It's claptrap. Here's a little experiment James Randi did to have a look at Astrology and horoscopes:

http://video.rationalresponders.com/video/James-Randi-on-Astrology

There is some slight indication that there may be a correlation between the average temperature experienced by the mother over some critical period can have some influence on the maturing brain. I seem to remember from some old study. This would produce some correlation to time of the solar year, which will produce some correlation to the stars, at least over historical periods where there hasn't been time for major shifts of the zodiac positions due to the precession of the equinox.

That's at least one plausible mechanism for whatever slight correlation the astrologer's might claim to have found.

Of course then people born at precisely the same time in different parts of the world wouldn't have the same personality traits due to experiencing different temperatures.  Also, more often than not any temperature fluctuations would be more likely to be due to the mother having the financial means to have access to shelter and heating rather than whatever is going on outside!

Overall, I think "lol" sums up my feelings towards astrology.  Does it have a hit rate greater than random chance when giving specific rather than ambiguous predictions?  No it does not.

 The problem with astrology is not that there are no conceivable correlations between circumstances of conception, incubation, and birth, and the grown individuals sharing certain qualities.  It's well established that various prenatal environments tend to cause predictable qualities in adults.  The problem is twofold:

1) Any such correlations certainly do not have anything to do with stars.  The doctor who gave birth to you was exerting a stronger gravitational field on you and your mother than any star.

2) There has never been any kind of scientific attempt to quantify falsifiable parameters to test empirically.  In other words, it's all blind guessing and vague language.

It is funny when "new agers" claim "I am not like them" referring  to old myth claiming they are atheists, failing to see that they fall into the same gap answer garbage that causes them to believe that somehow their fortunes can be told by a huckster who shouldn't even make what illegals make, at a newspaper, who writes a column because as P.T. Barnum rightly put it, "There is a sucker born every minute".

I don't like the fact that the word "atheist" only refures to claims of gods. I think it should incumpass the rejection of all naked assertions. If you are going to base your life decisions on someone else trying to skim a buck off you, your wallet will always be as emty as your head.

If that is your picture in your avatar, the only thing I am willing to delude myself into is that I have a shot. But the odds of that happening are as likely as the Detriot Lions winning the Super Bowl this year.

In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with calling oneself an atheist and other than lacking a more "skeptical" scope in it's usage beyond deity claims which it should, the words "skeptic" and "atheist" portray the willingness and nessesity to get it right through inquiry. I don't see them as any different other than some chose to use "skeptic" to placate the emotions of theists.

The logo on the card is the symbol for the "Brights". The woman in the avatar is the symbol for "HOT DAMN!".

As perfect as Jake thinks he is, even I jump the gun. I thought it was the symbol for the "Brights". But now that I think about it, I do remember that. Even I am subject to A.D.D moments where I fill in the gaps.

And as far as the woman, SHAME ON YOU! You should be sued for false advertisement. I have my own delusions to uphold ya know! CANT A MAN DREAM, at least in a wet way? Thanks to you I have to live in reality! YOU YOU YOU EVIL PERSON!

If there was a god(no offense to Jake) I would pray right now that I was Bill and that avatar was my Monica.  Sadly though, considering my last bought with god, this too will be crossed out.

The first pic is a definite BOIIIIING!

But if anyone here saw all the women I dated and the one I was married to, only two out of the 7 or 8 were BOIING!  But both of those two were bat shit insane, but my penis override rational thought. So it didn't matter to me that one of them was super jealous or that the other was a hypochondriac, all I knew is that I was poking some hot pooter...It  only dawned on me later that it wasn't worth it after the fact.

While it is true humans are initially attracted by looks and smell, long term, I would rather take a plain Jane over a crazy hottie with no brains. Looks only get you so far, after that, reality sets in.

What do you guys think of this video? Shermer seems to have failed at proving astrology is bullshit. Not that I think it isn't...

http://video.rationalresponders.com/video/Vedic-Astrology-Michael-Shermer

My father is a professional astrologer, so I am relatively well educated in this area. This also means that I have an experience only with my father's Aquarian Astrology. This is very important, because it takes into account a shift of ecliptics and it's movement through constellations. This influence changes the very basis and purpose of astrology, and so the traditional astrology becomes less relevant and the AA gains an importance, as the ecliptics moves into the age of Aquarius. You may disbelieve in astrology, but it changes nothing on the fact that it is very complicated and evolving method. If you want to say just "bullshit", then fine, but then you need not to ask about it in the first place. (btw, I think the same about the most of commercial astrology, mainly the newspaper columns) I just answer questions, maybe the people would like an answer from a real astrologic guy.

It should be also said, that the astrology is about influences, not a state of existence. It can predict an influence, but not if anything will happen, this needs a specific state of existence. An event may happen only if it's state is prone to some influence. For example, you want to go in the town on Saturday to have some fun, and you want to know if it will be good. Astrology can't tell you if you'll get some...uhm, relationship, that depends on many other things, it can only predict that you'll be more likely to get horny, if you can.

Happy new year! The expert says, that astrologic constellations during the 2009 year will be very agressive and damaging to big, old rigid "structures", namely economic, political and hopefully religional. I'm glad that Uranus will kick their butts.
There's a chinese curse, saying 'interesting times on you!' Fortunately, I'm not a chinese guy, so I enjoy living in interesting times.

Btw, there are no rituals and magic in astrology, except of wearing a magical amulets called 'microphones', setting up an audio mixing tabernacle and drinking a sacred concoction called 'coffee'. I will also give an announcement if my father's first book will come out in USA, it should in the years to come.

That's not a just belief, Sapient, that's the truth. It's possible to say a set of phrases, which sounds acceptable for the most of people. This is what I don't support - the feel-goodism. Majority of people goes to an astrologer or for a psychic readings, because they want to hear something good about themselves.
But how can I explain to you, that there is a group of adult people, who wants to work on themselves, who believes that there is more in this world than wealth, family and career? Well, these people are friends, co-workers and clients of my family. Understanding of them is different than understanding of an average, undemanding client of a commercial astrologer. As I can hardly find a words, I recommend everyone to know themselves, so they won't pay for the feel-goodism. Who works on developing him/herself, will not be satisfied by these empty phrases of an astrologic conman.

The video is nice, so...rationally sounding. But testing the astrology by a magazine "horoscope" is about as precise, as to test the science a methods and results of pseudoscience. What Mr. Dawkins did is a debunking of these pages in magazines with bits of vague text for every day and with the most basic astrologic marks printed colourfully around. But he still didn't show that he has any idea of what is he talking about, the astrology itself. I see no hint that he ever heard a terms like the 'house', 'trigon' or 'quadrature'. He's completely ignorant about the subject, he only tries to insult people by talking to them like to a small children. Is that rational?

Quaoar has very powerful influence, and quadratures generally means a bad influence as such. It means "an unexpected strike/death blow from the outside", or something like that. This fits, I think.

Uranus in Pisces is obvious. Uranus = the great revolutionist, Pisces = spirituality. This means a destruction of materialistic thinking in favor of the spirituality and humane values, which is about the same. I had just seen a TV programme summing up the 2008 year, and it was exactly like that describing the public opinion.

And finally, the most significant constellation, Saturn in Virgo. Virgo means literally houses, immovables, wealth, money, a material security generally, and in our times, literally mortgages. Saturn has an opposite archetype to Uranus, it's the one who confines and restricts with a cold, hard law.

To sum it up, we have an unexpected, destructive events which severely restricts the market with immovables and mortgages on them. People turns away from following the blind materialism, and more realizes the value of friendship, love, faith, and spirituality.
Is that enough for your question?
 

Oh please. Trying to transfer the problem of lack of testable predictions to us doesn't change the fact that this is actually your problem. Science does not and cannot depend on personal accounts such as "it works in my house". Data gathering is a stochastic process. You must put forth testable predictions. The ability to gather testable predictions depends on the repeatability of experiments. You keep trying to sidestep this by saying that we don't actually understand it and then complain because we dont test it (test what? There is nothing to test. No testable predictions!) This is your problem. Not ours.

Ah yes, of course. When your credibility is in the gutter, play the "evil conspiracy" card. Come on. We've seen that countless times.

No there are not. It is truly that simple. The only way to gather accurate information about the nature of reality is by collecting data and testing predictions by using the scientific method. In the case of pure science, this depends on the ability of the experimenter to measure output variables on the basis of known controls and auxiliary hypotheses. If a certain proposition about the nature of reality cannot pass these criteria (and a few more), then there is no way to gather valid data, so there is no point talking about it.

Oh... Their... God! I've just realized something. Skeptics are the most incredibly powerful manifestors of metaphysical energy in the universe! Why, our psychic powers are so overwhelming as to cause lesser psychics to not be able to levitate objects, read minds, bend spoons, or cast accurate horoscopes! Our ability extends all the way into the aether, silencing ghosts and preventing them from manifesting. Our gift also allows us to control matter itself, reconfiguring photographs of flying saucers to make them appear to be blurred images of street lights, turning the blood of holy statues into colored olive oil, and making perpetual energy machines wind down! Hell, even gods run and hide in darkend closets when we approach!

Tremble before the terrible might of the omnipotent skeptics, mere mortals! Mwuhahahahahahahhhhhhh!

Scientific academia is still a meritocracy. You can cry conspiracy all you want, but anywhere I've ever been, discussing these topics with professors and graduate students of science, there's a huge fascination with new theory. Huge. Why would someone who's naturally curious about the sciences ignore new things?

On the other hand, the new things would have to actually help. The book you mention about the atomic model may or may be out of date. But you wouldn't know that, would you? It's not like you're not an atomic physicist, or hang out with atomic physicists. That's not an argument from authority, that's just illustrating your lack of "due diligence" about the subject.

Science is hard because the hard work of doing the research is what gets other scientists' attention. Not one hypothesis.

Don't you dare turn Tesla into a mystic. It cheapens everything he did. And what the hell are "tachyonized tablets"? I've studied Tesla's work for years, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

No, the scientific worker doesn't need to do any such thing. While you cannot deny the antibacterial effect of penicillin, a scientist can readily deny the existence of your etherial hocus-pocus, and be none the worse for it. 

That's because we do. Otherwise you're just guessing. To move from guess to testable hypothesis is a big jump. A lot of work is involved. Just guessing takes no real work, and testing a hypothesis takes a lot of work.

Yeah, I know. You guess, and pretend like you've done the work.

An organic neural network is a brain. You mean a network.

What is this, an infomercial for reversing the Enlightenment? What have you guys figured out? Seriously, what does your Network of Woo have to show for all its networking? This crap has been going on since before Nostradamus, and has yet to produce anything. Are we honestly to believe that the ancient method of sharing esoteric "techniques" will ever provide us with anything other than excuses when stuff doesn't work? 

You're killing me, here. Without even trying to understand atomic physics, you're willing to throw it all away because of one book. Without even trying to understand the work of thousands of scientists, you're willing to count yourself among them because you have a feeling you're an esoteric. Without even a hint of a scientific education, you're willing to tell the entire scientific community what they're doing wrong.

It boggles the mind.

 LUMINON WROTE.

"Just recently, a friend had read a book in Russian language from the scientists, who discovered, that our model of atom is unprecise."

Hey, Luminon, can you expand on this? With precise terms?

This is the salient point here, and it's one that I was originally too shocked to make properly. If you're right in the academic community, and you have the data to back it up, then you may even go through a period of being laughed at. But it's BRIEF. Once any number of academics get a hold of your data, and they run it, they say something to the effect of "holy shit, you're right" and then get everyone else to test it. But as deludedgod says, such instances are so rare as to be notable.

The scientific community is very accepting of anyone who wants to work their ass off to produce evidence that they're right. If that process of working your ass off turns up nothing, then you've actually done the world a favour in falsifying your hypothesis. Then nobody has to bother going through that again (unless they're a sucker for punishment). The data will not lie, given enough repetition in a rigorous testing environment.

To pretend that any such hard work has produced data that confirms astrological predictions is simply pretending. Or, possibly, being unfamiliar with what deludedgod points out is the sheer weight of data involved in scientific endeavour.

How could twins have such different personalities?

If I may suggest: more than one?