From: kappa@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Glenn Capuano)
Subject: Re: Zodiac Constellations
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:17:39 GMT

Eshin-Fun (eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com) wrote:
> >>kappa@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Glenn Capuano) writes:
> : 
> : 	I'm not at odds with everybody else, on the contrary, less people
> : believe in astrology than disbelieve in it.<<<
> 
> 
> For a rural islander you're very presumptive as a skeptic. 

	For an american you show remarkably little knowledge of Australia,
which is not a "rural island" since 85% of the people live in cities and
suburbs, myself included.

> What? no data to substantiate numbers of who believes or who does not?
> Perhaps in Aus. there may be no one, or very few that openly
> admit to belief in Astrology but what of the rest of the world? 
	
	Yes, actually I do have data for this country, a survey done a few
months ago which shows about 19% of the population believe in astrology. I
can find the details for you if you want them. As for the rest of the
world, well I'd be surprised if it was much different in the rest of the
western world (yes, Australia does constitute part of the western world
inc ase you didn't know). In the US, given the high number of religious
fundamentalists, I'd not be surprised if it was lower.

> : > : I see is a 2000 year old superstition with no evidence for its validity
> : > : whatsoever!<<
> 
> What? have you not noticed the reaction of people on a full moon?

	No, but I've heard a lot of myths and superstitions about it...

> Go to an
> emergency room of your local hospital and ask.
> You'll find a strange reaction on the human race during that time. A
> coincidence is once but not on a regular 
> basis.

	Now, it's my turn to ask "data please"......

> As this there are many other "common" and "simple" observations that 
> >are< part of astromantical, or astrological observations

	For example?

> >>: 	Whether it is 6000 or 2000 years old makes little difference to
> : me. It is still ancient and therefore unlikely to be correct. I'm sure
> : some form of heavenly superstition has been present ever since man first
> : walked upright and looked at the sky, trying to make sense of what they
> : saw there.<<
> 
> For a skeptic you sure make rather broad sweeping statements that challenge
> the most worthy of historian! You have very little awareness in your islander
> naivete of the values or study of anything past.
> This seems to betray a
> certain bigotry or challenge of authority and shames your skeptecism to
> a mere infantile, obdurate position to which there is no resolve that can
> reason with it, as you are already decided that you cannot accept what you
> in disclaming question.

	Instead of hurling abuse at me, perhaps you could tell me where I
went wrong in the above statement? Am I historically naive to suggest that
man has been looking at the sky for this long? Or do you object to my
saying that ancient people formed superstitions about the heavens? Maybe
you think that they instantly knew the divine truth and began the great
science of astrology? Or maybe you're just abusing me because you can't
handle someone questioning your faith...
	If you really want to make me listen, give me some good reasons
WHY I should believe a 6000 year old theory, the product of a time which
believed that the universe was a black dome above our heads with holes in
it, above the modern theories which need none of this superstitious nonsense?

> To take you seriously, therefore, is to fall victim to dissapointment,
> luckily, I did not expect anything less from you, so leading you on only
> seems to have made more of an >ass< of you than that which you
> expected to make
> us that communicate on this thread.

	I expected two things when I began this thread. One was
intelligent argument with informed people, which I have had. The other was
mindless abuse, a role which you are filling admirably.

> I suppose we can be understanding of your boredom, for one look at 
> aus.religion
> betrays the lack of imagination or interest that might have driven you to
> "play" on another thread.

	Hmmm...I haven't actually read aus.religion, might be worth a look..


> >>>: > : doing is offering the poor (and I use the term loosely, most are quite
> : > : rich) astrologer a chance to prove his/her claims.<<<
> 
> 
> Again, another pontificating sweeping statement that has no foundation of
> truth and betrays an envious tone on your behalf. 

	Too right I'm envious!


> >>: As for travel, I hope to, as soon as I can
> : raise the cash :-).<<
> 
> You could take up your own challenge. Who Knows? You might be able to win 
> the $10,000.00 yourself! Think of it! Paris in the spring. Rome, and the

	Ha! I wish! but it's not even MY own challenge. It's the challenge
of Australian Skeptics. I had nothing to do with it other than publicising
it on this newsgroup. As for taking it up myself, havent I been through
this before?....

> >>: > >>I don't claim astrology works, so I can't take up the challenge!
> : > : I'd be the first to do so if I thought it did! I could use $10000!!<<
> : 	You don't seem to understand, you have the claim, it's up to you
> : to prove it. I don't claim anything. If I did claim to have a working
> : paranormal technique (eg psychics, water divining etc.) I'd take up the
> : challenge for sure, but I don't, you do, therefore it's up to you to take
> : up the challenge if you want the money.
> 
> Wrong! It was you who unsolicited posted. It was you who self appointedly chose
> to challenge the art of Astrology. So it is you to whom the burden falls to
> prove or disprove it. But not at our expense.

	Not at your expense if it works, at the Skeptics expense! I just
saw all these devout believers posting here, and I thought you might like
$10,000, and if not I wanted to know your excuse for not taking up the
offer, which has been around for several years now.

> No one on this thread boasted that astrology was unquestionable.
> You >chose< to disclaim it however.
	
	No, I began by simply questioning, which even you admit is allowable.

> You can bleat all you want but all your admonishions
> have no basis of foundadion any more than >you< claim astrologers have.
> Yet Astrologers have an ancient historical record of belief that you lack.
> Since the dawning of reason, it is a human trait to question, even that
> which is obvious. But it is usually the burden of the disclaimer to
> substantiate their point. Not those whom she/he would accuse.

	You seem to be against backing up your claims with evidence, other
than statements like 'an ancient historical record of belief'. I guess
that's what it comes down to in the end doesn't it? You don't require
evidence to believe and I do. Which means this thread can really go no
further.

> Usually that disclaimer betrays a deep rooted interest in that which he/she
> questions.

	I am interested in astronomy, never cared about astrology until I
realised how many people thought they were one and the same.

> It is >their< problem. But either youth, or inexperience supports
> an insecurity that the disclaimer shoves on the shoulders of their victim.
> For anyone to take you seriously, however, it is *you* who has to prove
> their credibility otherwise you are no more than a ridiculous begruding demon
> challenging the omnisciense of God as in Prologue of the book of Faust by
> Gothe.

	Let me get this straight. Somewhere in that paragraph you are
questioning my credibility, right? Well all I can say is I think I have as
much right as anyone else to question the premises of astrology, and those
who practice it should be able to produce evidence to defend it.

> >>>>>>>:I think I have allowed room for other people's opinions. I
> : certainly know a lot more about astrology than I did when I first posted
> : that message, but you haven't changed my opinion that it's bunk...

> Hardly. On both counts. As for your opinion....you had already decided that
> long before you opened any argument here.

	True, it would have taken a lot of hard evidence to change my
opinion, but now that I've seen what your colleagues believe, I think it
needs further investigation, rather than just dismissing it out of hand as
I did before.

> Though many of the colleagues here
> have humored you it is obvious how shallow you present yourself.
> In humble opinion, I must confess that you really haven't changed ours
> either, and that your amusing assidulous romp was as much >bunk< as your
> conclusions of us or Astrology.

	Well I never expected to change anyone's opinion, least of all yours.

Glenn Capuano

Xref: sparky alt.astrology:1910 talk.politics.soviet:8261