Are Horoscopes religion?

Yeah, apparently there is a rather long list for license plates and phone numbers here with number 8.
Perfectly rational people can believe in ideas without basis in common sense. I always say, I've got the luck of the irish, bad luck. Without it, I'd have no luck at all. Not original I know, but it seems to fit my life. Or am I being cursed from a past life?

Wow. That is one of the most touching compliments I have ever received. Thank you. That's going in my file.



Sounds like the old left brain vs. right brain dichotomy. On every test I've taken, I've scored right down the middle. We have much in common. How do I express my creativity? Lots of ways. I write. I work with groups to make them see their own possibilities. I encourage others. I am a fully involved parent. I'm not sure I understand your question.



Portal Star, I have a passing acquaintance with history. I will be the first to admit that religion has often been used to justify atrocities. Believers have frequently committed actions that contradict their religion's basic teachings. No debate there. Most often, I attribute that to a failing of the believers -- not the belief.

There is a line from the movie, "Pretty Woman," that comes to mind. "It is easier to believe the bad stuff." How true that is. It is easy to see the bad influences that religion has left on societies. It is immense, and it can seem to overshadow the good. But that is because of our proclivity for dwelling on the negative.

What of all the social agencies, universities and hospitals that have been founded and supported by religious institutions? What of all the good causes that individual believers support because of their faith? What of the myriad of simple, good decisions made daily by millions of people because of their religious beliefs? Those are harder to calculate, and frankly, they don't make the evening news. But they have impacted the lives of millions of people and changed the world for the better.



Being nice because it is to your advantage is purely a selfish motivation. Being nice even when it isn't to your advantage is a religious teaching. Religion doesn't automatically make us nicer people...but it can inspire us to be better than we would be, left to our own devices.



As you have noted, people have a deep-seated need to confide in someone whose judgment they trust. Believers see this need (among others) as capable of being fulfilled through their relationship with a higher power...i.e., prayer...as well as through their relationships with other people. Nonbelievers fulfill this need solely through their relationships with other people. Regardless of the way the need is fulfilled, it does exist...and it is not always fulfilled. But that is another subject.

Whew! I am going to bed now.

On the right and left brain - once I had a chemistry class and immediately afterwards had painting. It was so hard for me to switch over that quickly!

You're right about religion doing good things too - I am a big fan of privately operated charity work - whether religious or not. These things can happen without religion but seem to happen more often through communal activity (clubs, social groups, religious groups) which church/temple is - a mandatory social and religious activity with social values.

"Being nice because it is to your advantage is purely a selfish motivation. Being nice even when it isn't to your advantage is a religious teaching. Religion doesn't automatically make us nicer people...but it can inspire us to be better than we would be, left to our own devices."

I'm going to have to disagree with you here because I am a genuinely nice and good person (others attest to this) and it is only because of my genes, life, and logic. I have impulses, often emotional to do things that feel good at the time but are stupid - but then I calm down, think of the long term and what would be best for everyone (including myself.) That is a selfish motivation, but it is planned selfishness for the long run - I want to make actions that I know will be best for myself and the people I care about. There is no g-d or religion or dogma involved in that. Just logic (rational thought processes) applied to personal situations. I can think of no example where being nice even where it was illogical would be best for everyone. If it would be best for everyone and that was my motive, it would be the logical choice. I don't need a man with a pointy stick to threaten me into doing that*

* but I may just be nicer than the general populus. My stepmother says my whole family is too nice and that's why we don't understand this religious regulation stuff - because we're just nice anyway. I don't know whether she is right or not. I certainly hope most people don't have to fear the wrath of a g-d to be decent.

On the right and left brain - once I had a chemistry class and immediately afterwards had painting. It was so hard for me to switch over that quickly!

You're right about religion doing good things too - I am a big fan of privately operated charity work - whether religious or not. These things can happen without religion but seem to happen more often through communal activity (clubs, social groups, religious groups) which church/temple is - a mandatory social and religious activity with social values.

"Being nice because it is to your advantage is purely a selfish motivation. Being nice even when it isn't to your advantage is a religious teaching. Religion doesn't automatically make us nicer people...but it can inspire us to be better than we would be, left to our own devices."

I'm going to have to disagree with you here because I am a genuinely nice and good person (others attest to this) and it is only because of my genes, life, and logic. I have impulses, often emotional to do things that feel good at the time but are stupid - but then I calm down, think of the long term and what would be best for everyone (including myself.) That is a selfish motivation, but it is planned selfishness for the long run - I want to make actions that I know will be best for myself and the people I care about. There is no g-d or religion or dogma involved in that. Just logic (rational thought processes) applied to personal situations. I can think of no example where being nice even where it was illogical would be best for everyone. If it would be best for everyone and that was my motive, it would be the logical choice. I don't need a man with a pointy stick to threaten me into doing that*

* but I may just be nicer than the general populus. My stepmother says my whole family is too nice and that's why we don't understand this religious regulation stuff - because we're just nice anyway. I don't know whether she is right or not. I certainly hope most people don't have to fear the wrath of a g-d to be decent.

After reading your responses to this thread, it is easy to believe that you really ARE nicer than most! Thank you for the civil discussion instead of the usual heated, accusatory, pompous debate I get on here.



There are a lot of very decent folk out there, religious and non-religious. Some of them are even in my family. I simply said that religion CAN (or, "has the power to") inspire us to be better than we would be otherwise. In my case, as well as many others, wanting to do better is a response of love and gratitude, not fear. I do not disagree that some groups (religious as well as non-religious) use fear to control. But that is a failing...not the ideal. The ideal is love.

Thank you for the compliments, but I am not always particularly gentle or kind. I have a typical Irish temper, and I have been accused of having a very sharp tongue. I can hold grudges for years. Just yesterday on a different thread, dlowan said she liked my "wickedness." And I got a big kick out of that!

But I try to do better. On a good Sunday, when I return from church, I AM kinder, more patient, more tolerant, more hopeful. Not because anyone or anything has threatened me, but simply because I am grateful for what I have been given.

That's good. That's exactly the way it should be.


I am fierce in debate - not necessarily because I am a good debater, but because I am opinionated on a wide variety of subjects.

I think it's much easier to be rash on a forum because
1. you cannot see people's faces (humanizing) it's just text and
2. It would be very difficult for these people to come punch you in the stomach.

Prior to Copernicus and Galileo, the zodiac was the science of the day and the basis of church belief.

The Earth was the center of the Universe and surrounded by concentric crystal spheres containing the visible orbs, the Moon, Venus, mercury, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
The last sphere contained the stars. Beyond was God's prescence, and, I assume, heaven.

A soul about to be born would streak down through these spheres into the womb of the mother. Since each of the orbs was endowed with certain essences and influences, the position of them was extremely important to the personality of the newborn.

There were horoscope experts who would consult the charts to find your fate. Since the orbs rarely, if ever, repeated the positions exacty, everyone was unique.

After death, the soul would shoot, with the blessings of the church, back up to heaven, without, it was stuck here on Earth.

The Earth was created for humans, and everything else was for man's utility. There was a hiearchy, and it went something like this: Pope, cardinal, bishop, priest, men, women, children, pets, etc. I'm sure I left some out.

You'd think that all this nonsence would have vanished after 350 years, but it's surprising how much still lingers, such as anthropocentrism

Incidentally, the position of the zodiac constellations has changed from what the charts show. Due to the Earth's wobble on its axis, they lag behind two or three weeks where the charts say they should be.

You know Kepler, who revised and improved Copernicus' model, studied astrology. Astrology is a sub-science as well as sub-religion.

Astrology was the science behind the cosmology of the church in pre-Galileo times and for some time after. It would have been impossible to separate the two at the time. The Earth was the center of the universe surrounded by crystalline spheres containing the orbs--moon, Sun, and the 5 visible planets, and the stars. The soul of the unborn child resided outside of these spheres--in what was probably heaven, God's presence in other words. At the time of birth the child's soul shot down through these spheres picking up influences from the proximity of the various orbs depending on their location according to the horoscope, this formed your personality.

At the time, to attack this cosmology was to attack the church, so it was
difficult to separate the two.

Of course science and education has broken this down now. Because of the precession of the equinoxes--the wobble of the Earth's rotation on its axis--the horoscope charts are out of date now anyway. The sign of your personal zodiac lags behind 1/2 a sign or so. If your birthdate falls in the latter part of Gemmini, for instance, you would see that the sun is still in Taurus.