Originally posted by lord xyz
Somewhere around 4300 BC. When the age of Taurus started and/or when civilisation started. You know, Babylon, Sumer. I don't know the exact date, but it's roughly 6000 years ago.
lol
ok, but "the age of Taurus" is just as religious as using 0, AD and BC
also, the origins of civilization date back over 30000 years. You are talking about the birth of great empires and writing/technology that survived until modern day
Originally posted by inimalistI don't think it's religious, but anyway, it was just a suggestion.
lolok, but "the age of Taurus" is just as religious as using 0, AD and BC
also, the origins of civilization date back over 30000 years. You are talking about the birth of great empires and writing/technology that survived until modern day
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavWhat?
It doesn't take the Earth 100 rotations to go round the Sun...thats why.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think it's religious, but anyway, it was just a suggestion.
how are astrological ages not based on a subjective belief as the birth of Christ? Maybe religion was the wrong thing to allude to, but it is just as supernatural and spiritual.
Taurus is a star sign. It means nothing except that people saw starts (which might not be close to each other in any respect aside from the 2d representation as seen from Earth) and were able to interpret pictures.
"Taurus" coming of age is no more or less important than the movement of 2d star formations which we do not have a name for. Its an entirely anthropic construct related to pre-civilization beliefs about what stars were.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Somewhere around 4300 BC. When the age of Taurus started and/or when civilisation started. You know, Babylon, Sumer. I don't know the exact date, but it's roughly 6000 years ago.
And the billions of people who will be inconvenienced by this will do this just because is edgy and new age?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavNo I wasn't. Look again.
You're the one who wanted to introduce metric time.
Originally posted by inimalistI think Astrology is more of a mind map, to keep track of events like eclipses and equinoxes.
how are astrological ages not based on a subjective belief as the birth of Christ? Maybe religion was the wrong thing to allude to, but it is just as supernatural and spiritual.
Originally posted by inimalistSo?
Taurus is a star sign. It means nothing except that people saw starts (which might not be close to each other in any respect aside from the 2d representation as seen from Earth) and were able to interpret pictures.
Originally posted by inimalistI don't think it was a supernatural belief. There isn't evidence to suggest that. There isn't even evidence that people though the Earth was flat.
"Taurus" coming of age is no more or less important than the movement of 2d star formations which we do not have a name for. Its an entirely anthropic construct related to pre-civilization beliefs about what stars were.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I think Astrology is more of a mind map, to keep track of events like eclipses and equinoxes.
astronomy
Originally posted by lord xyz
So?
so, there is no real reason to change the way things are dated. If your line is as objectively arbitrary as the Christian one, there is no reason to redefine timelines. Like, the Chinese and the Arabs have their own calendar. Guess what they are converting to
Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think it was a supernatural belief. There isn't evidence to suggest that.
which isn't a supernatural belief? In what you quoted I described the constellation as an anthropic construct, meaning it only has significance to man, and then, only because we believe certain things about it.
Originally posted by lord xyz
There isn't even evidence that people though the Earth was flat.
the flat earth society?
what point are you trying to make even? There is no significance to the "Age of Taurus" outside of the importance you give it because of what you believe. It is the exact same as Jesus' birth. Any date chosen from history as day 0 will have this problem, thus, there is no reason to change in an attempt to avoid it.