The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: gRegor on March 25, 2008, 01:21:45 AM
-
Wow. I find great irony that Ian - a skeptic and atheist - subscribes to this religious belief.
Never mind that it's not testable, or able to be falsified, we have some great anecdotes!
I have no problem with the concepts of thinking positively and making choices to move towards what you want, but on the 3/21 show I really think you guys went overboard with the Law of Attraction stuff. Give an anecdote here and there, then when the Jews get mentioned, "well, they must not have wanted it enough." (that's a basic summary, not an actual quote)
WTF?
-
THANK YOU. Guess I'm not the only rational one.
-
It wouldn't be FTL without Ian pretending relationship stories are interesting or Mark making himself look like an absolute idiot by expressing his opinion on anything scientific.
-
Hahaha, that's an awesome one-liner, rabidfurby. So true.
I love the show, but probably wouldn't as much if it didn't make me throw my hands in the air* now and then.
* via Indianapolis, not Chicago.
-
This is frankly the most retarded bunch of bullshit I've ever heard on FTL. It seriously bothers me. Ian's credulity just destroys his credibility from the standpoint of rational discourse and logical argument, his enthusiasm for this superstitious bunch of hooey called "The Secret" seriously turns me off. Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does). If it did, Cheney would be right when he says "we create our own reality!" Mark seems to be getting more reasonable and consistent, adopting more and more radically anti-state and anti-violence positions (though he doesn't get science much at all). But this "Law of Attraction" stuff is a significant regression for Ian from where I sit. Blue feathers? Horse feathers!
-
Mark's cult teachings must be rubbing off.
-
I'll believe in the Law of Attraction the day I win the lottery... And, no, I ain't buying no tickets! :lol:
-
What a total bullshit and so much time dedicated to such craziness. No more of that thanks!
-
I'll believe in the Law of Attraction the day I win the lottery... And, no, I ain't buying no tickets! :lol:
This has been a long term plan of mine for some time.
-
Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does).
Pretty sure we pointed out that action was important.
This attitude was one thing I didn't like about "The Secret".
-
I get what I need before I know I need it.
-
It just might work. I thought about feathers and less than an hour later I saw a bird.
But seriously, I don't know. I've not read the books or seen the movie. Maybe I will check it out sometime
-
If you can get past the channeling stuff, this is better than "the Secret":
http://abraham-hicks.com/YouTubeLOA.php
http://abraham-hicks.com/mp3downloads.php
-
If you are gunna do that, make sure you take a B12 supplement, or you may get sick. I hear wishing uses a lot of B12.
-
While this "theory of attraction" stuff smacks of magic, it may have some underpinnings in psychology. People who are more confident are more able to get what they want. But, as for having some supernatural influence on the world, it is just nonsense.
Ironically, I was out hiking in the country when they were talking about "Today, I will see a blue feather." A moment later, a swallow flew a few feet in front of me. Yep--it had blue feathers! (However, I never did see a bag of marbles.)
-
..it may have some underpinnings in psychology.
It probably does, but then again religion has some underpinnings in history.
-
Ah man I feel sorry for those sailors who think about pussy for months on all male ships... I guess that's why sailors have that "reputation"...they actually start to see pussy after a while.
-
they are called "seamen". You are what you eat.
-
Of course, those ships DO come into port eventually. Then, look out!
-
Free mustache rides in the engine room.
-
I think the Law of Attraction is simply the Law of Focus. There's a great university study that just came out that showed that those who wrote down their goals, wrote action steps, and reviewed them with a friend once a week had dramatically higher success than those who simply thought about their goals everyday. Think and Grow Rich is one of the greatest books ever written. The Secrete is one of the worst hocus pocus movies ever made.
-
Didn't hear the episode, but I can strongly recommend this podcast on the subject:
http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/23%20Secretly_%20Unimaginatively%20Selfish.mp3 (http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/23%20Secretly_%20Unimaginatively%20Selfish.mp3)
-
The Secret is one of the worst hocus pocus movies ever made.
This.
-
Didn't hear the episode, but I can strongly recommend this podcast on the subject:
http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/23%20Secretly_%20Unimaginatively%20Selfish.mp3 (http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/23%20Secretly_%20Unimaginatively%20Selfish.mp3)
Sent that to Ian and Mark 2 days ago :-P
-
Ditto on the law of Attraction stuff. I sent an e-mail to Mark about it in January after the first show with Sam. This whole "The Universe gives you X" stuff is flim flam and woo woo. Things happen because you take some action, positive thinking and positive attitudes are actions that can provide opportunities. It doesn't happen by magic r just because you want something.
-
While this "theory of attraction" stuff smacks of magic, it may have some underpinnings in psychology. People who are more confident are more able to get what they want. But, as for having some supernatural influence on the world, it is just nonsense.
Exactly. It's an entirely unremarkable fact that if you think positively about your ability to get something you want, and you take steps to get that thing, that you're going to improve your chances of having it. Take out the voodoo, and that's all it boils down to. You don't need some silly "law" to explain that.
-
The way I've heard it put is, "You tend to move in the direction in which you are pointed."
-
The way I've heard it put is, "You tend to move in the direction in which you are pointed."
Yes, people do rarely walk backwards.
-
I have absolute proof this Law of Attraction is bullshit.
One day I was looking through the Entertainment On Demand movies offered by my local cable company. As I was moving through the various movies I came across "The Secret" movie. At that time I knew nothing of what the movie was about so I hit the preview movie option. The preview enticed me to go a head and order the movie, thinking that it might be a cool Indiana Jones type flick. In fact I was actively thinking, "Cool, I could really get into an Indiana Jones type movie!"
Well, you can guess what happened. My wish did not make reality. Instead of Indiana Jones I got something along the line of L.Ron Hubbard's Dynanetics bullshit. Bunch of wishy feel good nonsense that I had to turn off 15 minutes into it. Law of Attraction, ha! More like Law of Uninformed and Impulsive Movie Goer Gets Ripped Off.
-
:shock:
You don't really think that's the message, do you?
-
No, the message is "Give me your money and I'll teach you magic!"
-
No, the message is "Give me your money and I'll teach you magic!"
Which is exactly the subject of 99% of popular"non-fiction".
-
No, the message is "Give me your money and I'll teach you magic!"
Except info is available free.
Are you anti-self help because people pay others to remind them of what they already know? Are they hucksters, too?
-
My take on this is that there is a lot of value in spending a little time focusing on what you are after, whether it is imagining, picturing, writing, listing, or talking about goals and objectives. Some people equate this process with meditation or prayer.
I think "the secret" and other sources often go a little far into mysticism, and that's where I hop off the ride.
If you don't have goals of your own, chances are you are just following someone else's plan and that is more likely to benefit someone else than it benefits you. So: get a plan.
-
Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does).
wouldn't you say that positve thinking can inspire one to take the necessary actions with which to invoke change, or create a better reality? and if so, then how could someone make the claim that positive thinking does NOT create or change reality?
-
Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does).
wouldn't you say that positve thinking can inspire one to take the necessary actions with which to invoke change, or create a better reality? and if so, then how could someone make the claim that positive thinking does NOT create or change reality?
You're both right, sitting on your butt thinking about what you wish would be won't accomplish anything, but it can inspire you to do something to get what you want.
-
You're both right, sitting on your butt thinking about what you wish would be won't accomplish anything, but it can inspire you to do something to get what you want.
Yes. There are plenty of people sitting on welfare complaining that they never have any "luck."
-
How many days does one see a blue feather anyway and never give it a thought?
-
Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does).
wouldn't you say that positve thinking can inspire one to take the necessary actions with which to invoke change, or create a better reality? and if so, then how could someone make the claim that positive thinking does NOT create or change reality?
The Secret, and the so-called "Law of Attraction" it pitched implies that the thoughts themselves are sufficient to alter the universe around you, bringing into existence that better reality or desired change. See, they are divorcing the thoughts from the actions, and turning good advice -focus on your goals, take steps to achieve them, think through your decisions thoroughly, etc.- into silly magical hooey, where in if you want something, wish it hard enough, and you shall have it. They have to, because Americans (well, almost everyone else, too) generally want stuff without making the effort necessary to get it. If they just made the uncontroversial statement that you should focus on your goals, visualize them, think about the requisite antecedents, then make plans with concrete steps you can take to accomplish them, and then act on them, they would just be your mom, and not The Secret, a mysterious new revelation that can change your life and make you rich, famous and generously endowed.
And then there's the blue feather test. This is an example of confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence being used to sell the idea. It is an item common enough that if you weren't actually looking for it, you wouldn't even think about it. Once you decide to "create the reality" of a blue feather, you'll take note of it when you see one, and then the confirmation bias kicks in, and you now have your own anecdote to tell others about how "The Law of Attraction" worked for you.
You're both right, sitting on your butt thinking about what you wish would be won't accomplish anything, but it can inspire you to do something to get what you want.
Yes. There are plenty of people sitting on welfare complaining that they never have any "luck."
Yeah, the room mate I'm sick of hearing bitch about how "this could only happen to me," and "I have the worst luck" is a guy who ignores his responsibilities, wont open his mail or return phone calls, cannot be cajoled, shamed, bribed or threatened into arriving less than an hour late for anything, just turns up the radio when his car starts making funny noises, has serious medical problems that could be treated with proper diet, but wont eat anything but McDonald's and chocolate milk, then he yells at and abuses people when he's actually called out on his bad behavior, or outright lies about it. Not surprisingly, he's not wealthy, successful or married to a beautiful wife, no he's a 40 year old loser who still borrows money from his mom (though last time he asked, she told him to get on welfare :D ). That's not bad luck, that's what you get for being a total ass. That's called making your own, very bad, luck.
Meanwhile, I have survived 3 heart surgeries, recent tragic deaths in the family, a bitter divorce due to a cheating spouse, and more. Yet, I am always cheerful and positive, and I haven't lost my job or gone broke, and my bills get paid (mostly) on time. I am well liked at work, just won an award with a cash bonus, have a sweet and loving girlfriend, blah, blah and blah. The point is, it's not too hard to be a decent person and get what you want out of life, but feeling sorry for yourself, making excuses and expecting others to clean up all your messes and bail you out when you fuck up is not the way to do it.
-
I'm announcing a new test. Forget about this whole blue feather nonsense. I'm going to spend time every day thinking about $1,000 bills. I will post on this thread every time I come across a $1,000 bill.
(http://www.rubinville.com/dailydave/uploaded_images/1000_Dollar_Bill-740637.jpg)
-
I 'm announcing a new test. Forget about this whole blue feather nonsense. I 'm going to spend time every day thinking about $1,000 bills. I will post on this thread every time I come across a $1,000 bill.
(http://www.rubinville.com/dailydave/uploaded_images/1000_Dollar_Bill-740637.jpg)
Excellent. There's a test I can take seriously. Something I'd like to create in my life, if only to trade for durable goods and gold and silver coins.
-
The Universe turned off the check engine light in my car after I asked it to.
I also found a copy of "the secret" in my house, and read a few pages. What a bunch of crap.
-
If you can get past teh channeling stuff, this iz better than "teh Secret":
http://abraham-hicks.com/YouTubeLOA.php
http://abraham-hicks.com/mp3downloads.php
If you can get past the god stuff, you should check out the Bible.
-
No, teh message iz "Give me ur money and I'll teach you magic!"
Except info iz available free.
just pay shipping and handling
(delivery & processing only $7 to US addresses)
-
Regardless of whether you think it's bullshit or not, where is the HARM in thinking positive?
I have been an optimist my entire life and I've had a LOT of things happen to me that should have caused me to stray from that path. But I won't. I didn't do it then and I won't do it now and I won't do it, no matter what life throws at me.
I find it so much more effective to be positive and continue to think about that, rather than the what ifs.
Negativity spreads so much faster than positivity and that is NOT the ripple effect I'd like to have.
I find it to be interesting that the more I get to know about Libertarians I find a lot of them to be very cynical and pessimistic. I don't really know why this shocks me so much. I guess I had just assumed that when I found other people who had similar political beliefs, such as myself, that they would be similar in other respects too. I would have hopped to find people who reflected as much positivity in themselves, as of the change they wanted to make.
-
Regardless of whether you think it's bullshit or not, where is the HARM in thinking positive?
None. As long as thinking doesn't take the place of acting.
I find it to be interesting that the more I get to know about Libertarians I find a lot of them to be very cynical and pessimistic.
I suppose I'm a bit of a cynic (and IRL I'll play it up for comedy value), but I don't consider myself particularly pessimistic.
I guess I had just assumed that when I found other people who had similar political beliefs, such as myself, that they would be similar in other respects too.
See, that's just the kind of thing I would never think. But I don't really care so I'm not "pessimistic" about it. :)
-
Regardless of whether you think it's bullshit or not, where is the HARM in thinking positive?
Who said there was harm in thinking positive? From what I've seen, people think that thinking positively is great-- so great that you don't need to a slap a new label and a bunch of hocus pocus on it.
I find it to be interesting that the more I get to know about Libertarians I find a lot of them to be very cynical and pessimistic. I don't really know why this shocks me so much.
Many libertarians are skeptics. Skepticism and cynicism are not the same thing, though they can be confused by people who want to believe.
-
Many libertarians are skeptics. Skepticism and cynicism are not the same thing, though they can be confused by people who want to believe.
Many libertarians are cynics.
Currently, the word cynicism generally describes the opinions of those who see self-interest as the primary motive of human behaviour, and who disincline to rely upon sincerity, human virtue, or altruism as motivations.
-
Many libertarians are cynics.
Yep, but probably not more than the average population.
-
The more I look into this, the nuttier it seems
http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/abraham-hicks-on-law-of-attraction-success-in-17-seconds/
Abraham Hicks on Law of Attraction Success in 17 Seconds
If you can hold a thought, just a simple thought, for 17 seconds, without
contradicting it, another thought like it same shape, same size, same
vibration, same tone, by law of attraction another thought like it will come
to it. And at precisely the 17 second point, these two thoughts will join
one another, they coalesce and when they do that there is an energy that is
expended, it is like a combustion point. And when these two thoughts join
and combust, you can feel a measure of enthusiasm or interest bubbling
within you. And in that moment of 17 seconds, these two thoughts that were
same become one bigger,more evolved, faster vibrating thought.
Now, if you can stay focused on this subject that you have chosen for
another 17 seconds, at the moment that you cross the 34 second mark that is
just two times 17 this now more evolved thought will attract unto it and -
in other words, the thoughts attract each other. Your thought draws another
and the other thought draws it, thoughts that are same in nature come
together.
And at the 34 second mark these two more evolved thoughts do the
same thing, they coalesce and there is another combustion point . At that
point, these two thoughts become one, higher and faster in vibration. If you
can maintain you attention to that now more evolved thought, at the 51
second mark which is just 3 times 17 there is another coalescing, another
joining of thought and another combustion point.
If you can hold that more evolved thought for another 17 seconds, the same
thing happens and when you cross the 68 second mark, you have a combustion
big e nough to affect physical manifestation.
Just to get your attention we want to give you some physical comparison; 17
seconds of pure thought is equivalent to 2000 hours of action. If you are
working a regular 40 hour a week job, that is about what you work in a year.
17 seconds equals 2000 action hours. If you can cross the 34 second mark,
you can multiply your action by ten, 20.000 action hours. If you can cross
the 51 second mark 3 times 17 you can multiply by ten again, a 200.000
action hour equivalent. If you can cross the 68 second mark - now that is
just over a minute of pure con-contradicted, non-diluted thought it is
equivalent to over 2 million action hours.
Esther said: “Abraham, I believe you, but it sounds proposterous. I cannot
fathom that kind of leverage”. And then Jerry and Esther purchased some
commercial property over on the interstate, interstate 10, close to where
they live in Texas. And there had been a high rise building built on that,
partially constructed and the company went bankrupt and the building was
demolished.
And when Jerry and Esther purchased the land, it was a big pile
of rubble. And the big trucks and the roadgraders came, and in two days
time, carried this mountainous rubble of debris away. And as Esther stood
watching it, she said to Jerry: “How long would that take Carlos to do?”
Carlos is the lovely man who cleared their residential property with
wheelbarrow and a shovel. And Jerry said: “In his lifetime, he could not
make a dent in that”. And Esther said: I understand THAT leverage. This is
what Abraham is talking about. When you align your energies with the
energies that create worlds, when you are no longer contradicting at your
CORE, amazing things happen.
Now 17 seconds doesn’t sound like much, but as we watch you we see that most
of you at about 8 begin your contradictory vibrations . Most of you do not
make it through a whole sentence without contradicting the vibration of your
desire. People will say to us: “Abraham,I want more money, I am so tired of
the struggle”, that was about 1 second. “Abraham, I want so much to be well,
I am frightened of this illness”.
You have been trained to be so objective
that you keep shooting yourselves in the foot. It is a little bit like
someone saying: “I want a cup of hot tea” and so they turn the fire on under
their pot, and just before it boils they turn it off, and then they turn it
on again, and just before it boils, they turn it off and then they turn it
on again and then just before it boils they turn it off and then they say:
“For 15 years, I have been trying to get some hot tea!” And we say: “Just
leave it on, just leave it on a little longer”. If you could just resist the
opposite knee jerk reaction, just a little longer, you will begin to get the
sense of what we are talking about . The reason that it is difficult for you
not to offer the contradictory thought so quickly, is because you have been
trained to be objective, you have been trained to weigh the pros and the
cons , the pluses and the minuses. You have been taught that this is
balanced or even minded.
If you could just resist the pposite knee jerk reaction, just a little longer, you will begin to get the
sense of what we are talking about . The reason that it is difficult for you
not to offer the contradictory thought so quickly, is because you have been
trained to be objective, you have been trained to weigh the pros and the
cons , the pluses and the minuses. You have been taught that this is
balanced or even minded.
And we say: You take it to an extreme, because contrast will prod you into
your greater clarity of desire, that is really the reason of this physical
format, we will talk about that in greater detail as it moves forward.
Contrast is essential to decision, but once the decision is made, if you
will turn your full attention to your decision and do your best to achieve a
vibrational match with that decision in very short order, the Universe will
go to work in helping you to achieve whatever it is that you are wanting.
We were talking with a woman on the telephone the other day about pure
thought and she couldn’t really understand what we were talking about. These
are difficult concepts when you are accustomed to just thinking about
whatever is flashed before you. In other words, most of you as you watch the
television, it is much easier just to just observe what someone is offering
to you rather than it is to close your eyes and offer your own projection of
thought . And so we were wanting to assist her in holding 17 seconds of pure
thought .
She had three very important issues that were troubling her;
financial issue and a health issue and a relationship issue . And we said to
her; “Leave those issues aside for a while, because those issues you have
practiced your negative thought about them so much, that as you now try to
practice positive thought it is still a watered down sort of process. We
said to her: ” Lets take three subjects that you do not already have a habit
of negative thought about”. Well, she couldn’t think of any. We said: “Just
three subjects, they do not have to be life changing subjects, just three
subjects that are of interest, but you do not have a negative habit about”.
Well, she still couldn’t think of anything so we said: “Lets talk about the
subject of blue glass”. She said: “What?!?” And we said: “Blue glass. You
know, some of it is clear and you can see through it. Some of it is muted or
frosted and you can’t see through it. Sometimes it is made into beautiful
chandeliers or beautiful windows, or beautiful vases. All kinds are made
from this beautiful clear or frosted blue glass”.
And then we talked about feathers for 17 seconds and butterflies for 17
seconds. And then the telephone call came to an end and Jerry and Esther
were in California, they were in San Diego and so they went to La Hoya for
lunch. And when they got out of the car, Jerry is walking down the street
toward George’s and Esther is walking into a shop and Jerry could not
understand why she was taking a detour and Esther did not really understand
it either, she just said: “Lets look in here”. And so they went in and deep
in the shop, Esther found a wall of the most amazing blue glass she had ever
seen in her life. Shelf after shelf after shelf of amazing sculptures made
of blue glass. Jerry did not understand why Esther was captivated by it
because he had not heard the call and Esther did not make the correlation
either.
And they didn’t buy anything, it wasn’t appropriate for their house, it was
just AMAZING blue glass! They had lunch and went to the park and as they
were entering the park, they were surrounded by a flurry of butterflies .
Esther still did not make the correlation. And as they were leaving about 15
minutes later, a little boy, an oriental boy, looked to be about two or
three years old, had found a little pigeons feather on the ground - and he
was holding it at his full extension of his arm running toward Esther to
show it to her.
And it was not until then, that Esther realized that in less than one hour
of ours spending 17 seconds together on those three subjects, that the
Universe had managed to deliver in DRAMATIC FASHION all three subjects . We
encourage you to play this game AND we encourage you to play the game in
threes. Because if you play it in one or two, you might be as Esther did and
miss it altogether. If you will play this game just a little bit by taking
subjects that are of slight interest, but most importantly, subjects that
are pure because you have no contradictory thought about them the Universe
will proof to you in two or three days time that it is utterly and
absolutely and ALWAYS responsive to your vibration. But the reason you do
not KNOW that the Universe is responsive to your vibration is because you
are saying: ” I want a new red car, but it is to expensive” and as the
Universe is responding to both vibrations, you end up with no change what so
ever. You are getting the sense of what we are talking about?
When you begin to offer your vibration purely , and you begin to see the
Universe responding to it in other words, if you will just play this game
for two or three days, two wonderful things will happen to you: The first
is; you will show yourself you have the ability to hold your mind on
something for 17 seconds. And if you can do it for the first 17, you can do
it for the second and the third and the fourth. And the other thing that
will happen is; you will give the opportunity to the Universe to show you
that it is utterly responsive to your vibration. You are going to learn that
you really are a beaming energy that is being responded to. And it is going
to give you a sense of control, it is going to give you a sense of being the
deliberate creator that you really are. Friends, that is why you are here!
You are creators!
But let us put that into very clear terms for you; you are creators MEANING
you are focusers of ENERGY . If you do not have the ability to hold a
thought, you cannot be a creator. You are not regurgitators, you did not
come forth to just observe all over the place and vibrate all over the
place. You came forth to direct energy! And by directing energy, you must
HOLD the thought! Now, how do you know how you are doing, in other words,
how do you know whether you are holding a thought or not? Well, you have to
get sensitive to the way that you are feeling because you can actually feel
the fluctuations of the vibrations within you. Your emotional guidance
system, in other words, the way you FEEL is the way you know how you are
doing! Imagine a room fan, one of those well made, heavy, expensive, heavy
duty room fans. And it is blowing air in your direction. And it is so well
made that even though you can feel the stream of air blowing toward you, you
can’t hear it, is is barely making any sound at all. Now stick your pencil
in the fan. Would cause quite a ruckus wouldn’t it? Well that pencil in the
fan, that is exactly what negative emotion is.
When you introduce a lower, slower vibration into a higher faster vibration,
you can feel the fluctuation of the energy. A pencil in the fan is an
extreme example of a fluctuation of energy, but that is exactly what
negative emotion is! When you have a desire, when you have thought about
something and you have brought yourself to a place of desire and then you
conclude; I can’t have that when you introduce that “I can’t have it”
thought to the higher faster frequency of desire, that disappointment or
negative emotion is your pencil in the fan. It is you introducing a lower,
slower vibration into a higher, faster frequency. You get the sense of what
we are talking about? As you begin to play with this have you ever noticed,
have you ever known someone where as the longer you talked to them, the
better you felt? It was just this friend, that when you got together, you
always got feeling good. You got silly, you had fun have you ever been with
anyone, usually it is when you are very young, usually about teenage years
is when this all stops, you get together with that group of people and they
are all in that happy vibration and you just play and play and play and
play, until you just parlade into an higher and higher vibration, until you
feel that there is nothing that you cannot do?
That is the feeling that we want you to reconnect with, we want you to
understand that if you could just hold a thought, any thought, for 17
seconds, it is going to COMBUST and give you that energy sensation! And as
you do this, as you begin to do it deliberately, and then you see the
Universe responding, you become creative things, you begin to then step into
the shoes that you intended when you decided to come forth ! You said: ” I
will go forth into this sea of contrast, this blessed contrast and out of
this contrast, it will be easy for me to come to a conclusion! And once I
reach a conclusion, then all I have to do is hold my thought in a similar
vibration to my conclusion and as I do that I will achieve a vibration
outpouring that the Universe will match! I am creator, you said.
-
Did Ian say he was this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science
-
"If you feel drawn to someone, but you are annoyed because you think that they are telling you some lies, try to look beyond the lies and try to focus upon the feeling. People offer all kinds of words for all kinds of different reasons. Most lies are offered to try to keep things in alignment. We're not encouraging it, but the motive behind lying is usually a pretty honorable motive. In other words, when a child lies to their parents, it's usually because they want to be free to do what they want to do, and they don't want their parents to be upset about it. It's about wanting an alignment. Physical ears have a hard time hearing this. You keep talking about "We need to be honest." And we say, we don't meet any of you who are honest. Even those who claim to be the most virtuous, are not honest, but your vibration always is. We would trust the feeling more than the words."
Excerpted from an Abraham workshop in Houston, TX on Saturday, January 13th, 2001
-
If you can get past the channeling stuff, this is better than "the Secret":
http://abraham-hicks.com/mp3downloads.php
I listened to this stuff.
I need to get the 3/21 FTL show now. Anyone have it? I don't want all of march. I'm on dialup.
-
http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2008-03-21.mp3 (http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2008-03-21.mp3)
-
As far as I can tell, all this says is "If you think about your goals and figure out how to reach them, you will."
No shit?
-
As far as I can tell, all this says is "If you think about your goals and figure out how to reach them, you will."
No shit?
Yeah, that's the bottom line.
I think the whole thing at its best is designed to teach people that you should think about the things you want and focus on the results you want to acquire. I think we all know someone who just lets the winds of chance buffet them through life and complains about the results. The idea is that if you want someone from life you need to be able to clearly state that want and spend a little time clarifying it to yourself regularly so that you can measure your progress and stay on focus.
I guess people who accept this concept then like to consume more literature on it to remind themselves of what they already know and support their belief.
Where it gets carried away is when it turns into a pseudo-religion and becomes and end in itself.
-
that was some bad radio
-
Wow. Mark, Ian and Sam are fucking nuts.
-
common sense + bullshit = law of attraction
-
This is frankly the most retarded bunch of bullshit I've ever heard on FTL. It seriously bothers me. Ian's credulity just destroys his credibility from the standpoint of rational discourse and logical argument, his enthusiasm for this superstitious bunch of hooey called "The Secret" seriously turns me off. Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does). If it did, Cheney would be right when he says "we create our own reality!" Mark seems to be getting more reasonable and consistent, adopting more and more radically anti-state and anti-violence positions (though he doesn't get science much at all). But this "Law of Attraction" stuff is a significant regression for Ian from where I sit. Blue feathers? Horse feathers!
Don't worry, Ian isn't as lost as one might think. He has simply misunderstood the concept and thinks it refers to psychology and cause and effect, and not pure magic.
-
Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does).
Science disagrees with you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo)
Also there are plenty of studies showing a link between people who are depressed being ill more or dying from disease more often.
Now what you think doesn't effect external reality, but it can alter your behavior in subtle ways that can make people react better to you and alter your physiology for better or worse. You don't think stress has any relationship to physical health?
I can't be bothered actually digging up some studies that back up what im saying but I'm sure some more motivated/better informed person can do it for me.
-
Positive thinking doesn't change or create reality, (only taking the necessary action to attain your goals does).
Science disagrees with you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo)
Also there are plenty of studies showing a link between people who are depressed being ill more or dying from disease more often.
Now what you think doesn't effect external reality, but it can alter your behavior in subtle ways that can make people react better to you and alter your physiology for better or worse. You don't think stress has any relationship to physical health?
I can't be bothered actually digging up some studies that back up what im saying but I'm sure some more motivated/better informed person can do it for me.
I'm highly motivated, and this motivation has by pure magic alone materialised a German study (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/back-pain-moving-the-needles) that shows the placebo effect in all it's glory. The study was done on 1.200 people with back problems. One group was treated with conventional medicine and physical exercise, one group with "real" acupuncture, and one group with "fake" acupuncture. Both the "real" and "fake" acupuncture proved more effective than the real medical treatment.
-
I'll start off by saying that I love the show, but just like the original creator of this thread, I really start to cringe any time Ian goes off on the "Law of Attraction". Lets define the "Law of Attraction" right at the beginning so there's no confusion as to what I'm talking about.
"the Law of Attraction takes the idea that "Like Attracts Like" and applies it to conscious desire. That is, a person's thoughts (conscious and unconscious), emotions, and beliefs cause a change in the physical world that attracts positive or negative experiences that correspond to the aforementioned thoughts, with or without the person taking action to attain such experiences."
Did you catch the "without the person taking action" part????!?! They quite literally think that all you have to do is think about something long enough, pretend you want something enough and it will manifest itself in your life without you taking ANY physical measures to obtain it.
I'm in 100% agreement that focusing on a goal and keep positive about that goals, never giving up, is the most sure fire way to obtain a goal, but not without physical measures being taken to obtain it. That focus and positivity will make you more likely to make decision that will cause you to move closer to you goals and desires. Like does not attracted like! You must work for the thing you desire! They do not just fall into your lap!
I've heard people say, "What's the problem with thinking positively and following the law of attraction?" The problem is it's a distraction. It's someone telling you that you can have something just by wanting it enough. Are you telling me that the people dieing from cancer don't want a cure enough? That the victims of the holocaust just didn't want to live enough? That the good people that dieded in any genocide somehow attracted the genocide to them?!? That's patently wrong and disgusting!
Replace "the universe" with god and replace "wanting/thinking" with praying. All the law of attraction says is "God will answer your prayers."
Sorry if this dragged on, but this law of attraction bullshit really really gets me fired up.
-
Yeah, that's one of the things that I don't really like about the LoA. In magick, you have to take some kind of action (will-power) in order to manifest what you want in this reality (desire). The rituals, sigils, and tools that are used in magickal practices (such as those practiced by the Golden Dawn occultists) are just things to get the magician in the right state of mind to perform magickal works. The Law of Attraction doesn't seem to combine will-power AND desire, it just seems to really harp on desire without taking any kind of real action necessary to obtain your goals.
While creative visualization does work, it's a little more than just thinking positive.
-
I think Burgess Meredeth covered the whole LOA.
"Well, you can wish in one hand, and crap in the other, see which gets filled first."
LOA is magical thinking.
[youtube=425,350]RV-p51fvYLc[/youtube]
-
I think Burgess Meredeth covered the whole LOA.
"Well, you can wish in one hand, and crap in the other, see which gets filled first."
LOA is magical thinking.
[youtube=425,350]RV-p51fvYLc[/youtube]
It may be magickal thinking, but it lacks a lot of the concepts that make magick what it is. If you're using magic in the paranormal sense, then nevermind.
-
It may be magickal thinking, but it lacks a lot of the concepts that make magick what it is. If you're using magic in the paranormal sense, then nevermind.
I'm using magic in the paranormal sense. Not the "Manipulation that requires both the perpetrator and target to believe for it to work." sense.
In anthropology, psychology, and cognitive science, magical thinking is nonscientific causal reasoning that often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world, correlation equaling causation, the law of contagion, the power of symbols, and the meaningfulness of synchronicity.
That's what I mean.
-
It may be magickal thinking, but it lacks a lot of the concepts that make magick what it is. If you're using magic in the paranormal sense, then nevermind.
I'm using magic in the paranormal sense. Not the "Manipulation that requires both the perpetrator and target to believe for it to work." sense.
In anthropology, psychology, and cognitive science, magical thinking is nonscientific causal reasoning that often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world, correlation equaling causation, the law of contagion, the power of symbols, and the meaningfulness of synchronicity.
That's what I mean.
Gotcha.
-
Gotcha.
It's just a more polite way to say that LOA is a load of hooey.
It also about the furthest thing from "Law" in the scientific sense that you can come up with.
Should be "The Faith of Attraction."
-
Should be "The Faith of Attraction."
More like "I just ripped you off for $20 telling you something you've heard since childhood".
-
More like "I just ripped you off for $20 telling you that Emmanuel Kant riddled horseshit we've been bombarded with since the 1700's".
Adjusted for accuracy.
-
Well, OK.
-
Well, OK.
I was just messing. Sheesh.
LoA is made of poo and fail.
-
My grandma bought me "The Secret" for my birthday and at first I was kind of interested—it looked like it might be sort of like R.A. Wilson's Thinker-Prover or the Law of Fives.
But then I realized... They think that stuff is real! Never read the book. They're looney. The whole point of the Law of Fives is that you realize it's bullshit.
-
I was just messing. Sheesh.
I ain't gettin' upset over nothin'.
-
I'll start off by saying that I love the show, but just like the original creator of this thread, I really start to cringe any time Ian goes off on the "Law of Attraction". Lets define the "Law of Attraction" right at the beginning so there's no confusion as to what I'm talking about.
Sorry if this dragged on, but this law of attraction bullshit really really gets me fired up.
Sorry if we didn't make it clear. Action is still important. LoA just lines up circumstances - it's up to you to open the doors to get you where you want to be.
-
LoA just lines up circumstances.
No, no it doesn't.
Show me one repeatable effect. One.
One test. Then ten. Then a hundred.
No personal stories.
There isn't one repeatably measured test.
There is no secret.
-
If it works, do it. That's my philosophy.
-
If it works, do it. That's my philosophy.
Which is cool. And if it doesn't work, and you still believe it does anyway, you're wasting time and energy.
-
If it works, do it. That's my philosophy.
Which is cool. And if it doesn't work, and you still believe it does anyway, you're wasting time and energy.
The point is is that it works for that particular person.
-
From The Secret:
Quantum mechanics confirms it. Quantum cosmology confirms it. That the Universe essentially emerges from thought and all of this matter around us is just precipitated thought. Ultimately we are the source of the Universe, and when we understand that power directly by experience, we can start to exercise our authority and begin to achieve more and more. Create anything. Know anything from within the field of our own consciousness, which ultimately is Universal consciousness that runs the Universe.
:shens:
We are now entering the era of energy medicine. Everything in the Universe has a frequency and all you have to do is change a frequency or create an opposite frequency. That's how easy it is to change anything in the world, whether that's disease or emotional issues or whatever it is. ... Disease is held in the body by thought, by observation of the illness, and by the attention given to the illness. If you are feeling a little unwell, don't talk about it—unless you want more if it. ... Do not listen to society's messages about diseases and aging. Negative messages do not serve you.
This is just plain harmful. There are people out there dumb enough to believe this shit.
-
From The Secret:
Quantum mechanics confirms it. Quantum cosmology confirms it. That the Universe essentially emerges from thought and all of this matter around us is just precipitated thought. Ultimately we are the source of the Universe, and when we understand that power directly by experience, we can start to exercise our authority and begin to achieve more and more. Create anything. Know anything from within the field of our own consciousness, which ultimately is Universal consciousness that runs the Universe.
:shens:
We are now entering the era of energy medicine. Everything in the Universe has a frequency and all you have to do is change a frequency or create an opposite frequency. That's how easy it is to change anything in the world, whether that's disease or emotional issues or whatever it is. ... Disease is held in the body by thought, by observation of the illness, and by the attention given to the illness. If you are feeling a little unwell, don't talk about it—unless you want more if it. ... Do not listen to society's messages about diseases and aging. Negative messages do not serve you.
This is just plain harmful. There are people out there dumb enough to believe this shit.
I agree with the first quote, since it's true, but I'm not a very big fan of the second. You should couple metaphysical type of healing WITH regular medicine. It's entirely possible to heal someone using unconventional means, true, but sometimes biology and spirit don't mix very well and you end up substituting one for the other. Israel Regardie lays out the practice of metaphysical healing in his book The True Art of Healing (http://www.amazon.com/Art-True-Healing-Unlimited-Visualization/dp/1577310128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213946394&sr=1-1) pretty damn well. Check it out if you're into that type of stuff.
Now more about my thoughts on The Secret...the Law of Attraction in general is a concept riding on the coattails of many accomplished occultists in the past, especially those of the kabbalistic persuasion. From everything I've heard about the Law of Attraction from it's followers, and stuff I've read from the actual book, the Law of Attraction people are just taking tried and true methods from the occultists and magicians and twisting it into their own positive thinking-esque circle jerk which lacks any real substance.
It's just a watered down version of what people like Aleister Crowley, Robert Anton Wilson, Dion Fortune, and Grant Morrison have been telling us for ages. If you're really big into this Law of Attraction stuff...check out some of the work by the people I just mentioned before doing anything else. Prometheus Rising (http://www.amazon.com/Prometheus-Rising-Robert-Anton-Wilson/dp/1561840564/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213946577&sr=1-1) by Robert Anton Wilson deals with many of the same things that magicians and occultists have been dealing with for centuries, except R.A.W. lays out this stuff in modern day layman's terms. If you're really interested in the LOA and conscious creation, you really need to check out some of this stuff. You won't be disappointed.
I'd also like to recommend The Mystical Qabbalah (http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Qabalah-Dion-Fortune/dp/1578631505/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213947566&sr=1-2) by Dion Fortune. You don't need to know a lot about the Qabbalah/kabbalah to understand most of the concepts in this book, and it's a great beginner's guide.
Happy trails.
-
From The Secret:
Quantum mechanics confirms it. Quantum cosmology confirms it. That the Universe essentially emerges from thought and all of this matter around us is just precipitated thought. Ultimately we are the source of the Universe, and when we understand that power directly by experience, we can start to exercise our authority and begin to achieve more and more. Create anything. Know anything from within the field of our own consciousness, which ultimately is Universal consciousness that runs the Universe.
:shens:
...
I agree with the first quote, since it's true, ...
It's true? Seems like utter bullshit to me. I don't even think it deserves to be called pseudo-science; it's worse than that. Why exactly do you think it's true?
-
From The Secret:
Quantum mechanics confirms it. Quantum cosmology confirms it. That the Universe essentially emerges from thought and all of this matter around us is just precipitated thought. Ultimately we are the source of the Universe, and when we understand that power directly by experience, we can start to exercise our authority and begin to achieve more and more. Create anything. Know anything from within the field of our own consciousness, which ultimately is Universal consciousness that runs the Universe.
:shens:
...
I agree with the first quote, since it's true, ...
It's true? Seems like utter bullshit to me. I don't even think it deserves to be called pseudo-science; it's worse than that. Why exactly do you think it's true?
The problem with the secret lady is that she is stupid and doesn't know what she is talking about.
Quantum cosmology
Despite many attempts, such as the Wheeler-deWitt equation, the field remains a rather speculative branch of quantum gravity.
An important problem in this field is the origin of information in the universe.
But toars is right, LoA belongs in the same catagory as occult stuff. You know, the bullshit section of the book store.
-
I'll start off by saying that I love the show, but just like the original creator of this thread, I really start to cringe any time Ian goes off on the "Law of Attraction". Lets define the "Law of Attraction" right at the beginning so there's no confusion as to what I'm talking about.
Sorry if this dragged on, but this law of attraction bullshit really really gets me fired up.
Sorry if we didn't make it clear. Action is still important. LoA just lines up circumstances - it's up to you to open the doors to get you where you want to be.
Just one more point of clarification if you will. Do you subscribe to the belief that the "universe" actually physically changes do to your thought and emotions alone ? Or do you believe that focused thought can make you more aware of opportunity, either chance happenings or things you brought about through your own actions.
It seems to me that concentration on a goal will make you more likely to see and seize opportunities that someone without the focus would miss. It also makes you more likely to go to places where opportunity will be found and to associate with people that share your goals and desires. Every step of the way you are making the decision that later on might seem magical but are just the natural result of you actions. There is no god (universe, higher power, other plane of exsistance, great mother, etc) directing things here on our little blue dot. There is only us, our actions, the actions of those around us and the forces of nature. Anything beyond that is so irrelevant to our lives that it should be viewed as nothing more than a distraction (excluding, of course, the complicated human set of emotion and interpersonal relationships).
Anyone telling you that they have the ultimate answer to happiness and wealth should be viewed with a HUGE amount of skepticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there is no evidence supporting the so-called "law of attraction."
-
Anyone telling you that they have the ultimate answer to happiness and wealth should be viewed with a HUGE amount of skepticism totally dismissed as a snake oil salesman/woman. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there is no evidence supporting the so-called "law of attraction."
FTFY.
LOA is bunk unbacked by any evidence whatsoever.
-
Once they pull the quantum bunny from the bag, you know it's pure bunkum.
-
LoA just lines up circumstances.
No, no it doesn't.
Show me one repeatable effect. One.
One test. Then ten. Then a hundred.
No personal stories.
There isn't one repeatably measured test.
There is no secret.
I don't really care if you believe it or not, and I think it's already been made clear that there's no science or testing involved here.
-
Just one more point of clarification if you will. Do you subscribe to the belief that the "universe" actually physically changes do to your thought and emotions alone ? Or do you believe that focused thought can make you more aware of opportunity, either chance happenings or things you brought about through your own actions.
It doesn't matter what my beliefs are. I don't claim to know how the universe works. I imagine it works in ways we can barely begin to fathom.
-
So it isn't testable, and there is no evidence.
Sounds like you have faith that it works, Ian.
-
I think it's already been made clear that there's no science or testing involved here.
Maybe for you, but Mark seems to think differently about it.
-
So it isn't testable, and there is no evidence.
Sounds like you have faith that it works, Ian.
There's evidence in my life all over the place.
-
I think it's already been made clear that there's no science or testing involved here.
Maybe for you, but Mark seems to think differently about it.
True. He does call his belief system "science of the mind".
-
I don't really care if you believe it or not, and I think it's already been made clear that there's no science or testing involved here.
Which is totally cool. It's just that claiming that it is "Real" drags science into the mix, that's all. It's not science. It's speculation at best, pure opinion backed by faith at worst.
None of which hurts anybody (Usually), so no harm, no foul.
My problem is with people trying to pass off anecdotal evidence as fact. (Something which I have not accused you of.)
-
So it isn't testable, and there is no evidence.
Sounds like you have faith that it works, Ian.
There's evidence in my life all over the place.
If I choose to go out and make money today...I likey will.
I don't assign some fancy psuedo-religous crap to the method.
-
But toars is right, LoA belongs in the same catagory as occult stuff. You know, the bullshit section of the book store.
I didn't say any such thing.
-
But toars is right, LoA belongs in the same catagory as occult stuff. You know, the bullshit section of the book store.
I didn't say any such thing.
my bad
the Law of Attraction in general is a concept riding on the coattails of many accomplished occultists in the past, especially those of the kabbalistic persuasion. From everything I've heard about the Law of Attraction from it's followers, and stuff I've read from the actual book, the Law of Attraction people are just taking tried and true methods from the occultists and magicians and twisting it into their own positive thinking-esque circle jerk which lacks any real substance.
-
But toars is right, LoA belongs in the same catagory as occult stuff. You know, the bullshit section of the book store.
I didn't say any such thing.
my bad
the Law of Attraction in general is a concept riding on the coattails of many accomplished occultists in the past, especially those of the kabbalistic persuasion. From everything I've heard about the Law of Attraction from it's followers, and stuff I've read from the actual book, the Law of Attraction people are just taking tried and true methods from the occultists and magicians and twisting it into their own positive thinking-esque circle jerk which lacks any real substance.
Yeah, I didn't say anything about the occult being bullshit, or the Law of Attraction being put into the same section as the occult and magick. They aren't the same thing.
-
Like I sad, my bad, asshole.
-
My problem is with people trying to pass off anecdotal evidence as fact. (Something which I have not accused you of.)
The simpler, rational explanation is confirmation bias.
-
Like I sad, my bad, asshole.
Sorry. :?
-
My problem is with people trying to pass off anecdotal evidence as fact. (Something which I have not accused you of.)
The simpler, rational explanation is confirmation bias.
Here here. I watched the movie "The Secret" last night (Well, I watched about half of it pausing every 10-20 seconds to keep from smashing my laptop) with my girlfriend and basically used it as a tool for explaining what confirmation bias was. Every 5 minutes or so I would say "That's the perfect example of confirmation bias."
-
I don't claim to know how the universe works. I imagine it works in ways we can barely begin to fathom.
This attitude is straight out of the 1700s. Nowadays, we have this thing called "science" that allows us to make educated guesses about how the universe works, observe how well they correspond to how it actually works, then refine those guesses.
The "Law of Attraction" has absolutely zero scientific evidence to back it up.
-
I don't claim to know how the universe works. I imagine it works in ways we can barely begin to fathom.
This attitude is straight out of the 1700s. Nowadays, we have this thing called "science" that allows us to make educated guesses about how the universe works, observe how well they correspond to how it actually works, then refine those guesses.
The "Law of Attraction" has absolutely zero scientific evidence to back it up.
You're 100% right.
-
I think people must have a different idea than I about what "true" means.
If the Law of Attraction is true, it must have a noticeable, repeatable, statistically significant effect on the way reality works. If it does have this effect, why wouldn't scientific methods be able to discover it? This is exactly what scientific methods DO—they let us learn whether some noticeable, repeatable, statistically significant effect is happening.
How could the Law of Attraction be true if it doesn't have a noticeable, repeatable, statistically significant effect?
-
Other people have pretty much summed up what I feel about this. There are real, tangible reasons why positive thinking works. If you think positively, you are more likely to attempt to achieve goals than if you think negatively. And if you think positively, even if you don't achieve the goal you set out you'll be able to find something positive about what you learned rather than go around moping about your failure. Most people enjoy the company of positive people more than the company of negative people. So thinking positively will likely make your social life better. Thinking positively will likely make you a better worker, and make companies more willing to hire you. And so on.
Positive thinking makes your life better because of real, tangible reasons, not because there's a magical positive energy unicorn flying around in the sky with a magic wand granting wishes.
-
Right. You don't need to add a bunch of mystical whomperjaggery to "setting goals and following steps to get there will frequently get you to your goals".
-
I think people must have a different idea than I about what "true" means.
If the Law of Attraction is true, it must have a noticeable, repeatable, statistically significant effect on the way reality works. If it does have this effect, why wouldn't scientific methods be able to discover it? This is exactly what scientific methods DO—they let us learn whether some noticeable, repeatable, statistically significant effect is happening.
How could the Law of Attraction be true if it doesn't have a noticeable, repeatable, statistically significant effect?
Its that special kind of true where it doesn't actually work if you try to test or measure it in anyway. Either it exists outside "the realm of science" (which coincidentally makes the claim perform aswell as a placebo or random chance in tests), or "it doesn't always" work (which coincidentally any time it actually comes under testing or analysis, but it works all the time in anecdotal personal experience, honest)
By the way, did I mention I have the power to turn invisible? But only if no one is watching or recording it in anyway, but trust me, it works for me, I really can do it.
-
Other people have pretty much summed up what I feel about this. There are real, tangible reasons why positive thinking works. If you think positively, you are more likely to attempt to achieve goals than if you think negatively. And if you think positively, even if you don't achieve the goal you set out you'll be able to find something positive about what you learned rather than go around moping about your failure. Most people enjoy the company of positive people more than the company of negative people. So thinking positively will likely make your social life better. Thinking positively will likely make you a better worker, and make companies more willing to hire you. And so on.
Positive thinking makes your life better because of real, tangible reasons, not because there's a magical positive energy unicorn flying around in the sky with a magic wand granting wishes.
They are called self-fulfilling prophecies.
-
Your thoughts affect your behavior. Your behavior affects other people.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that your thoughts will have effects on the world around you when you are an empathic social animal. Those that claim these effects are supernatural and those that demand that it must be(in order to ridicule it) are both wrong.
-
Your thoughts affect your behavior. Your behavior affects other people.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that your thoughts will have effects on the world around you when you are an empathic social animal. Those that claim these effects are supernatural and those that demand that it must be(in order to ridicule it) are both wrong.
Right, exactly. Focusing your thoughts can help to cause a change in your behavior, help you see new opportunities for action, and appear differently in aspect to others. It is when one thinks that the thought itself that causes the world to change, before action, that one gets into the realm of the ridiculous.
-
t is when one thinks that the thought itself that causes the world to change, before action, that one gets into the realm of the ridiculous.
It works just as well if someone believes that though. It is rather hard to convince someone that they are wrong when it is working for them.
-
Another reason why I hate christians. They believe the world is going to end, and when it does, they are going to heaven. It's their best interest according to their belief to usher in the apocalypse that way Jesus comes back faster. Hence, being a Chirstian means you want the world to be engulfed in pain and misery, and that is the worst self-fufilling prophecy of all.
I mean, as a Christian, why would you care about wars? I mean, the more wars, the better, because that just means you are closer to seeing your god. Fuck that shit.
-
t is when one thinks that the thought itself that causes the world to change, before action, that one gets into the realm of the ridiculous.
It works just as well if someone believes that though. It is rather hard to convince someone that they are wrong when it is working for them.
Healing magnets "work" well for some people. It doesn't mean sane people shouldn't try to convince them they're putting their time and money in bullshit.
Again, theres nothing wrong with thinking positively about your life, but the reason it works is because it changes how you think and act, not because of magic.
-
Law of Attraction seems dumb, sorry, but I prefer just having an internal locus of control.
-
Law of Attraction seems dumb, sorry, but I prefer just having an internal locus of control.
Well, they don't even have words for it, but they are total Kantian WE CAN CHANGE REALITY BY CHANGING PERCEPTION nonsense.
These are people who don't agree that reality is an objective absolute. They believe that A can also be non A.
They are wrong, and the best you and I can do is wait until they figure that out with a welcoming smile, I guess.
All anyone needs know about this sort of thinking: IF perception = reality THEN Kennedy should never have been hit by a bullet, because he wasn't aware of it.
-
Law of Attraction seems dumb, sorry, but I prefer just having an internal locus of control.
Well, they don't even have words for it, but they are total Kantian WE CAN CHANGE REALITY BY CHANGING PERCEPTION nonsense.
These are people who don't agree that reality is an objective absolute. They believe that A can also be non A.
They are wrong, and the best you and I can do is wait until they figure that out with a welcoming smile, I guess.
All anyone needs know about this sort of thinking: IF perception = reality THEN Kennedy should never have been hit by a bullet, because he wasn't aware of it.
When people say perception equals reality, they mean it in a subjective sense most of the time I cam across people saying it.
-
When people say perception equals reality, they mean it in a subjective sense most of the time I cam across people saying it.
Doesn't change anything. To Kennedy, personally, from his point of view, there was no bullet. He wasn't aware of it, and when it hit him, he wasn't aware of anything, because his awareness was flopping out of his skull.
If an idea can't be put into practice, it is useless.
-
When people say perception equals reality, they mean it in a subjective sense most of the time I cam across people saying it.
Doesn't change anything. To Kennedy, personally, from his point of view, there was no bullet. He wasn't aware of it, and when it hit him, he wasn't aware of anything, because his awareness was flopping out of his skull.
If an idea can't be put into practice, it is useless.
I that is clearly an objective situation, and when people say perception = reality, they mean in terms of opinions, and how they can sometimes affect real-life shit.
-
Healing magnets "work" well for some people. It doesn't mean sane people shouldn't try to convince them they're putting their time and money in bullshit.
That analogy does not work though, even if people were putting a lot of time and money into the law of attraction, and it is not apparent to me that they are, it does actually work so they are not wasting anything. They are just missing a detail on how it works. If someone believed that their television worked on magic would you tell them they wasted their money buying it? Would you spend a lot of time trying to explain how cathode ray tubes work?
-
The burden of proof that the "Law of Attraction" works lies with you. Prove it!
-
The burden of proof that the "Law of Attraction" works lies with you. Prove it!
How exactly would one prove that thinking in a positive manner and focusing on goals has improved their lives? Please note that i am not endorsing the "magic" aspect of the subject.
-
Well then, we have nothing to discuss. It is the magical "The Secret" crap that Ian (and to a lesser extent Mark, but he was all muddle-headed about religion before) embraces now that irritates the fuck outta me.
-
An excellent review of THE SECRET from Amazon. Worth the read.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2X2TB3S4O5I60/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg4?_encoding=UTF8&cdPage=1
Please allow me to share with you how "The Secret" changed my life and in a very real and substantive way allowed me to overcome a severe crisis in my personal life. It is well known that the premise of "The Secret" is the science of attracting the things in life that you desire and need and in removing from your life those things that you don't want. Before finding this book, I knew nothing of these principles, the process of positive visualization, and had actually engaged in reckless behaviors to the point of endangering my own life and wellbeing.
At age 36, I found myself in a medium security prison serving 3-5 years for destruction of government property and public intoxication. This was stiff punishment for drunkenly defecating in a mailbox but as the judge pointed out, this was my third conviction for the exact same crime. I obviously had an alcohol problem and a deep and intense disrespect for the postal system, but even more importantly I was ignoring the very fabric of our metaphysical reality and inviting destructive influences into my life.
My fourth day in prison was the first day that I was allowed in general population and while in the recreation yard I was approached by a prisoner named Marcus who calmly informed me that as a new prisoner I had been purchased by him for three packs of Winston cigarettes and 8 ounces of Pruno (prison wine). Marcus elaborated further that I could expect to be raped by him on a daily basis and that I had pretty eyes.
Needless to say, I was deeply shocked that my life had sunk to this level. Although I've never been homophobic I was discovering that I was very rape phobic and dismayed by my overall personal street value of roughly $15. I returned to my cell and sat very quietly, searching myself for answers on how I could improve my life and distance myself from harmful outside influences. At that point, in what I consider to be a miraculous moment, my cell mate Jim Norton informed me that he knew about the Marcus situation and that he had something that could solve my problems. He handed me a copy of "The Secret". Normally I wouldn't have turned to a self help book to resolve such a severe and immediate threat but I literally didn't have any other available alternatives. I immediately opened the book and began to read.
The first few chapters deal with the essence of something called the "Law of Attraction" in which a primal universal force is available to us and can be harnessed for the betterment of our lives. The theoretical nature of the first few chapters wasn't exactly putting me at peace. In fact, I had never meditated and had great difficulty with closing out the chaotic noises of the prison and visualizing the positive changes that I so dearly needed. It was when I reached Chapter 6 "The Secret to Relationships" that I realized how this book could help me distance myself from Marcus and his negative intentions. Starting with chapter six there was a cavity carved into the book and in that cavity was a prison shiv. This particular shiv was a toothbrush with a handle that had been repeatedly melted and ground into a razor sharp point.
The next day in the exercise yard I carried "The Secret" with me and when Marcus approached me I opened the book and stabbed him in the neck. The next eight weeks in solitary confinement provided ample time to practice positive visualization and the 16 hours per day of absolute darkness made visualization about the only thing that I actually could do. I'm not sure that everybody's life will be changed in such a dramatic way by this book but I'm very thankful to have found it and will continue to recommend it heartily.
-
The burden of proof that the "Law of Attraction" works lies with you. Prove it!
How exactly would one prove that thinking in a positive manner and focusing on goals has improved their lives? Please note that i am not endorsing the "magic" aspect of the subject.
Very few good things overall have happened to people that have a negative and self-defeating attitude about anything. Then again those who think too positive and spread the message of love and peace among all men, their reward in life is a bullet (or cross).
So pick your path.
-
Well then, we have nothing to discuss. It is the magical "The Secret" crap that Ian (and to a lesser extent Mark, but he was all muddle-headed about religion before) embraces now that irritates the fuck outta me.
Well i haven't been listening very long but i listened to most of the show posted earlier in this thread and it sounded like Ian was not endorsing the "hocus pocus" aspect of The Secret movie either. I could be wrong.
-
I'll stab you in the neck!
-
I have been interested in this since hearing talk about it on the show. I've always thought that Ian and Mark (to a lesser extent) were pretty rational when it came to views on religion and the spiritual. I picked up a book on this the other day and could barely get through 10 pages. This book claimed that you can affect the universe and ask it for anything you want. However, you have to only think in positives, because the universe only responds to positives. So if you think "I don't want to get cancer" the universe perceives "I WANT GET CANCER" and BAM you've got a case of cancer on your hands.
What the fuck is this shit? The universe is some aware, intelligent presence that can grant wishes yet can't discern basic human language in thought processes?
I can buy that merely thinking positively affects one's personal psychology and that this can have an impact on one's life and "personal reality". But, this is utter nonsense.
Why doesn't the universe heal amputees?
-
I have been interested in this since hearing talk about it on the show. I've always thought that Ian and Mark (to a lesser extent) were pretty rational when it came to views on religion and the spiritual. I picked up a book on this the other day and could barely get through 10 pages. This book claimed that you can affect the universe and ask it for anything you want. However, you have to only think in positives, because the universe only responds to positives. So if you think "I don't want to get cancer" the universe perceives "I WANT GET CANCER" and BAM you've got a case of cancer on your hands.
What the fuck is this shit? The universe is some aware, intelligent presence that can grant wishes yet can't discern basic human language in thought processes?
I can buy that merely thinking positively affects one's personal psychology and that this can have an impact on one's life and "personal reality". But, this is utter nonsense.
Why doesn't the universe heal amputees?
Suggestion:
Go here: http://www.logicallycritical.net/Episodes.html (http://www.logicallycritical.net/Episodes.html)
Listen to episode 23.
I bet you'll like it.
-
I have been interested in this since hearing talk about it on the show. I've always thought that Ian and Mark (to a lesser extent) were pretty rational when it came to views on religion and the spiritual. I picked up a book on this the other day and could barely get through 10 pages. This book claimed that you can affect the universe and ask it for anything you want. However, you have to only think in positives, because the universe only responds to positives. So if you think "I don't want to get cancer" the universe perceives "I WANT GET CANCER" and BAM you've got a case of cancer on your hands.
What the fuck is this shit? The universe is some aware, intelligent presence that can grant wishes yet can't discern basic human language in thought processes?
I can buy that merely thinking positively affects one's personal psychology and that this can have an impact on one's life and "personal reality". But, this is utter nonsense.
Why doesn't the universe heal amputees?
Fell out of my chair laughing so hard.
-
They don't want it bad enough.
-
I have been interested in this since hearing talk about it on the show. I've always thought that Ian and Mark (to a lesser extent) were pretty rational when it came to views on religion and the spiritual. I picked up a book on this the other day and could barely get through 10 pages. This book claimed that you can affect the universe and ask it for anything you want. However, you have to only think in positives, because the universe only responds to positives. So if you think "I don't want to get cancer" the universe perceives "I WANT GET CANCER" and BAM you've got a case of cancer on your hands.
What the fuck is this shit? The universe is some aware, intelligent presence that can grant wishes yet can't discern basic human language in thought processes?
I can buy that merely thinking positively affects one's personal psychology and that this can have an impact on one's life and "personal reality". But, this is utter nonsense.
Why doesn't the universe heal amputees?
Fell out of my chair laughing so hard.
The book was "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Law of Attraction" by Diane Ahlquist. It starts out innocently enough describing LOA as a "birds of a feather flock together" concept. There's certainly truth to that. Look at all of us, for example. Most of us here sincerely desire greater freedom and liberty. And here we are, "attracting" like-minded people that can help make that idea a reality. Yet, like most good lies, the truth is mixed with a healthy dose of bullshit. It's only a few pages later than Ms. Ahlquist is talking about the obtuse Universe fucking up orders like so many half retarded McDonald's drive-thru employees.
-
Suppose that you know something that will help improve peoples lives, but its a pretty mundane and "obvious" idea that is hard to get people excited about. Suppose that you dress up this idea with some quantum mechanics and magical thinking and it gets more people to actually start applying the boring mundane idea to their lives.
Would it really be better if the author wrote a strictly rational text that would only help a fraction of the potential audience?
-
Suppose that you know something that will help improve peoples lives, but its a pretty mundane and "obvious" idea that is hard to get people excited about. Suppose that you dress up this idea with some quantum mechanics and magical thinking and it gets more people to actually start applying the boring mundane idea to their lives.
Would it really be better if the author wrote a strictly rational text that would only help a fraction of the potential audience?
Would it be better if they taught teens to use condoms or else their cock will drop off during sex?
No. Its a good idea to use condoms, but if you believe it for the wrong reasons, that either going to lead to you realizing its bullshit (and then the real reason to use condoms is lost to you), or it will have you blindly believing any old bullshit without critically processing it.
Ends don't justify the means. Lying to people doesn't justify whatever you think it will achieve. If they can't handle the truth, fuck them.
This is the same kind of bullshit mentality that gets people saying that they're glad idiots buy into the bible, because heaven. hell, and god dictated morality is the only thing stopping them from going round killing people.
Except when god says its okay to kill certain people. Then shit hits the fan.
its also hella patronizing to believe that there are certain people who are too dumb to recognize useful truths without them being dressed up in fantasy.
-
The book was "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Law of Attraction" by Diane Ahlquist. It starts out innocently enough describing LOA as a "birds of a feather flock together" concept. There's certainly truth to that. ...
That's exactly it. Ian and others always use this to sell it as a perfectly reasonable way of thinking but then they get off into the mystical elements pretty readily. I've got to work on Ian a bit though. He's a relativist and does not accept that reality is objective.
-
fatcat
Touché
Just don't reject a good idea because someone else dressed it up in magical thinking.
-
fatcat
Touché
Just don't reject a good idea because someone else dressed it up in magical thinking.
I don't. I think thinking positively about your life and being focussed on what you want to achieve in life is a good way to go about things.
I just think not only is it unneccessary to inject magic forces into it, but its also disempowering of peoples own abilities, as if the only way things can go right for you is if the universe is somehow "aligning" itself to help you, and not because you actually did things to help your life.
Plus the slippery slope of allowing magical thinking in some areas, leads to vunerability to other, more exploitative cons, like healing magnets, homeopathy etc, and ideas that are politically dangerous, like people trying to ban Wi-Fi because they think it causes them headaches, when in every test thats ever been done reliably with correct methodology it is shown it has absolutely 0 effect on people.
-
I'm watching the American Idol auditions and this show is proof that LoA is bullshit. Some of these people are genuinely incredibly positive and SO confident that they can sing well and will be the chosen American Idol...yet they're horrible. One guy even said he was thinking about and visualizing his success so much that he had a dream the night before that Simon Cowell told him he was the best singer there. Yet, he couldn't carry a tune if it was in a bucket. Horrible.
-
I'm watching the American Idol auditions and this show is proof that LoA is bullshit. Some of these people are genuinely incredibly positive and SO confident that they can sing well and will be the chosen American Idol...yet they're horrible. One guy even said he was thinking about and visualizing his success so much that he had a dream the night before that Simon Cowell told him he was the best singer there. Yet, he couldn't carry a tune if it was in a bucket. Horrible.
He should have believed harder. That would have made the universe bend around him. 8)
-
Law of Attraction is all bullshit.
-
Regarding the 2/2 show supplemental.....
Mark and Ian, please don't have somebody on the show (in this case, Toni LaMotta) who makes claims about "vibrations" and "what the universe gives you" unless they can explain what a "vibration" is, what it means for a vibration to be "higher" or "lower," and why the universe should "want" to give you anything. Because these things are not just a given.
I suppose I can understand that you might not want to appear rude to a guest by suggesting that "vibration" is a new age bullshit term for "feeling," but at the very least you could ask her what the terms she's using mean.
Mark: "What I like about this, Toni, is if I focus on gratitude-- suppose it does nothing, like from a skeptical standpoint, suppose it does nothing in my life-- I still got the experience of being grateful for all of the things that I have."
Well, you know what? If you focus on gratitude without all of the law of attraction bullshit, you still end up with.....gratitude! Funny how that happens. Refusing to take a credulous stance and instead taking account of what you have in life means that you can still be grateful! And what's more, you don't have to try and believe in anything non-existent! Or buy any books, videos, or CDs, which is what "Dr. Toni" is selling.
Also, "Dr." Toni's web site says that she "holds a Doctorate in Religious Studies as well as a Doctor of Divinity degree; three Masters Degrees - in Pastoral Ministry, Adult Education, and Mathematics (a true WHOLE Brained individual)" but it doesn't say where any of these degrees are from. Any word on that?
-
Regarding the 2/2 show supplemental.....
Mark and Ian, please don't have somebody on the show (in this case, Toni LaMotta) who makes claims about "vibrations" and "what the universe gives you" unless they can explain what a "vibration" is, what it means for a vibration to be "higher" or "lower," and why the universe should "want" to give you anything. Because these things are not just a given.
I suppose I can understand that you might not want to appear rude to a guest by suggesting that "vibration" is a new age bullshit term for "feeling," but at the very least you could ask her what the terms she's using mean.
Mark: "What I like about this, Toni, is if I focus on gratitude-- suppose it does nothing, like from a skeptical standpoint, suppose it does nothing in my life-- I still got the experience of being grateful for all of the things that I have."
Well, you know what? If you focus on gratitude without all of the law of attraction bullshit, you still end up with.....gratitude! Funny how that happens. Refusing to take a credulous stance and instead taking account what you have in life means that you can still be grateful! And what's more, you don't have to try and believe in anything non-existent! Or buy any books, videos, or CDs, which is what "Dr. Toni" is selling.
Also, "Dr." Toni's web site says that she "holds a Doctorate in Religious Studies as well as a Doctor of Divinity degree; three Masters Degrees - in Pastoral Ministry, Adult Education, and Mathematics (a true WHOLE Brained individual)" but it doesn't say where any of these degrees are from. Any word on that?
Continued promotion of that sort of boolsheet is gonna cost listeners in droves.
-
Regarding the 2/2 show supplemental.....
Mark and Ian, please don't have somebody on the show (in this case, Toni LaMotta) who makes claims about "vibrations" and "what the universe gives you" unless they can explain what a "vibration" is, what it means for a vibration to be "higher" or "lower," and why the universe should "want" to give you anything. Because these things are not just a given.
I suppose I can understand that you might not want to appear rude to a guest by suggesting that "vibration" is a new age bullshit term for "feeling," but at the very least you could ask her what the terms she's using mean.
Mark: "What I like about this, Toni, is if I focus on gratitude-- suppose it does nothing, like from a skeptical standpoint, suppose it does nothing in my life-- I still got the experience of being grateful for all of the things that I have."
Well, you know what? If you focus on gratitude without all of the law of attraction bullshit, you still end up with.....gratitude! Funny how that happens. Refusing to take a credulous stance and instead taking account of what you have in life means that you can still be grateful! And what's more, you don't have to try and believe in anything non-existent! Or buy any books, videos, or CDs, which is what "Dr. Toni" is selling.
Also, "Dr." Toni's web site says that she "holds a Doctorate in Religious Studies as well as a Doctor of Divinity degree; three Masters Degrees - in Pastoral Ministry, Adult Education, and Mathematics (a true WHOLE Brained individual)" but it doesn't say where any of these degrees are from. Any word on that?
+1
-
Mark and Ian, please don't have somebody on the show (in this case, Toni LaMotta) who makes claims about "vibrations" and "what the universe gives you" unless they can explain what a "vibration" is, what it means for a vibration to be "higher" or "lower," and why the universe should "want" to give you anything. Because these things are not just a given.
http://www.godsdirectcontact.com/english/method.html
Inner Sound: This primal vibration or Sound is in its nature transcendental and therefore perceived in silence. Jesus' disciples called it the "Holy Spirit" or the "Word" (which is from the Greek word "Logos," meaning sound). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, He spoke of this Sound too, calling it the "drum of immortality" Krishna equated Himself with the "sound in ether" Mohammed perceived this Sound in the cave at Gare-Hira when He had a vision of the archangel Gabriel, and Lao Tzu described the Tao as the "Great Tone".
Inner Light: Spiritual light also manifests as an aspect of the Divine Presence. Hence, the great Masters impart both transcendental Sound and Light, as The Supreme Master Ching Hai explains. "So, we get in contact with this Spirit, which is a manifestation of divine Light and Vibration, and by doing so, we know God. In fact, it isn't really a method. It is the power of the Master. If you have it, then you can transmit it. The method is a transcendental one that cannot be described by our language. Even if someone describes it to you, you will not receive the Light and the Vibration, the inner peace and wisdom. Everything is transmitted in silence, and you will see your old Masters like Jesus or Buddha. You will receive all that you need to follow their footsteps, and little by little you will become Christ-like, and you will become one with God."
-
Mark and Ian, please don't have somebody on the show (in this case, Toni LaMotta) who makes claims about "vibrations" and "what the universe gives you" unless they can explain what a "vibration" is, what it means for a vibration to be "higher" or "lower," and why the universe should "want" to give you anything. Because these things are not just a given.
http://www.godsdirectcontact.com/english/method.html
Inner Sound: This primal vibration or Sound is in its nature transcendental and therefore perceived in silence. Jesus' disciples called it the "Holy Spirit" or the "Word" (which is from the Greek word "Logos," meaning sound). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, He spoke of this Sound too, calling it the "drum of immortality" Krishna equated Himself with the "sound in ether" Mohammed perceived this Sound in the cave at Gare-Hira when He had a vision of the archangel Gabriel, and Lao Tzu described the Tao as the "Great Tone".
Inner Light: Spiritual light also manifests as an aspect of the Divine Presence. Hence, the great Masters impart both transcendental Sound and Light, as The Supreme Master Ching Hai explains. "So, we get in contact with this Spirit, which is a manifestation of divine Light and Vibration, and by doing so, we know God. In fact, it isn't really a method. It is the power of the Master. If you have it, then you can transmit it. The method is a transcendental one that cannot be described by our language. Even if someone describes it to you, you will not receive the Light and the Vibration, the inner peace and wisdom. Everything is transmitted in silence, and you will see your old Masters like Jesus or Buddha. You will receive all that you need to follow their footsteps, and little by little you will become Christ-like, and you will become one with God."
I understand now, and believe.
(http://www.phoneboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/twilight-zone.png)
-
Seriously, guys. Will you all just stop with this non-sense? Could you at least have a skeptic on that will use something like, I dunno, science to address this issue? Penn & Teller would be so disappointed.
-
I understand now, and believe.
You should law of attract yourself a cookie, or a cookiepuss.
(http://www.carvelhappy.com/images/cookiepuss.jpg)
-
Everything anyone ever needs to know about the LOA.
[youtube=425,350]RV-p51fvYLc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-p51fvYLc
-
Mark and Ian, please don't have somebody on the show (in this case, Toni LaMotta) who makes claims about "vibrations" and "what the universe gives you" unless they can explain what a "vibration" is, what it means for a vibration to be "higher" or "lower," and why the universe should "want" to give you anything. Because these things are not just a given.
http://www.godsdirectcontact.com/english/method.html
Inner Sound: This primal vibration or Sound is in its nature transcendental and therefore perceived in silence. Jesus' disciples called it the "Holy Spirit" or the "Word" (which is from the Greek word "Logos," meaning sound). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, He spoke of this Sound too, calling it the "drum of immortality" Krishna equated Himself with the "sound in ether" Mohammed perceived this Sound in the cave at Gare-Hira when He had a vision of the archangel Gabriel, and Lao Tzu described the Tao as the "Great Tone".
Inner Light: Spiritual light also manifests as an aspect of the Divine Presence. Hence, the great Masters impart both transcendental Sound and Light, as The Supreme Master Ching Hai explains. "So, we get in contact with this Spirit, which is a manifestation of divine Light and Vibration, and by doing so, we know God. In fact, it isn't really a method. It is the power of the Master. If you have it, then you can transmit it. The method is a transcendental one that cannot be described by our language. Even if someone describes it to you, you will not receive the Light and the Vibration, the inner peace and wisdom. Everything is transmitted in silence, and you will see your old Masters like Jesus or Buddha. You will receive all that you need to follow their footsteps, and little by little you will become Christ-like, and you will become one with God."
I can do that stuff easy.
Keep going Ian and Mark, with these important discussions. I am with you (always) and together perchance we can rid ourselves of these less-than-positive (I shan't say the "N" word) attempts at distracting us from the Light.
-
I can do that stuff easy.
Keep going Ian and Mark, with these important discussions. I am with you (always) and together perchance we can rid ourselves of these less-than-positive (I shan't say the "N" word) attempts at distracting us from the Light.
I hope this is sarcasm. Because calling for people to use logic, reason, and science to back up their claims is SOOOOO "less-than-positive", right? If the guys are going to believe in this shit then they had better start entertaining every single chemtrail, 9/11 truth, trilateral commission, lizard people conspiracy nut job that calls in because all of those things are just as plausible as silly-ass wishing on a star Law of Attraction.
-
Seriously, guys. Will you all just stop with this non-sense? Could you at least have a skeptic on that will use something like, I dunno, science to address this issue? Penn & Teller would be so disappointed.
Is it possible you're wrong, and LoA is real? Is is possible that your intentions and beliefs create your reality? Is it possible the universe will line up the exact series of events and people necessary for you to create what you want in life? Provided you open the doors and take the opportunities, of course.
-
Seriously, guys. Will you all just stop with this non-sense? Could you at least have a skeptic on that will use something like, I dunno, science to address this issue? Penn & Teller would be so disappointed.
Is it possible you're wrong, and LoA is real? Is is possible that your intentions and beliefs create your reality? Is it possible the universe will line up the exact series of events and people necessary for you to create what you want in life? Provided you open the doors and take the opportunities, of course.
It is possible that there are tiny unicorns in the trunk of my car that disappear when I open the lid to have a look at them, but there is no scientific evidence for their existence. I don't believe in things based on what is possible. I believe in things based on evidence, reason, and proof.
-
I hope this is sarcasm. Because calling for people to use logic, reason, and science to back up their claims is SOOOOO "less-than-positive", right? If the guys are going to believe in this shit then they had better start entertaining every single chemtrail, 9/11 truth, trilateral commission, lizard people conspiracy nut job that calls in because all of those things are just as plausible as silly-ass wishing on a star Law of Attraction.
Really? Those are all conspiracy theories - limited, destructive beliefs.
Pantheism is much bigger than LoA. LoA is only one aspect. Pantheism says that we are all-that-is. We are part of the universe becoming self-aware and constantly discovering and deciding individually who we really are. You can call all-that-is "God" if you like. So, believing we are all "god" is anything but a limiting belief. When I was an Atheist I was empowered by rejecting an external supreme being and instead embracing myself and my own "authority". Atheism allowed me to create my own morality based upon my life experience. Discovering Pantheism was my next logical step into personal empowerment, for instead of believing there is no god, I believe we all are part of all-that-is. We're all gods, creating our own "heaven" or "hell" right here on Earth and discovering and creating ourselves in the process. You get the experiences you choose, delivered to you by the universe, exactly how you intended it.
-
I don't believe in things based on what is possible. I believe in things based on evidence, reason, and proof.
My belief system expands my possibilities, and yours limits.
Perhaps someday science will find incontrovertible proof of LoA. Until then, I'll keep using LoA to improve my life, because based on the evidence I've seen in my life, it's absolutely real.
-
Is it possible you're wrong, and LoA is real?
Yes, but less possible than that the 9/11 attacks were entirely designed, orchestrated, and implemented by the U.S. government.* It would be nice to see you bring a fraction of the skepticism that you have for 9/11 truthers to these claims about vibrations and what the universe wants for you.
Also, please listen to this sometime: http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/23%20Secretly_%20Unimaginatively%20Selfish.mp3 (http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/23%20Secretly_%20Unimaginatively%20Selfish.mp3)
*though most likely, both are absolute bullshit
Pantheism is much bigger than LoA. LoA is only one aspect. Pantheism says that we are all-that-is. We are part of the universe becoming self-aware and constantly discovering and deciding individually who we really are.
Actually, pantheism is simply the belief that the universe is God. There is nothing about pantheism that requires a person to believe in the law of attraction. It is entirely possible to be a secular humanist pantheist.
When I was an Atheist I was empowered by rejecting an external supreme being and instead embracing myself and my own "authority". Atheism allowed me to create my own morality based upon my life experience. Discovering Pantheism was my next logical step into personal empowerment, for instead of believing there is no god, I believe we all are part of all-that-is. We're all gods, creating our own "heaven" or "hell" right here on Earth and discovering and creating ourselves in the process. You get the experiences you choose, delivered to you by the universe, exactly how you intended it.
So basically, being an atheist was dissatisfying because it meant that you couldn't believe in New Age nonsense, whereas pantheism rectifies that by seeming to give New Age nonsense free reign. Congratulations.
Here's a thought: How about forming a view of existence based on what is true, rather than what messages you would prefer to receive from it?
-
I hope this is sarcasm. Because calling for people to use logic, reason, and science to back up their claims is SOOOOO "less-than-positive", right? If the guys are going to believe in this shit then they had better start entertaining every single chemtrail, 9/11 truth, trilateral commission, lizard people conspiracy nut job that calls in because all of those things are just as plausible as silly-ass wishing on a star Law of Attraction.
Really? Those are all conspiracy theories - limited, destructive beliefs.
Pantheism is much bigger than LoA. LoA is only one aspect. Pantheism says that we are all-that-is. We are part of the universe becoming self-aware and constantly discovering and deciding individually who we really are. You can call all-that-is "God" if you like. So, believing we are all "god" is anything but a limiting belief. When I was an Atheist I was empowered by rejecting an external supreme being and instead embracing myself and my own "authority". Atheism allowed me to create my own morality based upon my life experience. Discovering Pantheism was my next logical step into personal empowerment, for instead of believing there is no god, I believe we all are part of all-that-is. We're all gods, creating our own "heaven" or "hell" right here on Earth and discovering and creating ourselves in the process. You get the experiences you choose, delivered to you by the universe, exactly how you intended it.
See, Ian, that seems perfectly reasonable. This is the hook that LoA advocates use. No one will deny the "birds of a feather" aspect. After all, we all desire greater liberty and here we are "attracting" like-minded people to make our desires reality. Yet, as soon as you start thinking how reasonable it all sounds the LoA advocate starts talking about think like how the "universe only responds to positives and if you think 'I don't want to fall into that ditch' the universe perceives 'WANT FALL DITCH' and you've fallen into a ditch as a result of your negative thinking".
Why can't you respond to these criticisms with some actual scientific evidence or proof of this supposedly universal law? Why doesn't an LoA advocate take the James Randi Education Foundation $1,000,000 Challenge? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
-
I don't believe in things based on what is possible. I believe in things based on evidence, reason, and proof.
My belief system expands my possibilities, and yours limits.
Perhaps someday science will find incontrovertible proof of LoA. Until then, I'll keep using LoA to improve my life, because based on the evidence I've seen in my life, it's absolutely real.
Yeah, my belief in gravity limits my possibility to fly. I'm such a Negative Nancy.
-
Actually, pantheism is simply the belief that the universe is God. There is nothing about pantheism that requires a person to believe in the law of attraction. It is entirely possible to be a secular humanist pantheist.
That's true. LoA is simply an observation of the working of that universe. Certainly an unscientific observation.
So basically, being an atheist was dissatisfying because it meant that you couldn't believe in New Age nonsense, whereas pantheism rectifies that by seeming to give New Age nonsense free reign. Congratulations.
No, being an Atheist was never dissatisfying. Pantheism is simply more satisfying.
Here's a thought: How about forming a view of existence based on what is true, rather than what messages you would prefer to receive from it?
LoA is true for me. I declare it so based upon my experience.
-
Yet, as soon as you start thinking how reasonable it all sounds the LoA advocate starts talking about think like how the "universe only responds to positives and if you think 'I don't want to fall into that ditch' the universe perceives 'WANT FALL DITCH' and you've fallen into a ditch as a result of your negative thinking".
Did anyone say LoA will cancel out the other laws of nature? Surely you can come up with a better objection on this one.
Why can't you respond to these criticisms with some actual scientific evidence or proof of this supposedly universal law? Why doesn't an LoA advocate take the James Randi Education Foundation $1,000,000 Challenge? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
First, I'm not a scientist. Second, there is no reason to. It is true for me and that is all that concerns me. I'd rather earn my first million by providing a useful product or service to the market instead of trying to convince skeptics of LoA. :lol:
-
Yeah, my belief in gravity limits my possibility to fly. I'm such a Negative Nancy.
Your beliefs do not override the laws of nature, including the unscientific Law of Attraction. LoA is working for you whether you believe it or not. Just as gravity will work on you whether you believe it or not.
-
LoA is true for me. I declare it so based upon my experience.
Sorry, you're living in La La Land. You don't get to decide what is and isn't true. There's an objective reality. If you want to believe in fairies, vibrations, elves, and unicorns you go right ahead but while you're living in a world of "limitless possibilities" there will be a real world that exists independent of your folly.
My parents believe that the Holy Ghost lives inside them and gives them super powers like healing the sick, divine revelations, snake handling. It's very real for them. They declare it to be so in their lives and they claim that they and others have been healed by God by putting their hands on them. However, no matter how real that belief is and how real their religious experience they either ARE divine lighting rods or they ARE NOT. Since none of their beliefs stand up to scientific testing or any other measures that we have for quantifying reality, however, there's a considerably good change that they are completely delusional.
I have yet to see any evidence that you aren't as well.
-
I absolutely may decide what is and isn't true for me, just as you decide for yourself! :lol:
-
Yet, as soon as you start thinking how reasonable it all sounds the LoA advocate starts talking about think like how the "universe only responds to positives and if you think 'I don't want to fall into that ditch' the universe perceives 'WANT FALL DITCH' and you've fallen into a ditch as a result of your negative thinking".
Did anyone say LoA will cancel out the other laws of nature? Surely you can come up with a better objection on this one.
Why can't you respond to these criticisms with some actual scientific evidence or proof of this supposedly universal law? Why doesn't an LoA advocate take the James Randi Education Foundation $1,000,000 Challenge? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
First, I'm not a scientist. Second, there is no reason to. It is true for me and that is all that concerns me. I'd rather earn my first million by providing a useful product or service to the market instead of trying to convince skeptics of LoA. :lol:
Ah, ok. See, I didn't realize that one had to be a scientist to know whether something was real or make believe.
Oh, so you could prove that LoA exists and get $1 million dollars you're just choosing not to. That makes perfect sense. I've actually encountered that before. In 3rd grade I knew a kid that claimed he could do a triple back flip, but when I asked him to show me he just said he didn't want to.
-
I'm not sure how I would prove it scientifically - because I'm not a scientist. So I'll keep doing what I do best, instead. :P
-
That's true. LoA is simply an observation of the working of that universe. Certainly an unscientific observation.
Are you kidding? Observations of the working of the universe are absolutely scientific-- that is, they are empirical statements that can be scientifically tested. If the LoA is actually true, then it is testable. Are there any experiments which have supported the conclusion that the LoA is true? None that I know of. Hmm, wonder why that is?
LoA is true for me. I declare it so based upon my experience.
Plenty of people will testify that that snake-handling, speaking in tongues, or fortune telling is "true for them" as well, based on their experience. The fact is, what you consider "true for you" and what is objectively true are two very different things. If a practice depends that you buy into its mythology in order for it to have the desired effect, that's a big red glowing neon sign that you could just as easily be using a placebo. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
Ideological atheists or pantheists are no better than people who insist that evolution is false because it "makes people think they're animals" or "turns them into nihilists." The concern is not for what is actually true or false, but what sounds better according to their mindset. Such people are welcome to believe whatever they want, but when it comes to telling the rest of us what is true or not true.....please don't bother. Truth is not your primary concern, and what you say is therefore not a primary concern for those who want truth.
-
I absolutely may decide what is and isn't true for me, just as you do! :lol:
No, sorry. Things either are or they are not. This is the law of identity. A=A. Reality exists independently of what you or I or anyone else has to say about it.
-
I'm not sure how I would prove it scientifically - because I'm not a scientist. So I'll keep doing what I do best, instead. :P
Translation: "I don't care if it's true or not, so I'm unwilling to try and find out. I'm just going to keep assuming it's true because it makes me feel better to believe so."
-
That's true. LoA is simply an observation of the working of that universe. Certainly an unscientific observation.
Are you kidding? Observations of the working of the universe are absolutely scientific-- that is, they are empirical statements that can be scientifically tested. If the LoA is actually true, then it is testable. Are there any experiments which have supported the conclusion that the LoA is true? None that I know of. Hmm, wonder why that is?
My observations aren't scientific, they're personal. Invalid to you, but deeply valid to me. You may think what you want about them.
Ideological atheists or pantheists are no better than people who insist that evolution is false because it "makes people think they're animals" or "turns them into nihilists." The concern is not for what is actually true or false, but what sounds better according to their mindset. Such people are welcome to believe whatever they want, but when it comes to telling the rest of us what is true or not true.....please don't bother. Truth is not your primary concern, and what you say is therefore not a primary concern for those who want truth.
You have your truth, and I have mine. We all get to decide what is true for ourselves.
-
I'm not sure how I would prove it scientifically - because I'm not a scientist. So I'll keep doing what I do best, instead. :P
Translation: "I don't care if it's true or not, so I'm unwilling to try and find out. I'm just going to keep assuming it's true because it makes me feel better to believe so."
It's really just kind of sad. I always feel bad for people that take this kind of attitude. This is the exact same reasoning that people use to reconcile their beliefs with any number of irrational things. "Thinking is hard". It's easier to just have a completely unfounded belief that you follow on blind faith. When anyone raises an issue with it you just respond with "Well it's what I believe. It just feels right".
If you believe in things based on how they make you feel, then you can absolutely believe in anything. It just takes the right charlatan with a persuasive enough argument to make you feel that something else is right.
-
I'm not sure how I would prove it scientifically - because I'm not a scientist. So I'll keep doing what I do best, instead. :P
Translation: "I don't care if it's true or not, so I'm unwilling to try and find out. I'm just going to keep assuming it's true because it makes me feel better to believe so."
My life's all about how I feel and specifically feeling better.
I don't care if YOU think it's true, because your beliefs don't affect mine. I know it's true based on my experience. You say it's not because I haven't proven it to you, so your truth is different than mine, and that's OK.
-
You have your truth, and I have mine. We all get to decide what is true for ourselves.
Yes, we each have an opinion. Our opinions are opposite of one another. One of us is right and one is wrong. It is possible that we're both wrong. Whichever opinion is true, there is objective evidence by which we can use reason to arrive at that conclusion. The difference is that I am open to arriving at the conclusion of what is true based on evidence and measurable proofs. You, apparently, are open to arriving at it based on what feels good.
-
It's really just kind of sad. I always feel bad for people that take this kind of attitude. This is the exact same reasoning that people use to reconcile their beliefs with any number of irrational things. "Thinking is hard". It's easier to just have a completely unfounded belief that you follow on blind faith.
Except we're talking about something (LoA) that is founded upon personal experience, not unfounded belief and blind faith.
I say Law of Attraction exists, because I've experienced it. You say prove it. I say I've already proven to myself and I have no obligation to prove it to you. You declare my experience invalid then proceed to feel sorry for me.
Rinse, repeat.
-
Yes, we each have an opinion. Our opinions are opposite of one another. One of us is right and one is wrong. It is possible that we're both wrong. Whichever opinion is true, there is objective evidence by which we can use reason to arrive at that conclusion. The difference is that I am open to arriving at the conclusion of what is true based on evidence and measurable proofs. You, apparently, are open to arriving at it based on what feels good.
Actually, we both have different beliefs that are based upon the data we have collected in our life experience. My belief is right for me and yours is right for you. I feel good, and so should you. Do you? If not, why not? Aren't you here to feel good? I know I am.
-
It's really just kind of sad. I always feel bad for people that take this kind of attitude. This is the exact same reasoning that people use to reconcile their beliefs with any number of irrational things. "Thinking is hard". It's easier to just have a completely unfounded belief that you follow on blind faith.
Except we're talking about something (LoA) that is founded upon personal experience, not unfounded belief and blind faith.
I say Law of Attraction exists, because I've experienced it. You say prove it. I say I've already proven to myself and I have no obligation to prove it to you. You declare my experience invalid then proceed to feel sorry for me.
Rinse, repeat.
Ian, there are plenty of people believing things that I disagree with. You're absolutely welcome to believe whatever you want. Everyone is. The problem I have with it is when you start trying to convince other people that it's true. You're making lots of claims here about how this is all just your personal belief and you don't have to prove it to anyone, but the fact of the matter is that you're having guests on the show that are clearly trying to claim that LoA is a Universal Law. When you do that, you're implicitly inviting inquiry and criticism to which you're refusing to respond. If you were having any other sort of mystic on the show making claims about any other kind of nonsense while you essentially endorsed it as valid, I would be speaking out against that as well.
Your claims of this being a personal belief that you don't want to defend end when you bring someone on the show and openly endorse it as being a Universal truth.
-
GAH! MORAL RELATIVISM!!! SUBJECTIVIST METAPHYSICS!!!
Aw Ian, you know you're one of my top ten favorite people that aren't me and I don't hang out with regularly, right? For serious.
But listen, man, all you have to suggest that what you believe is true, is your assertion that it is so. While that may be good enough for you, and I understand that you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about all that intellectual claptrap book learnin', you can easily put the LOA to the test and know if it's true or not in a matter of seconds.
Get a penny.
Desire for the outcome of a flip with all your heart. Want the outcome. Be open to it.
Flip it 100 times and write it down. Flip it more and you'll get more accuracy.
Record the outcome.
Get back to me.
You will find that wanting something, no matter how badly, will not make it so, or even more likely. Now, I doubt that you will do the penny test, because you seem fairly insistent and maybe a tiny bit closed minded about it, and will probably not want to "waste your time." or whatever. That's cool. But then you know that you weren't even willing to take five or ten minutes to put your beliefs to the test.
Non-subjective reality and moral relativism are eventually gonna trip you up, from a political standpoint. If there's no right or wrong way to do things, then any behavior is acceptable.
I could argue in favor of a large, powerful state based on nothing but "Well, in my reality, the state is good, therefore I, and all the people who agree with me, who are the majority, will support the state." and you can't dispute the claim without a contradiction.
That's bad news, because you've voluntarily given them the upper hand in the moral argument.
-
You're correct. If their morality is that might makes right, there's nothing I can say to that. Our belief systems are too different. Better to surround myself with people who agree with my morality (FSP).
Also, the penny flip thing is another example of how you continue to misinterpret LoA to believe it can override natural law, in this case the physics of the penny flip. Good try, though.
Anyway, it's been a fun hour. Maybe Mark or Sam will play with you guys for a while. I must get to work.
-
Actually, we both have different beliefs that are based upon the data we have collected in our life experience. My belief is right for me and yours is right for you. I feel good, and so should you. Do you? If not, why not? Aren't you here to feel good? I know I am.
Feeling good is not a measure of being truth, unfortunately.
Lots of people who are in pain, real pain, sometimes find comfort in crack pot treatments. Some people have seen faith healers and televangelists. After the experience they feel better. They really do. By every subjective measurement of their experience they feel better. They say they feel better. They look like they feel better. However, feeling better and being better aren't the same thing. From what I understand, using heroin makes you feel really good. But I don't recommend people use heroin because no matter how good it feels and how great they think it is for them because of how good it feels, the reality is that it isn't good for them.
-
I say Law of Attraction exists, because I've experienced it. You say prove it. I say I've already proven to myself and I have no obligation to prove it to you. You declare my experience invalid then proceed to feel sorry for me.
Replace Law of Attraction with ghosts, alien abduction, headache causing radiowaves, healing magnets, homeopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy).
The reason why personal experience alone is an invalid process to define beliefs is because humans are incredibly biased to certain fallacies, and are
I'm not sure whether you believe in Heaven and Hell or not, I remember one time you claimed not to believe in god.
Clearly this is an instance where personal bias leads to belief where evidence does not justify it.
People don't want to die, or rather, don't want death to be the end of their existence, its a universal human trait, so they make something up, or rather believe in something someone else has made up to make themselves feel better.
Death isn't the end, if you're good you go to Heaven, or you get reincarnated, or you go to Valhalla, whatever the belief happens to be.
However, there is not one test or piece of evidence that has ever verified the existence of any of these places.
They always exist in some other dimension, or otherwise cannot be reached or ever proved.
Why believe that you're going to heaven any more than you're going to Valhalla? No reason of factual truth as theres no more empirical evidence for one than the other, people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel good.
The reason you should care about using the scientific method to determine truth, is so you can avoid letting your own personal bias distort your view on reality.
Everyone should seek to have as many true beliefs, and as few false beliefs as possible, right?
The only way you can be sure whether your beliefs are true or not is via objective, scientific verification, if you actually care whether what you believe in is true or not, then you are obligated to be able to demonstrate it, to yourself, and to others.
"i know its true" simply isn't enough. You're no different to a kook whos convinced himself he can move things with his mind, or has been abducted by aliens. Its true enough for them "personally", but as soon as it comes to proving it to anyone else, and thereby themselves, they can't do it, because what they believe isn't true, its just a very complicated way of lying to yourself.
Fortunately most people are fairly rational in most other respects, and use forms of the scientific method every day. You get very few people jumping from skyscrapers believing they can fly just because they feel they can, you get very few people walking through traffic because they believe they won't be harmed because they have diving protection, you get very few people touching high voltage electricity because they don't believe electricity exists for personal reasons.
People only afford themselves unscientific delusions in respects where it won't actually affect their life much, like what happens after they die, or things like "crystal energy" when the worst thing that can happen is losing some money on some useless tat.
Science, it works bitches.
-
You're correct. If their morality is that might makes right, there's nothing I can say to that. Our belief systems are too different. Better to surround myself with people who agree with my morality (FSP).
So it's mob rule then. You just claimed to embrace the concept of mob rule. Remember what I said about contradictions? :-(
Also, the penny flip thing is another example of how you continue to misinterpret LoA to believe it can override natural law, in this case the physics of the penny flip. Good try, though.
So name one thing that the LOA can effect. Specifically.
Anyway, it's been a fun hour. Maybe Mark or Sam will play with you guys for a while. I must get to work.
Man, you're always mean to me. If it's all just "playing" then I guess I shouldn't bother trying to help you out with your fallacy. Sorry about that. I'll just go back to posting tits, I guess.
-
Mob rule is what we have. I would like to evolve past that, but we'll need to create a peaceful mob first (FSP) to persuade the mob-rule types to evolve their thinking.
Ok... really leaving now.
-
Mob rule is what we have. I would like to evolve past that, but we'll need to create a peaceful mob first (FSP) to persuade the mob-rule types to evolve their thinking.
Wow. :-(
No, that is what they have. Not "we". Your groupthink lever is on, man.
If you play their game by their rules, you're the sucker in the mix.
"Somehow our mob will do better." ain't the way.
You really oughtta know better.
-
All I can say is, this LoA stuff has really, really hurt the credibility of FTL. It is in so many ways a repudiation of rationality and the individualist underpinnings of libertarian anarchism. I know that Gard wouldn't go in for that shit (I will shed a tear if my favorite co-host starts pushing The Secret). Anyway, I could expect this kind of murky doublethink from Mark, he's always so emotional and not entirely logical and he consistently holds conflicting opinions, but Ian, come on. This is Art Bell shit. This is dope smoking New-Age hippy stuff, "far out maaaaaan." I know that you have a lot of respect for Sam, but that doesn't mean you have to swallow his whole pseudo-religion. What is going to happen when something really, really terrible happens to you or Julia (life is like that)? Are you gong to blame yourself for accidentally thinking the wrong thoughts or will you rationalize that others were thinking those thoughts or that the universe somehow willed it? I hope it doesn't take something like that for you to shed this silly "happy thought thinking will change the world" stuff.
-
This is dope smoking New-Age hippy stuff, "far out maaaaaan."
Uh, yeah, what did you expect?
-
Damn, it's like LoA is a religion for Ian.
-
I really don't like this double-talk.
If the LoA is true, then it is true objectively-- that means that it can be tested and demonstrated scientifically. Because, after all, the LoA is a claim about how the universe works.
If the LoA "works for you," that doesn't mean it's true-- it means that acting as if it is true gets you what you want.
Your failure to make this distinction is what people get all sniffy about, Ian. You can't go on about what a great thing the LoA is, and how true it is, and then when asked "Why? How do you know?" retreat into a little rabbit hole called "I'm no scientist, but it works for me."
You don't have to be a scientist in order to construct actual arguments for the truth or falsity of theories about how the world works. I'm not a biologist, but I can explain very explicitly why I think evolution is true (and have done so in this very forum ad nauseum), and it has nothing to do with my wanting it to be true. When you use the "I'm not a scientist" excuse, it comes off as "I believe this without any good reason; I just want it to be true."
Which is why it's an ideological stance. You can tell that someone's stance is ideological when they care more about what it means than whether it's true, and whether it "works" rather than how it works.
Damn, it's like LoA is a religion for Ian.
Exactly.
-
At least do the libertarian capitalist thing and take a clue from the overwhelmingly negative listener reaction to this stuff. We don't want to hear it on the show, that's not what we tune in or sync up for. The market signals are telling you to drop the mysticism stuff from FTL, unless of course, someone calls in about it (though how you can credibly reject or debunk them while simultaneously subscribing to you own brand of it, I don't know). You realize that this stuff is really no different that the McDonald's eating Breatharian dude you had on the show a year or so back. He has as much evidence for his line of crap as you or anyone else does for LoA. He too talks a great deal about "vibrations" and "frequency." According to your position, Ian, it's possible he's right, too, isn't it?
-
The LoA is a cubic phenomenon. You are all educated stupid.
-
I'm starting to think Ian actually doesn't believe in this bullshit, he just likes to talk about it because it makes rational people headdesk, and the controversy it generates is "good radio".
Either that, or Ian's fucking retarded.
-
I'm starting to think Ian actually doesn't believe in this bullshit, he just likes to talk about it because it makes rational people headdesk, and the controversy it generates is "good radio".
Either that, or Ian's fucking retarded.
RL troll is trolling IRL?
I dunno, I doubt he'd bicker about it on the BBS if he didn't care.
-
Ian FTW! The rest of you need to get over it. Thread over!
-
I dunno, I doubt he'd bicker about it on the BBS if he didn't care.
Yeah, you're probably right. One more mark in the "fucking retarded" column it is.
-
Yeah, you're probably right. One more mark in the "fucking retarded" column it is.
I was thinking more "Wrong headed and stubborn" than retarded.
<<<Likes Ian well enough.
-
What a bunch of crybabies. I put the interview at the end of the podcast. No one forced you to listen. Mark asked if we could do it, and I said yes. We haven't had a LoA topic in a long time.
Boo-hoo.
-
At least do the libertarian capitalist thing and take a clue from the overwhelmingly negative listener reaction to this stuff. We don't want to hear it on the show, that's not what we tune in or sync up for. The market signals are telling you to drop the mysticism stuff from FTL, unless of course, someone calls in about it (though how you can credibly reject or debunk them while simultaneously subscribing to you own brand of it, I don't know).
Sounds to me like you're engaging in collectivist speak now. Who elected you to speak for all listeners?
-
FYI: I found this concept before I knew Sam. He's just a like-minded individual.
-
Sounds to me like you're engaging in collectivist speak now. Who elected you to speak for all listeners?
What a bunch of crybabies.
Sheesh.
<<<Knew it was an addendum to the show and isn't a part of a major shit fit.
If it became a regular staple of the show, which it so far has not, I'd get pretty crabby, but I can keep a cool head about it otherwise.
Landmark. :P
-
I feel good, and so should you. Do you? If not, why not? Aren't you here to feel good? I know I am.
If you aren't enjoying your life, you are wasting your life.
-
I feel good, and so should you. Do you? If not, why not? Aren't you here to feel good? I know I am.
If you aren't enjoying your life, you are wasting your life.
8) Yup.
-
At least do the libertarian capitalist thing and take a clue from the overwhelmingly negative listener reaction to this stuff. We don't want to hear it on the show, that's not what we tune in or sync up for. The market signals are telling you to drop the mysticism stuff from FTL, unless of course, someone calls in about it (though how you can credibly reject or debunk them while simultaneously subscribing to you own brand of it, I don't know).
Sounds to me like you're engaging in collectivist speak now. Who elected you to speak for all listeners?
I'm just drawing a conclusion from the overall response here. This is the only sample of listeners we have to look at, and there is no one posting here who likes to hear about this stuff. Besides, I don't like elections of any kind, and I sure wouldn't stand as a candidate in that one. Furthermore, I suspect that you wouldn't respect the office, either. Maybe I'll take a poll here and see if there is sufficient aggregate negative demand (if that makes sense) to influence your future decisions about the subject. I mean, let's do a little market research, OK?
-
Poll's up.
-
Don't waste your time. I'll continue doing what pleases me. :P
-
What a bunch of crybabies. I put the interview at the end of the podcast. No one forced you to listen. Mark asked if we could do it, and I said yes. We haven't had a LoA topic in a long time.
Boo-hoo.
Did anyone complain that they were forced to listen? No.
Does listening voluntarily mean that we have to agree with you, or should refrain from saying why we disagree? No.
Relevance of your comment to the actual discussion, then? None.
-
Nope, just heard them complaining about content they could easily have avoided. :wink:
-
Nope, just heard them complaining about content they could easily have avoided. :wink:
Yes, and? Does the fact that people could avoid content mean that they have no reason to object to it?
-
Don't waste your time. I'll continue doing what pleases me. :P
So will I . It just so happens, bitching is a hobby of mine.
-
Nope, just heard them complaining about content they could easily have avoided. :wink:
Yes, and? Does the fact that people could avoid content mean that they have no reason to object to it?
Object all you want if it makes you feel better! 8)
-
As a newcomer to LoA, I request more info on the topic, on every show. Constantly dealing with all this reality nonsense is not conducive to my positive mindset.
I suggest we continue to urge others to not think of the less-than-positive aspects of life, and to do that we need to talk of only positive things. The airwaves are full of " -'s ", and the less of those FTL broadcasts into space the better.
One thing though, if I am working towards having a positive planetary alignment for my own benefit, am I not by default denying someone else of their positive alignment, in effect having wronged someone else unwittingly?
-
I think we need to invoke the Fairness Doctrine and talk about the Law of Repulsion. I am its foremost advocate and expert, having invented it myself. In summary, I posit that being an asshole to people will result in them being repulsed by you and you subsequently having an empty and unfulfilling life. This result holds no matter what the arrangement of the planets is or what sorts of cosmic vibrations are zooming through space.
-
Tell me more about this LoR. It's not that I'm desperately in search of something exotic to believe in, or to create yet something else that can serve as a distraction and a source of blame when things go awry.. I'm just practicing my open mindedness.
-
You can increase your chances of success by practicing what I call "filthiness". This entails not washing yourself or your clothing for months at a time. When you have achieved this level of repulsion you will have the ability to repulse others without making any effort beyond being in their vicinity. This works to increase your sense of self-worthlessness because you realize that you have achieved a level of repulsion that simply cannot be resisted without putting forth any effort.
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
I hope you're kidding.. but I'm tuning in to find out.
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
I'm really glad that the conversations persisted until these points, the logical conclusions of LoA, came out. See, LoA adherents try to pass it off as all about being positive, having confidence, and taking action. I don't disagree with those points. However, these quotes show exactly the parts of this nonsense that I disagree with.
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
I hope you're kidding.. but I'm tuning in to find out.
Nope, not kidding.
-
I like when they talk about LOA and the holocaust.
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
I hope you're kidding.. but I'm tuning in to find out.
Nope, not kidding.
Nevermind. Not tuning in.
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
I hope you're kidding.. but I'm tuning in to find out.
Nope, not kidding.
Nevermind. Not tuning in.
Definitely catch the podcast.
-
I have no words for todays show. I kept listening so i guess it was "entertaining" but damn.
(http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7900/bangheadia7.gif)
-
Sooo... I should be able to murder anyone I want without consequence, because they all wanted it.
LOA- The philosophy of the sociopath.
-
LOA- The philosophy of the sociopath.
I'm a sociopath and I take offense to that.
-
I'm a sociopath and I take offense to that.
Sociopaths don't care about people or what they think.
-
This part of the show tonight was just embarrassing and offensive on so many levels.
-
This part of the show tonight was just embarrassing and offensive on so many levels.
It's like a flashback to 1998. The new Art Bell!
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
Really? REALLY? Makes me wanna kick them in the balls, and then ask them if they wanted it. Then I'd say, "the universe is acting on your desires, Mark and Ian, and my foot was attracted to your nuts because you wanted testicular torsion, right?" (be advised this is a hypothetical, I don't actually want to kick anyone's balls, but I sure would laugh if they did get a kick in the balls, you know, because they were obviously in the room with someone who wanted to kick their balls at the same time their balls wanted kicking).
This is such dumb fucking shit, I seriously believe that Ian is smoking too much weed. If Rastas can believe Halie Selassie was a living god and they could live forever by using positive words and never saying "dead" or derivatives thereof, for instance " 'livication' is substituted for the word 'dedication' because Rastas associate ded-ication with death," they clearly are hitting the trees pretty hard. This is the same kind of silliness, and it would only make sense or seem believable to a stoner.
-
Fun quotes from tonight's discussion on the LoA:
Sam: "No one was damaged by rape"
Mark: "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world"
Ian: "I didn't push the button to cause the bombings in Pakistan!" Sam: "What did you do to stop it?"
Sam (paraphrase): "The universe takes people who want to shoot someone, and people who want to be shot, and puts them in the same room."
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME.
-
Are you #*&#$&*& kidding me? Seriously. I have been listening to FTL for years. This is the most absurd gobbledygook I have ever heard by the show hosts. BY FAR. It almost borders on that breathanariasm guy or the cube guy.
I'll admit: I thought the NWO/Satanic Cult/Bilderberger people were crazy. Suddenly they don't look nearly as bad.
We are all 100% responsible for the actions of everyone? (Maybe we should be communists then?)
Reality is subjective?
The problem with rape isn't the act, but the way it is "interpreted"
Kids get cancer because they have focused on cancer?
WTF did you guys smoke before the show????
-
What a bunch of crybabies. I put the interview at the end of the podcast. No one forced you to listen. Mark asked if we could do it, and I said yes. We haven't had a LoA topic in a long time.
Boo-hoo.
I listened so therefore everyone that has posted on this thread is responsible for me listening so therefore everyone is responsible for me calling everyone a lunatic.
Therefore, I'm actually a lunatic for calling us all a lunatic but then the rest of you are lunatics for not being lunatics and uh umm wow
-
LoA just lines up circumstances.
No, no it doesn't.
Show me one repeatable effect. One.
One test. Then ten. Then a hundred.
No personal stories.
There isn't one repeatably measured test.
There is no secret.
I don't really care if you believe it or not, and I think it's already been made clear that there's no science or testing involved here.
Then why does Sam talk about it like its peer-reviewed science? I mean, he does say there's no such thing as reality but he does seem pretty sure EXACTLY what reality is. People get shot because they secretly wanted to be shot? Are you #*$#*# kidding me? Prove it or SHUT THE HELL UP. This is the utter rejection of logic and reason. I'm very disappointed. Very.
-
I don't feel as bad for canceling my AMP after this bullshit.
-
Fuck Sam. Sam is insane. It's in his voice.
-
Some caveats:
1. Did I take those quotes out of context? Nope, sure don't think so, but the guys might say otherwise. To talk about having control over the world, Mark came up with the analogy of a remote control car, and asked someone-- pretty sure it was Dale-- whether he would prefer to have the controls, or have the car be controlled by someone else. Dale's response was that it's a false dichotomy, and it is. The world is not either wholly controlled by me or wholly not controlled by me. But that's where Mark's "I am of the opinion that I control everything in the world" came from. Three problems with that, though:
a) Actually, control over the world is shared amongst me, other people, and the world itself.
b) How much sense does it make for every individual to believe that they personally control everything in the world, even if they would prefer it?
c) When it comes to that, why should "I would prefer it" be your standard for determining what you think about the world?
2. Reality is subjective in that we all can only view it from our own perspectives, and those perspectives are (by definition) subjective. But that doesn't mean that what we're all looking at isn't in fact objective. If you think subjectivity determines reality, try stepping off a cliff while firmly convinced that you won't fall, or that gravity doesn't exist.
3. The rape discussion was mainly a chat room joke-- didn't expect the conversation to go there. But that doesn't make Sam's comment any less scary.
4. Guys, the non-aggression principle depends on the belief that initiating force on people is a bad thing. An objectively bad thing. I don't think you want to leave that behind.
-
FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.
-
FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.
I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.
-
Why don't you just LoA their AMP dollars back, Mark? You're the master of the whole universe, there's no need to "hope" for anything, you control it! Make it happen, man!
-
Yeah, it's pure bunkum. And, the more they talk about it the sillier it sounds.
I still like the show. The likelihood of any person agreeing 100% with any other person is pretty much zilch.
-
Yeah, it's pure bunkum. And, the more they talk about it the sillier it sounds.
I still like the show. The likelihood of any person agreeing 100% with any other person is pretty much zilch.
Plus, I can't think of anything more boring than listening to somebody who agrees with me 100% on everything.
-
I've always been a strong believer in responsibility, that it is empowering to take responsibility for everything in the universe because then we always have the personal
power to choose how we respond to these things rather than ever being a victim to the universe.
I completely agree with Mark on this.
In essence, everyone is 100% responsible for their responses to the world, emotionally, mentally, etc...
-
FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.
I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.
It doesn't really matter, Mark. Even if they give their AMP dollars to someone doing LESS for liberty and it means the government continues hurting people that much longer it's only because the universe took people that wanted to be victimized by the government and government people that wanted to hurt them and put them in the same room.
-
I've always been a strong believer in responsibility, that it is empowering to take responsibility for everything in the universe because then we always have the personal
power to choose how we respond to these things rather than ever being a victim to the universe.
I completely agree with Mark on this.
In essence, everyone is 100% responsible for their responses to the world, emotionally, mentally, etc...
See, I don't think anybody is saying that individuals don't control their emotions or their responses to things that happen to them. This is not the part of LoA that most people find objectionable.
The part that people are taking issue with is when they say that you're 100% in control of everything that happens to you good or bad. Not your reaction to the event, but the event itself. If you get raped it's because some part of you even subconsciously was wanting to be raped. If you take a bullet to the head from a complete stranger it's because the universe took two people that wanted something (the shooter and you) and put them in the room together.
-
I've always been a strong believer in responsibility, that it is empowering to take responsibility for everything in the universe
Okay, then. Global warming, the extinction of the dodo, the invasion of Iraq, the fact that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, and the Jonestown suicides are all your fault. Good luck with that.
-
You're misinterpreting what I mean here.
By taking responsibility, you are taking responsibility for how everything effects you, not the fact that things happen,
but how you respond to those events. No one makes you feel a certain way.
-
I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.
I think it sucks, because I like youse guys and I've historically loved the show. Even Ian. :(
-
But what about Mark? What is his excuse?
-
You're misinterpreting what I mean here.
By taking responsibility, you are taking responsibility for how everything effects you, not the fact that things happen,
but how you respond to those events. No one makes you feel a certain way.
Uh, see my earlier reply. If this is your position, I don't take issue with it. The problem with LoA is that proponents say that EVERYTHING is in your control not just your reactions. If you get raped, you don't just choose how you feel after the fact you chose for the event itself to take place.
-
You're misinterpreting what I mean here.
By taking responsibility, you are taking responsibility for how everything effects you, not the fact that things happen,
but how you respond to those events. No one makes you feel a certain way.
Uh, see my earlier reply. If this is your position, I don't take issue with it. The problem with LoA is that proponents say that EVERYTHING is in your control not just your reactions. If you get raped, you don't just choose how you feel after the fact you chose for the event itself to take place.
Yeah exactly. After listening to it, it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. I agreed with 95% of what they had to say, however Sam's concept that "the universe" puts a shooter and somebody who wants to get shot together is without evidence of any kind. Anytime you start talking about "the universe" my bullshit detector gets turned up several notches. The concept that a young child who gets cancer somehow "willed it" is rather disgusting. If Sam can provide a rational argument with evidence for the above mentioned cases, I will be more than willing to listen. However he has failed to do so and I find it very off-putting when anybody makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
-
FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.
I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.
It doesn't really matter, Mark. Even if they give their AMP dollars to someone doing LESS for liberty and it means the government continues hurting people that much longer it's only because the universe took people that wanted to be victimized by the government and government people that wanted to hurt them and put them in the same room.
I didn't say that. Sam is not the Arbiter of all things spiritual. I do think that some people get what they want from the government. Look at Ian and his gross couch.
-
You're misinterpreting what I mean here.
By taking responsibility, you are taking responsibility for how everything effects you, not the fact that things happen,
but how you respond to those events. No one makes you feel a certain way.
Oh, I see. So if somebody punched you in the face right now, they wouldn't be doing anything wrong because you're the one who is responsible for how it affects you.
-
I believe what Sam is talking about is coupling what I said with Karma, in that cause and effect based on our past actions lead us to future events.
That consciously or not, we are led to everything that happenbs in our life. The whole "no accidents" clause as it were.
I'm glad you understood what I meant earlier, I believe in the former not with the latter.
If a woman gets raped I don't believe her karma led her to that because others impose their will on others all the time.
We do not control everything, we only control how we respond to everything.
The idea that we control how we respond is responsibility, I like that, I LIVE that.
The idea that we are responsible for the event itself, well, I believe on one level that alot of what happens to us happens directly
from cause and effect of our past this is important to understand. But this does not include the will of others imposed on us, or
acting on us from outside. Ships go bump in the night, and we are only in control of our own vessel.
-
Why do you believe in Karma? What evidence do you have that Karma exists and how did you come to this theory?
-
How do you disprove an LOAer? Just like how you disprove a solipsist: punch them in the nose and ask them if they wanted that to happen (or in the case of an LOAer, ask them if they 'attracted' that aspect of action).
-
Why do you believe in Karma? What evidence do you have that Karma exists and how did you come to this theory?
Karma is just a pretty word for cause and effect. Become aware of your causes and you'll see their effects.
-
Magic dolphins actually make more sense then this Secret crap.
-
I sorta believe in the whole "expanding universe" thing about how all matter and energy is on a predestined unchangeable path through space. Of course, that doesn't factor in what might be true uncertainty in the state of things...
-
I just got home from Barnes and Noble and when I walked into the store I saw a woman flipping through "The Secret". I wanted to strike up a conversation about it and warn her of the insanity, but I had a 4 year old that wanted to check out the kids' section with me.
-
FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.
I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.
It doesn't really matter, Mark. Even if they give their AMP dollars to someone doing LESS for liberty and it means the government continues hurting people that much longer it's only because the universe took people that wanted to be victimized by the government and government people that wanted to hurt them and put them in the same room.
I didn't say that. Sam is not the Arbiter of all things spiritual. I do think that some people get what they want from the government. Look at Ian and his gross couch.
I liked what you said about proselytizing. Ian and Sam claim that it makes no difference to them whether people buy into LoA or not. Yet, when they go on a radio show and start making claims about thoughts affecting reality and people getting shot are asking for it then it damn sure seems like they're involving everyone else in their beliefs. It also seems that they speak about it in such a way that they are pushing the idea that if more people actively practiced positive thinking and "harnessed LoA" then the word would be better. That, to me, is proselytizing.
-
I want to understand how LOA is different than prayer and how is the universe any different than god? When you take it to its logical conclusion thats what we end up with. "I've got a god (universe) who answers all my prayers (thoughts)"
In a way, this is much more faith-based and abstract then the average Christian/Muslim/Jew, because the average Christian/Muslim/Jew doesn't actually think that their god is going to grant them whatever they want.
-
FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.
I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.
It doesn't really matter, Mark. Even if they give their AMP dollars to someone doing LESS for liberty and it means the government continues hurting people that much longer it's only because the universe took people that wanted to be victimized by the government and government people that wanted to hurt them and put them in the same room.
I didn't say that. Sam is not the Arbiter of all things spiritual. I do think that some people get what they want from the government. Look at Ian and his gross couch.
I liked what you said about proselytizing. Ian and Sam claim that it makes no difference to them whether people buy into LoA or not. Yet, when they go on a radio show and start making claims about thoughts affecting reality and people getting shot are asking for it then it damn sure seems like they're involving everyone else in their beliefs. It also seems that they speak about it in such a way that they are pushing the idea that if more people actively practiced positive thinking and "harnessed LoA" then the word would be better. That, to me, is proselytizing.
Dan, I would propose that Ian doesn't see himself as proselytizing his belief as much as reacting to attacks here. Proselyting goes both ways and we have some very evangelistic atheists here on the BBS.
Its all well and good until someone gets pissed and takes their AMP money and goes home. Now the cause for liberty has been harmed because some people just can't leave Ian to his own beliefs.
-
Dan, I would propose that Ian doesn't see himself as proselytizing his belief as much as reacting to attacks here. Proselyting goes both ways and we have some very evangelistic atheists here on the BBS.
Oh come on, Mark. Wasn't it you who said two nights ago that it's not the radio show's job to respond to the chat room? Is it your position that it is the show's job to respond to the BBS?
Its all well and good until someone gets pissed and takes their AMP money and goes home. Now the cause for liberty has been harmed because some people just can't leave Ian to his own beliefs.
If AMPing were the only way to financially help the cause for liberty, this might make sense. But if it's not, or if a person thinks that the cause of liberty is actually harmed when radio hosts who claim to support it also go on and on about metaphysical theories of the universe giving them what they want, thus undermining their credibility, then it doesn't make any sense at all.
If a person supports FTL when they think it supports liberty, and refuses to support FTL when they think it doesn't, or doesn't do so effectively, then there's nothing inconsistent about that.
-
I don't think FTL helps spread liberty. I just think it makes the 1% of consistant libertarians the show's message reaches feel even more alone and depressed because it reminds them of how truly fucked up things really are.
-
I don't think FTL helps spread liberty. I just think it makes the 1% of consistant libertarians the show's message reaches feel even more alone and depressed because it reminds them of how truly fucked up things really are.
May well be true. I don't amp because I think FTL supports liberty, although it might. I amp because I like listening to the show, especially without commercials. If it helps to spread liberty at all, that's just a fringe benefit as far as I'm concerned. If I ever decide to stop amping because I don't like the show anymore, I'm sure not going to be made to feel guilty for "harming liberty."
-
I don't think FTL helps spread liberty. I just think it makes the 1% of consistant libertarians the show's message reaches feel even more alone and depressed because it reminds them of how truly fucked up things really are.
Certainly, the show has brought more people into the freedom movement. I cannot count the number of times I've heard callers say, "I started listening to your show, and at first I disagreed strongly with everything you said. But, over time, you convinced me."
I think the hosts do their best job when they stick to reason. When they abandon reason and logic (LoA, anti-vaccination and such) listeners start writing them off as kooks. "Well, if they're crackpots in this area, they probably are nuts when it comes to this libertarian crap."
-
Certainly, the show has brought more people into the freedom movement. I cannot count the number of times I've heard callers say, "I started listening to your show, and at first I disagreed strongly with everything you said. But, over time, you convinced me."
Except for gay marriage and bestiality, of course.
-
Proselyting goes both ways and we have some very evangelistic atheists here on the BBS.
Pointing out the fact that there is no empirical evidence for anyone's superstitious beliefs in The Secret or Jesus or the Torah is not "evangelizing," it is simple logical consistency. Calling it stupid, as I often do, is my personal assessment of the ideas, and my opinion of those who hold them to be true, even while benefiting from science and its application to the reality they spurn. I am a critic of theism, and an atheist. I don't care what you believe so much as I am critical when you profess it and as a fan of the show and liberty in general as well as the FSP in particular, I am concerned about the tremendously negative impact this asinine crap has on your overall credibility. If you can make a logical case for liberty, followed by a bunch of "spiritual" hooey, it makes it easy for rational people to dismiss you as whack-jobs, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
-
Saying "my thoughts magically change the universe" does not build credibility.
-
Fuck LoA.
-
Proselyting goes both ways and we have some very evangelistic atheists here on the BBS.
Pointing out the fact that there is no empirical evidence for anyone's superstitious beliefs in The Secret or Jesus or the Torah is not "evangelizing," it is simple logical consistency. Calling it stupid, as I often do, is my personal assessment of the ideas, and my opinion of those who hold them to be true, even while benefiting from science and its application to the reality they spurn. I am a critic of theism, and an atheist. I don't care what you believe so much as I am critical when you profess it and as a fan of the show and liberty in general as well as the FSP in particular, I am concerned about the tremendously negative impact this asinine crap has on your overall credibility. If you can make a logical case for liberty, followed by a bunch of "spiritual" hooey, it makes it easy for rational people to dismiss you as whack-jobs, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I disagree that sharing your opinion on things theistic is not evangelizing, but you are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you want to change mine however combative threads sure are not the way to go about it.
I think that the FSP will be just fine one way or the other.
-
Its hard for people that succeed to imagine that LUCK or CHANCE played a pivotal role in their success. Hubris leads man to rationalize their success based on god's favor or universal approval.
I think what so many of us find hard to grasp is how someone like Ian 'gets' it when it comes to most intellectual hurdles, yet falls flat on his face right out the gate in his race to 'GOD'.
-
I keep willing this topic away but you guys are messing it up.
-
Proselyting goes both ways and we have some very evangelistic atheists here on the BBS.
Pointing out the fact that there is no empirical evidence for anyone's superstitious beliefs in The Secret or Jesus or the Torah is not "evangelizing," it is simple logical consistency. Calling it stupid, as I often do, is my personal assessment of the ideas, and my opinion of those who hold them to be true, even while benefiting from science and its application to the reality they spurn. I am a critic of theism, and an atheist. I don't care what you believe so much as I am critical when you profess it and as a fan of the show and liberty in general as well as the FSP in particular, I am concerned about the tremendously negative impact this asinine crap has on your overall credibility. If you can make a logical case for liberty, followed by a bunch of "spiritual" hooey, it makes it easy for rational people to dismiss you as whack-jobs, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I disagree that sharing your opinion on things theistic is not evangelizing, but you are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you want to change mine however combative threads sure are not the way to go about it.
I think that the FSP will be just fine one way or the other.
So, uh, you, Ian and Sam are now radio evangelists for "The Secret?" That's what you're saying. Is that what you think is the best direction for the show to take, both for gaining market share and spreading the message of liberty? Really?
-
IAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our objections to your belief systems are not meant to be harmful. It may hurt you deeply that so many people who have been behind your ability to reason now believe you to be a fool. But rest assure, it's not because you have 'willed' it upon yourself. You were not attracting this thought......."i want to lose credibility with my listeners over a fairy tale theology', and thus it manifested. NO, rather your exit off the highway of enlightened truth is a brain experiment gone brain FART. Cause and effect.
Cause: You hold irrational illogical beliefs about the universe.
Effect: You lost credibility with your listeners concerning your ability to reason.
The posters here may be harsh but it's b/c they want to guide you back to a reasonable position. You do not hold one currently. To say it works for me and that's all that matters is like if you believed in Santa Claus b/c your parents did a good job tricking you. Still doesn't make it true.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oR27PoeOnXc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oR27PoeOnXc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b1e6_wY3F1s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b1e6_wY3F1s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
FTL lost at least 6 listeners last night.
I hope that they go an and find entertainment that is doing as much for liberty. Perhaps they can give their AMP dollars to the Campaign for Liberty and listen to Neal Boortz.
It doesn't really matter, Mark. Even if they give their AMP dollars to someone doing LESS for liberty and it means the government continues hurting people that much longer it's only because the universe took people that wanted to be victimized by the government and government people that wanted to hurt them and put them in the same room.
I didn't say that. Sam is not the Arbiter of all things spiritual. I do think that some people get what they want from the government. Look at Ian and his gross couch.
I liked what you said about proselytizing. Ian and Sam claim that it makes no difference to them whether people buy into LoA or not. Yet, when they go on a radio show and start making claims about thoughts affecting reality and people getting shot are asking for it then it damn sure seems like they're involving everyone else in their beliefs. It also seems that they speak about it in such a way that they are pushing the idea that if more people actively practiced positive thinking and "harnessed LoA" then the word would be better. That, to me, is proselytizing.
Dan, I would propose that Ian doesn't see himself as proselytizing his belief as much as reacting to attacks here. Proselyting goes both ways and we have some very evangelistic atheists here on the BBS.
Its all well and good until someone gets pissed and takes their AMP money and goes home. Now the cause for liberty has been harmed because some people just can't leave Ian to his own beliefs.
I started listening to The Market for Liberty today. I was surprised at how much of it is based on Objectivist ethics, which is based on the Objectivist approach to metaphysics. I'm blown away that while Ian really touts this book and claims that it is such an excellent explanation of free-market values, he has abandoned the logical system upon which that description of those values is based.
I have my own share of criticisms about Ayn Rand, but picking up a copy of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff would go a long way in squelching this debate.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
Dan, I'll say this. You can't refute her metaphysics as it's even the very basis of Scientific Naturalism (which is also the basis of modern scientific thought). You can't really refute her epistemology, because it's been replicated in the fields of psychology and computer science in their own variations. And you can't really refute her ethics as it seems that even Mises own magnum opus, Human Action, mirrors similar premises and conclusions about ethics leading to economics (and etc).
So, whatever particular issues or criticisms you have, I hope you're don't try with the big issues of her basics. You can disagree with her aesthetics, or more or less her interpretation of them, or even disagree with her weak ass conclusion that minarchism is consistent with her own ethics (which it is not). That wouldn't make you not an Objectivist in my view point. I'm an Objectivist and I disagree with her on those issues.
-
Ok, tell me how this strikes you:
Do you believe in evolution? (If no, stop here)
If so, do you believe that humans evolved?
Does the Law of Attraction apply to animals? Meaning, do animals' thoughts affect "reality" in the same way that we do?
If not, then how would humans have evolved this ability to affect everything throughout the universe? At what point in our evolution did our thoughts begin to affect everything? Do you believe that this is scientifically sound?
-
I think LOA is bullshit as it violates one of the most basic concepts of metaphysics: the primacy of existence. Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it. LOA requires one to reject the primacy of existence for the tenet of the primacy of consciousness (of mind), which is far more problematic and could lead to logical conclusions that justify everything from genocide to collectivism (if you've noticed the line of reeasoning that was used by the Ingsoc party in 1984).
-
Dan, I'll say this. You can't refute her metaphysics as it's even the very basis of Scientific Naturalism (which is also the basis of modern scientific thought). You can't really refute her epistemology, because it's been replicated in the fields of psychology and computer science in their own variations. And you can't really refute her ethics as it seems that even Mises own magnum opus, Human Action, mirrors similar premises and conclusions about ethics leading to economics (and etc).
So, whatever particular issues or criticisms you have, I hope you're don't try with the big issues of her basics. You can disagree with her aesthetics, or more or less her interpretation of them, or even disagree with her weak ass conclusion that minarchism is consistent with her own ethics (which it is not). That wouldn't make you not an Objectivist in my view point. I'm an Objectivist and I disagree with her on those issues.
Yeah, those are the kinds of things. Mostly it's based on judgments that she made and statements of personal preferences that she stated as though they were rational absolutes. I also greatly question her judgment of character in choosing Leonard Peikoff as an heir. I dislike how the ARI has distorted certain aspects of the philosophy to essentially become warmongers. In 2004 they endorsed John Kerry! Say what you will about how libertarians stating "liberty" as a goal lacks philosophical basis (therefore anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-man, and anti-life) but choosing John Kerry is just stupid.
-
I think LOA is bullshit as it violates one of the most basic concepts of metaphysics: the primacy of existence. Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it. LOA requires one to reject the primacy of existence for the tenet of the primacy of consciousness (of mind), which is far more problematic and could lead to logical conclusions that justify everything from genocide to collectivism (if you've noticed the line of reeasoning that was used by the Ingsoc party in 1984).
Yeah, Sam kept saying (paraphrasing) "What's more empowering? Being in control of everything or not? I believe in LoA because of how empowering it is" Well La Ti Frickin Da, Sam. Things don't just exist because their existence would be "better" than their non-existence. This is essentially the ontological argument for the existence of god applied to LoA.
Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence
1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
3. Therefore, God exists in reality
Sam's Ontological Argument for the Existence of Law of Attraction
1. Law of Attraction is something than which nothing more empowering can be thought
2. It is more empowering for LoA to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding
3. Therefore, LoA is real
-
Ok, tell me how this strikes you:
Do you believe in evolution? (If no, stop here)
If so, do you believe that humans evolved?
Does the Law of Attraction apply to animals? Meaning, do animals' thoughts affect "reality" in the same way that we do?
If not, then how would humans have evolved this ability to affect everything throughout the universe? At what point in our evolution did our thoughts begin to affect everything? Do you believe that this is scientifically sound?
Awesome!
-
Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it.
Real, but not part of reality? How do you parse that?
-
Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it.
Real, but not part of reality? How do you parse that?
I think Brede is refering to a solipsistic view of reality, that your mind is the only reality, that perception is the only thing that exists, in comparison to the Objectivist notion that the mind is independent of reality, that just because you haven't perceived something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that when you stop perceiving reality, it doesn't disappear, but your objectively existent brain that was previously generating subjective experiences just stops functioning, and everything else goes on.
It pretty much comes down to the fact that in order for there to be a mind, there needs to be a brain to generate it.
Consciousness cannot exist independent of an organ to generate it, and a physical object cannot exist independently of a physical universe with physical laws.
In order for LOA to be true, there either needs to be some fantastically complex and unknown physical mechanism for brains to be having massive effects external of the brain without use of the body (that for some reason isn't scientifically testable), OR you have to buy into metaphysical philosophy where our perception and thoughts can change reality on the basis of some inherent connection between reality and perception of reality.
Although the way Brede has worded it doesn't really make that clear (if this is what was meant), so apologies if I'm confusing the issue.
-
Our minds may be real things, but they're not part of reality or independent of it.
Real, but not part of reality? How do you parse that?
What I mean by it's not part of it is that it's not the basis of nature like the four forces of Nature. We could say the four forces are part of reality/Nature, but everything else is derived from them isn't part of Nature or at least not 1-to-1 with Nature. I make this distinction over the concern of solipsism being justified by my words. I've heard too many times in arguments with solipsists that because matter/energy is "part of Nature" therefore our thoughts and minds are "part of Nature." Basically, I don't make that logically possible by recognizing there's no fundamental force of mind like there's a fundamental force of gravity.
-
If you don't have the patience for the whole thing.....skip to the last 2 minutes. Funny stuff.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/usbNJMUZSwo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/usbNJMUZSwo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
I think I've had my share of Sam's rambling from the 06.02 show.
As an answer to the person who brought forward the hypothetical situation of a guy being shot by a lunatic, Sam actually said that the universe only says "Yes!", and therefore will take one person who wants to get shot, and one person who wants to shoot someone together.
The logical conclusion based on Sam's statement is that EVERYTHING that happens to a person happens because the person wants it, conciously or subconciously.
Logically, the citizens of Gaza WANTED to be bombed by Israel, conciously or subconciously.
The citizens of Gaza that died from the bombing WANTED to die from the bombing.
The slaves in the US who died in slavedom WANTED to be slaves for the rest of their lives.
This is the most ridiculous bullcrap I HAVE EVER HEARD!
According to Sam, we also have complete responsibility for everything bad that happens, and he actually said "What did you do to prevent it?" when Ian brought up a real or hypothetic (I don't remember) case where someone was obviously not responsible for someone's terrible ordeal.
Logically we can then conclude that Sam was responsible for the bombing of Gaza?
-
If you don't have the patience for the whole thing.....skip to the last 2 minutes. Funny stuff.
No, they must watch the whole thing. It's very awesome. :)
-
Parcgreene,
I'm not here to please the atheists by being completely in line with their belief system. I understand it must be frustrating that we agree on so much except when it comes to this metaphysical stuff. I once felt as you do, and don't want to feel that way anymore.
I like believing that I'm part of all-that-is, (or if you like, god) - it's far more empowering than my old atheistic belief system.
I like believing in LoA - I've seen evidence that it's real. Can I scientifically prove it? Nope. Do I care to spend my time proving what I know to be true? Nope.
Finally, in regards to credibility, do you really believe that the message of liberty cannot stand on its own as credible separate from the communicator's religious beliefs?
-
Additionally, no one has dropped their AMP over this controversy. 8)
-
I don't mean to bust balls, and it’s nothing personal. I hold your opinions very highly. I have you on 'high on the pedestal' so to speak. I admit I was very disappointed to hear you fell for the LoA thing, but if it makes you happy, that's cool. I guess the message of liberty can stand on its own separate your religious beliefs; I just want my hero back. That’s all. I'm going to keep willing for you to come around to reason.
-
Finally, in regards to credibility, do you really believe that the message of liberty cannot stand on its own as credible separate from the communicator's religious beliefs?
Not if the foundation for your valuation of personal liberty is set upon the Law of Attraction. If you take a false premise and make a correct conclusion, the argument that comes to the correct conclusion is still wrong.
-
Additionally, no one has dropped their AMP over this controversy. 8)
I certainly would not. Religion is not a deal-breaker for me. After all, I'm married to a Catholic!
-
Ian, you should imagine how you would feel if after a few weeks in the volunteer fire department, Mark came back and said, "to hell with the FSP and liberty, I am running for the state legislature as a staunch conservative Republican, we'll get those shiny new fire engines, and some new police cars to boot, we'll just borrow the money, sell some bonds and then we can put some law and order down on these loony liberty activists!" He'd sound pretty empowered. In fact, I'm sure that having the resources of the state behind you is very empowering, but it ain't right. Well, that's how a bunch of us view this sudden embrace of silly hocus pocus.
You've thrown away rigorous rational analysis and a coherent world view that formed the basis of your excellent conclusions for some touchy feely garbage that gives you an Oprah style feeling of empowerment, and you've lost a lot of credibility in the process. If you can just change your mind based on nothing more than a feeling of something as amorphous as "empowerment," than what's to stop you just up and deciding to go all statist? I mean, if it's all just about what feels good and what's empowering, maybe when you get sick of getting the shaft from the state, you'll just throw up your hands and say, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!"
It probably feels pretty good to those cops who strut around in their uniforms, getting chicks and all the unearned respect that comes with the badge. I'm sure they have a tremendous sense of power, I mean, we've all seen that in terrifying action, haven't we? I mean, if that's your guide, feeling all empowered and shit, then why not? If they feel better believing in the legitimacy of the state and enjoying the power it gives them than they would have otherwise, by your standard, they should absolutely do that. They'll wind up in a room with someone who wants to be violently interrogated anyway, since that's the way the universe works, right?
-
I like believing that I'm part of all-that-is, (or if you like, god) - it's far more empowering than my old atheistic belief system.
Nothing has made me feel more part of all-that-is than knowing that I'm made according to the same recipe as every other living organism on the planet, part of an ever-expanding tree of life, equipped with a brain built by evolution to think and feel and interact with the rest of the natural world in a self-conscious and reflective way, even to the point of contemplating my own existence and the significance of its beginning and end, and my power to affect and be affected by everything else that exists up to and including objects light years away.
Yeah, that whole "atheistic belief system" thing is such a downer. :roll:
-
I'd say that's a far more positive view than many atheists have, Rillion. Well said.
-
You've thrown away rigorous rational analysis and a coherent world view that formed the basis of your excellent conclusions for some touchy feely garbage that gives you an Oprah style feeling of empowerment, and you've lost a lot of credibility in the process. If you can just change your mind based on nothing more than a feeling of something as amorphous as "empowerment," than what's to stop you just up and deciding to go all statist?
Hrm, maybe the fact that I believe hurting others is wrong? Perhaps because I believe in allowing others to be free so I can be as well?
I mean, if it's all just about what feels good and what's empowering, maybe when you get sick of getting the shaft from the state, you'll just throw up your hands and say, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!"
If you really believe I could do such a thing, you've just lost your credibility! :lol:
-
I'd say that's a far more positive view than many atheists have, Rillion. Well said.
In my experience, it is a pretty common one, especially among scientists or the scientifically literate. Learning about the reality of the universe from galaxies down to quarks has a way of instilling awe and gratitude for all existence, and especially your own. That awe still doesn't make me wanna go all religious.
-
You've thrown away rigorous rational analysis and a coherent world view that formed the basis of your excellent conclusions for some touchy feely garbage that gives you an Oprah style feeling of empowerment, and you've lost a lot of credibility in the process. If you can just change your mind based on nothing more than a feeling of something as amorphous as "empowerment," than what's to stop you just up and deciding to go all statist?
Hrm, maybe the fact that I believe hurting others is wrong? Perhaps because I believe in allowing others to be free so I can be as well?
I mean, if it's all just about what feels good and what's empowering, maybe when you get sick of getting the shaft from the state, you'll just throw up your hands and say, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!"
If you really believe I could do such a thing, you've just lost your credibility! :lol:
But why, Ian? You've already demonstrated an ability to eschew your principles in favor of what feels good and empowering, without any good reason or logical argument to justify it! All you say is "I do what I want, 'cause it feels good! You don't know me! I ain't here for you..."
-
Finally, in regards to credibility, do you really believe that the message of liberty cannot stand on its own as credible separate from the communicator's religious beliefs?
Not if the foundation for your valuation of personal liberty is set upon the Law of Attraction. If you take a false premise and make a correct conclusion, the argument that comes to the correct conclusion is still wrong.
Why would that be the foundation? The foundation for my belief in liberty is my life experience and the morality I've developed based on it. LoA is just an observation of how the universe works. One is not founded from another.
-
But why, Ian? You've already demonstrated an ability to eschew your principles in favor of what feels good and empowering!
To what principles are you referring?
-
I don't mean to bust balls, and it’s nothing personal. I hold your opinions very highly. I have you on 'high on the pedestal' so to speak. I admit I was very disappointed to hear you fell for the LoA thing, but if it makes you happy, that's cool. I guess the message of liberty can stand on its own separate your religious beliefs; I just want my hero back. That’s all. I'm going to keep willing for you to come around to reason.
When you say "come around to reason", you mean to say you want me to be more like you, so you can feel better. Take me off your pedestal and go be your own hero. :P
-
A rational world view, empiricism, the material basis for the universe, rejecting stories about supernatural sky fairies that grants wishes, etc. And by subscribing to this Secret crap, you actually have embraced an amoral, anti-rights philosophy, since the universe is delivering to people exactly what they want, so even when most libertarians would recognize a rights violation, Sam says they are getting what they want and/or deserve, since they either wanted it to happen, or did nothing to prevent it. That ain't any kind of libertarianism with which I am familiar.
It is a kind of materialistic hedonistic nihilism.
-
A rational world view, empiricism, the material basis for the universe, rejecting stories about supernatural sky fairies that grants wishes, etc. And by subscribing to this Secret crap, you actually have embraced an amoral, anti-rights philosophy, since the universe is delivering to people exactly what they want, so even when most libertarians would recognize a rights violation, Sam says they are getting what they want and/or deserve, since they either wanted it to happen, or did nothing to prevent it. That ain't any kind of libertarianism with which I am familiar.
It is a kind of materialistic hedonistic nihilism.
Nope, it's original sin in a different but just as stupid wrapping.
-
I don't mean to bust balls, and it’s nothing personal. I hold your opinions very highly. I have you on 'high on the pedestal' so to speak. I admit I was very disappointed to hear you fell for the LoA thing, but if it makes you happy, that's cool. I guess the message of liberty can stand on its own separate your religious beliefs; I just want my hero back. That’s all. I'm going to keep willing for you to come around to reason.
When you say "come around to reason", you mean to say you want me to be more like you, so you can feel better. Take me off your pedestal and go be your own hero. :P
I was about to say to myself "What balls! Pedestal? Hero? Feh!"...and then I read the comment you were replying to. :)
Yeah, parcgreene.....not a good idea to idolize anyone, including talk show hosts. All of your heroes will turn out to have feet of clay eventually.
-
My old view was, "there is no god". My new one is, "we are god". My prior lack of belief in a god wasn't a principle, just my view on life based upon my experiences up to that point. My principle of nonagression has not been threatened at all by this new viewpoint.
-
My old view was, "there is no god". My new one is, "we are god". My prior lack of belief in a god wasn't a principle, just my view on life based upon my experiences up to that point. My principle of nonagression has not been threatened at all by this new viewpoint.
Please do one thing for me: define "god."
-
Well, say whatever you want about it's origin, it is a rejection of libertarianism, because there are no rights, there can be no moral judgments or evaluation of motives beyond base desires. The universe gives you what you want whether you realize it or not, and the entire universe is just the manifestation of the sum total of everyone's desires. Everything that happens is what has to happen because of what people's minds are doing, whether they were active or passive in bringing it about. All you can do is visualize this or that in hopes of manifesting it. Material desires, especially. And even if you are imagining something terrible, like rape or murder, or political power, that's not evil, because the universe will deliver unto you a willing victim! If that ain't sick...
Acquisitiveness mixed with new-age hocus pocus and some stale, millennia old religious mysticism, a dash of modern ego stroking and viola! The Secret!
-
Well, say whatever you want about it's origin, it is a rejection of libertarianism, because there are no rights, there can be no moral judgments or evaluation of motives beyond base desires. The universe gives you what you want whether you realize it or not, and the entire universe is just the manifestation of the sum total of everyone's desires. Everything that happens is what has to happen because of what people's minds are doing, whether they were active or passive in bringing it about. All you can do is visualize this or that in hopes of manifesting it. Material desires, especially. And even if you are imagining something terrible, like rape or murder, or political power, that's not evil, because the universe will deliver unto you a willing victim! If that ain't sick...
Acquisitiveness mixed with new-age hocus pocus and some stale, millennia old religious mysticism, a dash of modern ego stroking and viola! The Secret!
Careful, you may raise the ghosts of Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein to haunt Ian. :lol:
-
A rational world view, empiricism, the material basis for the universe, rejecting stories about supernatural sky fairies that grants wishes, etc. And by subscribing to this Secret crap, you actually have embraced an amoral, anti-rights philosophy, since the universe is delivering to people exactly what they want, so even when most libertarians would recognize a rights violation, Sam says they are getting what they want and/or deserve, since they either wanted it to happen, or did nothing to prevent it. That ain't any kind of libertarianism with which I am familiar.
It is a kind of materialistic hedonistic nihilism.
You haven't grasped the concept, and it's probably because we didn't do a good enough job explaining it or you weren't doing a good job listening. Anyway, I'm not going to rehash it much detail here except to say: most people live life creating by default and the universe serves them up opportunities to achieve everything they believe they can have. For many people, that's not much. Those who live with the intention of creating the experience they want, will get that, as the universe serves them up the opportunities to achieve everything they believe they can have.
You yell in defiant response to these ideas, "It's not rational or credible! You can't have everything you want!" and the universe answers, "so shall it be".
If losing credibility with some atheists is the cost of my belief system, it's a small price to pay. :lol:
-
My old view was, "there is no god". My new one is, "we are god". My prior lack of belief in a god wasn't a principle, just my view on life based upon my experiences up to that point. My principle of nonagression has not been threatened at all by this new viewpoint.
Please do one thing for me: define "god."
All that is, has been, and shall ever be.
-
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... All gods! The universe served up some serious opportunities to these guys, who knew there were so many people who wanted to die in a bloody terror?
-
Okay guess I should clarify. I was attempting to soften my criticisms of Ian a little b/c I basically called him a fool in earlier posts (should I have?). I do not idolize him as I do not idolize anyone...a close exception is my best friend who is also my wife. My point I was trying to get across is simply that there are thousands of "us" that listen that now pity Ian regardless of whether or not he "wills" us not to b/c he is in a more "empowered" place. I was attempting to show my caring side for the ideals I hold heroic, mainly logic and reason. His beliefs are being 'attacked' and he is striking back defensively which is to be understood. I think eventually something will either happen or click that will adjust his viewpoint to one that is logical. That is if hubris doesn't overrule reason. Clearly from his posts, that time is many moons from now.
-
Well, say whatever you want about it's origin, it is a rejection of libertarianism, because there are no rights, there can be no moral judgments or evaluation of motives beyond base desires. The universe gives you what you want whether you realize it or not, and the entire universe is just the manifestation of the sum total of everyone's desires. Everything that happens is what has to happen because of what people's minds are doing, whether they were active or passive in bringing it about. All you can do is visualize this or that in hopes of manifesting it. Material desires, especially. And even if you are imagining something terrible, like rape or murder, or political power, that's not evil, because the universe will deliver unto you a willing victim! If that ain't sick...
Acquisitiveness mixed with new-age hocus pocus and some stale, millennia old religious mysticism, a dash of modern ego stroking and viola! The Secret!
The universe doesn't care about what you do. To it, there is no right and wrong.
That is not to suggest that there should be no right and wrong to you. In fact, you are here to define yourself based on your experience. Experiencing evil allows you to choose good. Were it not for wrong, how would you know what was right?
So, please stop claiming that a pantheistic view is in any way a rejection of right and wrong.
-
So, please stop claiming that a pantheistic view is in any way a rejection of right and wrong.
But you just did! You have embraced moral relativism! To you, there is no right or wrong outside your own subjective internal experience, so what is right for Ian is not right for the cops, so you have no basis to criticize when they throw Barskey in jail! They view his open container and firearm as wrong, so they choose to do right by arresting him before he hurts anyone. Besides, he apparently got what he wanted anyway, an opportunity to get pinched and wind up in the slammer.
-
My old view was, "there is no god". My new one is, "we are god". My prior lack of belief in a god wasn't a principle, just my view on life based upon my experiences up to that point. My principle of nonagression has not been threatened at all by this new viewpoint.
Please do one thing for me: define "god."
All that is, has been, and shall ever be.
So we are all that is, has been, and ever shall be?
You yell in defiant response to these ideas, "It's not rational or credible! You can't have everything you want!" and the universe answers, "so shall it be".
The universe doesn't care about what you do.
These two statements are inconsistent. Either the universe doesn't care what you do, or it grants your wishes. Which is it?
-
So, please stop claiming that a pantheistic view is in any way a rejection of right and wrong.
But you just did! You have embraced moral relativism! To you, there is no right or wrong outside your own subjective internal experience, so what is right for Ian is not right for the cops, so you have no basis to criticize when they throw Barskey in jail! They view his open container and firearm as wrong, so they choose to do right by arresting him before he hurts anyone. Besides, he apparently got what he wanted anyway, an opportunity to get pinched and wind up in the slammer.
Huh? Aren't your morals based on your logic and experience of what is right and wrong, or did you just accept what someone else told you is moral?
-
Please do one thing for me: define "god."
All that is, has been, and shall ever be.
So we are all that is, has been, and ever shall be?
No, only a small portion of that.
You yell in defiant response to these ideas, "It's not rational or credible! You can't have everything you want!" and the universe answers, "so shall it be".
The universe doesn't care about what you do.
These two statements are inconsistent. Either the universe doesn't care what you do, or it grants your wishes. Which is it?
Not at all. I'm saying the universe doesn't judge you for your choices (as would some vengeful monotheistic god) and that it sets up the opportunities you need to create your intentions.
-
Ian do you have any suggested readings on the beliefs of pantheism? Does LoA fit into the clearly defined pantheistic view?
-
So we are all that is, has been, and ever shall be?
No, only a small portion of that.
But you said that we're god, and that's the definition you gave for god. So you mean that we're part of all that is, has been, and ever shall be, and all of that is god?
Second question-- everybody can agree that existence.....exists. But what is the point of calling it "god"? What's wrong with "existence"?
I'm saying the universe doesn't judge you for your choices (as would some vengeful monotheistic god) and that it sets up the opportunities you need to create your intentions.
Everybody can agree that in the universe we can find opportunities. What is the benefit of saying that the universe "sets up" opportunities? In other words, what is the benefit of anthropomorphizing the universe?
-
So, please stop claiming that a pantheistic view is in any way a rejection of right and wrong.
But you just did! You have embraced moral relativism! To you, there is no right or wrong outside your own subjective internal experience, so what is right for Ian is not right for the cops, so you have no basis to criticize when they throw Barskey in jail! They view his open container and firearm as wrong, so they choose to do right by arresting him before he hurts anyone. Besides, he apparently got what he wanted anyway, an opportunity to get pinched and wind up in the slammer.
Huh? Aren't your morals based on your logic and experience of what is right and wrong, or did you just accept what someone else told you is moral?
That's a total non-sequitur, Ian. Kind of tricky, but OK. My morals were indeed arrived at with logic, which I had to learn. I didn't just feel empowerment or whatever and go with it, I had to reason from first principles. I had to learn those, too. I didn't just take them whole and unexamined from someone else, though (as you seem to have in the form of LoA from Sam). I read and questioned and discovered through observation and experience what happened in the world when people acted in certain ways or when they refrained from acting certain ways. By checking my conclusions and those of others against my experience and knowledge of history, I came to realize that some of these things were actually objective, and existed externally to me. They were not subjective, in the sense that you believe what is true for you may not be true for others. I rejected solipsism, because I could empirically verify the existence of things and consciousness outside of my own. Resisting reality and choosing fantasy over it always, invariably, like a law of nature, leads to ruin and disaster, if not for yourself, then for someone who comes up against the limiting facts of reality. Utopian fantasies, like "the universe delivers me opportunities to get what I want if I focus on them," are as dangerous as "the dictatorship of the proletariat will deliver prosperity and total freedom to all." The only way to deal with the world is as it really is, not as you want it to be, regardless of how disempowering that might feel sometimes.
-
But you said that we're god, and that's the definition you gave for god. So you mean that we're part of all that is, has been, and ever shall be, and all of that is god?
Second question-- everybody can agree that existence.....exists. But what is the point of calling it "god"? What's wrong with "existence"?
If you want to call it god or existence, you may. They are just one way of describing all-that-is.
Everybody can agree that in the universe we can find opportunities. What is the benefit of saying that the universe "sets up" opportunities? In other words, what is the benefit of anthropomorphizing the universe?
Does defining how gravity works anthropomorphize the universe too?
-
Ian maybe you should adjust the caption under your name to read:
Part time Iconoclast
Professional Iconolater
-
Alright, everyone stop picking on Ian.
He doesn't get it.
Fine.
*Backing away slowly from La La Land*
-
But you said that we're god, and that's the definition you gave for god. So you mean that we're part of all that is, has been, and ever shall be, and all of that is god?
Second question-- everybody can agree that existence.....exists. But what is the point of calling it "god"? What's wrong with "existence"?
If you want to call it god or existence, you may. They are just one way of describing all-that-is.
That doesn't answer my question. The terms "god" and "existence" obviously don't mean the same thing for most people. Gods, typically speaking, are things that are worshiped. They have thoughts, feelings, goals, and power, and they exert that power in accordance with those. Existence, on the other hand, is simply the sum total of everything. So again-- why call existence "god"?
Everybody can agree that in the universe we can find opportunities. What is the benefit of saying that the universe "sets up" opportunities? In other words, what is the benefit of anthropomorphizing the universe?
Does defining how gravity works anthropomorphize the universe too?
No, because it doesn't attribute intention to the universe. Saying that the universe "sets things up" does. Saying that the universe "wants" things does. If you mean to use these terms metaphorically, it sure doesn't come off that way.
-
That's a total non-sequitur, Ian. Kind of tricky, but OK. My morals were indeed arrived at with logic, which I had to learn. I didn't just feel empowerment or whatever and go with it, I had to reason from first principles. I had to learn those, too. I didn't just take them whole and unexamined from someone else, though (as you seem to have in the form of LoA from Sam). I read and questioned and discovered through observation and experience what happened in the world when people acted in certain ways or when they refrained from acting certain ways. By checking my conclusions and those of others against my experience and knowledge of history, I came to realize that some of these things were actually objective, and existed externally to me. They were not subjective, in the sense that you believe what is true for you may not be true for others. I rejected solipsism, because I could empirically verify the existence of things and consciousness outside of my own. Resisting reality and choosing fantasy over it always, invariably, like a law of nature, leads to ruin and disaster, if not for yourself, then for someone who comes up against the limiting facts of reality. Utopian fantasies, like "the universe delivers me opportunities to get what I want if I focus on them," are as dangerous as "the dictatorship of the proletariat will deliver prosperity and total freedom to all." The only way to deal with the world is as it really is, not as you want it to be, regardless of how disempowering that might feel sometimes.
The fantasy of a voluntary society is "dangerous"? Not sure how you drew that conclusion.
I will continue to be the change I wish to see in the world, and I will continue to see it, because thoughts can become reality. I've seen it happen.
-
There is a big difference between saying "the ball is attracted to the earth when I release it, by the action of gravitational forces that are constant throughout the universe, " and "the ball wants to hit the ground, so the universe responds to it's desire by creating the opportunity for it to fall as it does."
-
That doesn't answer my question. The terms "god" and "existence" obviously don't mean the same thing for most people. Gods, typically speaking, are things that are worshiped. They have thoughts, feelings, goals, and power, and they exert that power in accordance with those. Existence, on the other hand, is simply the sum total of everything. So again-- why call existence "god"?
The universe as god doesn't need worship, so I agree that colloquially, god isn't the best term. It's god in the sense that it is that from which all springs forth.
No, because it doesn't attribute intention to the universe. Saying that the universe "sets things up" does. Saying that the universe "wants" things does. If you mean to use these terms metaphorically, it sure doesn't come off that way.
Yeah, I see your confusion. It is your intention that the universe is responding to. You are the universe experiencing itself.
-
There is a big difference between saying "the ball is attracted to the earth when I release it, by the action of gravitational forces that are constant throughout the universe, " and "the ball wants to hit the ground, so the universe responds to it's desire by creating the opportunity for it to fall as it does."
Except that I wasn't claiming one was related to the other. Only that LoA is not suggesting the universe is anthropomorphic.
-
It is your intention that the universe is responding to.
And how does it do that?
You are the universe experiencing itself.
I am part of the universe, experiencing other parts of the universe. Not quite the same thing. To say that I am the universe experiencing itself implies either that there is only one consciousness and it is me, or that there are many consciousnesses and I have some kind of multiple personality disorder.
Only that LoA is not suggesting the universe is anthropomorphic.
It is if it says that the universe grants wishes.
-
The fantasy of a voluntary society is "dangerous"? Not sure how you drew that conclusion.
I will continue to be the change I wish to see in the world, and I will continue to see it, because thoughts can become reality. I've seen it happen.
Wow, that's every bit as (seemingly) dishonest a reply to what I wrote as I have ever gotten from Gene, the Christian Anarchist, but I'll chalk it up to misunderstanding.
No, Ian. I don't believe the possibility for and desire to create a voluntary society is "dangerous." I want that kind of society myself. But imagining that anything other than interacting with the world and other people as they actually, really are, will fail to achieve it. Pretending that the universe, whatever that means to you, will deliver that society to you as a result of your willing it to be, by focusing your desire for it in you mind, will lead to perverse incentives, a misallocation of resources and effort, and ultimately, disappointment. Positive thinking is fine, but it will not actually change the universe or bring you opportunities for action. Wishing for bikes doesn't bring them to you door.
Reality is what it is, and sometimes it does not deliver you the opportunity you want, when you want or even need it. No amount of positive thinking or visualization will change that fact. I could not have LoAed my congenital heart defects away, they required multiple surgeries and a lot of painful recovery. I still have to take my blood pressure meds daily, and if I traded them in for The Secret's style of positive thinking, I'd likely die young or need another surgery very soon. If I spent my money on lottery tickets and my time visualizing a jackpot win, that would be personally disastrous, and apparently, it has been done in the name of LoA. Intention and desire alone do not affect the universe, only action does. That's reality. It doesn't work the way you keep saying it does. Believing that it does may lead to a personal disaster for you, which I think would be sad. That's what I meant.
-
Okay Dylboz - thanks for your thoughts. Never said you'd get a free bike or that it'd help you win the lotto. Again, more evidence you don't get it.
-
It is your intention that the universe is responding to.
And how does it do that?
Fuck if I know or care.
I am part of the universe, experiencing other parts of the universe. Not quite the same thing. To say that I am the universe experiencing itself implies either that there is only one consciousness and it is me, or that there are many consciousnesses and I have some kind of multiple personality disorder.
True, it'd be more accurate to say you and everyone else are the universe experiencing itself.
Only that LoA is not suggesting the universe is anthropomorphic.
It is if it says that the universe grants wishes.
That's not what it says.
-
I really like the LOA stuff although its nothing new to me as I have practiced positive thinking and affirmation since high schoo. days
I dislike the whole "LOA cult" thing that I see happening and it appears to be used mostly from the folks who dilsike LOA or anything that is associated with it.
LOA is nothing more than positive thinking...ad IMO no need to get so religous about it. .nor should it be attacked as if it were whodoo-voodoo.
-
Okay Dylboz - thanks for your thoughts. Never said you'd get a free bike or that it'd help you win the lotto. Again, more evidence you don't get it.
Well, you didn't, but the Secret does. I've seen it. At least the bike part. But I don't think there's anything to "get." It's a lot of mumbo jumbo mantras and repeated slogans.
-
Yeah, I see your confusion. It is your intention that the universe is responding to. You are the universe experiencing itself.
[/quote]
I am the universe experiencing itself......
God DAMN I hate reductionism!
Ian, clarify for me:
1. Does reality exist in an objective form?
2. As Rill asked before, when did humans evolve the power to control the universe?
I would LOVE for all this to be a misunderstanding....
-
Am I experiencing the universe wrong?
-
It is your intention that the universe is responding to.
And how does it do that?
Fuck if I know or care.
Well, I guess that explains why nobody here finds this kind of thinking at all convincing. We do care, because otherwise there's no reason to believe it.
Scientist, to a Native American doing a rain dance: "Why do you do this?"
Native American: "Because it brings the rain."
Scientist: "And how does it do that?"
Native American: "Fuck if I know or care."
Scientist: "Why don't you care?"
Native American: "I just know it works for me. I'm not a scientist. I just think it's empowering."
All that you, Sam and Mark were doing on that show was one big long rain dance.
-
It is your intention that the universe is responding to.
And how does it do that?
Fuck if I know or care.
Well, I guess that explains why nobody here finds this kind of thinking at all convincing. We do care, because otherwise there's no reason to believe it.
Scientist, to a Native American doing a rain dance: "Why do you do this?"
Native American: "Because it brings the rain."
Scientist: "And how does it do that?"
Native American: "Fuck if I know or care."
Scientist: "Why don't you care?"
Native American: "I just know it works for me. I'm not a scientist. I just think it's empowering."
All that you, Sam and Mark were doing on that show was one big long rain dance.
Rill, you said not to have heroes, as they have feet of clay. Still, you are mine!
-
I agree, Rillion is a great thinker and so is Dylboz, Brede the Androgyne, DanPatrick, and so on and so on. I've learned a lot from reading these last 300 or so posts. It was common sense to me but all of your explanations using logic helped progress my thinking. Thank you all for your time and detailed answers.
So the real question is in the face of overwhelming reason, why do some people hold on to illogical concepts. Is it merely cognitive dissonance or is there something else here more important to take away from this series of posts? Or more directly, why is reason failing to persuade a smart person (Ian) away from a false belief?
-
I admire her ability, which I don't posses, and which I have found even rarer in women generally, to remain focused on the logical underpinnings of an argument and form succinct and incisive responses to those things, even when the other party does not recognize they have revealed the weakness in their position. I get personally incensed with silly non-logic and superstitiousness, all the time. I am often emotionally invested in my position and sort of fly off the handle, though not violently, just with a huge barrage of words that are not always relevant, and often needlessly offensive. It's my style, I guess. Sometimes funny, sometimes not so much.
Anyway, cheers, Rill, you are a first-class debater and very, very bright. Well done. I have a lot of respect for you, not just for this thread, but how you comport yourself on this board generally, and I admire your superior intellect.
-
Parcgreene,
I'm not here to please the atheists by being completely in line with their belief system. I understand it must be frustrating that we agree on so much except when it comes to this metaphysical stuff. I once felt as you do, and don't want to feel that way anymore.
I like believing that I'm part of all-that-is, (or if you like, god) - it's far more empowering than my old atheistic belief system.
I like believing in LoA - I've seen evidence that it's real. Can I scientifically prove it? Nope. Do I care to spend my time proving what I know to be true? Nope.
Finally, in regards to credibility, do you really believe that the message of liberty cannot stand on its own as credible separate from the communicator's religious beliefs?
So why not believe that you ARE all-that-is instead of just a part? Wouldn't this be even more empowering? Why don't you believe that you ARE the one and only god?
-
You are the universe experiencing itself.
Oh yeah.........far out man! :roll:
-
Yeah, I see your confusion. It is your intention that the universe is responding to. You are the universe experiencing itself.
I am the universe experiencing itself......
God DAMN I hate reductionism!
Ian, clarify for me:
1. Does reality exist in an objective form?
2. As Rill asked before, when did humans evolve the power to control the universe?
I would LOVE for all this to be a misunderstanding....
[/quote]
I made the evolution argument. Give me a little credit. :D
-
Anyway, cheers, Rill, you are a first-class debater and very, very bright. Well done. I have a lot of respect for you, not just for this thread, but how you comport yourself on this board generally, and I admire your superior intellect.
Thank you. :oops: I suck at getting praise, so I'll just say that. :)
-
I agree, Rillion is a great thinker and so is Dylboz, Brede the Androgyne, DanPatrick, and so on and so on. I've learned a lot from reading these last 300 or so posts. It was common sense to me but all of your explanations using logic helped progress my thinking. Thank you all for your time and detailed answers.
So the real question is in the face of overwhelming reason, why do some people hold on to illogical concepts. Is it merely cognitive dissonance or is there something else here more important to take away from this series of posts? Or more directly, why is reason failing to persuade a smart person (Ian) away from a false belief?
Thanks, Parcgreene! :D
So to answer your question, I think that those that arrive at illogical conclusions are operating on false premises or have made a mistake in their application of reason.
-
Is atheism the only logical conclusion regarding religion?
I was wondering when you guys would throw a shit fit about Ian becoming a pantheist.
-
Or, they just want to believe, because it's so "empowering" and "fuck if [they] know" why.
-
Listening to this stuff made my head hurt...
-
Is atheism the only logical conclusion regarding religion?
Theres no arbitrary position that is a logical conclusion or not.
If evidence of religious entities existing is presented that meets the burden of proof, then you should believe those entities exist till new evidence comes along that disproves the old.
The big gap in nearly all theists beliefs is that their standards of evidence are simply inconsistent. I've never, EVER had anyone make an argument about one religion, that couldn't be applied to nearly every other religion. Prove Jehovah doesn't exist! Oh yeah?!? well prove Ganesha doesn't exist! and so on and so forth. The only ones that aren't like this are the ones that get too specific about the nature of their gods and dates and times so their existence can be disproved without absolute knowledge of the universe.
A huge flaw in theists critical thinking is to believe that you should accept something as true until someone has proved it is not.
All you need to have this kind of belief is an immeasurable entity (i.e. make up anything you want and say it can't be measured or tested so you just have to accept it as true, after all you can't disprove it right?), and if you have an old book that claims a bunch of stuff that can't be historically validated it will go along way to backing up the legitimacy. If your god/soul can't be measured or tested in anyway whatsoever, then that's a whole lot of universe that you can hide your belief in.
Religion as a set of preferences or philosophical persuasions is fine, but when it makes claims of fact about the nature of reality, then it needs to be scientifically testable.
So yeah, there may be some gods somewhere, but so far, no evidence in the history of human civilization has come anywhere close to proving gods, as such its reasonable to lack the belief.
A lot of theists put way too much stock about being certain. Theres no need for me to be certain there are no gods in order not to believe in them. All I need, or rather don't need, is to have not seen any evidence worthy of believing such things exist.
200 years ago, it would have been irrational to believe in the existence of quarks, because at the time there was no evidence support such a claim. Now there is evidence, and it is rational to believe in the existence of quarks.
The rationality of a belief does not rely on its relation to absolute truth, but in relation to the assessment of empirical evidence you have been exposed to. Absolute knowledge is pretty much impossible. I could sit around writing down numbers that may be the number of planets in the universe that have life on them, but it would be irrational to believe in any number but the one I can prove.
I believe in what there is sufficient evidence to believe in, at the moment that doesn't include any gods. The fact that I've never met a theist who's tried to persuade me of their beliefs without urging me to avoid critical thinking, and the fact most theists I meet actually don't really care about proving their beliefs to me, or themselves, goes a long way towards me dismissing nearly all theist claims without even hearing them.
But I won't, and I'll still try to judge every new religious claim I hear as if I had never been exposed to all the previous religious fallacies, and if the new claim has evidence that goes even some way to proving its existence, I'll be happy to reassess my beliefs.
-
Maybe you did........but all honor goes to Rill. Always!
-
I just watched The Secret. A bunch of successful people giving credit to LoA is not any more convincing then a bunch of successful people giving credit to Jesus. Also, mr "i can conjure the parking space i want 95% of the time" is testable so either they are morons for not testing it or they know he is full of shit. I wonder which one it is... :roll:
-
I disagree. I'd say absent deviant behavior which exists in nature...(human S&M) people objectively prefer to not be murdered or raped.
THE FARMERS SONS BAD LUCK
The Farmers son dodged the draft and stays home, but ends up being anally raped by his horse.
The neighbor drops by and says, "I hear your son was raped by that horse. What bad luck!"
The Farmer might reply, "Maybe."
But the son receiving the violence would reply... "Yes it's very bad luck; in addition, I can no longer hold a fart during service at my Church of The Law of Attraction. Its quite embarrassing!" :(
The neighbor replies, "What's embarrassing? That you fart in church, or that you believe and attend it?"
"Both," replied the son.
-
My old view was, "there is no god". My new one is, "we are god". My prior lack of belief in a god wasn't a principle, just my view on life based upon my experiences up to that point. My principle of nonagression has not been threatened at all by this new viewpoint.
One of those rare moments where Ian and I completely agree.
-
My old view was, "there is no god". My new one is, "we are god". My prior lack of belief in a god wasn't a principle, just my view on life based upon my experiences up to that point. My principle of nonagression has not been threatened at all by this new viewpoint.
One of those rare moments where Ian and I completely agree.
What the hell does "we are god" mean?
Another case of people using bullshit blurry definition swapping to confer emotional meaning to meaningless statements?
First off, who's "we"?
Maybe "we" means humans in general, maybe it means everything that exists.
So then whats the definition of god? The only useful meaning of god is a supernatural being, although I'll play along and assume god means something else, maybe something perfect? or a mystical universal force? or some other extremely nondescript entity
So what it really means is:
Humans/everything are a supernatural being/a mystical universal force/perfect/everything.
WUT?
If you care to replace one of the definitions, I'd like to see how the statement
"we are god"
actually has any important meaning or explaining power on the nature of reality.
Anything I could see it meaning that actually means anything is simply using god as another word for an already commonly excepted use, like "we (humans) are god (special)" or "we (existence) are god (everything)" and so on.
-
If you search "bullshit" in the forum search this thread is the first one that comes up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Ian, sorry, but I think you'll come to realize why Primacy of Consciousness is wrong. Especially when it is often used to refute the principles of liberty.
-
If you search "bullshit" in the forum search this thread is the first one that comes up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now we just have to get it first on google.
-
Ian, sorry, but I think you'll come to realize why Primacy of Consciousness is wrong. Especially when it is often used to refute the principles of liberty.
It doesn't matter. He's not gonna listen.
-
Ian, sorry, but I think you'll come to realize why Primacy of Consciousness is wrong. Especially when it is often used to refute the principles of liberty.
It doesn't matter. He's not gonna listen.
I know, but I'm like the Doctor; I had to try. >_>
-
If you search "bullshit" in the forum search this thread is the first one that comes up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now we just have to get it first on google.
Bullshit first on Google you say. That, is bullshit. Of course it would be tough to beat out the Penn & Teller Bullshit series, but you never know, there just might be enough bullshit here to out bullshit "Bullshit".
There, I've done my part.
-
BULLSHIT!
-
If you search "bullshit" in the forum search this thread is the first one that comes up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now we just have to get it first on google.
Bullshit first on Google you say. That, is bullshit. Of course it would be tough to beat out the Penn & Teller Bullshit series, but you never know, there just might be enough bullshit here to out bullshit "Bullshit".
There, I've done my part.
Well, all I have to say is if a bull shits in my universe, does it stink in everyone elses? I'd say so, if you say not, you're full of bullshit.
-
If you search "bullshit" in the forum search this thread is the first one that comes up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now we just have to get it first on google.
Bullshit.
-
Ian and Mark have made it clear that we have "crawled out of our hole" in the ground to "rain on their parade" (listen to beginning of Tues. nights show.) Boo on you, stop reasoning with them! They don't think their credibility is damaged by believing in moral relativism, because they still believe in the nonaggression principle. You simply want to prove them wrong, so stop it! It's hurting their feelings. They used to be in our sad place, now they are empowered.
My question for them both is why are they so damn selfish with their positive thinking? If this is true, why haven't they ganged up with other LoA believers and done something great with their special powers like cure people with cancer or grow back the limbs of amputees? If all they are using their powers for is furthering themselves then shame on them.
Yes their message of liberty is compromised to the rational mind in the audience. People already incorrectly associate libertarianism with selfishness, now the best proclaimers of liberty we have in the movement talk on air about how they believe they control everything in the universe with their magic mental power. GREAT!
-
If unfailing believe creates reality then Obama just might be able to engineer us the perfect society.
-
A believe that morals are objective is the same method of thought as the leftist people has when they believe there is a "fair" price an idea based on the believe that value is objective.
-
A believe that morals are objective is the same method of thought as the leftist people has when they believe there is a "fair" price an idea based on the believe that value is objective.
Theres a difference between objectively deduced morals and the concept of objective morals.
-
I still believe this can all be settled by asking one simple question, provided that the LoA believers answer the question honestly and without conditions. The question is as follows:
Other than anecdotal evidence, what, if any, proof do you have that this is the way the universe works?
-
I like believing in LoA - I've seen evidence that it's real. Can I scientifically prove it? Nope.
So you have seen evidence that you cannot reproduce. That's some pretty crummy evidence, on par with "evidence" for Russel's teapot. Why are you so limiting in your acceptance of the Law of Attraction hypothesis over other more likely possibilities, for example that you have in fact witnessed a combination of chance and confirmation bias?
Additionally, no one has dropped their AMP over this controversy. 8)
I have not yet heard the show in question. I intend to fully catch up by Friday, and will make my decision then... but if it's as bad as I'm thinking, expect my AMP contribution to halve. Support of this bullshit will turn off the kinds of people that I want to enter the liberty movement. Also, it will be the Universe's way of misinterpreting your focus on "DON'T DROP AMP".
-
Here's something I find interesting. When discussing LoA on the BBS back in September, Ian had this to say:
I have intended certain unlikely things to happen as "tests", fully prepared to never see them occur (yes, that skeptical voice still yells at me in my head), but then they do. They are things that would be semi to unlikely to occur, but they do, and I'm quite surprised and pleased by them when they do.
So Ian was "intending on certain unlikely things to happen" but was at the same time "fully prepared to never see them occur" and thinking skeptically about it, yet they supposedly did occur.
Everything that Ian, Sam, and Mark have said about LoA on the show would lead me to believe that in this circumstance Ian should not have seen these things occur since, in fact, he was prepared for them to not happen. Shouldn't Ian's intention and concurrent certainty that it would not happen have "canceled" each other out, and nothing would have happened?
-
Here's something I find interesting. When discussing LoA on the BBS back in September, Ian had this to say:
I have intended certain unlikely things to happen as "tests", fully prepared to never see them occur (yes, that skeptical voice still yells at me in my head), but then they do. They are things that would be semi to unlikely to occur, but they do, and I'm quite surprised and pleased by them when they do.
So Ian was "intending on certain unlikely things to happen" but was at the same time "fully prepared to never see them occur" and thinking skeptically about it, yet they supposedly did occur.
Everything that Ian, Sam, and Mark have said about LoA on the show would lead me to believe that in this circumstance Ian should not have seen these things occur since, in fact, he was prepared for them to not happen. Shouldn't Ian's intention and concurrent certainty that it would not happen have "canceled" each other out, and nothing would have happened?
Good points! Further proof that Law of Attraction is bullshit!
I'm certain that this will trigger some serious cognitive dissonance and result in yet another poorly thought out and ill-reasoned "explanation".
-
Yeah, that's an example of an anecdote offered in support of LoA that is actually completely incoherent and contravenes the supposed mechanism by which the "Universe" acts on your desires. I mean, it hurts my brain to even discuss this stuff, because it is just insanely convoluted and self-contradictory and logically inconsistent. You can try and make a point by seizing upon one explanation or purported tenet of the "Law of Attraction," but this so called law isn't even based on a coherent theory, so the LoAer just shifts the goal posts or offers some other flowery treacle in lieu of an actual explanation. Or, there's the inevitable resort to solipsism, or the emotional appeal, like "it works for me," or "it's empowering," etc. So, when I an says he's "seen it work," that doesn't even really mean anything. Seen what, exactly? Working how? By what mechanism? In what order? Exactly who's desires are being manifested? How are the conflicting desires of multiple LoA practitioners resolved by the"Universe," or the "all-god" or whatever Ian is calling it? Can these vibrations be manifested on the other side of the planet, or only within the immediate proximity of the LoAer?
Many, many times in my life, I have wished something would happen or thought it might be nice, and lo and behold, it went down, just like I imagined. Does that mean I've been inadvertently using the LoA? Or does it just mean, as Randi and others have repeatedly demonstrated, the human mind evolved to retain information about positive correlation and discard information on incongruities and negative correlation as a survival strategy, and as such, I don't really remember (because there isn't enough space in my brain for it) all the many more times that stuff happened completely different than I imagined it would or wished it might? I think the latter far more likely than the former. Cold reading psychics, Tarot card readers, etc. all use this fact about the human mind to bilk money from their unsuspecting customers. Is what they do fraud, or are they just providing the dupes who patronize them with the "empowerment" that comes from a false belief in the ability to read the future? How is that different than the LoA belief in controlling the future of the entire "Universe" with your thoughts, as if it were a remote control car? Or the feeling of happiness you get from knowing that you'll be spending eternity at the right hand of that bearded hippy from the middle east named Jesus, thanks to his death on a Roman cross?
We reason out our best approximations of how reality actually works using logic and evidence gathered by our senses, but we don't just stop there. That data is rigorously analyzed according to consistent principles derived from the scientific method. This basic process has given us profoundly useful knowledge in innumerable ways. When that knowledge leads us to philosophically uncomfortable or emotionally disconcerting conclusions about our relationship to each other and the greater world outside ourselves, for instance, the fact that we are not actually THE center of the universe, either individually or as a species (or even a planet), and that our powers to control reality, while impressive, are not absolute or even sufficient to end war and hunger or win the love of the hot cheerleader in Sociology 101, we do not simply pitch it overboard for something more "empowering." Unless we do. And then we sound pretty lame bitching about people "raining on our parade," despite the fact that if the "Universe" worked the way we said it did, there would be no rain on anyone's parade.
-
I have been listening to the show much less.
-
I have not yet heard the show in question. I intend to fully catch up by Friday, and will make my decision then... but if it's as bad as I'm thinking, expect my AMP contribution to halve. Support of this bullshit will turn off the kinds of people that I want to enter the liberty movement. Also, it will be the Universe's way of misinterpreting your focus on "DON'T DROP AMP".
Having now listened, the episode wasn't as bad as I feared, although I was disgusted by Sam's take on unprovoked violence. And this topic hasn't taken over the show, so it's still worth supporting.
-
I have been listening to the show much less.
They've burned the topic out; you can start listening again.
-
[youtube=425,350]ujUQn0HhGEk&[/youtube]
Oh my. This is a bit of beat poetry by Australian comic (and skeptic) Tim Minchin about encountering a woman at a party who subscribes to every bit of supernatural New Age magic hoo ha there is...and the resulting conversation. It's over nine minutes and sound-only, but absolutely priceless.
-
The "law of attraction" view of the universe makes absolutely no difference except that it makes Mark and Ian feel not so terribly alone in the universe (which they, of course, are). It doesn't make more good things happen for them than normal, because in the real world taking positive action has as a natural consequence a tendency to achieve what you want. It doesn't make bad things happen less because then they "learn something." Now, if a car hits you and you die before realizing what happened, I don't know what that teaches you. Maybe, look both ways? But anyway, it's not a harmful ideology, except that it makes you ignorant, but it doesn't give you evil opinions like hating homosexuals or women who have sex. It's just like Ian's pantheism. It's completely meaningless, it just stops him from having an existensial crisis.
-
Today I used the law of attraction to do my laundry. I envisioned my clean laundry really, really hard. Then I thought about what I would need to do to make that happen. As if by magic, I found myself gathering my dirty clothes, cleaning them, and then folding them. But no, my friends, this was no magic. This was the law of attraction.
-
Sam is a scary guru. What he said in that show, oh, man, my skin crawled. And he was just full of contradictions, yet so quick to angrily tell the callers to stop, to shout over them, "we let you talk," etc. And that whole bit about "which book?" Because he is THE authority on hoe the Universe works and which books explain it, apparently. As if the entire fate of the Universe depends on which book you read. :roll:
Rape? Violence? Car accidents? All these are the result of your own unconscious desires, which the Universe knows from listening to your thoughts, even if you don't remember thinking them. Wow. Kids learn a valuable lesson from cancer. It's all about your "interpretation." Well, we should all be happy that North Koreans are being horribly oppressed, after all, they must have secretly wanted to be starved, tortured, worked to death, etc. because the Universe always says yes (leukemia and horrific oppression are just positive learning experiences if you interpret them right)! I interpret that millions of people were just put in a country where the Universe would supply them with the murderous regime they needed, so they could become the victims their killers had asked the Universe to provide them.
Because the LoA isn't about judgement! It knows the difference between positive and negative, between yes and no, between what you think you want or need, and what you actually, secretly require (ostensibly through your "vibrations"). Oh, but those aren't judgments, no! And never mind how obviously conflicting desires get resolved by the Universal All-God, or the contradiction of Sam saying that you are 100% responsible for everything and that you control your reality, yet you can use LoA to make a change in the attitude, behavior and understanding of others around you, so actually, they aren't 100% in control of their reality, because you just LoAed their minds up for them, but then maybe they were unconsciously attracting your vibrations to alter their state of mind, so they wanted it, or maybe other people are just objects in the Universe, there to fulfill your desires and respond to your vibrations, as long as you formulate them positively, oh but then there's the 6 billion other remote controls and, and, and....
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCKKK MMMMEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Whoops, my BULLSHIT limit was just exceeded. Sam is insane, and he has led Ian and Mark astray. Well, at least Ian, Mark was pretty hopeless already. Oh, but "it's empowering." (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Dylboz/puke.gif)
-
Yes.
Sam is a scary guru. What he said in that show, oh, man, my skin crawled. And he was just full of contradictions, yet so quick to angrily tell the callers to stop, to shout over them, "we let you talk," etc. And that whole bit about "which book?" Because he is THE authority on hoe the Universe works and which books explain it, apparently. As if the entire fate of the Universe depends on which book you read. :roll:
Rape? Violence? Car accidents? All these are the result of your own unconscious desires, which the Universe knows from listening to your thoughts, even if you don't remember thinking them. Wow. Kids learn a valuable lesson from cancer. It's all about your "interpretation." Well, we should all be happy that North Koreans are being horribly oppressed, after all, they must have secretly wanted to be starved, tortured, worked to death, etc. because the Universe always says yes (leukemia and horrific oppression are just positive learning experiences if you interpret them right)! I interpret that millions of people were just put in a country where the Universe would supply them with the murderous regime they needed, so they could become the victims their killers had asked the Universe to provide them.
Because the LoA isn't about judgement! It knows the difference between positive and negative, between yes and no, between what you think you want or need, and what you actually, secretly require (ostensibly through your "vibrations"). Oh, but those aren't judgments, no! And never mind how obviously conflicting desires get resolved by the Universal All-God, or the contradiction of Sam saying that you are 100% responsible for everything and that you control your reality, yet you can use LoA to make a change in the attitude, behavior and understanding of others around you, so actually, they aren't 100% in control of their reality, because you just LoAed their minds up for them, but then maybe they were unconsciously attracting your vibrations to alter their state of mind, so they wanted it, or maybe other people are just objects in the Universe, there to fulfill your desires and respond to your vibrations, as long as you formulate them positively, oh but then there's the 6 billion other remote controls and, and, and....
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCKKK MMMMEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Whoops, my BULLSHIT limit was just exceeded. Sam is insane, and he has led Ian and Mark astray. Well, at least Ian, Mark was pretty hopeless already. Oh, but "it's empowering." (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Dylboz/puke.gif)
-
Rape? Violence? Car accidents? All these are the result of your own unconscious desires, which the Universe knows from listening to your thoughts, even if you don't remember thinking them. Wow. Kids learn a valuable lesson from cancer. It's all about your "interpretation."
The term for how Christians reconcile their belief system with the fact that evil exists in the universe is "theodicy." It's a kind of apologetic designed to deal with the quesion: "If God is really good and just, then why is there suffering?" The response is usually that evil is created by humans, and if we are to have free will then we have to have the capacity for evil. When you ask about natural disasters, then the response is that such things allow us to demonstrate the virtues of compassion and pity.
Hindus use karma to explain this-- don't feel too sorry for that low-caste boy with one leg; he must've done something terrible in his past life which earned him this condition. People arrive at their station in life according to what they did in the last one, so there's no point in trying to disrupt the system.
The manifestation of unconscious desires is LoA's theodicy. Evil is a manifestation of negative thoughts and emotions.
Christianity: It's not God's fault, you brought it on yourself!
Hinduism: It's not karma's fault, you brought it on yourself!
LoA: It's not the universe's fault, you brought it on yourself!
-
I rejected it outright when Jerry Fallwell opined that Katrina was God's just and righteous retribution for New Orleans immorality, what with all the sex and drunkenness, and most offensively, those damned homosexuals (like only gay people and their straight pals got their houses flooded or died drowning in filthy water). Now I understand what really happened. Almost everybody in N.O. wanted a big, tall, potent and refreshing traditional Southern cocktail that day. The Universe heard and heeded their desperate, subconscious vibrational call, but they had sadly failed to specify exactly which kind of Hurricane they meant, so the Universe said yes, but then it heard all their even more desperate vibrational requests for helicopters and lifejackets and boats and was like, "my bad, be more specific next time."
-
Does anyone remember what Sam's website is?
-
I Googled Obscure Truth Network, but it only shows other sites hosting Sam's videos. I don't have any other ideas for you.
-
Guys, you're looking at it all wrong. You wouldn't poke such fun at the Law of Attraction if only it had a proper spokesperson. Introducing...
(http://wiki.freetalklive.com/images/d/db/Jiminy_Locust.jpg)
Jiminy Locust!!!
When you wish upon reality
It's very empowering
Everything you focus on
Will vibrate to you
No request is too extreme
But take infinite responsibility
All-that-is always says yes
To a credulous few
-
Oh my gosh, that's the most clever thing I've seen in weeks:) Good work.
-
"Jiminy Locust reminds you to focus, focus, focus! You'll become the 'locus' of all the Universe has to give. That's the way we use the LoA to bring us what we want everyday."
While the above is not nearly as good as your clever little ditty, gibson (kudos on that, by the way), I do think you're really onto something. Perhaps we can further flesh out the character's repertoire of catchy tunes. Before you know it, he'll be an insectoid Jesus, the new six legged messiah, our exoskeletal savior, a miniature musical marvel inspiring us all with the positive vibrations emanating from his winged carapace. He's the kind of religious icon that commands the appropriate amount of respect for the doctrine of LoA. And, he could devour the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a single sitting.
-
Hey guys, I found a link to a karaoke version of "when you wish upon a star." Please somebody sing the new lyrics over it and make a video set to the picture Gibson created. (Audacity is a great freeware audio editing program)
I think we'll need to add a few versus to make it the proper length, EVERYONE INTERESTED in continuing this great mockery of BULLSHIT LoA please contribute a verse. This will be the first official hymn in Jiminy Locusts hymnal.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HsXFSiGTmn4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HsXFSiGTmn4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
I also pulled this off of wikipedia:
In the 1960s and 1970s, Jiminy Cricket appeared in two series of educational films aimed at grade-school-aged audiences. In the "I'm No Fool" series, he advised children how to steer clear of dangerous traffic, sharp objects, strangers, exposed electrical lines, and so forth. In each short, he sang the refrain:
I'm no fool, no sirree!
I'm gonna live to be 33 (then 43, 53, etc., up to 103)
I play safe for you and me
'Cause I'm no fool!
-
Sam is a scary guru. What he said in that show, oh, man, my skin crawled. And he was just full of contradictions, yet so quick to angrily tell the callers to stop, to shout over them, "we let you talk," etc. And that whole bit about "which book?" Because he is THE authority on hoe the Universe works and which books explain it, apparently. As if the entire fate of the Universe depends on which book you read. :roll:
Yeah, I really lost a lot of respect for Sam after that show. Not just for his apparent inability to reason when it comes to this topic, but mostly for his rude, condescending attitude towards those who disagreed with him. I think the extreme defensiveness and bullying debate style exhibited on that show really tells you something about the weakness of Sam's position.
-
[youtube=425,350]ujUQn0HhGEk&[/youtube]
Oh my. This is a bit of beat poetry by Australian comic (and skeptic) Tim Minchin about encountering a woman at a party who subscribes to every bit of supernatural New Age magic hoo ha there is...and the resulting conversation. It's over nine minutes and sound-only, but absolutely priceless.
That was...awesome.
-
Sam is a scary guru. What he said in that show, oh, man, my skin crawled. And he was just full of contradictions, yet so quick to angrily tell the callers to stop, to shout over them, "we let you talk," etc. And that whole bit about "which book?" Because he is THE authority on hoe the Universe works and which books explain it, apparently. As if the entire fate of the Universe depends on which book you read. :roll:
The book was "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Law of Attraction" by Diane Ahlquist
-
The book was "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Law of Attraction" by Diane Ahlquist
Wow, I thought this was a joke. I was wrong.
(http://sitb-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35leptfucXuSuFgB/0lzOd8lISEuSLVTFkOhSPT5EAFA06YCSmWaYGQBjRUkN3KM0HkCE=)
About the Author
Diane Ahlquist is an author, speaker, and third-generation intuitive who has used her gifts in counseling for over 25 years. She is the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Life After Death, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Fortune Telling, and Moon Spells: How to Use the Phases of the Moon to Get What You Want.
How fucking dumb do people have to be to buy this shit?
-
How fucking dumb do people have to be to buy this shit?
Ummm, complete idiots?
-
How fucking dumb do people have to be to buy this shit?
Ummm, complete idiots?
Obviously, but not all complete idiots buy in to the Law of Attraction. So there must be some level of "fucking dumb" that is even stupider than "complete idiot".
-
The idea is still harboring in me, waiting to be brought forth.
If it means I can decorate my place with paintings of moons, unicorns and dragonflies, I'm inclined to go with it, 'cause I like that sort of thing. I also think it will improve my Yoga practice, and I'll be able to say "Namaste" more convincingly.
Those of you who detract from The Law are only doing yourselves a disservice.
Namaste.
-
Wow, I thought this was a joke. I was wrong.
The "Compete Idiots" guides are like the "For Dummies" books. It's a publishing franchise that specializes in books in layman's terms. They make books in lots of subject areas but originally for computers.
-
The book was "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Law of Attraction" by Diane Ahlquist
Wow, I thought this was a joke. I was wrong.
(http://sitb-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35leptfucXuSuFgB/0lzOd8lISEuSLVTFkOhSPT5EAFA06YCSmWaYGQBjRUkN3KM0HkCE=)
About the Author
Diane Ahlquist is an author, speaker, and third-generation intuitive who has used her gifts in counseling for over 25 years. She is the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Life After Death, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Fortune Telling, and Moon Spells: How to Use the Phases of the Moon to Get What You Want.
How fucking dumb do people have to be to buy this shit?
I've been meaning to learn how to use Moon Spells to enhance my Law of Attraction abilities.
-
The book was "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Law of Attraction" by Diane Ahlquist
Wow, I thought this was a joke. I was wrong.
(http://sitb-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35leptfucXuSuFgB/0lzOd8lISEuSLVTFkOhSPT5EAFA06YCSmWaYGQBjRUkN3KM0HkCE=)
About the Author
Diane Ahlquist is an author, speaker, and third-generation intuitive who has used her gifts in counseling for over 25 years. She is the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Life After Death, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Fortune Telling, and Moon Spells: How to Use the Phases of the Moon to Get What You Want.
How fucking dumb do people have to be to buy this shit?
I've been meaning to learn how to use Moon Spells to enhance my Law of Attraction abilities.
LMFAO!!!
-
Hey guys... don't knock Moon Spells until you try 'em. I've seen them work in my life. And they make me feel empowered.
-
Hey guys... don't knock Moon Spells until you try 'em. I've seen them work in my life. And they make me feel empowered.
I tried Sun Spells and they didn't work too well. I'm hoping that Moon Spells will work better because the Moon is almost like the opposite of the Sun...kind of.
-
Sun spots will wreck your moon spells. So, you gotta time things right, like when Uranus is in the outhouse and the meridians of your chakras line up with your pinché Pluto.
-
You fucking retards. Moons spells, Sun spells, pshhh... The real magic is in animal bones and dried out gourdes. That's day one shit. Get it together, folks.
-
Anyone else hearing everything Sam says through an LOA filter? I noticed a pretty strong subtext in the racism discussion on 27/2.
-
Anyone else hearing everything Sam says through an LOA filter? I noticed a pretty strong subtext in the racism discussion on 27/2.
Yep.
-
Anyone else hearing everything Sam says through an LOA filter? I noticed a pretty strong subtext in the racism discussion on 27/2.
Yep.
Which time spots on the podcast? I need to listen more intently as I pretty much mentally mute Sam these days.
-
Anyone else hearing everything Sam says through an LOA filter? I noticed a pretty strong subtext in the racism discussion on 27/2.
Yep.
Me too.
-
Sam is ruining FTL for the rest of us.
-
Sam is ruining FTL for the rest of us.
This.
-
Damn it people, all your focus on Sam is being misinterpreted by the universe as "WANT SAM". If you're not careful, he'll soon replace Mark!
-
Damn it people, all your focus on Sam is being misinterpreted by the universe as "WANT SAM". If you're not careful, he'll soon replace Mark!
The universe doesn't sound very bright, then. I can't imagine why a person would be a pantheist if they thought the universe was as stupid as that.
-
UNIVERSE IS EDUCATED STUPID.
-
UNIVERSE IS EDUCATED STUPID.
I LOL'D.
-
Come on guys, you're all being defeatist about it so nothing will ever happen. We all need to just think really hard about Sam either leaving the show or giving up on LoA. If we want it bad enough and think about it long enough, it will happen. The universe can't help but respond to our wishes.
-
If we want it bad enough and think about it long enough, it will happen. The universe can't help but respond to our wishes.
Lol Hitler.
-
All this talk about LoA is making me want to start playing Legends of Aranna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_Aranna) again.
-
Recently my dog had it's head stuck in a beaver trap and almost bit my finger off when i was taking her out of it. The universe misunderstood my love for my dog and my finger as hatred and said "yes" I'll remove them for you. Problem was the universe didn't finish the job b/c the E.R. was able to sew my finger back on and I was able to resuscitate my 'believed to be dead' dog. The universe must have realized it made a mistake when my wife was hysterical and therefore changed the outcome (several hands controlling the remote?). Anyway, I was looking at the bright side of things when the doctor said I might lose the finger if it got infected...I would then be an amputee:) I was going to go on a mission to all faith based salesmen and see what they could do about regrowing my finger. Oh well. Maybe next time I'll lose a limb, as a matter of fact I'll experiment, rest assure I'll keep everyone posted as to the outcome.
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Universe, will you please remove my left leg so that I can ask you for it back?
Doubtfully yours,
Subject
p.s. When i say left leg, I mean left from my perspective looking out, not you the universe looking in. I really don't want you misinterpreting this one.
p.s.s. Do I have to actively seek out my desires with action? Do I have to start juggling chainsaws with my legs or something to get my wish? Please write the answer via a painful stigmata on my right leg.
-
The LOA stuff sounds exactly what the Christian Science people told me.
They said a classmate could get the half of his finger back that he lost to cancer, if only he prayed for it through their church.
LOA = Christian Science Church
(not to be confused with Scientology)
Neither has anything to do with science.
-
(http://depressiondog.info/CourageWolf/cwolf.jpg?l1=LOA+is+Bullshit&l2=You+Take+What+Is+Yours&l1f=30&l2f=23&f=0)
-
Here's a funny clip of Ian (defending?) law of attraction and pantheism.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TO73fNTftg&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TO73fNTftg&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
LoA is stupid. Maybe, someday, Ian will come back around, but there's absolutely no hope for Mark. Well, actually, Mark has come a long way from his initial dumb Republicanism. So, maybe there's more hope for Ian than Mark on this score. Wow, that's sad.
-
LoA is stupid. Maybe, someday, Ian will come back around, but there's absolutely no hope for Mark. Well, actually, Mark has come a long way from his initial dumb Republicanism. So, maybe there's more hope for Ian than Mark on this score. Wow, that's sad.
What's real funny is that Ian poo-poos Landmark, but ends up actually saying the same kind of nonsense they do when he talks LoA. Plus, there's actually Landmark language in one of the live reads now - no doubt written by Mark.
The big connection I see is that concepts like LoA, Pantheism, and the whole Landmark thing seem to be curricula for people looking for something to believe.
-
I've really got to show my ignorance and ask, "what does landmark mean?" Im looking for a definition other than the old theatre in Richmond, Va or the the way I prefer my directions?
-
The Landmark Forum. Or est. An offshoot of $cientology. And where there's L. Ron, there's a stinking pile of money grubbing bullshit.
-
An offshoot of $cientology.
This is an misleading smear. Werner Erhart adopt a couple of group exercises from Scientology for his seminars in EST. Neither of which is used in the Landmark Forum.
And where there's L. Ron, there's a stinking pile of money grubbing bullshit.
This is just the truth.
-
This is an misleading smear. Werner Erhart adopt a couple of group exercises from Scientology for his seminars in EST. Neither of which is used in the Landmark Forum.
From what I can tell I've had far more experience with Scientology than anyone else around here (I am a bonified and certified card in a drawer [I don't carry it] Dianetics auditor) and I've listened to the Landmark shows. Your terminology and philosophy wreaks of Scientology from top to bottom. Calling it an offshoot might be a little bit overstating it... a little bit, but it definitely falls short of a misleading smear. When I heard the landmark shows the word plagiarism came to mind.
-
This is an misleading smear. Werner Erhart adopt a couple of group exercises from Scientology for his seminars in EST. Neither of which is used in the Landmark Forum.
From what I can tell I've had far more experience with Scientology than anyone else around here (I am a bonified and certified card in a drawer [I don't carry it] Dianetics auditor) and I've listened to the Landmark shows. Your terminology and philosophy wreaks of Scientology from top to bottom. Calling it an offshoot might be a little bit overstating it... a little bit, but it definitely falls short of a misleading smear. When I heard the landmark shows the word plagiarism came to mind.
Interesting. Noted.
-
Not a smear at all, Mark, but saying it was a smear, is in fact, a smear. Smearing me as a smearer - irony at its best!
Scientology and Werner Erhard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard)
Some relevant portions, for those disinclined to read the whole article:
While working as a Mind Dynamics franchise-holder (1971),[28] Erhard decided to have some of his staff there enroll in Scientology communications coursework as a way to train them in sales-techniques.[29][30] When Erhard started his own group, Erhard Seminars Training, it is claimed that he incorporated portions of Scientology practices into the trainings, initially including the usage of the e-meter.[31] According to L.Ron Hubbard, Erhard had hired Scientologists in order to develop these techniques as his own[32] and the Church of Scientology did not take kindly to this usage of their materials without their permission.[citation needed]
Erhard has stated that he benefited greatly from the practice of Scientological auditing, declaring: "It was the fastest and deepest way to handle situations that I had yet encountered. I immediately wanted to learn to do it."[1] Erhard received 70 hours of Scientology audit counseling.[33]
In the 1987 work, L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, the author (L.Ron Hubbard's son) states that "Werner Erhard, of EST fame, called L. Ron Hubbard the 'greatest philosopher of the twentieth Century.'"[34] Odd Gods quotes Erhard as stating of Hubbard: "I have a lot of respect for L. Ron Hubbard and I consider him to be a genius and perhaps less acknowledged than he ought to be."
-
Not a smear at all, Mark, but saying it was a smear, is in fact, a smear. Smearing me as a smearer - irony at its best!
Scientology and Werner Erhard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard)
Some relevant portions, for those disinclined to read the whole article:
While working as a Mind Dynamics franchise-holder (1971),[28] Erhard decided to have some of his staff there enroll in Scientology communications coursework as a way to train them in sales-techniques.[29][30] When Erhard started his own group, Erhard Seminars Training, it is claimed that he incorporated portions of Scientology practices into the trainings, initially including the usage of the e-meter.[31] According to L.Ron Hubbard, Erhard had hired Scientologists in order to develop these techniques as his own[32] and the Church of Scientology did not take kindly to this usage of their materials without their permission.[citation needed]
Erhard has stated that he benefited greatly from the practice of Scientological auditing, declaring: "It was the fastest and deepest way to handle situations that I had yet encountered. I immediately wanted to learn to do it."[1] Erhard received 70 hours of Scientology audit counseling.[33]
In the 1987 work, L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, the author (L.Ron Hubbard's son) states that "Werner Erhard, of EST fame, called L. Ron Hubbard the 'greatest philosopher of the twentieth Century.'"[34] Odd Gods quotes Erhard as stating of Hubbard: "I have a lot of respect for L. Ron Hubbard and I consider him to be a genius and perhaps less acknowledged than he ought to be."
I was told otherwise in Landmark's Introduction Leaders Program. Your quotations look compelling.
-
No problem. I'm fascinated by all things $cientology. I will say that est seems entirely benign in comparison to the cultural malignancy L.Ron created in Clearwater.
-
Sorry to bump the Lawl of Attraction thread but I observed something interesting today.
So throughout the day at school, I was hungry and thinking of (roast and fried) chicken.
Tonight I'm getting water and my mom mentions she is getting KFC. This is tripping me out since I remembered the Law of Attraction, of all the things that could be for dinner (Chinese, burgers, pizza, using that room that I hear people make food in) it has to be chicken, which hijacked my brain today at school.
Now, I'd say this is probably a coincidence. Especially considering the thing I think about most (success with women) still eludes me despite positive thought and action. Maybe it's that involving other people has to account for their own influence on attraction and how they could cancel me out. Still something to think about.
-
I don't understand. How does your dinner involve chicken?
-
I don't understand. How does your dinner involve chicken?
I was thinking about chicken while at school because I was hungry.
Then for some reason chicken is on the menu that night.
I'm not saying I bent the universe to my will, but it did remind me of LoA
-
I guess that was a little too subtle. I was just expressing my skepticism of the chicken content of the KFC.
-
I don't understand. How does your dinner involve chicken?
I was thinking about chicken while at school because I was hungry.
Then for some reason chicken is on the menu that night.
I'm not saying I bent the universe to my will, but it did remind me of LoA
It reminds me of the fact that an average american eats 81 pounds of chicken per year.
-
It reminds me of the fact that an average american eats 81 pounds of chicken per year.
How much does the average Norwegian eat?
-
Maybe Sam will think his way out of jail.
-
I think he will law of attract "time served" by the time he has a trial. Then he can claim victory.
-
I think he will law of attract "time served" by the time he has a trial. Then he can claim victory.
Yeah, then instead of going to trial and then serving time, he can serve time then go to trial. Way to show your control of the universe!
-
Lets just hope Sam hasn't been thinking about "sex" while simultaneously thinking about how the court system is "full" of a bunch of "assholes". The universe might missinterpret his desires and give him the short end of the stick.
-
Lets just hope Sam hasn't been thinking about "sex" while simultaneously thinking about how the court system is "full" of a bunch of "assholes". The universe might missinterpret his desires and give him the short end of the stick.
Wouldn't the universe's bending to his will for manmeat up the hind quarters mean that that was what he really, subconciously, wanted in the first place?
-
The Law of Attraction, putting asses that want fucking in the same cell with convicts in need of a bitch. They should put that on their brochures.
-
THE LAW OF ATTRACTION: Giving you what you didn't want because you thought that you didn't want it.
-
THE LAW OF ATTRACTION: Putting you in jail with rapists because you never wanted to be in jail or raped. Shouldn't this kind of faith demand a tithe?
-
LoA: Getting your ass raped, because when you thought "boy I sure DO NOT want huge dicks with genital warts all up my intestinal tract!" the Universe heard "oh baby! I sure DO love huge warty dicks in my colon!" That's just how the Universe rolls, bitch! What? Ain't you got a sense of humor? THINK POSITIVE... as in HIV.
-
You might of thought that you didn't want huge dicks with genital warts up your ass but.......as Mark put it there are probably "several hands on the same remote dildo" guiding them up your anus.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TO73fNTftg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TO73fNTftg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
However stupid you think the Law of Attraction is, making jokes about it being used to get Sam raped in prison is a really fucked up thing to do.
-
Since when did rape jokes stop being funny? I must be behind the times. :shock:
-
However stupid you think the Law of Attraction is, making jokes about it being used to get Sam raped in prison is a really fucked up thing to do.
But Rillion, it's NOT going to get him raped. It doesn't DO anything. That's why it's funny. And I support Sam, I'm impressed by what he's doing, I just think the LoA is dumb.
-
However stupid you think the Law of Attraction is, making jokes about it being used to get Sam raped in prison is a really fucked up thing to do.
But Rillion, it's NOT going to get him raped. It doesn't DO anything. That's why it's funny. And I support Sam, I'm impressed by what he's doing, I just think the LoA is dumb.
Then doesn't it strike you that joking about him getting raped at all-- much less getting HIV from it-- is pretty damn tacky?
-
Perhaps, but sometimes tacky is funny. I used to have the whole Truly Tasteless Joke Book catalogue... because they were funny! Trust me, in jail, there is a lot of nervous joking about such things, because it takes the edge off of the genuine fear some inmates have. Jail isn't prison, and it's important to remember that. I have some crazy stories from jail and I was only there for 10 days. It's like a really boring summer camp for miscreants and ne'er-do-wells. They put all the really violent hardcore guys in isolation or prison-like cells to await trial, but the drunk drivers, wife beaters, shoplifters, bums and habitual drug users in gen-pop are just the sort of guys you see working construction or stocking shelves or leaning up against the garage smoking a cigarette on break from the local Pep Boys. A bunch of irresponsible fuck-ups who can't keep their shit together long enough to stay out of the government's clutches. They're really not likely to sexually victimize anyone. But, they'll joke about it, because they're afraid of it. I may have told this story before, but one night they scared the crap out of one really young kid who was in for dealing heroin at his very wealthy high school. He'd never been anywhere near guys like this, and they were pretty jealous of his wealth, the fact he had a real lawyer instead of PD, parents who gave a shit, and that he would probably get bailed out long before the interminable wheels of justice got around to rolling over them. So, they pranked him (after lights out, they told him to go to the the shower stall, where a big naked inmate was waiting, slapping his dick in his hand like a weapon). He screamed and ran to the CO's, everyone laughed, the pranksters got a day in the fishbowl and were the heros of the dorm for the rest of the week. Everyone said sorry to the kid, gave him some commissary to heal his wounded pride, after which even he had to admit they got him pretty good, and life went on. That's what passes for humor in jail, Rill.
-
Not that I support this behavior, but while searching for other things I found this:
http://www.manifestbooks.com/index.php
The Ultimate Book Shop for the Conscious Creator
At Manifest Books we provide books, CDs, DVDs and more that help people learn how to be Conscious Creators and Master Manifestors, using the Law of Attraction and other essential tools of Universal wisdom. Our goal is to give people the knowledge that enables them to live happier, more successful and satisfying lives and to bring forth a healthy, abundant and compassionate world.
Featuring "Unconscious Creation."
(http://www.manifestbooks.com/images/products/Sm-Womens-Guide-Workbook.jpg)
reminded me of
http://scientologyinfo.com/assets/Image/book%20images/eng-fot_procrs_large.jpg
-
(http://www.manifestbooks.com/images/products/Sm-Womens-Guide-Workbook.jpg)
In this image, the lowly hand appears to be feminine while the (dominant) risen hand has prominent veins and is slightly larger; indicative of a hand belonging to a male. Is the male offering something bright to the female? Or could it be he has removed something bright from the female's hand?
This image, and concept, is offensive to me.. particularly as it is on display as the cover of a book intended for women!
-
Saw this on homoepathy today and cracked up:
[youtube=425,350]HMGIbOGu8q0&[/youtube]
-
C-SPAN's Book TV recently had this talk (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289563-1), by the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, about her book Bright-Sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.
It's very much worth watching.
-
C-SPAN's Book TV recently had this talk (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289563-1), by the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, about her book Bright-Sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.
It's very much worth watching.
I heard an interview with her on the radio the other day, and thought "She's definitely onto something." There's also an article about her book in the most recent issue of Reason....they don't seem to have posted it on their site yet, though.
-
C-SPAN's Book TV recently had this talk (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289563-1), by the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, about her book Bright-Sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.
It's very much worth watching.
I heard an interview with her on the radio the other day, and thought "She's definitely onto something." There's also an article about her book in the most recent issue of Reason....they don't seem to have posted it on their site yet, though.
If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com
-
When is Mark gonna interview me?
-
If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com
Done.
She appeared on the Daily Show recently....the video can be seen here. (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsided.htm)
-
If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com
Done.
She appeared on the Daily Show recently....the video can be seen here. (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsided.htm)
She might be on to something, but anyone who appears on Democracy Now! is probably a jackass. I watched the youtube clip.
-
If you can get some contact info for me I will have her on my interview show. Send it to my email, pls. Mark@freetalklive.com
Done.
She appeared on the Daily Show recently....the video can be seen here. (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsided.htm)
She might be on to something, but anyone who appears on Democracy Now! is probably a jackass. I watched the youtube clip.
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
-
C-SPAN's Book TV recently had this talk (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289563-1), by the author, Barbara Ehrenreich, about her book Bright-Sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America.
It's very much worth watching.
Delusion is dangerous, huh? Maybe that's true for her...
-
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
-
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
Yeah, it's terrible not to have money. Which is why it's a good idea to acquire job skills and some means to earn a living. I get tired of people goofing off through school, dropping out, and then bitching that no one will hire them, or that they can't find work at less than minimum wage. I want to say, "Hey--you pissed away any chance you had when you ignored your education in favor of screwing around."
I have sympathy for those who, through not fault of their own, cannot make it. But, the reality is that most people end up right where they put themselves.
-
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
I think you need to read the book. She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure. I have very little respect for that. At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus. As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior. I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test. It's very simple.
-
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
I think you need to read the book. She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure. I have very little respect for that. At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus. As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior. I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test. It's very simple.
I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business. If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening. I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.) It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it. People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.
FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that. You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.
Addendum: Added the last paragraph.
-
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
I think you need to read the book. She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure. I have very little respect for that. At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus. As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior. I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test. It's very simple.
I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business. If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening. I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.) It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it. People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.
FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that. You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.
Addendum: Added the last paragraph.
Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies. However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed. I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork. Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.
I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position. Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job. Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.
-
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
I think you need to read the book. She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure. I have very little respect for that. At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus. As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior. I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test. It's very simple.
I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business. If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening. I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.) It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it. People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.
FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that. You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.
Addendum: Added the last paragraph.
Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies. However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed. I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork. Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.
I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position. Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job. Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.
You've got a fine straw man argument there. I didn't say I had a "right to work," etc. I think I was very clear that the government is monkeying with the rules. Employers should be free to hire with the rules THEY please.
-
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
I think you need to read the book. She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure. I have very little respect for that. At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus. As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior. I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test. It's very simple.
I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business. If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening. I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.) It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it. People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.
FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that. You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.
Addendum: Added the last paragraph.
Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies. However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed. I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork. Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.
I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position. Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job. Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.
You've got a fine straw man argument there. I didn't say I had a "right to work," etc. I think I was very clear that the government is monkeying with the rules. Employers should be free to hire with the rules THEY please.
You said you disagreed with my position, which is that employers should be able to hire whomever they like for whatever reasons they like (and vice versa). There is no value judgment there about the goodness of drug testing. I'm not sure why you disagreed with my position, as you appear to hold exactly the same position as I do.
-
Oh, she's definitely a jackass. She's most famous for her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805088385/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0805063897&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R381VBXDB70D0JR599V). In it, she pretends to be a poor person and tells us all how horrible it is. Unfortunately, the reason she has such a hard time is that she wants it to be hard. She lies to employers about her work experience (to say she basically has none...as a middle-aged woman), pretends she has no friends or family for support, uses marijuana (she never mentions how she afforded that while on her "experiment") and then complains about having to take a drug test as part of her application for work, etc. I hate that book with a passion. I agree with her about this Law of Attraction stuff and related bullshit, though.
Haven't read the book, but I don't see anything wrong in particular in talking about how much it sucks to have no money, no job experience, and trying to earn a living from people who make you piss in a cup. Isn't that all true?
I think you need to read the book. She makes every effort to fail and then complains about her failure. I have very little respect for that. At the end of the book, she uses her "experiment" as evidence that we need to grow our country's welfare apparatus. As for the drug test, I don't see why she (or anyone) would feel she has the right to do drugs and be employed by any other person regardless of that behavior. I'm fine if you want to complain about the fact that you can't do drugs and get hired, but if you are trying to succeed in life (as Ehrenreich was supposedly trying to do) and part of that success is getting the drug-testing job, then don't smoke marijuana right before your drug test. It's very simple.
I've got to disagree with you on the drug-testing business. If the government hadn't piloted that as part of the drug war, it wouldn't be happening. I think there's a huge authoritarian influence there (for example, if you do business with the government, you have to drug test your employees.) It would be one thing if the government wasn't driving it, but the government IS driving it. People who had pot on the weekend aren't risking your customers during the week, etc., and I think most businesses would recognize that if not for Federal policies.
FWIW, most of my work requires pissing in a cup, at least to get the job, and I'd like to be able to tell them to go to hell, but they'd have to tell the government to go to hell, and they're not going to do that. You might have something if it was a free market and the businesses were thinking for themselves, but that's not the way it is.
Addendum: Added the last paragraph.
Sure, and I agree with you that the government is influencing these policies. However, my point remains that you don't have any sort of right to work regardless of substances consumed. I think an employer should, for example, have the right to test employees for pork consumption (if that was possible...maybe it is, who knows) and not hire people they found to have eaten pork. Unfortunately that form of discrimination is illegal whereas discrimination against certain other substances is legal.
I also had to take a drug test to work at my current position. Ironically, that was the first drug test I've ever had to take, and it's a white collar job. Circuit City never drug tested me when I worked there in high school.
Kinda hard when the government is fucking with the rules...and it's like a month...and tell that to someone who uses it for pain.
-
Success is whatever you define it to be. If she wanted that job, she shouldn't have smoked marijuana (she ended up getting the job anyway, just fyi). Also, she was not using it for medicinal purposes. I don't know why we should feel sorry for her. Most of the other jobs she took did not drug test, and they all paid about the same.
-
Success is whatever you define it to be. If she wanted that job, she shouldn't have smoked marijuana (she ended up getting the job anyway, just fyi). Also, she was not using it for medicinal purposes. I don't know why we should feel sorry for her. Most of the other jobs she took did not drug test, and they all paid about the same.
You used the 2nd person imperative. That implied that you were lecturing to anyone affected by such a law, which includes patients, which was a strong reason, but not the only one, to object.
-
I think I LoA'd a swarm of bees. I was thinking about them all day yesterday due to hearing about Johnson getting stung. Woke up in the morning to get shit out of my car, saw them buzzing out of a water meter enclosure. They weren't there yesterday. Fuck.