I’m pretty indifferent to astrology these days, but I have spent enough time studying the basics of how it works that I think anyone criticizing it should also at least have a basic enough understanding of it that they can criticize the thing itself rather than the stereotype of the thing.
If you’re going to attack something for being stupid, it’s a good idea to not be stupid yourself.
They aren’t saying astrology these days is too polarized or something. They’re saying the basic premise behind astrology itself is nonsensical. It’s like expecting an atheist to read the Bible.
No, it’s like an atheist criticizing the Bible by saying things that are untrue about the Bible. If you care enough about something to be informed enough to make a credible critique, that’s fine. But if you’re just going to harbor and further perpetuate false stereotypes about a thing, maybe just stay in your lane and a, “Hey I don’t know about that stuff and I don’t care,” is all you need.
The two main ones I see are, 1) statements like, “I think it’s ridiculous to think the stars control our fate.” Which, they don’t. While there is a branch of “naturalistic” astrological rooted in Aristotle’s classical elemental ideas, virtually no one uses that model, and the prevailing thought these days is the movements of celestial bodies are more like symbolic markers. You never see anyone accuse clocks of controlling time, for instance.
And the other one is the perpetuation of the idea of each person’s sun sign essentially determining their entire personality or whole events. The sun sign is obviously a large variable, but in actual astrological practice the natal chart factors in the total state of the entire solar system with an honestly staggering number of variables. That’s not the whole story either, because people change over time, and astrology has methods for forecasting those changes by producing whole charts at multiple times and places.
Which, if you think the premise as a whole is still ridiculous - that’s fair. I’m not trying to defend astrology here, just saying that people can at least try not to perpetuate stereotypes.
I was raised without religion. Decided I was atheist as soon as I came across the word as a kid.
I’ve read large parts of the Christian Bible, in a “know thy enemy” sort of way.
Also, reading the Bible is one way atheists come to be atheists.
That said, I have zero interest in learning more about astrology. Yes, it’s completely nonsensical, and not worth anyone’s time pursuing. There’s nothing behind it. The “basics of how it works” is that it obviously doesn’t work at all. It’s complete bullshit.
I’m pretty indifferent to astrology these days, but I have spent enough time studying the basics of how it works that I think anyone criticizing it should also at least have a basic enough understanding of it that they can criticize the thing itself rather than the stereotype of the thing.
If you’re going to attack something for being stupid, it’s a good idea to not be stupid yourself.
They aren’t saying astrology these days is too polarized or something. They’re saying the basic premise behind astrology itself is nonsensical. It’s like expecting an atheist to read the Bible.
No, it’s like an atheist criticizing the Bible by saying things that are untrue about the Bible. If you care enough about something to be informed enough to make a credible critique, that’s fine. But if you’re just going to harbor and further perpetuate false stereotypes about a thing, maybe just stay in your lane and a, “Hey I don’t know about that stuff and I don’t care,” is all you need.
But atheists never claim “Abraham had two dads”, and anti-astrology people don’t say “Geminis like jalapeños”.
Ah right, because atheists and anti-astrologists are never guilty of error or logical fallacy? Oh wait.
What specifically do you think anti-astrology people been claiming about astrology?
The two main ones I see are, 1) statements like, “I think it’s ridiculous to think the stars control our fate.” Which, they don’t. While there is a branch of “naturalistic” astrological rooted in Aristotle’s classical elemental ideas, virtually no one uses that model, and the prevailing thought these days is the movements of celestial bodies are more like symbolic markers. You never see anyone accuse clocks of controlling time, for instance.
And the other one is the perpetuation of the idea of each person’s sun sign essentially determining their entire personality or whole events. The sun sign is obviously a large variable, but in actual astrological practice the natal chart factors in the total state of the entire solar system with an honestly staggering number of variables. That’s not the whole story either, because people change over time, and astrology has methods for forecasting those changes by producing whole charts at multiple times and places.
Which, if you think the premise as a whole is still ridiculous - that’s fair. I’m not trying to defend astrology here, just saying that people can at least try not to perpetuate stereotypes.
I was raised without religion. Decided I was atheist as soon as I came across the word as a kid.
I’ve read large parts of the Christian Bible, in a “know thy enemy” sort of way.
Also, reading the Bible is one way atheists come to be atheists.
That said, I have zero interest in learning more about astrology. Yes, it’s completely nonsensical, and not worth anyone’s time pursuing. There’s nothing behind it. The “basics of how it works” is that it obviously doesn’t work at all. It’s complete bullshit.