Poll :: Which star sign likes BTC most/least

[notme]

You said the things you thought were true were based on faith. This is different from observation. A discussion about the correct or incorrect interpretation of observation is a wholly different one than the one we're having.

Quote please.  I don't believe I said that.

Upon review, it seems you didn't actually say this. I merely got the impression from you arguing that faith has a place alongside science, that you were holding beliefs merely by faith. I didn't realize you were arguing hypothetically.

Way to make assumptions... see, even you can be blinded by faith in your beliefs.  To believe otherwise is folly.

I'm not arguing hypothetically... you can't hold beliefs without faith.  Science can help you hone those beliefs to approximate truth.  But, IMHO, you have an faith in science that rivals the faith of religious extremists.  Science is performed by human beings, who are fallible.

[1714168229]

1714168229

[1714168229]

1714168229

[1714168229]

1714168229

[BTCurious]

Upon review, it seems you didn't actually say this. I merely got the impression from you arguing that faith has a place alongside science, that you were holding beliefs merely by faith. I didn't realize you were arguing hypothetically.

Way to make assumptions... see, even you can be blinded by faith in your beliefs.  To believe otherwise is folly.

I'm not arguing hypothetically...

The words in my previous post were written with a touch of sarcasm in the back of my head. Indeed, you did not say it literally, but the words you spoke clearly meant you either held some beliefs out of faith, or were arguing just for the sake of arguing. The latter seemed unlikely to me. I had hoped you would have understood this from my message.

you can't hold beliefs without faith.  Science can help you hone those beliefs to approximate truth.  But, IMHO, you have an faith in science that rivals the faith of religious extremists.

Allow me to quote Tim Minchin once more here, since you're basically stating Storm's part of the conversation here:

“You’re so sure of your position, but you’re just closed-minded.
I think you’ll find, your faith in Science and Tests,
Is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist”

“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I’ll spin on a fucking dime
I’ll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

[notme]

Upon review, it seems you didn't actually say this. I merely got the impression from you arguing that faith has a place alongside science, that you were holding beliefs merely by faith. I didn't realize you were arguing hypothetically.

Way to make assumptions... see, even you can be blinded by faith in your beliefs.  To believe otherwise is folly.

I'm not arguing hypothetically...

The words in my previous post were written with a touch of sarcasm in the back of my head. Indeed, you did not say it literally, but the words you spoke clearly meant you either held some beliefs out of faith, or were arguing just for the sake of arguing. The latter seemed unlikely to me. I had hoped you would have understood this from my message.

you can't hold beliefs without faith.  Science can help you hone those beliefs to approximate truth.  But, IMHO, you have an faith in science that rivals the faith of religious extremists.

Allow me to quote Tim Minchin once more here, since you're basically stating Storm's part of the conversation here:

“You’re so sure of your position, but you’re just closed-minded.
I think you’ll find, your faith in Science and Tests,
Is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist”

“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I’ll spin on a fucking dime
I’ll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Thanks... I watched the video..... You're just lumping me in with other people who have faith (a very large and diverse group) and repeating the thoughts of others.

Minchin is an artist, and as such has used hyperbole.  The fact that you treat it as gospel is revealing.

I do hold beliefs out of faith... my point is so do you.  There are no beliefs that don't require faith.

Definition of faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So either, you have faith, or you don't have complete confidence in anything.

Do you have faith, or is it possible that the sun isn't the center of the solar system?  You can only choose one by the dictionary definition of faith.

[arepo]

Yes, in your eyes you might be being nice to her because of those negative energies she is dealing with, but in her eyes you might just be being nice. It doesn't really matter why you act the way you do, but if you trying to be nice because of those energies, she can benefit from you being nice just because you're nice (Which is of course a good thing!) and get back to normal quicker. It doesn't really matter what caused it, but in my opinion it's just so far fetched to seek a reason in the stars, when there's a bazillion other things that could have caused her behavior. Humans are complex creatures after all!

What about the moon?  Look at hospital records for full moons compared to normal nights, there are way more accidents.

Can you please give me a source? I'd be interested to read it. I've done a few quick google searches, but I'm finding things pointing out there are no such correlations. Thanks!

Here's a scientific article, which found no such correlation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15166467

More self poisonings during full moon:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=7448570&dopt=Abstract

Increase in female calls, decrease in male calls during new moon at crisis-call center:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14664724?dopt=AbstractPlus

Aggravated assault more common near full moon:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/641019?dopt=Abstract

I couldn't find one directly about hospital admissions.  In my case, that was taken from anecdotal evidence from several nurses.  The effect may be limited to those who believe in it .  But, the reality is, people believe in it.  That would explain it being found in limited areas, but not seen overall.  I wish I could find a study that took place in rural India, or another place where astrology is highly regarded.

are you kidding me??

correlation does not imply causation

do you understand what that means?

[BTCurious]

Thanks... I watched the video..... You're just lumping me in with other people who have faith (a very large and diverse group) and repeating the thoughts of others.

Minchin is an artist, and as such has used hyperbole.  The fact that you treat it as gospel is revealing.

I do hold beliefs out of faith... my point is so do you.  There are no beliefs that don't require faith.

Definition of faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So either, you have faith, or you don't have complete confidence in anything.

Do you have faith, or is it possible that the sun isn't the center of the solar system?  You can only choose one by the dictionary definition of faith.

If you tell me I have a faith that rivals the faith of religious extremists, then you insult my deeply. I then don't feel the need to respond with a detailed reply, especially not when the core of my message was stated much more eloquently by someone with better verbal skills than me.

Edit: To give a reply with content: I do not have complete confidence in anything.

[notme]

are you kidding me??

correlation does not imply causation

do you understand what that means?

Yes, I understand what that means.  However, lack of evidence does not disprove causation.  Do you understand what that means?

How the hell is one supposed to prove that the moon contributed to a person's decision to kill themselves?  The best you can do is show correlation, and that has been demonstrated.  I will accept that causation in this case not falsifiable, but that doesn't make it inherently false.  It does mean you need a different tool from science to be able to make a decision.  Either way you decide, your decision is based on faith, so unless you decide to not decide, you are going on faith.

[notme]

Thanks... I watched the video..... You're just lumping me in with other people who have faith (a very large and diverse group) and repeating the thoughts of others.

Minchin is an artist, and as such has used hyperbole.  The fact that you treat it as gospel is revealing.

I do hold beliefs out of faith... my point is so do you.  There are no beliefs that don't require faith.

Definition of faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So either, you have faith, or you don't have complete confidence in anything.

Do you have faith, or is it possible that the sun isn't the center of the solar system?  You can only choose one by the dictionary definition of faith.

If you tell me I have a faith that rivals the faith of religious extremists, then you insult my deeply. I then don't feel the need to respond with a detailed reply, especially not when the core of my message was stated much more eloquently by someone with better verbal skills than me.

Edit: To give a reply with content: I do not have complete confidence in anything.

Emphasis added.

So it's possible that the sun isn't the center of the solar system is your answer.

This rigidity against admitting your anti-faith crusade is folly is why I made the comment about religious extremists.  Like you, they refuse to change their mind when what they thought they knew (the definition of faith) is contradicted by new evidence (me looking it up in the dictionary for you).

Why are you so anti-faith?  I seriously would like to know.  Did some religious nut jobs scare you or something?  Just because there are crazy people who make extraordinary claims doesn't mean all people who make extraordinary claims are crazy.

[BTCurious]

Yes, I understand what that means.  However, lack of evidence does not disprove causation.  Do you understand what that means?

I believe there's a teapot circling the Earth, halfway between the Earth and the moon. It's slightly smaller than what we can see with the best current telescopes.
There is a lack of evidence to the contrary: You have no proof it's not there, therefore you can't call my belief retarded.

How the hell is one supposed to prove that the moon contributed to a person's decision to kill themselves?

Easy, keep a very large amount of people in a space where they can't see the moon, and thus don't know if it's full moon or not. Drug them into a coma for a random amount of time between 1 and 30 days, so they don't remember if it's full moon or not. Then let them live in that place where they can't see the moon. If they then suicide more often during full moons, that would be strong evidence for a causation.

not falsifiable, but that doesn't make it inherently false.

If something is not falsifiable, it doesn't make it true either. The teapot I mentioned up there is not falsifiable. That doesn't mean you should respect my belief in the teapot.

It does mean you need a different tool from science to be able to make a decision.

If something really cannot be decided by science at the moment, the correct stance is to be agnostic about it: Admitting that you don't know if it's true or false. Deciding based on a whim or a feeling will not get you anywhere.

Usually though, some things that can't be decided by science, can still be given a probability by science. The teapot? Unlikely: Add all the different possibilities of methods by which a teapot could get there. The total possibility is still very, very small. Therefore, I belief, with high certainty, that there is no teapot there.

[notme]

Yes, I understand what that means.  However, lack of evidence does not disprove causation.  Do you understand what that means?

I believe there's a teapot circling the Earth, halfway between the Earth and the moon. It's slightly smaller than what we can see with the best current telescopes.
There is a lack of evidence to the contrary: You have no proof it's not there, therefore you can't call my belief retarded.

Ok, you are entitled to believe what you want.  I will only complain if your beliefs cause me harm.

How the hell is one supposed to prove that the moon contributed to a person's decision to kill themselves?

Easy, keep a very large amount of people in a space where they can't see the moon, and thus don't know if it's full moon or not. Drug them into a coma for a random amount of time between 1 and 30 days, so they don't remember if it's full moon or not. Then let them live in that place where they can't see the moon. If they then suicide more often during full moons, that would be strong evidence for a causation.

Can you design a study that doesn't involve huge lapses in ethics?

not falsifiable, but that doesn't make it inherently false.

If something is not falsifiable, it doesn't make it true either. The teapot I mentioned up there is not falsifiable. That doesn't mean you should respect my belief in the teapot.

Sure, it doesn't make it true.  I may not be required by your beliefs to respect your belief, but I am required to by mine.

It does mean you need a different tool from science to be able to make a decision.

If something really cannot be decided by science at the moment, the correct stance is to be agnostic about it: Admitting that you don't know if it's true or false. Deciding based on a whim or a feeling will not get you anywhere.

I agree with you there.  However, sometimes a decision has to be made.  At that point, I turn to research and meditation.  I do this because my experience tells me this usually produces the best solution to my current dilemma.

Usually though, some things that can't be decided by science, can still be given a probability by science. The teapot? Unlikely: Add all the different possibilities of methods by which a teapot could get there. The total possibility is still very, very small. Therefore, I belief, with high certainty, that there is no teapot there.

I agree it's unlikely, but I'm not about to bash you for suggesting it might be possible.  That is my point.

[Crypt_Current]

Aquarius, FTW!   

[Crypt_Current]

Yes, I understand what that means.  However, lack of evidence does not disprove causation.  Do you understand what that means?

I believe there's a teapot circling the Earth, halfway between the Earth and the moon. It's slightly smaller than what we can see with the best current telescopes.
There is a lack of evidence to the contrary: You have no proof it's not there, therefore you can't call my belief retarded.

Ok, you are entitled to believe what you want.  I will only complain if your beliefs cause me harm.

How the hell is one supposed to prove that the moon contributed to a person's decision to kill themselves?

Easy, keep a very large amount of people in a space where they can't see the moon, and thus don't know if it's full moon or not. Drug them into a coma for a random amount of time between 1 and 30 days, so they don't remember if it's full moon or not. Then let them live in that place where they can't see the moon. If they then suicide more often during full moons, that would be strong evidence for a causation.

Can you design a study that doesn't involve huge lapses in ethics?

not falsifiable, but that doesn't make it inherently false.

If something is not falsifiable, it doesn't make it true either. The teapot I mentioned up there is not falsifiable. That doesn't mean you should respect my belief in the teapot.

Sure, it doesn't make it true.  I may not be required by your beliefs to respect your belief, but I am required to by mine.

It does mean you need a different tool from science to be able to make a decision.

If something really cannot be decided by science at the moment, the correct stance is to be agnostic about it: Admitting that you don't know if it's true or false. Deciding based on a whim or a feeling will not get you anywhere.

I agree with you there.  However, sometimes a decision has to be made.  At that point, I turn to research and meditation.  I do this because my experience tells me this usually produces the best solution to my current dilemma.

Usually though, some things that can't be decided by science, can still be given a probability by science. The teapot? Unlikely: Add all the different possibilities of methods by which a teapot could get there. The total possibility is still very, very small. Therefore, I belief, with high certainty, that there is no teapot there.

I agree it's unlikely, but I'm not about to bash you for suggesting it might be possible.  That is my point.

I think all views should be subject to bashing.  If the holder of the view deserves to hold it, he/she will continue holding after the bashing.

From Liber Al Vel Legis:
AL 2.59: "Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
AL 2.60: Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!"

[elux]

I do hold beliefs out of faith... my point is so do you.  There are no beliefs that don't require faith.

Definition of faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So either, you have faith, or you don't have complete confidence in anything.

Do you have faith, or is it possible that the sun isn't the center of the solar system?  You can only choose one by the dictionary definition of faith.

1: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it does not go away."

2: "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."

3: It is true that the center of the Sun is not the exact center of the solar system, only very nearly so!

Why should we believe this? Well, it is effected by the gravity of the orbiting Earth, Jupiter, comets, planets, planetesimals, and Russel's teapot and other objects therein contained.

Yet the center of the sun is nearly the center due to the immense mass of the sun compared to the rest.

Updating the heliocentric model of reality on this new knowledge I could, and did in fact discard my (slightly) wrong,
imprecise heliocentric worldview in favor of a similar-but-better, more accurate model of the solar system.

The map is not the terrain, perfect in every detail. But a map of reality should look like reality, rather than it's alternatives.

Now, what would the world look like if astrology was true?

[BTCurious]

Why are you so anti-faith? I seriously would like to know. Did some religious nut jobs scare you or something? Just because there are crazy people who make extraordinary claims doesn't mean all people who make extraordinary claims are crazy.

Having faith means you stop asking.
It means you accept things without thinking about it.
It means you never find out how to make something better.
It means arbitrary habits such as raindancing or avoiding black cats are followed, because people believe it to be effective.
It means poor people are scammed out of their money by quackery.
It means people don't question themselves, don't ask themselves if there is a better way. "Religion is required for morals"? Not quite.
The people with a little faith open the doors for the people with a lot of faith.
This means children don't get a proper education, never learning the beauty of evolving species.
It means equal rights are gone, with human beings being suppressed (homosexuals, other races, women).
It means large amounts of money go into creating huge buildings in which faith is perpetuated.
Having faith means people with a different faith are the enemy.
It means fighting, wars, and death.
Having faith means never going from hiding from Zeus' lightning bolt, to finding out how it works, to harnessing electricity.
It means never emerging from our simple caves, never finding the beauty behind the scenes, the magnificence of emergence, the possibilities of intelligence, and the wonders humankind is capable of.

You speak to me of faith, yet all I see is what is wrong in this world. Let go of faith, and let us start on the rest of the future.

[notme]

I do hold beliefs out of faith... my point is so do you.  There are no beliefs that don't require faith.

Definition of faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So either, you have faith, or you don't have complete confidence in anything.

Do you have faith, or is it possible that the sun isn't the center of the solar system?  You can only choose one by the dictionary definition of faith.

1: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it does not go away."

2: "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."

It is known to me that the center of the Sun is not the exact center of the solar system, only very nearly so.

Why do i believe this? Well it follows from the gravity of the orbiting Earth, Jupiter, comets, planets, planetesimals, and Russels teapot and the other objects therein contained.

Yet the center of the sun is very nearly the center due to the immense mass of the sun compared to the rest.

Updating my heliocentric model of reality on this new knowledge am I able to discard my wrong,
imprecise heliocentric worldview in favor of a similar-but-better, more accurate model of the solar system.

The map is not the terrain, perfect in every detail, but a map of reality should look like reality rather than it's alternatives.

What would the world look like if astrology was true?

Your statements about your model of the solar system leaves out a lot of details. So does the average person's understanding of what I consider real astrology.  As I have said, there are many charlatans, and I don't attempt to abuse it for predictive purposes.  I use astrology to better understand my current situation.  I believe that if the astrology I believe in were true, the world would look exactly as it does.  As far as I'm concerned, I'm merely looking at the current position of the heavenly bodies near me in space and filtering that through my initial impressions from my strongest early memory: birth.  By learning to feel the energies within your body, one can even learn to recognize their motions without looking up the chart.  However, personally I'm not that finely tuned yet and often turn to calculations to help me decipher the energies I'm being exposed to.

[notme]

Why are you so anti-faith? I seriously would like to know. Did some religious nut jobs scare you or something? Just because there are crazy people who make extraordinary claims doesn't mean all people who make extraordinary claims are crazy.

Having faith means you stop asking.
It means you accept things without thinking about it.
It means you never find out how to make something better.
It means arbitrary habits such as raindancing or avoiding black cats are followed, because people believe it to be effective.
It means poor people are scammed out of their money by quackery.
It means people don't question themselves, don't ask themselves if there is a better way. "Religion is required for morals"? Not quite.
The people with a little faith open the doors for the people with a lot of faith.
This means children don't get a proper education, never learning the beauty of evolving species.
It means equal rights are gone, with human beings being suppressed (homosexuals, other races, women).
It means large amounts of money go into creating huge buildings in which faith is perpetuated.
Having faith means people with a different faith are the enemy.
It means fighting, wars, and death.
Having faith means never going from hiding from Zeus' lightning bolt, to finding out how it works, to harnessing electricity.
It means never emerging from our simple caves, never finding the beauty behind the scenes, the magnificence of emergence, the possibilities of intelligence, and the wonders humankind is capable of.

You speak to me of faith, yet all I see is what is wrong in this world. Let go of faith, and let us start on the rest of the future.

I reject your definition of faith.

I have not stopped asking.
I do not accept things without thought.
I always look for a better way.
I don't think any of my habits are arbitrary.  I don't perform sacrifices or dance to evoke a favor from any deity.
It is unfortunate that this happens, but many poor people are helped by people of faith as well.
You already mentioned not looking for a better way.... I don't agree religion is required for morals.
Mental instability and a lack of community lead to people of excessive faith.  They go their to escape a feeling of isolation, not because they admire those of sane faith.
Poor education does happen, but again many people of faith provide great opportunities for children
Please tell me when equal rights truly existed.... I'm not sure we've ever been closer
Most churches I know are community built.... Televangelists are not the greatest examples of faithful people
My faith hold tolerance above most other ideals
Again, this is mental instability, not faith
Again, you assume I stopped asking questions... I disagree

BTW, attempting to rip people's faith from them also leads to the isolation that breads radicalism.

You are only focusing on the loud minority who are mentally unstable.  Was Gandhi a fool for believing he could get the British to leave without violence?  It sure took a lot of faith.  Let me be about my beliefs and maybe we can work together on the future.  If you aren't interested in the topic of this thread, please just leave it be.  I don't come into threads and tell people their discussion is pointless only to spew idealism for 3 pages.  You are only creating more divisiveness, delaying your dreams of a glorious future.  The only way we can move forward is to be tolerant and accepting.  We don't all have to agree about philosophy to work together.

[elux]

I believe that if the astrology I believe in were true, the world would look exactly as it does.  

NO! No it would not! Everything discovered in the sciences since Aristotle would be a lie.

The laws of nature are laws, not whims.  Astrology cannot work some of the time, it has to work it had to work all of the time, for all of the people.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm merely looking at the current position of the heavenly bodies near me in space and filtering that through my initial impressions from my strongest early memory: birth.

Heavenly bodies are VERY FAR AWAY. A lightyear is ten trillion kilometers.

Their influence is strictly limited to light and gravity.

An apple in a nearby tree will influence you to a much stronger degree than the faraway lumps of rock, or unimaginably distant lumps of mostly hydrogen.

Aha! Make horoscopes based on apples, not stars! (It works equally well, no better, no worse.)

By learning to feel the energies within your body, one can even learn to recognize their motions without looking up the chart.  

Those energies are commonly called emotions. Emotions are created in the brain.

Emotions are not, could not be, in any way influenced by the stars.  (Even if one believes they are.)

However, personally I'm not that finely tuned yet and often turn to calculations to help me decipher the energies I'm being exposed to.

That is the emotion of confusion. You cannot go on believing wrong things and expect your brain not to be confused about it.

[Crypt_Current]

Emotions are not, could not be, in any way influenced by the stars.  Even if you believe they are.

How exactly do you know this?

[notme]

@elux

Please read my previous posts.... You are obviously using a different definition of astrology than I am.  As I've said before, the grahas I consider are all within our solar system.  Emotions are absolutely influenced by the the sun, and other planets, even if it's too subtle for the untrained nervous system to identify.  Astrology is mostly useful for me regarding interpersonal relationships.  It allows me to understand what influences we are all experiencing which helps me to relate to the emotions of others.

[Crypt_Current]

@elux

Please read my previous posts.... You are obviously using a different definition of astrology than I am.  As I've said before, the grahas I consider are all within our solar system.  Emotions are absolutely influenced by the the sun, and other planets, even if it's too subtle for the untrained nervous system to identify.  Astrology is mostly useful for me regarding interpersonal relationships.  It allows me to understand what influences we are all experiencing which helps me to relate to the emotions of others.

I'm guessing elux is either Aquarius or Pisces or right on the cusp between.  Possibly Libra or Virgo.

[elux]

Emotions are not, could not be, in any way influenced by the stars.  Even if you believe they are.

How exactly do you know this?

Good question! On reading my own comment, I realize I have made my self look quite silly.
I have many times found myself awestruck by the beauty of a starry night, or the discoveries of astronomy.

So in this sense, emotions can be influenced by stars.

That said, there are (at low temperatures) four forces in nature, precisely accountable for everything that has happened since the beginning of time.

The electromagnetic force. (Makes object solid, light, radiation.)
The strong nuclear force. (Keeps the nuclei of atoms from imploding or blowing apart.)
The weak nuclear force.  (Breaks down heavy, unstable atoms through radioactive decay.)
Gravity. (Keeps shit together, mostly.)

The strength of interactions generally decrease with distance to zero long, long, very much earlier indeed before we get to astronomical distances.

There is no measurable effect. If astrology worked as proposed it would be measurable.

Excepting side effects that would literally destroy the Universe.