XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:45:51 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 30-December-2014 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:14:50 +1100, felix_unger    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 30-December-2014 7:21 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:05:20 +1100, felix_unger    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 30-December-2014 1:45 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>     If you eager to believe in things with no proof I have some old   
   astrology texts to sell you.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> if astrology is just nonsense, how  do you explain why it's accurate in   
   >>>>> describing ppl by their star signs?   
   >>>> Felix how  old are you like 14?   
   >>> no   
   >>>   
   >>>>    Everyone knows that that shit is made   
   >>>> to be so generic that it can fit anyone. How many zodiacs have you   
   >>>> read besides your own?   
   >>> plenty. how many have you read? and Chinese astrology is surprisingly   
   >>> accurate as well. and then there's numerology.. :)   
   >>>   
   >>>> Read others you will find that most of them   
   >>>> will fit you in some way.   
   >>> yes, 'in some way'. but when the profiles are (significantly) more than   
   >>> 50% accurate, ie. beyond the law of averages, for each star sign, that's   
   >>> indicative that there must be reasons for it. and the profiles for each   
   >>> star sign are significantly different, ie. they are are not just   
   >>> generically similar.   
   >> there are no laws of averages when you are talking about generics. it   
   >> means it will apply to most people. from what you said that would mean   
   >> that they are 50 % accutate for 100% of the people........   
   >>   
   >> do you see the problem I am talking about.   
   >   
   >no I don't. If my star sign is (say) 90% accurate about me, and all the   
   >other star signs are only (say) 20% accurate about me, then that   
   >indicates there is some validity to astrology   
      
   No, it means that you are selectively filtering the claims to make it   
   look to yourself as if there is validity. You can always find someone   
   who made some astrological claim that fits your self perception. The   
   question is whether you can find anyone who objectively reviews the   
   claims of astrologers (astrology seems to have more views of how things   
   work than the myriad Christian sects) to see if they are correct.   
      
   Which astrologer is 90% correct for you? Why are the other ones wrong?   
      
   >> you have just admitted to   
   >> exactly to what I said.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)