"Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian

[John Shaw]

If something works for you, that should be good enough.

I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing on that point. It's just that I don't think I'd like to listen to a show about that shit.

[therealritasue]

The only problem I have with the Law of Attraction stuff is that he seems to attribute it to some kind of metaphysical force when it really seems to just be....psychology. The more you think about something, it's probably more likely that you'll subconsciously make choices according to that thing. That being said, I don't care if he believes in dancing fairies that created the world with mystical play-doh as long as he doesn't ramble on about it on the show. Which he doesn't seem to, so, well, whatever.

[John Shaw]

The only problem I have with the Law of Attraction stuff is that he seems to attribute it to some kind of metaphysical force when it really seems to just be....psychology. The more you think about something, it's probably more likely that you'll subconsciously make choices according to that thing. That being said, I don't care if he believes in dancing fairies that created the world with mystical play-doh as long as he doesn't ramble on about it on the show. Which he doesn't seem to, so, well, whatever.

Oh, it's total bullshit magical thinking. He has the right to believe it though, of course.

Law of Attraction can always be summed up with this:

[youtube=425,350]RV-p51fvYLc[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-p51fvYLc

[BonerJoe]

God, I love him in that movie.

[John Shaw]

God, I love him in that movie.

Me too. I like that he pretty much sums up Aristotelian Metaphysics in a one sentence joke. Way more fun than "A is A".

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

The only problem I have with the Law of Attraction stuff is that he seems to attribute it to some kind of metaphysical force when it really seems to just be....psychology. The more you think about something, it's probably more likely that you'll subconsciously make choices according to that thing. That being said, I don't care if he believes in dancing fairies that created the world with mystical play-doh as long as he doesn't ramble on about it on the show. Which he doesn't seem to, so, well, whatever.

Same here on the Law of Attraction stuff.

[freeAgent]

I don't see a whole lot of conflict between pantheism, atheism, and agnosticism.  In fact, I see a lot of overlap between all three.  I consider myself to basically be agnostic.  I don't believe in the absence of a god or gods strongly enough to call myself atheist and I'm also not sure I believe that "god is everywhere/thing", etc. but I'm not really opposed to the idea either.  Just leave me alone about it and I'm happy

[hellbilly]

I'm becoming more accepting of this notion, not for myself but in others. I see it as a gradual rejection of traditional religions, which is a positive action to me. As more people overcome the burden of self subjugation to various idols, perhaps more progress can be made in mental capacities- now that some energy has been freed up on spiritual matters.

The downside is the possibility (and likelihood) that many "pantheists" will develop hysterics and obsessive/compulsive habits in the name of their "non-god", therefore becoming cult like all over again.

[blackie]

If something works for you, that should be good enough.

I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing on that point. It's just that I don't think I'd like to listen to a show about that shit.

Yeah. The other part of that point would be something like...Just because something works for you doesn't mean it will work for anyone else.

[orion]

That said, I think the "Law of Attraction" is BS too.  Free Will is where its at, but you still have to obey the known laws of science in this universe.

What are you talking about? I can fly! All I need is some LSD. :p

All kidding aside, even when you take science to the outer limits it gets really really weird (quantum physics, black holes, other dimensions, etc). Science allows us to shave off a layer of abstraction in reality. I would not be surprised if we shave off layers of abstraction forever.

[youtube=425,350]IJirmdU2McE[/youtube]

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

That said, I think the "Law of Attraction" is BS too.  Free Will is where its at, but you still have to obey the known laws of science in this universe.

What are you talking about? I can fly! All I need is some LSD. :p

All kidding aside, even when you take science to the outer limits it gets really really weird (quantum physics, black holes, other dimensions, etc). Science allows us to shave off a layer of abstraction in reality. I would not be surprised if we shave off layers of abstraction forever.

[youtube=425,350]IJirmdU2McE[/youtube]

Oh of course, we only know a few of the laws of science, I'm sure there's plenty still left to uncover, but psychic mysticism doesn't really seem to fit into any rational scientific system to me.

[DataLifePlus]

"Seeing it work in your own life" isn't proof enough for anything to be considered truth. I wish Ian would raise his standard of evidence in regards to the law of attraction and maybe apply some of those logical fallacies he (and I) seem to love.

Here here.

The same bullshit anecdotal experience is used to "prove" magnet therapy, chiropody, homeopathy, faith healing, and countless other bullshit.

"It works for me" is not scientific or logical, and you can use it to justify virtually anything so long your only measuring stick is your own feeling on the issue

Right. And Ian used to point this out to callers all the time. I havn't heard him say it in a while, but he used to refute "fringers" with the anecdotal evidence all the time. It's a shame he's now accepting such weak evidence to support his own beliefs.

[orion]

"It works for me" is not scientific or logical, and you can use it to justify virtually anything so long your only measuring stick is your own feeling on the issue

What's wrong with "it works for me"?

[DataLifePlus]

"It works for me" is not scientific or logical, and you can use it to justify virtually anything so long your only measuring stick is your own feeling on the issue

What's wrong with "it works for me"?

Well, nothing really. And it could very well be true for all I know. All I'm saying is that "it works for me, therefor it will work for everyone/others" is an unscientific statement and a perfect example of anecdotal evidence. The statement is also a red flag that the person saying it might be suffering from confirmation bias.

I'm pointing it out in the hopes that Ian will re-examine his stance on the issue of the "law of attraction". Because we all know the longer held the belief, the harder it is to change one's mind on the matter. I think he should look into all the possible logical short-fallings before this belief becomes so entrenched that it cannot be uprooted.

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life". - Leo Tolstoy, 1897

[Alex Libman]

Ultimately, other people's religion doesn't matter when it doesn't affect you.  I've met religious zealots who were far, far less harmful to me than the so-called "science" socialists, global warming and all.