>> ^charliem:

Eugene Mirmin - Astrological waste of space (in this video...).
The science they spoke of was really only that of psychology / sociology, which lets be honest.....they aint real sciences
I was hoping they would have talked way more about how graphics engines simulate real world phenomena, or how the next big thing bound by processing power currently is A.I in NPC's.
Instead we got mumbo jumbo interspersed with interruptions from a halfwit. Wasted time slot


They're real sciences when they use hard evidence to back themselves up. For good reason the "Soft" sciences haven't had a scientific revolution like physics and chemistry has, and it desperately needs one. It's why people get away with such bullshit in the soft sciences that it's hard to take them at all seriously. But there are people who treat them very much like hard sciences and they're making real developments and progress within them, actually proving and testing theorems rather than throwing stuff and seeing what sticks.

Eugene Mirmin - Astrological waste of space (in this video...).

The science they spoke of was really only that of psychology / sociology, which lets be honest.....they aint real sciences

I was hoping they would have talked way more about how graphics engines simulate real world phenomena, or how the next big thing bound by processing power currently is A.I in NPC's.

Instead we got mumbo jumbo interspersed with interruptions from a halfwit. Wasted time slot

Social sciences are real sciences; the problem is they're startlingly unsophisticated compared to their cousins.

All knowledge doesn't progress at the same rate. At the moment we're stuck with comparatively a mediaeval or pre-mediaeval understanding in some fields. As astrology is to astronomy, as alchemy is to chemistry, so the modern social sciences are to their future successors.

Give it a few thousand years...

Um, Bill Nye? Do you think that astrologers are really unaware of the precession of the equinoxes?

What do you think that whole "Age of Aquarius" thing was about?

As any basic introduction to astrology--heck, the Wikipedia entry on astrology--will tell you, there are two different ways of calculating the signs: tropical and sidereal. Under sidereal astrology, your sign is based on the actual constellation. Most people who think of themselves as a Sagitarrius really will be a Scorpio under sidereal astrology.

Tropical astrology, the most popular form of astrology in the West, is on the other hand based not on the positions of the constellations, but based on the position of the sun at the equinoxes and solstices. The signs are named after the constellations that were present in them back in the day, but it's not as if the equinoxes occur at different points in the year than they used to.

Whether or not you think astrology is bogus or not, it's probably a good idea to at least read the Wikipedia entry on a subject before you criticize it.

>> ^PalmliX:

Hey thanks for your response Enzo!
If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?
Or are you suggesting that I couldn't detect this bear with any of my senses, but I still believed it was real? Then I think most people would probably call me mentally ill. Myself included.
I also find the idea of ganging up with other people who share a belief (even if it's completely in contrast to your own) against those without any belief, a little scary.
Is it is far better to have ANY belief, no matter how ridiculous, unfounded, or even dangerous, than no belief? And should we really team up with other believers and "go against" those who make no such claims? Personally I would call this type of behavior mob/herd mentality or gang warfare, tribalism. An us or them mentality. I find this idea in a modern society a little frightening.
Your closing question "The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why." It's a difficult question to answer for a "non-believer" such as myself. Non-believer in the sense that so far, no one person's claim about the existence of an invisible Teddy Bear... has convinced me enough to worry and loose sleep at night.
I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does. Wouldn't it just be one less thing to fight about? i.e. if no one believed in Teddy Bears then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place? Because no one would even be talking about it?
I'm interested to hear your answer!
- Adam

The teddy bear belief I put represents the belief in the supernatural. There are people who simply don't believe in supernatural things at all. No ghosts, no spirit world, no voodoo, mind reading, water divining, astrology, and yes, even gods. This is the one step you need to consider.

When you say "I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does.", you're admitting that the belief in question doesn't exist. It's unprovable because it's a product of the mind and is limited to the mind, otherwise there would be a way for science to detect it. It can be incredibly real for the believer, but it doesn't exist in the real world, (therefore unprovable), and doesn't effect anyone who doesn't believe it. The non-believer is the only threat because the belief is dependent on more minds that believe, that's the only way the belief can propagate. This is why religion pushes faith and belief above all else.

The benefits of not believing in the supernatural are endless. For me personally, it's that the phrase "Why me?" has lost all meaning. Just consider how much anxiety and guilt you have for things like, "am i on the right path?", "am I being punished for something?", "what's god trying to tell me?", "is that a sign or just coincidence?". All that goes away. It's liberating like you wouldn't believe.

Yeah his first response of "Astrology" didn't help at all.

I could swear that I might have seen this before on here, but I can't find it. Someone let me know if you do or just dupe it if you got the rights.

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

>> ^Boise_Lib:


That position shows a tendency to think of a god as one already defined by a religion.
If Yahweh shows up I'll be one of the first to join your resistance movement. I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

Well, you're kinda redefining the terms of the debate (not that your point isn't interesting or valid). In broad terms, I agree with you. If it turns out that we are part of some benevolent science experiment of just the expression of the universe made conscious or the force or any one of a hundred ideas we've all had stoned, I won't rush out to take up arms against that.

But I don't really believe in that. I don't have to contend with it. What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc). It's a man made thing, but on the extreme outside chance they're right, well, I've posted this before, but it's still a great quote, so take it away Carl Marsalis

"Even if you could convince a variant thirteen, against all the evidence, that there really was a god? He'd just see him as a threat to be eliminated. If god were demonstrably real? Guys like me would just be looking for ways to find him and burn him down."



>> ^Boise_Lib:

[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]


Heretic!

And yet, it still seems to be what the home viewers want to hear =P.
>> ^EMPIRE:

And... is Oprah becoming even more of a moron every passing day?
"I actually do believe that when you loved somebody and they've loved you, that you end up with an angel who's name that you know"
First of all, the last part of that sentence doesn't even make sense.
Secondly... WTF is she on? Who told you that Oprah? Was it god? Was it the angels? Was that on the bible? Are you the prophet now? Or was it Tom Cruise who told you that?
Sheesh... I can't stand this kind of stupid. You know what I mean. This new age-spiritual-the-secret-celestine-prophecy-astrology type of fucking utter feces.
Even Mike Tyson went: "I don't know Oprah..."

Wow, yeah, the astrology thing is a huge downer for me also. Pretty much turns me off anything she may say as I know she believes in absolute rubbish.

'I don't care how long it takes'... Um, I haven't paid huge amounts of attention to this, but what is the end goal?

How long it takes until what exactly? At what point will they go 'Yup, we've got what we wanted, let's go'

I'm for the occupation, I'm for the basic sentiment, but I'm iffy as to what the actual goal of it is.

Huh, had no idea Ben Miller was quite so learned, especially after seeing the hilarious Armstrong and Miller chav pilot sketches.

Also, upvote just for the "If you're watching QI and you believe in astrology, you're banned" bit

Guys, whether you believe astrology is bullshit or not, she's not making predictions. Technically speaking, as far as the orientation of Earth's axis relative to the rest of the universe, she's right. This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius.

>> ^Boise_Lib: @garmachi, the astrology bit is offputting--but completely turned off? Uhmm--No.


As an astronomer (albeit an amateur) this turns me off. I would actually be incapable of arousal with this woman. Not out of my sense of superiority or smugness, but out of my need to protect our species from her offspring. Sure, my genes are superior, but if there's even a chance that whatever deficiency allows for the belief in astrology might get passed on, there's nothing going on below my belt.

Okay fine, I'd do her, but just the once.

Good LORD she's hot!

>> ^deathcow:

astrology... what an embarassment

Oh man, she was cute right up until the moment she started talking.

astrology... what an embarassment