an "Age of Reason" where we deny the supernatural and the superstitious, but we gladly accept things like astrology and Horoscopes into our culture, saying it's all fun and games, but a serious number of people actually believe in its portents (or want to).


----------



## jani

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Funny how we live in an "Age of Reason" where we deny the supernatural and the superstitious, but we gladly accept things like astrology and Horoscopes into our culture, saying it's all fun and games, but a serious number of people actually believe in its portents (or want to).


Because it makes them feel good.


----------



## Cnote11

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Funny how we live in an "Age of Reason" where we deny the supernatural and the superstitious, but we gladly accept things like astrology and Horoscopes into our culture, saying it's all fun and games, but a serious number of people actually believe in its portents (or want to).


I don't think this is true. The majority of America believes in something supernatural and the majority of people are superstitious. In European countries that have become more atheist, you have seen a rise in alternative supernatural beliefs. I wouldn't say that the everyday person rejects the supernatural whatsoever. Most people believe in things like karma, ghosts, gods, souls, etc.


----------



## Hayze

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Funny how we live in an "Age of Reason" where we deny the supernatural and the superstitious, but we gladly accept things like astrology and Horoscopes into our culture, saying it's all fun and games, but a serious number of people actually believe in its portents (or want to).


I don't consider astrology a part of the "Age of Reason".

And this must be a cancer conspiracy.


----------



## Crudblud

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Funny how we live in an "Age of Reason" where we deny the supernatural and the superstitious, but we gladly accept things like astrology and Horoscopes into our culture, saying it's all fun and games, but a serious number of people actually believe in its portents (or want to).


Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you religious?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Cnote11 said:


> I don't think this is true. *The majority of America* believes in something supernatural and the majority of people are superstitious. In European countries that have become more atheist, you have seen a rise in alternative supernatural beliefs. I wouldn't say that the everyday person rejects the supernatural whatsoever. Most people believe in things like karma, ghosts, gods, souls, etc.


I find that ludicrous. What's up with all the anti-supernatural talk in our schools and universities then? Is it not working? :tiphat:

It all goes to show that there's a double-standard about it in our society. Some people can go on proclaiming evolution and other scientific things about what "life really is" while proclaiming the belief of souls and supernatural things _simultaneously_. I had a biology test years back in high school where a multiple choice question said, "All life as we know it today comes from: A, etc." and I would have gotten that question wrong if I said anything other than evolution. So if our SCHOOLS are going to _compulsively _make students profess that with their _grade _on the line, and yet a majority of people still like to believe in the supernatural (probably the people who voted in that curriculum into the schools too), are we NUTS? It's an oxymoron! When you believe you came from sea creatures, how can you have a soul? Unless you believe sea creatures have souls too. But who/what gave them souls, moreover, what made it evolve into humans? Is this Pantheism then? Pagan Science? :lol: Wasn't the point of science to remove those "false" beliefs about souls in people? Or maybe they weren't false to begin with... :tiphat:

There are ramifications to believing science has the _real _answers to everything. To say, "Only that which can be empirically evaluated can be believed" (I had a psychology professor who stressed that very clearly to our lecture class) means_ stop with the karma talk, astrology, ghosts, witchcraft._ So I think the only answer to this dilemma is this: science just hasn't cut it for much of humanity, and it won't answer all its answers/doubts as much as it may try to claim that.

I think the fact that humanity is so drawn to the supernatural is an important sign of our identity as humans...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Crudblud said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you religious?


I like to play devil's advocate sometimes.  Then again, from academia I've gotten a very strong impression that we are "over" superstitious beliefs now, at least the high-minded people. I'm just stating what I've seen personally.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Hayze said:


> I don't consider astrology a part of the "Age of Reason".
> 
> And this must be a cancer conspiracy.


Haha yeah that's the easiest way to reconcile those differences. :lol: Part of society is in the "age of reason" and the other part is still in the medieval ages. :tiphat:

The medieval ages wasn't all bad, you know...


----------



## Cnote11

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I find that ludicrous. What's up with all the anti-supernatural talk in our schools and universities then? Is it not working? :tiphat:
> 
> It all goes to show that there's a double-standard about it in our society. Some people can go on proclaiming evolution and other scientific things about what "life really is" while proclaiming the belief of souls and supernatural things _simultaneously_. I had a biology test years back in high school where a multiple choice question said, "All life as we know it today comes from: A, etc." and I would have gotten that question wrong if I said anything other than evolution. So if our SCHOOLS are going to _compulsively _make students profess that with their _grade _on the line, and yet a majority of people still like to believe in the supernatural (probably the people who voted in that curriculum into the schools too), are we NUTS? It's an oxymoron! When you believe you came from sea creatures, how can you have a soul? Unless you believe sea creatures have souls too. But who/what gave them souls, moreover, what made it evolve into humans? Is this Pantheism then? Pagan Science? :lol: Wasn't the point of science to remove those "false" beliefs about souls in people? Or maybe they weren't false to begin with... :tiphat:
> 
> There are ramifications to believing science has the _real _answers to everything. To say, "Only that which can be empirically evaluated can be believed" (I had a psychology professor who stressed that very clearly to our lecture class) means_ stop with the karma talk, astrology, ghosts, witchcraft._ So I think the only answer to this dilemma is this: science just hasn't cut it for much of humanity, and it won't answer all its answers/doubts as much as it may try to claim that.
> 
> I think the fact that humanity is so drawn to the supernatural is an important sign of our identity as humans...


If you find the fact that the majority of Americans are hypocrites mind blowing, then I'm not sure what to say to you! Science was not created to say that we do not have souls, by the way. Yes, the focus in universities is on testable hypotheses which are applicable to various fields. Astrology isn't very important in molecular biology, for instance. Science does not concern itself with hypotheses which are not testable, but neither does it attempt to claim there is no such thing as the supernatural. However, one can easily be skeptical about claims of witchcraft through the lack of demonstrable evidence on behalf of those who purport their claim to be true. I've had many professors who would express their belief in such things as astrology, ghosts, witchcraft, etc. etc. A handful of professors and a handful of scientific superstars does not represent the entirety of academia. It is not a single entity, nor is science itself. In fact, nobody can represent science except for for the principles of science itself. Academia is quite diverse, despite what you may be thinking.

Evolution isn't anti-supernatural either. When schools teach you about things that go against the supernatural, they are not intentionally doing so to be anti-supernatural. If a popular religion espoused that the universe revolves around the earth and then we found that not to be true and the schools began teaching our galaxy revolves around the sun, they are not doing this to be anti that religion, but rather teaching you factual information. Whether or not it goes against an existing social paradigm is not the concern of the world as it is. We are not teaching information about the world with the main purpose to "weed out" our supernatural beliefs. That sounds a bit fanatical and paranoid. One doesn't follow science in the similar manner as a religion. One cannot believe that science has all the right answers at any given point. That is one of the main tenants of science.

I also agree that us as a species being drawn to supernatural says something about our species. I believe--and it has been backed by evidence--that humans are irrational, illogical creatures who jump to conclusions and try to patchwork things together based on what knowledge they have, which often leads to very, very poor explanations for things. Hence why we have things like racism.

Most Americans hold onto beliefs that they know conflict with other things they believe in or know to be true. To think this actually is of any merit to consider as meaningful, that is what I find ludicrous.

You must remember that 80 to 85 percent of America claims a religion. Once again, this number isn't a "failing" of schools, because schools, whether you choose to believe it or not, are not out to destroy religion. Remember, 80 to 85 percent means that a large amount of those people you claim to be out to destroy such beliefs are actually believers themselves.


----------



## Cnote11

Perhaps there is a failing on behalf of the schools. That failing would be to teach what science actually is. Too often do I meet Americans who completely misconstrue the nature of science. At the moment, it has become politically tainted in the social eye and most can do throw off these claims because they were apparently not taught thoroughly enough on matters of science. Again, if there is any failure in our school system, it is the inability for our country to be scientifically literate. 28 percent of the country is literate, and that itself has tripled over the last two decades to become 28%. In my opinion, that is quite the pitiful thing and it definitely shows in our public discourse.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Cnote11 said:


> You must remember that 80 to 85 percent of America claims a religion. Once again, this number isn't a "failing" of schools, because schools, whether you choose to believe it or not, are not out to destroy religion. Remember, 80 to 85 percent means that a large amount of those people you claim to be out to destroy such beliefs are actually believers themselves.


Well this gets kinda tricky to talk about what it means to actually be religious. I would not say 85% of the people on my campus are religious, maybe 15-20% actually do voluntary religious activities (of all different religions represented), nor do those who are religious believe astrology, but I won't go into this here. But the basis of what I was saying before is that it's not profitable for our society to put people in a position to hold conflicting beliefs, whether they mind or not. People are free to believe what they want, but I think it's unhealthy to put people in a position to hold conflicting beliefs in a forced way, i.e. what happened to me in high school . It wasn't so much any spiritual doubts that formed in me after the course (I had none) but why the course was taught at _all_. If 85% of America is religious, there _shouldn't_ be as much anti-spiritual coercion in academia as there is (it could be a minority running it, but they certainly have huge influence). Instead, a course on World Religions should be just as important in school as biology, maybe even equally mandatory. Why not teach a course on Astrology and Horoscopes and _make _us believe it's real if you're going to _force _us to profess that evolution and what-not is real? Best option is just don't force that kind of profession out of individuals.


----------



## violadude

I didn't really read the conversation...but just dropped by to say that evolution is an observable fact regardless of what anyone believes about souls. Hope I didn't offend anyone.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> I didn't really read the conversation...but just dropped by to say that evolution is an observable fact regardless of what anyone believes about souls. Hope I didn't offend anyone.


It is true that for some educated scientists, it is a very observable fact. But a large part of the population is taking it on a faith basis, in assuming that the numerous scholars that have come across it are not lying or stupid. Applies even more so to the big bang and cosmology, given the esoteric mathematics that normal humans can't comprehend involved.

That being said, apart from the weird sense of dissatisfaction that comes out of the big bang theory(nobody can explain why it happened, assuming it happened that way), evolution is cool as ****. Life is much more interesting to think about as a result of evolution, and I took it on a faith basis as a little kid without being able to know about the proof, because I had no other option since Dinosaurs were my life and they wouldn't be so without it.


----------



## aleazk

Science is a very easy thing to understand, at least the way it works. Scientists believe that the physical reality is an objective thing, i.e., it actually exists and it's independent of us, at least its inner mechanisms. Now, if you have some hypotheses about how these inner mechanism may work, these hypotheses normally lead to a whole set of predicted facts about how the system should respond under some precise stimuli. So, what you have to do next is to check with the actual physical reality if those predicted facts actually arise under those precise stimuli. If the answer is affirmative, then it's very likely that you may have captured in your initial hypotheses some clues about how those inner mechanisms of the physical reality work. This is a perfectible process, never perfect, but always looking for a refinement in the knowledge. Understood in this way, science only looks for the truth, i.e., discoveries made by science are not relative to any religious, social, or political systems of beliefs, those discoveries _are_ simply the physical reality in the most categorical way.


----------



## aleazk

clavichorder said:


> It is true that for some educated scientists, it is a very observable fact. But a large part of the population is taking it on a faith basis, in assuming that the numerous scholars that have come across it are not lying or stupid. Applies even more so to the big bang and cosmology, given the esoteric mathematics that normal humans can't comprehend involved.
> 
> That being said, apart from the weird sense of dissatisfaction that comes out of the big bang theory(nobody can explain why it happened, assuming it happened that way), evolution is cool as ****. Life is much more interesting to think about as a result of evolution, and I took it on a faith basis as a little kid without being able to know about the proof, because I had no other option since Dinosaurs were my life and they wouldn't be so without it.


What do you mean by this?. Nobody can explain scientifically if it happened or not? or, why, metaphysically speaking, reality comes from the nothing?. Those are very different questions, although related.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> It is true that for some educated scientists, it is a very observable fact. But a large part of the population is taking it on a faith basis, in assuming that the numerous scholars that have come across it are not lying or stupid. Applies even more so to the big bang and cosmology, given the esoteric mathematics that normal humans can't comprehend involved.


Yes, unlike the observable fact of gravity, evolution can't just be demonstrated by any joe schmoe as the "observation" part usually takes place in the fossil record, or at the molecular level (DNA), or at a micro-biological level. So it makes it a bit more difficult for people to actually observe in the sense that we can observe gravity.


----------



## aleazk

clavichorder said:


> It is true that for some educated scientists, it is a very observable fact. But a large part of the population is taking it on a faith basis, in assuming that the numerous scholars that have come across it are not lying or stupid. Applies even more so to the big bang and cosmology, given the esoteric mathematics that normal humans can't comprehend involved.


I agree with you in general terms, but I think people should be more curious, more involved, after all, it's part of the world they live too!. Of course, it would be nonsensical to pretend that a person who's not in science should understand the complex mathematics in the physics behind the Big Bang, or the subtle process of interpretation of fossil records. But I think that everybody is capable of understanding some of the basic epistemological premises behind the scientific method, and even more, some of the facts which support our current theories. Unlike religion, in science, the evidence _is_ there, and, potentially, available to everyone. So, you are not asked for a blind faith, in the fashion of religion. You or people can see for themselves, maybe you will not understand every point, but a least you will be able to see and to follow the general reasoning.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> That being said, apart from the weird sense of dissatisfaction that comes out of the big bang theory(nobody can explain why it happened, assuming it happened that way), evolution is cool as ****. Life is much more interesting to think about as a result of evolution, and I took it on a faith basis as a little kid without being able to know about the proof, because I had no other option since Dinosaurs were my life and they wouldn't be so without it.


Dinosaurs were my life when I was a kid too, but because of my previous religious convictions, I just sort of ignored the evolution aspect of it all.


----------



## Vaneyes

I'm not telling.


----------



## PetrB

TxllxT said:


> :angel: The star of Bethlehem appeared where in the zodiac? :angel:


Bzzzz wrong. Zodiac signs are attributed to constellations, 'S of B' was almost certainly a supernova, or a comet - not a 'fixed phenomenon.'

Besides, those signs, due to the ticking of the astronomic clock and 'our' several thousands of years of calendar, are no longer in synch with the months they were originally in.

If you want to go by 'the book' and some natural cycles which have not changed, "Shepherds attend their flocks" in early spring, when the ewes lamb, the newborns being especially vulnerable to predators.

Late March, early April, then, perhaps 'on the cusp' (which would fit neatly in with 'I am the Alpha and the Omega) so cusp of Pisces / Aries, but neither. Easter is in that time slot, 'the birth' celebration moved over by the bureaucracy of the organized Roman Church to coordinate with Pagan Winter solstice festivals in order to make it easier and more attractive for pagans (I believe the holiday was moved around the time Rome was trying to tame the Germanic peoples) to convert, while allowing those 'pagans' to keep their former 'religious / ritual' holiday.

We should be Celebrating 'Christmas' in early spring... which also used to mark the calendar as 'New Year.'


----------



## PetrB

Crudblud said:


> That website is yet further proof that astrology is ********.


.... worth nothing more than looking up Uranus (in a reference book,_ naturellement_


----------



## Kopachris

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I find that ludicrous. What's up with all the anti-supernatural talk in our schools and universities then? Is it not working? :tiphat:


You've obviously never worked at a casino. No, it's not working. The majority of Americans, Canadians, and Asians who visit the casino where I work are superstitious to some degree. Strangely, I haven't observed any Mexicans, Europeans, or Middle-Easterners practicing superstition.


----------



## Cnote11

Strange, since Mexicans and Middle Easterners are definitely some of the most superstitious people out there! Perhaps just not in the casino.


----------



## Krummhorn

clavichorder said:


> You spelled Aries wrong. That's me.





ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I did!
> whoops...


It's correct ... Aries

But I'm a Taurus ... stubborn and analytical.


----------



## HoraeObscura

Crudblud said:


> That website is yet further proof that astrology is ********.


I think it's a pity people dismiss this ancient art form, that was a predecessor of an modern day science and was very much respected until a couple of centuries ago, as hocus pocus. Yes you have to take the modern day horoscopic astrology with a grain of salt, or perhaps a bag of salt... But horoscopic astrology is something new, mundane astrology is far far older.

But mundane astrology was, as far as I understand so my apologies if what I'm saying is wrong, more used to know when the time was right to perform certain actions. To know when was a good time to go to war, to perform commerce, to get married etc etc... Not to know the future, just to more eurm like sense it 

I think astrology is something beautiful and I wont dismiss this ancient art nor believe in it. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Oh I'm a Leo, but the moon sign is also important btw and that's Aquarius for me. Sorry for the rant


----------



## Guest

clavichorder said:


> It is true that for some educated scientists, it is a very observable fact. But a large part of the population is taking it on a faith basis, in assuming that the numerous scholars that have come across it are not lying or stupid.


When a scientist says something is 'observable', I take it in the same way as I accept a traveller who says they've been to Australia. I don't think either is a matter of faith.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> I think it's unhealthy to put people in a position to hold conflicting beliefs in a forced way, i.e. what happened to me in high school . It wasn't so much any spiritual doubts that formed in me after the course (I had none) but why the course was taught at _all_. If 85% of America is religious, there _shouldn't_ be as much anti-spiritual coercion in academia as there is (it could be a minority running it, but they certainly have huge influence). Instead, a course on World Religions should be just as important in school as biology, maybe even equally mandatory. Why not teach a course on Astrology and Horoscopes and _make _us believe it's real if you're going to _force _us to profess that evolution and what-not is real? Best option is just don't force that kind of profession out of individuals.


So, because 85% of Americans are superstitious, they should not be forced to accept an education that contradicts their superstitions.

Isn't that what education is for? To civilise humankind and overcome its baser instincts?

[edit] It's not my purpose to lump together all religions and dismiss them all as 'superstitious', just the basic superstitions that led to the evolution of notions of the supernatural which encompass all of the things that Huilunsoittaja has referenced over several posts.


----------



## PetrB

jani said:


> I am libra so is Franz Listz .
> So being libra means.
> - Being physically attractive
> - Will be a great musician
> - Will make a lot of money


- Will have a skull so narrow it looks as if it were pressed in a vice
- Will have prominent warts on the face
- Will.....


----------



## clavichorder

aleazk said:


> What do you mean by this?. Nobody can explain scientifically if it happened or not? or, why, metaphysically speaking, reality comes from the nothing?. Those are very different questions, although related.


More weight in the phrase has to do with the second second question about the "why." What's the point and how did anything come about before there was nothing?

Regarding the first question, whether any body can explain scientifically, I have no doubt that some intellectual "get it," but I was under the impression that to prove it happened was difficult to understand in a literal sense. Perhaps I'm mixing that up with theories that try to explain the existence of other dimensions, its been a long time since I've been into this.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Dinosaurs were my life when I was a kid too, but because of my previous religious convictions, I just sort of ignored the evolution aspect of it all.


I was enthralled with the idea of being a scientist at an early age, because I devoured scientific information without thinking about it, and got complimented about it a lot after the fact. Got into the whole 'image' of things, you know.


----------



## clavichorder

MacLeod said:


> When a scientist says something is 'observable', I take it in the same way as I accept a traveller who says they've been to Australia. I don't think either is a matter of faith.


Well, I can't really argue too far into this, I was mostly just playing a little devil's advocate, and that's my 'out.' :angel: Argument was mostly motivated by the fact that for some reason, I respect _the occasional_ doggedly religious people or fictional characters, as the people they are, because their plight seems unique and brave compared to your ordinary hyper skeptic atheist, even if they are probably less right about things. Just me being an over diligent hipster, no doubt.

Back on the topic of Astrology, I find the idea intrinsically annoying, that my personality should be governed by anything other than my DNA, the times I live in, formative years, so on. But my mind is just as prone to fear, addiction, and searching for quick explanations as the next person, and though Astrology has never interested me much, I did put way too much stock in Myers Briggs personality types for a long time, and another nearly identical system, Socionics. Glad to be less anxious about all that stuff.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Back on the topic of Astrology, I find the idea intrinsically annoying, that my personality should be governed by anything other than my DNA, the times I live in, formative years, so on. But my mind is just as prone to fear, addiction, and searching for quick explanations as the next person, and though Astrology has never interested me much, I did put way too much stock in Myers Briggs personality types for a long time, and another nearly identical system, Socionics. Glad to be less anxious about all that stuff.


Good thing Bill Nye is here in this thread to put your mind at ease. :tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Good thing Bill Nye is here in this thread to put your mind at ease. :tiphat:


Does help a little sometimes, but if I am in a position of fear and it goes too hard the other way, I start to doubt too. Had too many instances of psychiatrists convinced I was this or that not to even take that with a grain of salt. It usually takes a very subtle and easy approach to relax someone out of believing so doggedly in the things they are deeply afraid of or believe in to protect their emotions from things they are afraid of.


----------



## Manxfeeder

PetrB said:


> .... worth nothing more than looking up Uranus (in a reference book,_ naturellement_


Just as an aside, I'm glad scientists have put PC aside and finally are pronouncing that poor planet correctly. It used to irritate me to hear the august Carl Sagan saying "UR-unus." I mean, come on, you're not much of a scientist if you're bothered by giggling 12-year-old boys.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

MacLeod said:


> So, because 85% of Americans are superstitious, they should not be forced to accept an education that contradicts their superstitions.


I think that is partially true already, since people can choose private or religious schools that don't teach things they don't like.

Yes, if I'm going to teach a class on my religion, am I going to _make _my students profess that everything is true that I told them? And if they don't they fail that bit of curriculum? I find something profoundly wrong with that. That's not how you convince people to believe things imho. If teaching a class like that, "according to this faith" is best way to ask a question about it. But the best solution I think is just let people learn about this stuff individually, not in a forced-education situation.

I'm sorry everybody if I made this a hot topic thread because of my initial comment before. But it was spoken from the heart, and I have trouble with what's going on in our sorry society. Just because things are already happening doesn't mean it's ok.


----------



## Hayze

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yes, if I'm going to teach a class on my religion, am I going to _make _my students profess that everything is true that I told them? And if they don't they fail that bit of curriculum? I find something profoundly wrong with that. That's not how you convince people to believe things imho. If teaching a class like that, "according to this faith" is best way to ask a question about it. But the best solution I think is just let people learn about this stuff individually, not in a forced-education situation.


But you've got to educate people somehow. Infants can't go on and decide what religion suits them best, if any. You must start somewhere, you must decide what a basic education is. Well in some places teaching the bible is part of the basis and in others evolution is. Past surveys have shown that over 90% of people don't change the beliefs they were given by their initial education. That's our society, you have to face it, most people don't and can't think for themselves.


----------



## Cnote11

I can't help but feel dismayed at the constant comparison of science to religion and the insinuation that evolution is faith-based. Sigh... ah well! I want some food.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Cnote11 said:


> I can't help but feel dismayed at the constant comparison of science to religion and the insinuation that evolution is faith-based. Sigh... ah well! I want some food.


If you were to come on my side of perspective I think everything would be more clear, though that's not for me to impose on you. What is it like to actually have so much faith and love in something(someone) that you can't possibly view_ all of life_ as anything other than spiritual warfare for your faith's sake? It's a _really _tough thing to acknowledge something scientific while having _complete _faith in something else contradictory. And especially if the faith is _above _your own control to throw away as you please... That may be a bizarre idea in itself, a faith you can't lose under _any _circumstances... I'm owned _permanently_, you see.


----------



## Cnote11

No, I realise that. On the note of something you said about required religious education, I actually myself may be a fan of that idea. I collect religious texts and was considering on going into it for a degree, despite being non-religious. It plays a major cultural, political, and philosophical force in our world and I feel there is a great deal to learn about the world through the religious texts. I hear too many people speaking of Hindus and Muslims for example without understanding or the necessary knowledge to even speak on the subject in a way without resorting to rubbish they heard from biased and misinformed sources. I understand your perspective and I am quite dismayed at the "moderate" Christian, maybe more so than the claims you are putting forth. There is an inherent dilemma between full faith in a written text of most religions and science. As I stated before, this doesn't make science anti-religion intentionally, but sometimes merely by proxy. I don't like moderate Christians--and you brought this up earlier in your post about what it "really means" to be religious--because they refuse to acknowledge this dilemma and instead strip religion to a skeletal framework for which to stuff their heavily informed secular philosophies into and thereby create an unsightly hodge podge that I really have zero respect for.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> I can't help but feel dismayed at the constant comparison of science to religion and the insinuation that evolution is faith-based. Sigh... ah well! I want some food.


Yes, quite sad that evolution is being compared to horoscopes


----------



## Cnote11

violadude said:


> Yes, quite sad that evolution is being compared to horoscopes


This sounds like a great cross-marketing opportunity...


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> This sounds like a great cross-marketing opportunity...


You mean like...?

"Libra- You are full of love and caring. This week you are destined to meet someone that cares about you yadda yadda yadda AND look into the question of why there appears to be a diversity of species on the planet that you've always been curious about knowing!"


----------



## Cnote11

Aha, no no! I was thinking more of taking evolution into the supernatural spectrum of things and forecasting evolutionary changes in horoscopes! You musn't slip rational thought into the horoscopes, because that would automatically delegitimize them.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> Aha, no no! I was thinking more of taking evolution into the supernatural spectrum of things and forecasting evolutionary changes in horoscopes! You musn't slip rational thought into the horoscopes, because that would automatically delegitimize them.


Forecasting evolutionary changes in horoscopes?

like...?

"Libra- You are full of love and caring. This week you are destined to meet someone that cares about you yadda yadda yadda AND within the next 100 years a new species of virus might kill you because it evolved too fast for us to deal with because you've been eating too much McDonalds meat filled with anti-biotics!"

Yay horoscopes....


----------



## Cnote11

:lol: Something like that... I'm glad to see you're getting your practice in for when we open business.


----------



## Renaissance

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I like to play devil's advocate sometimes.  Then again, from academia I've gotten a very strong impression that we are "over" superstitious beliefs now, at least the high-minded people. I'm just stating what I've seen personally.


It is a rather simple view I would say...there are all kind of atheists or superstitious people out there...Not all atheists are so cultivated or rational, and not all superstitions believers are ignorant or simple-minded. And also, the absence of a proof for the existence of a fact doesn't qualify as a proof for the non-existence of that fact...most of us fail to understand this simple thing. There is a difference between "rational" and "skeptic". If one reads Albert Einstein, Hawking, great philosophers, etc it is impossible not to find "irrational" beliefs among their words, and no one is calling them irrational people. We tend to make our own versions of reality based on "trial and error" process and then mistake them for reality itself. It is very simple to call "irrational" every thing you don't understand... I don't believe in astrology, horoscope, ghost, souls (in the religious sense), demons, magic, "hidden" energies, but I do think that most people on this forum would consider me very irrational.


----------



## Cnote11

Stop being so irrational, Renaissance.


----------



## violadude

Renaissance said:


> It is a rather simple view I would say...there are all kind of atheists or superstitious people out there...Not all atheists are so cultivated or rational, and not all superstitions believers are ignorant or simple-minded. And also, the absence of a proof for the existence of a fact doesn't qualify as a proof for the non-existence of that fact...most of us fail to understand this simple thing. There is a difference between "rational" and "skeptic". *If one reads Albert Einstein*, Hawking, great philosophers, etc *it is impossible not to find "irrational" beliefs among their words*, and no one is calling them irrational people. We tend to make our own versions of reality based on "trial and error" process and then mistake them for reality itself. It is very simple to call "irrational" every thing you don't understand... I don't believe in astrology, horoscope, ghost, souls (in the religious sense), demons, magic, "hidden" energies, but I do think that most people on this forum would consider me very irrational.











...........


----------



## Renaissance

violadude said:


> View attachment 11251
> 
> 
> ...........


I wasn't doubt him, I was just saying that "rational" may not be what we think it is.


----------



## Cnote11

You irrationally responded to that photo, Renaissance.


----------



## Guest

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yes, if I'm going to teach a class on my religion, am I going to _make _my students profess that everything is true that I told them?


That's a big 'if'. I don't believe that children should be instructed in a religion in state schools. There's nothing wrong with studies _about _religions however.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

MacLeod said:


> That's a big 'if'. I don't believe that children should be instructed in a religion in state schools. There's nothing wrong with studies _about _religions however.


Precisely! I am very interested in religion and I have always found it rather appalling that studying various religions is almost never touched upon in the Australian curriculum. They are an important part of the history of human beings.


----------



## aleazk

clavichorder said:


> More weight in the phrase has to do with the second second question about the "why." What's the point and how did anything come about before there was nothing?
> 
> Regarding the first question, whether any body can explain scientifically, I have no doubt that some intellectual "get it," but I was under the impression that to prove it happened was difficult to understand in a literal sense. Perhaps I'm mixing that up with theories that try to explain the existence of other dimensions, its been a long time since I've been into this.


lol, well, you have doubts on both questions! , that's okay, that's precisely the idea. I will try to answer you (if don't know, I'm a physicist who works precisely on these topics!, well, not exactly on cosmology, but on theoretical physics and these things are a "must know" for any physicist in the area, at least a general picture). 
First, the second question: is the Big Bang Theory completely and easily understood by the scientific community, and is also verified experimentally?. The Big Bang Theory is a complex physical theory, it uses and combines the two best theories of nature we have (the General Theory of Relativity, for modeling the structure of _spacetime_ at least at macroscopic scales, and Quantum Field Theory, for modeling matter, whose real realm is at the microscopic level and quantum mechanical, in the form of interacting elementary particles). So, we call "the universe" to the spacetime and the elementary particles who "live" in this spacetime (spacetime is set of all events, where an event is a "point of space at an instant of time"). First, we need to model the spacetime at cosmological levels (i.e., at a very, very big scale, where galaxies are just points which conform some kind of "dust"). It's an experimental fact that space, and its material content, (tridimensional space, not spacetime) is homogeneous and isotropic to a very, very high degree. So, we put these facts on Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity, together with matter viewed as a dust (of positive energy density and also of positive pressure, these are very important assumptions). The resulting solutions are called "Robertson-Walker spacetimes", "Friedman cosmological models", etc. These solutions are spacetimes, which correspond to our spacetime, viewed in cosmological scales. These models correspond to three kinds of different spacetimes (spacetimes in which the geometry of the "space section", as viewed from the perspective of the isotropic observers, i.e., simply, the tridimensional space we experience from our current position, is either i) flat (euclidean); ii) hyperbolic (non-euclidean); iii) a three dimensional sphere (also non-euclidean; because of certain topological properties, this case is very fun, you can return to your initial position despite the fact that you always walked in some fixed direction, without turning round). Now, the remarkable thing is that Einstein's Equations say that, in either case, because of the properties of positive energy density and pressure of the matter, this space section is always expanding, in a metrical sense (i.e., given any two pair of points of space, the distance between these points increase over time). This expansion can be detected because the light emited by distant galaxies, or any electromagnetic radiation, will be shifted toward the "red zone of the spectrum" (or, more precisely, its frequency will be diminished), and according to a very precise formula which can be easily derived from general relativity. And it is precisely this redshift what Edwin Hubble detected in the 1920's and 1930's! . As one goes back to the past, manipulating the equations of these cosmological models, they say that the energy density of the matter increases a lot. Now we go to Quantum Field Theory. Using this fact about the density and other things, we can show using statistical mechanics that the temperature of this "soup" of elementary particles, which live in the spacetime, also increases its temperature and that they were in thermal equilibrium at the beginning. Using rather speculative physics, it seems that the very early universe went through a phase of very rapid expansion, in a very short period of time, called "inflation" (this inflation actually would explain why the current space is homogeneous and isotropic, so, we wouldn't need these assumptions; on the other hand, we would need the assumption which leads to inflation, but this is poorly understood right now with current fundamental theories, maybe string theory or other theory will accommodate inflation in a rigorous frame). So, after inflation and all those things, the universe began to cool. Once this happened, elementary particles began to join in order to form atoms. Using nuclear physics it can be seen that the current universe should have certain abundance of the element helium. Precisely this abundance of helium is observed in the current universe!. As the universe cools down and atoms are formed, the free photons which were present at the initial soup interact less with the atoms (because the rate of interaction between photons and neutral atoms is much less than the rate of interaction between photons and free elementary particles). So, these photons wander freely over all the universe, maintaining their initial thermal equilibrium, and also while they cool down because of the expansion. But precisely such radiation was observed by Penzias and Wilson in the 1960's!. They won the Nobel Prize for that discovery. The radiation is called the "Cosmic microwave background radiation" and it is over all the universe, it is very isotropic also. We can ask now, how far back to the past can we go?. According to General Relativity, there was a moment, _a finite time ago from now_, in which the density of matter was infinite (and also the temperature, etc, i.e., we have the primordial soup we were talking). We call that moment the "Big Bang". This finite time is roughly 13 billion years (it can be easily calculated from the equations, it is 2/3*(Hubble constant, H), where the Hubble constant is the constant which appears in the redshift formula we talked, z=H*R, where z is the redshift factor and R is the relative distance between galaxies). Studies of some of the most old objects we can find in the universe say that these objects are not more old than 13 billion years. So it seems that the theory indeed predicts the correct age of the universe! .
So, as you can see, some initial asumptions have led us to a model of the universe at cosmological scales which makes remarkable predictions about an initially hot and dense universe which began to expand and all have been confirmed experimentally. So, the answer to the question is _yes_, we understand the Big Bang Theory model and _yes_ it has been experimentally confimed.
The second question: but from where all this matter and spacetime come from in the first place?. That's a very tricky question right now. According to General Relativity, the spacetime at the moment of the Big Bang was in a singular state. A singularity in the spacetime is basically a "hole" in spacetime, it represents the "edge" of spacetime. When one reaches a singularity, space and time cease to exist. Some people thought that this singularity was because of the, unphysical, assumptions of _exact_ homogeneity and isotropy in the equations. However, Hawking and Penrose proved in the Singularity Theorems that this is not the case. They showed that any cosmological model that leads to the same observed predictions but which is not exactly homogeneous and isotropic must have a singular beginning anyway. So, according to General Relativity, there was absolutely nothing, in a metaphysical sense, the actual _nothing_ (no space, time, or matter) and then suddenly the universe (i.e., space, time, and matter) came to existence. There's no inconsistency here, since the theory is actually predicting that the universe came from nothing. The apparent philosophical problem of How it is possible that something came from nothing?, is artificial, I think. The idea that something must come from other something is just the idea of _causality_, i.e., every effect must have a cause. But causality is something that we apply in the universe once it exists. We don't know actually if this principle is valid when the "effect" is the existence of the the universe itself, apparently from nothing!. (Note that if the universe in fact came from nothing and that if the causality principle does not applies there, the idea of a God, creator of the universe, is completely superfluous and unnecesary).
The problem with this is that General Relativity is not a reliable theory of the spacetime structure at these microscopical scales. We need a Quantum Theory of Spacetime in order to answer this question then. Theory which we don't have at this moment.


----------



## violadude

aleazk said:


> lol, well, you have doubts on both questions! , that's okay, that's precisely the idea. I will try to answer you (if don't know, I'm a physicist who works precisely on these topics!, well, not exactly on cosmology, but on theoretical physics and these things are a "must know" for any physicist in the area, at least a general picture).
> First, the second question: is the Big Bang Theory completely and easily understood by the scientific community, and is also verified experimentally?. The Big Bang Theory is a complex physical theory, it uses and combines the two best theories of nature we have (the General Theory of Relativity, for modeling the structure of _spacetime_ at least at macroscopic scales, and Quantum Field Theory, for modeling matter, whose real realm is at the microscopic level and quantum mechanical, in the form of interacting elementary particles). So, we call "the universe" to the spacetime and the elementary particles who "live" in this spacetime (spacetime is set of all events, where an event is a "point of space at an instant of time"). First, we need to modelate the spacetime at cosmological levels (i.e., at a very, very big scale, where galaxies are just points which conform some kind of "dust"). It's an experimental fact that space, and its material content, (tridimensional space, not spacetime) is homogeneous and isotropic to a very, very high degree. So, we put these facts on Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity, together with matter viewed as a dust (of positive energy density and also of positive pressure, these are very important assumptions). The resulting solutions are called "Robertson-Walker spacetimes", "Friedman cosmological models", etc. These solutions are spacetimes, which correspond to our spacetime, viewed in cosmological scales. These models correspond to three kinds of different spacetimes (spacetimes in which the geometry of the "space section", as viewed from the perspective of the isotropic observers, i.e., simply, the tridimensional space we experience from our current position, is either i) flat (euclidean); ii) hyperbolic (non-euclidean); iii) a three dimensional sphere (also non-euclidean; because of certain topological properties, this case is very fun, you can return to your initial position despite the fact that you always walked in some fixed direction, without turning round). Now, the remarkable thing is that Einstein's Equations say that, in either case, because of the properties of positive energy density and pressure of the matter, this space section is always expanding, in a metrical sense (i.e., given any two pair of points of space, the distance between these points increase over time). This expansion can be detected because the light emited by distant galaxies, or any electromagnetic radiation, will be shifted toward the "red zone of the spectrum" (or, more precisely, its frequency will be diminished), and according to a very precise formula which can be easily derived from general relativity. And it is precisely this redshift what Edwin Hubble detected in the 1920's and 1930's! . As one goes back to the past, manipulating the equations of these cosmological models, they say that the energy density of the matter increases a lot. Now we go to Quantum Field Theory. Using this fact about the density and other things, we can show using statistical mechanics that the temperature of this "soup" of elementary particles, which live in the spacetime, also increases its temperature and that they were in thermal equilibrium at the beginning. Using rather speculative physics, it seems that the very early universe went through a phase of very rapid expansion, in a very short period of time, called "inflation" (this inflation actually would explain why the current space is homogeneous and isotropic, so, we wouldn't need these assumptions; on the other hand, we would need the assumption which leads to inflation, but this is poorly understood right now with current fundamental theories, maybe string theory or other theory will accommodate inflation in a rigorous frame). So, after inflation and all those things, the universe began to cool. Once this happened, elementary particles began to join in order to form atoms. Using nuclear physics it can be seen that the current universe should have certain abundance of the element helium. Precisely this abundance of helium is observed in the current universe!. As the universe cools down and atoms are formed, the free photons which were present at the initial soup interact less with the atoms (because the rate of interaction between photons and neutral atoms is much less than the rate of interaction between photons and free elementary particles). So, these photons wander freely over all the universe, maintaining their initial thermal equilibrium, and also while they cool down because of the expansion. But precisely such radiation was observed by Penzias and Wilson in the 1960's!. They won the Nobel Prize for that discovery. The radiation is called the "Cosmic microwave background radiation" and it is over all the universe, it is very isotropic also. We can ask now, how far back to the past can we go?. According to General Relativity, there was a moment, _a finite time ago from now_, in which the density of matter was infinite (and also the temperature, etc, i.e., we have the primordial soup we were talking). We call that moment the "Big Bang". This finite time is roughly 13 billion years (it can be easily calculated from the equations, it is 2/3*(Hubble constant, H), where the Hubble constant is the constant which appears in the redshift formula we talked, z=H*R, where z is the redshift factor and R is the relative distance between galaxies). Studies of some of the most old objects we can find in the universe say that these objects are not more old than 13 billion years. So it seems that the theory indeed predicts the correct age of the universe! .
> So, as you can see, some initial asumptions have led us to a model of the universe at cosmological scales which makes remarkable predictions about an initially hot and dense universe which began to expand and all have been confirmed experimentally. So, the answer to the question is _yes_, we understand the Big Bang Theory model and _yes_ it has been experimentally confimed.
> The second question: but from where all this matter and spacetime come from in the first place?. That's a very tricky question right now. According to General Relativity, the spacetime at the moment of the Big Bang was in a singular state. A singularity in the spacetime is basically a "hole" in spacetime, it represents the "edge" of spacetime. When one reaches a singularity, space and time cease to exist. Some people thought that this singularity was because of the, unphysical, assumptions of _exact_ homogeneity and isotropy in the equations. However, Hawking and Penrose proved in the Singularity Theorems that this is not the case. They showed that any cosmological model that leads to the same observed predictions but which is not exactly homogeneous and isotropic must have a singular beginning anyway. So, according to General Relativity, there was absolutely nothing, in a metaphysical sense, the actual _nothing_ (no space, time, or matter) and then suddenly the universe (i.e., space, time, and matter) came to existence. There's no philosophical problem here, since the theory is actually predicting that the universe came from nothing.
> The problem with this is that General Relativity is not a reliable theory of the spacetime structure at these microscopical scales. We need a Quantum Theory of Spacetime in order to answer this question then. Theory which we don't have at this moment.


I liked this just because it's so long and must have taken a lot of time and effort to write. Will read later lol.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> I liked this just because it's so long and must have taken a lot of time and effort to write. Will read later lol.


I read a third of it.


----------



## Guest

How did this discussion - about star signs - lurch into "evolution v religion"? Isn't that like suggesting that economics is the 'opposite' of ethics?


----------



## Flamme

Virgo...The sign or order.


----------



## clavichorder

Thank you Aleazk for your response. I am working on reading it!


----------

