Law of Attraction: Superior Woo

[StarSeed]

StarSeed, you never responded to this post, so please read it carefully and respond:

After nine months using LoA, you have nothing to show but some warm fuzzy feelings and some shopping deals???

Yes, but that is due to my on and off approach to LOA. My habbits die hard. During the times that I have devoted more time to it, I have seen a small boost in my daily routine, which is hard to describe. The shopping deals is legitimate.....but I'm still waiting on the final result. If it comes down the way it looks like it will at this point, then it will be a MAJOR chunk of evidence for me personally. I'll save the details until the conclusion is in.

Dude, the improvement of attitude is good, but your belief in magic is going to come crashing down on you, and that's dangerous.

The part of "The Secret" that really upsets me is the bicycle scene. A kid wishes for a bike really hard, then a sugar daddy buys it for him. Delivering a message like this to kids is a form of child abuse. A proper documentary would have shown the kid getting a job, delivering papers, packing groceries, something to let him earn the bicycle. Instead it teaches us that lazy wishing brings rewards. It's a horrible message.

I honestly haven't watched the secret yet. I went right into the Abraham materials, but I'll try to watch it this week. I have watched the Bleep flick.

One of the very sincere reasons why I'm opened this thread is that it is really important to actually know what is involved in an idea before you attack it. I understand the main sticking point: No evidence. But even then, there's nothing scientific about shooting down an idea that doens't even exist in the group that you attribute it to (I'm speaking to all skeptics). This is why I feel strongly about clarifying what we actually believe.

For example, you're suggesting that LOA promotes lazyness, and that simply isn't the case! I will watch that movie and comment later on that scene, but generally speaking, LOA, as the belief states, is an actual mechanism, not just an excuse for people to use.

And the idea is that you can create a reality for you that is more favorable. Lots of people, for example, absolutely LOVE their work, and have no interest in retirement. I have spoken with so many people over the years, and worked with them, who could easily retire, but they prefer to work, even if it's a crappy job, and sometimes even two jobs, because they just don't have anything else to do and/or they love the work.

The fact is there are lots of fun and positive things people can do to fill their lives. People can get lazy, and cynical about life because they don't see, for whatever reason, opportunities that really offer them anything. But all of that could change. As children, we are naturally curious explorers, who love science and art, music and construction. No one is born wanting to be a couch potato, but life grinds us down.

LOA offers us the chance to really take control again.

StarSeed, you are lazy, you admit. That's why you've had an emotional state of "constant negativity." It's because the way you've gone about your life isn't working for you. Ladling on more magic, superstition, and woo nonsense may make you feel better for a while, but it doesn't work. Never did, never will. It's just delaying another emotional crash.

There's no sarcasm in this post. Think of it as tough love.

Well, I'm not the kind of guy to "lay around and let science tell me how it is". heheh. I'm going to give this a serious spin, and I really believe I've found the key, but time will tell.

I'm out for tonight; be back tomorrow, and I'll pick up where I left off in the thread.

 

[schlitt]

I do have some knowledge, and did take the standard classes back in high school, i.e., chemistry, physics, biology, and even planned on a career in science originally.

I am afraid this kind of basic knowledge will just not cut the mustard.
What science books have you read since leaving school?

Getting a degree in physics would not disprove LOA, so I disagree with you. And how do you explain the scientists who are spiritual in some way?

Well actually, physics does disprove LOA, opposites attract, and objects do not have vibratory levels which correspond to feelings and thoughts. This can be proven.

I challenge you to find a respectable physicist who is published in respected scientific journals, who belives the secret. You will not.

Well, if I had better explanations, I of course would give them, but the fact is at this point, that intricate knowledge of the LOA mechanism is not necessary to work with it, anymore than combustion engine engineering knowledge is required to drive a car. I would like to see the same things the skeptics would on this: Evidence. And I am working on it in my personal life, but it takes time like anything else.

I understand this, the thing is, there is no such thing as TLOA.

Well, I say that's essentially a human definition. We define what we like and the reasons why we like it. Positive things generally lead to happiness at some level, negative things lead to unhappiness at some level.

This is true, but has nothing to do with TLOA. This is basic human psychology. Being a positive person definately has benefits, however these are nothing to do with TLOA.

As I understand it, vibration is really referring to the overall consciousness of the object, and I know that's a stretch on top of a sretch for skeptics, but the idea is that all components of the universe, and in turn the systems they are a part of, have consciousness of some level, and choose to play a role in some way.

Please provide evidence that objects have a conciousness. Without evidence this is just another wacky theory.

The knife, or more specifically the atomic components that it is comprised of, have chosen to play the role of 'elemental material', or building blocks at this point in time. The 'knife system' is not complex enough to understand concepts like ethics. It is simply playing the more generic role of 'the building block'. In this role, it is essentially open to any and all vibrational patterns.

So then, if you are unable to attract inanimate objects, because they are neither positive or negative, than how does your negative vibrating alone attract anything?

This is a contradictory concept.

Your vibrations would have to be much more concious and elaborate for you to attract whole circumstances which are comprised of many objects.

I agree with some of what you are saying here, although I understand you are just speculating within the idea, and don't really believe it. You're pointing to a superior intelligence, or what I would call God, the god force, or new agers call Source or the 'All That Is'.

Yes, it is infinitely intelligent. We are all born from it, and Source knows its' own body and components very well. It is a master of itself and everything born of itself. So intelligence isn't a problem. LOA is merely the core mechanism in the god source.

What science has discovered thus far are the macro-systems of the universe. These complex systems, by the nature of their complexity, combined with the limitations of science, can easily appear to function a certain way based on certain rules, but when we have theories that seem to work most of the time, or can be proven most of the way, but never all the way, this is a potential indicator that there are more basic systems and rules at work underneath the macrosystem.

I beleive that LOA, and other things yet to be discovered, will ultimately better explain how the macro systems work, and will patch all of the holes and inconsistencies that science is presently hung up on.

While the idea of LOA may seem far fetched compared to the conclusions of modern science, the idea by itself is really not zany, implausible, or unethical. It basically says that 'like attracts like', speaking from a consciousness point, not from the macrosystem perspective. Simple as pie, relatively speaking.

It's not unethical, as some would see it, because it gives every conscious unit the free will and power to control its' own destiny, including the power to allow someone else to seemingly control their destiny for them. Iow, once mastered, no one can harm you. No one can starve you, enslave you, kill you, or deprive you.

The system we believe in now, more or less, is one where the innocent can not only be made to suffer now, but for as long as the universe exists. We have a system where the unlucky are just flat out of luck, and at the mercy of politics, or some hairbrained group of nuts, or what have you.

Ethically speaking, LOA actually is fair and equal. For those that seem to desire a universal mechanism that protects the innocent from harm, well, you know what that requires: A god, and we're all atheists here, right?

If there is a mechanism working out of your control, constructing situations and imposing them on you, then is this a good thing or a bad thing?

This "intelligent" mechanism has quite an imagination doesn't it? It kills some with cancer, some with aids, some with decapitation, some with drowning etc etc. It seems to be quite a character doesn't it.

I guess all animals, and humans who lived before TLOA was figured out, were just screwed huh? Subject to the whim of a crazed intelligence concocting plans for their demise, they unwittingly brought upon themselves.


Do you realize how little the time that human history has been around is, compared to the total 4.5 billion years our earth has been around, and the 3.5 billion years it has supported life?

If this ultimately intelligent system as you describe it exists, why has it taken so long to send us Rhonda Byrne, so that we can finally rid ourselves of its hateful vengence of our uncontrolable thoughts?

I can see from some of what you have written that you are not 100% convinced of TLOA. You would clearly like it to be true, but you still have a bit of doubt. Good. You will see in time that it is not true.

 

[Wowbagger]

It seems, to me, that the LOA is really just a naïve, first approximation, of psychological and economical theories. There are trends where people get what they wish for, that evilness attracts more evilness, etc. But, these things can be explained more precisely with existing social sciences, rather than some vague feel-good energy source.

The Law of Attraction is hardly a "law", just a general observation, in which there are countless exceptions. You cannot make dependable predictions with it. Anyone who relies on it, is probably more likely to get screwed over, than one who actively seeks a plan to acquire what they want, thus the "law" is rendered superfluous.

 

[yairhol]

There is so much that I want to comment here but this thread is getting giagantic and I can't follow it all.
But put a side the fact that The Secret does not have 'action' as an inherit part of it but only 'belief' and put a side that The Secret cannot be falsified, and put a side this and that and much more...
I want to know who the hell is this Abraham that StarSeed believes in so much and why does he/she believe in his preaching?
Has this Abraham ever proved anything or is he just full of bombastic sentences, wrapped is pseudo-scientific terms which just sound nice to the layman but actually have no physical meaning?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There was a negative climate that built up to the holocaust. Germany did not go from gravy land on Monday, to hell on earth on Tuesday.

Nope--you're changing the subject. I'm not talking about historical trends, or how the Nazi party came to power. I'm talking about the contention that an individual's pattern of thoughts attracts what happens to him.

So again, did each one of the 6 million have a negative pattern of thought? If not, then you must admit that the contention is wrong. After all, the LOA doesn't expect you to have to change the "negative climate" of an entire nation for you to reap its benefits.

We can live our lives according to statistics, or we can choose to play by our own odds. We can create a reality where we are not prone to the whims of statistics and contemporary politics.

No you can't except figuratively. You can live in your own little world (figuratively), but you can't change the probability of actual events by "positive thought energy" or "vibrations".

Yes, I've had geometry. The definitions may be different; I am using them to convey an idea, and to that end, they do have value.

No they do not have value when you use a word with a different meaning in mind than the conventional ones. If I use the word "apple" to refer to an orange--or worse yet, some poorly defined concept that doesn't even have internal consistency, it is a valueless usage.

 

[Married2aWooster]

The system we believe in now, more or less, is one where the innocent can not only be made to suffer now, but for as long as the universe exists. We have a system where the unlucky are just flat out of luck, and at the mercy of politics, or some hairbrained group of nuts, or what have you.

Ethically speaking, LOA actually is fair and equal. For those that seem to desire a universal mechanism that protects the innocent from harm, well, you know what that requires: A god, and we're all atheists here, right?

I have a suggestion based on the trend of your answers here:

Please educate yourself in the real sciences with the same enthusiasm as you're giving to this mindless LOA "theory" you're studying. If your goal is to replace "science" with a more ethical universal system, you would be better served by actually knowing what science does and does not mean before tilting at that windmill.

 

[StarSeed]

Starseed, since you're not so hot on hard science (2D dimensions representing positive and negative vibrations is pure nonsense), how about an emotional appeal? Please visit a Holocaust museum or read some accounts of the Holocaust.

I apologize for being too sloppy with the terminology. Many times I am just trying to make a general example, so let me clarify the 4D example I gave. I should not have used the term dimension. Instead, let me replace it with "directional", or "variables". LOA is capable of balancing several different variables in the equation.

Then you'll understand that your notion of victims "cocreating" their experience is absurd.

People are victims of tragedy (crime, natural disaster, illness, etc.) not because of their thought patterns. Yes, positive thinking can be a great motivator, and negative thinking can lead to despair and inaction, but it is the action or lack of action that gets results. And even so, there are cases of random events. A real positive thinker can be struck down by an auto accident or lose his home and property due to a tornado or fall victim to cancer or heart disease. Surely you don't think this never happens?

It is impossible to get inside the head of any given person. Only they can know the true balance of their thoughts, assuming they consciously monitor them. It is possible for a person who is generally positive to have irrational fears, or negative swings, and it is also common for those who pride themselves on being positive, successful and rational to keep any fears or phobias a secret, as it would embarrass most to admit that they are weak in some area.

Tornadoes (and the universe in general) doesn't care about what you're thinking.

The universe existed a long time before human consciousness even came to be. What you're suggesting is that the laws of the universe changed relatively recently.

No, I'm suggesting there are laws in the universe that science has yet to discover. Are you suggesting all laws of physics have been discovered?

Oh, back to the personal finance question:


Add economics to the list of things you're ignorant of.

You're exhibiting magical thinking and nothing more. Somehow positive thinking will replace the hard, methodical work done by science and industry to improve technology? Guess how the computer you're using now was developed? (I'll give you a hint: drawing a picture of a desktop computer and tacking it up on the wall as a goal had little if anything to do with it.)

Again, no where have I said that action can be, or should be, or would be, completely replaced or that it has no value. Point out the post where I have stated that so we can finalize that one.

LOA does not exclude action from our reality, unless of course, you want to spend 100 years of your life laying on the couch, eating chips and watching non-reality tv!

 

[StarSeed]

Of course it's judgmental. How else do you define "negative" and "positive" but in terms of good or desirable and bad or undesirable? Purely a judgment since there's no objective measure.

Positive and negative are human judgments, not LOA judgments. To the best of my understanding, LOA is not a judgmental consciousness per say, merely a law that governs the energy delivery mechanism. Granted, as I continue to learn about LOA, my understanding is bound to change some.

You're certainly not using these terms the way physicists do--like with polarity. As Schlitt pointed out, in real science, negative and positive attract, not negative to negative and positive to positive.

I've covered that one, but again briefly... It is the underlying and/or encompassing consciousness of the object that emits a focused desire, and an object of matching focused thought will be attracted, even if the external system properties show something completely different.

For example, a proton and neutron both desire, on a conscious level, to be part of the nucleus, and when appropriate, they can desire to separate.

Heh, no kidding. But you already knew that before you first logged in here, didn't you StarSeed?

Yes, I did. If you are confused about the reason why I'm here, check the first post.

The only Law of Attraction you've managed to qualify after all your word-salad is the one that's obviously responsible for chain-yanking woos like yourself to go out of their way to "mess with the skeptics." We bug your kind, don't we?

Good.

And obviously this works both ways. Many of you.....perhaps all of you, are seriously 'bugged' about my beliefs, and I've seen posts from other threads, and on various skeptic forums, where skeptics brag about stirring up trouble on believer forums.

Not everyone is like that though. Some people find in depth discussion, even of disagreeable topics, to be enjoyable and enlightening.

 

[Steve H]

...Yes, I did. If you are confused about the reason why I'm here, check the first post.

I did and found 2 of your first 3 sentences telling.

And obviously this works both ways. Many of you.....perhaps all of you, are seriously 'bugged' about my beliefs, and I've seen posts from other threads, and on various skeptic forums, where skeptics brag about stirring up trouble on believer forums.

You don't really "bug" me StarSeed, I likely wouldn't have even bothered to read/post in your thread if it didn't happen to be at the top of the page at the time.

Not everyone is like that though. Some people find in depth discussion, even of disagreeable topics, to be enjoyable and enlightening.

That's why I'm not going to "dog" you. I just saw a lot of people trying to reason with you and posted my two cents - which is that you are yanking our chains. To be frank, if my impression of you is wrong and you actually are deluded to the point where you make excuses for why a woo concept doesn't work and incorporate that into an argument promoting it then no amount of reason, science, or critical thinking will sway you. If others here want to try anyway, more power to 'em.

 

[StarSeed]

How do you know spirit guides are real?

I take it on faith.

So which is it, the baby that is commiting suicide unwittingly, or the babies parents murdering their child unwittingly?

I cannot belive you can swallow this nonsense.

Neither. Suicide and murder both imply desire to bring harm.

The vibration of the desire can easily be different than the vibration of the thought that receives the most focused energy. If the child is surrounded by negative thought energy much of the time, it can be influenced by it, and adapt itself to the 'negative vibes', if you will.

General negative vibrations will bring about general negativity. Specific vibrations will bring about more specific results.

This is ridiculous, if this were true, then it would be random chance whether you ever made it out of childhood alive. If you have genetics which cause you to worry, look out! the universe is going to invent some disease or accident to kill you off.

You could choose not to worry about it, since worrying will do no good anyway, and stress is medically proven to assist in bringing about ailment and depression.

Do you realise how absurd the law of attraction is?

A baby is completely unaware of cotdeath, how on earth would vibrating negatively attract all of the components that make up cotdeath?
Cotdeath does not have a vibration...

The balance of thought energy can align you with negative ailments or circumstances. Many times negative outcomes would be born out of what Abraham refers to as the "what is" reality; which is the reality that most people generally believe in, especially the skeptics.

The "what is" reality includes everything that has happened that we have knowledge of, and that is added to the knowledge base on a daily basis. This will vary from person to person based on their life experience and knowledge base, but it is always very large and pretty well all encompassing.

This continual focused thought energy on the "what is", reinforces that reality, and brings more of it to you. This focus can be further swayed positive or negative as a person chooses.

OK so a murderer is better at the secret than his victim?
How ridiculous.

If something good happens, it was because you are good at the secret, if something bad happens it is because you are bad at the secret.
This is a meaningless, concept.

To be better at 'the secret' would seem to imply that both are consciously utilizing it. While that is a possible scenario, a more likely one is that neither are, since this is both a concept that few are interested in at this point, and those who are are genuinely desiring a more positive life, not trying to find a way to kill somebody.

When something good happens in your life, this means that your thought energy was focused enough in the positive for a period of time to bring it to you, and the opposite for the negative.

Yes, but try as you might, you will not effect the outcome of the baseball game.

At last! Something we both agree on. heh.

I understand what the theory behind it is, it is very simple concept. You thoughts create your reality, whether you want them to, or not. However there is one spanner in the works. This is simply not true!

Well, I beg to differ on the technicality that there is no serious science.......none at all, in fact....zero... that has attempted to disprove it, so given that (as claimed) it is a root law/mechanism of the universe, and perhaps complex in nature, and not able to provide instant evidence, then it remains in the realm of possibility, albeit extremely remote in the skeptical view.

If you are really convinced, then why not practice every day, every hour of the day. After all, if it were true and you could magically create your own universe, then you needn't bother worrying about school, working, finance, housing etc etc...

Amusing as would be to see you waste your life away on a fairytale concept, i hope you do not.

You have a solid point there, and I tell myself that everyday, and I do actually work with it everyday, just not as much as I should. All I can say is, no matter how big the pot of gold is, it seems my laziness knows no bounds! But nonetheless, I am moving steadily up the ladder, if slow.

 

[StarSeed]

That's why I'm not going to "dog" you. I just saw a lot of people trying to reason with you and posted my two cents - which is that you are yanking our chains. To be frank, if my impression of you is wrong and you actually are deluded to the point where you make excuses for why a woo concept doesn't work and incorporate that into an argument promoting it then no amount of reason, science, or critical thinking will sway you. If others here want to try anyway, more power to 'em.

I'm not here yanking chains. This is a sincere belief. I've always believed in the spiritual/paranormal, ect, throughout my life, beginning with church as a child.

As with any faith based belief, mixing it up with science is almost like oil and water, but I have participated in probably a couple of thousand discussions on the subject matter (faith/paranormal) going back to 1992, and while much of the time it can be a hair pulling experience for both sides, here and there things can be learned by all, and sometimes a little common ground can be found.

 

[Graham Ross]

Does anyone else notice that when people discover they can control reality with their thoughts they always wish for something really lame like shopping discounts or bicycles? If I truly believed I had this power I would wish for something cool like a castle. With a moat. And mermaids in the moat. It's not very realistic I know, but hey I control reality with my mind so I can make anything!

 

[Graham Ross]

Double post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Positive and negative are human judgments, not LOA judgments. To the best of my understanding, LOA is not a judgmental consciousness per say, merely a law that governs the energy delivery mechanism. Granted, as I continue to learn about LOA, my understanding is bound to change some.

If that were true, you should be able to explain LOA without using the terms "positive" and "negative". They are essential to it, and it is in fact a belief system that's dependent on being judgmental.

For example, a proton and neutron both desire, on a conscious level, to be part of the nucleus, and when appropriate, they can desire to separate.

And this is another article of faith no doubt?
By the way, have you ever heard of the pathetic fallacy? You are commiting it here.

Sorry, but you're in the realm of science. What you're saying is scientifically wrong (or nonsensical).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I'm suggesting there are laws in the universe that science has yet to discover. Are you suggesting all laws of physics have been discovered?

Not at all. You're the one postulating a law of physics that says the universe responds to human consciousness. (That our thought patterns "attract" certain events to occur.) I'm pointing out that the universe was around for a long time before human consciousness evolved.

So either this was a "law" that the universe held in reserve (because the universe "knew" humans would evolve??), or it's a relatively new law that arose only with human consciousness.

Surely you're not saying that other animals and inanimate matter are conscious in the same way as humans? Rocks and bacteria can't have thought patterns, positive or negative, regarding health, financial success, and emotional well being, can they?

Seriously, it's just New Age bunk.

Again, no where have I said that action can be, or should be, or would be, completely replaced or that it has no value. Point out the post where I have stated that so we can finalize that one.

LOA does not exclude action from our reality, unless of course, you want to spend 100 years of your life laying on the couch, eating chips and watching non-reality tv!

LOA says that it is the "vibrations" (which aren't really vibrations) or "thought energy" (which isn't really energy) themselves which attract positive or negative real-world events. It does say that. I don't care that it doesn't exclude other causes of events. I only care that it says the vibrations themselves attract events.

It's already been pointed out to you that we agree positive thinking can lead to motivation which can lead to action that can lead to desired (or undesired) events. (The results many LOA proponents see are probably due to this effect.) Most of us here (probably all of us) specifically disagree that it is the positive thinking (or thought energy or vibration or whatever) itself that attracts (dare we say "causes"?) the desired event.


If you're backing off of the LOA position, and now claiming that it's just a belief system that motivates you into taking action, please let us know. If not, then let's stick to it.

Positive thinking and vibrations did NOT lead to the development of the computer you're using right now. It was a lot of hard work, a lot of trial and error and a long history of accumulated knowledge. The only role of positive thinking was as a motivator. (Plenty computer scientists are motivated by the work itself. Plenty of people who contributed to the development of the modern desktop computer had other motivations--money, the challenge of solving a particular problem, etc. Some probably did their contribution without the "end" goal of a desktop PC in mind at all.)

 

[StarSeed]

Starseed:

How is the LOA falsifiable? You mentioned earlier that this would be difficult. However, I pointed out that it shouldn't be too hard. How would the universe function if the LOA were not true? What could a person do* to demonstrate that the LOA is not, in fact, real? (The assumption is, of course, that if the LOA is real, the person wouldn't be able to do that thing.)

*or not do, as the case may be.

Well, I say that it would be difficult in part because we do not even have that one piece, of rock solid evidence to build on, from the purely scientific view. The only 'building block' visible from the outside are what are normally considered coincidences, which understandably would not inspire the average scientist.

So, those initial experiments would be kind of a rough start, and would only seek to do as the MDC does (million $ chal.), that being to demonstrate anything beyond certain odds or something visibly 'magical' in nature.

To falsify it would require an absolute understanding, by the scientists, of exactly what is being claimed, which is why I stressed so much here the importance of clarifying what is being claimed. To argue against a claim that is not even made will serve no good.

The various methodologies would have to be carefully examined, and parameters/protocols designed to ensure they were followed as closely as possible.

I imagine that all primary methods would have to be tested.

Multiple persons would have to be tested.

Some type of electronic biofeedback device would be needed to measure various signals, the more the better.

Some type of psych test might be administered before and after the test to determine the "feelings and mood" of the participants.

It would probably be a good idea to run multiple, daily/weekly test on the same subjects to allow them to attempt to improve their energy flow over time.

Also, I mentioned before, that the scientists involved should ideally be able to admit that they are open to 'grand possibilities', or something of that sort. Not believers, necessarily, although that would be best, but open minded. Most likely this type of testing would bring about a cocreation situation, so everyone involved could potentially affect the outcome.

Bottom line is, one or two ball & cup tests won't disprove it to anybody, but it could be a start.

The testing protocols would need to be first rate; lock everything down, and then, conduct as many tests as you can afford.

{Bolding mine} Source, or just because you believe it to be so? You really don't seem to grasp how poorly you're arguing your case.

I believe the spiritual aspect of humanity to be a core component. It's far too pervasive to dismiss as just ignorant dreaming, imo.

I argue the case the best that I can given that it is a belief at this point.

StarSeed, can you elaborate on what kind of coincidences you see as evidence of this working in your life? It stands to reason that good things happen to us all from time to time, so how do you know they wouldn't have happened anyway?

So far, they are minimal, and do not constitute solid evidence even in my book, but it was enough to raise an eyebrow over.

First, there were a few times that I focused on getting work in a specific location. This happened, IIRC, 3 times in a row.

Next, my interactions with people have improved significantly, and I'm primarily referring to interactions that are initiated by the other party.

3rd, I did very specific workshops/dreamwork on the 'shopping deals' bit, the details I will save for later as I am worn out on the forums. The deals, and specifics of the deals have come in (not finalized yet) in the exact fashion that I focused on, to such an extent, that I forgot what I focused on and actually became alarmed about it until I remembered that the scenario I was witnessing was exactly what I applied energy to. If this pans out all the way, then this will be my first major testimonial to tell everyone.

If you look at the people featured on the secret most of them have degrees, have worked for years in their fields and ultimately have become succesful. I don't see how a LOA is required to explain how they got where they are now, it's just normal cause and effect.

Well, it's not, on the surface, but LOA lies beneath the surface.

LOA is 180 degrees backwards compared to everything we have all seen and believed in our lives. It is not easy to wrap the mind around and it will take time for science to prove it, but that won't happen until someone takes the first step with serious experiments. The Challenge is not what I would call 'serious science', although it is sufficient if someone can actually do something, but a serious experiment would have the scientists designing the parameters/protocols based on what the practicioners are claiming, rather than just a "Ok, do your thang!" approach.

(I'll return tonight probably)

 

[schlitt]

Neither. Suicide and murder both imply desire to bring harm.

Well manslaughter then. It is the fault of the person you are implying.

The vibration of the desire can easily be different than the vibration of the thought that receives the most focused energy. If the child is surrounded by negative thought energy much of the time, it can be influenced by it, and adapt itself to the 'negative vibes', if you will.

General negative vibrations will bring about general negativity. Specific vibrations will bring about more specific results.

StarSeed, you are just talking about things which have no evidence. I can make up wacky theories like this also, it does not make them true. No amount of subconscious thought can attract an inanimate object, let alone a whole situation comprised of mean people and objects, the very idea of this is ludicrous and has no evidence.

You could choose not to worry about it, since worrying will do no good anyway, and stress is medically proven to assist in bringing about ailment and depression.

No, you can't simply choose not to worry. It is a genetic and situational thing which causes you to be how you are. And if we were to believe the example you used above, your are being screwed over from everyone else's thoughts anyway.

The balance of thought energy can align you with negative ailments or circumstances. Many times negative outcomes would be born out of what Abraham refers to as the "what is" reality; which is the reality that most people generally believe in, especially the skeptics.

The "what is" reality includes everything that has happened that we have knowledge of, and that is added to the knowledge base on a daily basis. This will vary from person to person based on their life experience and knowledge base, but it is always very large and pretty well all encompassing.

This continual focused thought energy on the "what is", reinforces that reality, and brings more of it to you. This focus can be further swayed positive or negative as a person chooses.

More pretend science with no evidence im afraid.

To be better at 'the secret' would seem to imply that both are consciously utilizing it. While that is a possible scenario, a more likely one is that neither are, since this is both a concept that few are interested in at this point, and those who are are genuinely desiring a more positive life, not trying to find a way to kill somebody.

No, this simply implies that if it were true, you could screw with others if you mastered the secret better than them. This is ridiculous.
The situation is good for one person, and bad for the other, how does that correlate to different ways of vibrating? It cannot.

When something good happens in your life, this means that your thought energy was focused enough in the positive for a period of time to bring it to you, and the opposite for the negative.

Again, more nonsense based on no evidence.

Well, I beg to differ on the technicality that there is no serious science.......none at all, in fact....zero... that has attempted to disprove it, so given that (as claimed) it is a root law/mechanism of the universe, and perhaps complex in nature, and not able to provide instant evidence, then it remains in the realm of possibility, albeit extremely remote in the skeptical view.

No, it does not remain a possibility, it is wrong. Opposites attract. Your thoughts do not vibrate. You can provably demonstrate that objects do not respond to thoughts, and that objects do not have positive/negative vibrations. A situation cannot have a vibration.
The concept is nonsense, it is provably nonsense, and it demonstrably does not work.
It is made for people who are unable to use critical thinking, with the purpose of selling books and making money.

Did you watch the youtube video i posted about the con artist who was a prominent part of the secret?
These are the types who make this rubbish, they are scumbags who just want your money.

 

[biostudent]

It seems, to me, that the LOA is really just a naïve, first approximation, of psychological and economical theories.
...
[snip]

I hate putting up what is essentially a me too post, but really, this poster said exactly what I was thinking when I read this thread.

 

[Graham Ross]

3rd, I did very specific workshops/dreamwork on the 'shopping deals' bit, the details I will save for later as I am worn out on the forums. The deals, and specifics of the deals have come in (not finalized yet) in the exact fashion that I focused on, to such an extent, that I forgot what I focused on and actually became alarmed about it until I remembered that the scenario I was witnessing was exactly what I applied energy to. If this pans out all the way, then this will be my first major testimonial to tell everyone.

Great! Now focus on a castle with mermaids in the moat.

 

[Moochie]

When presented with questions as to why the secret clearly does not work, all you have offered so far ammounts to "Oh, they just weren't good enough at the secret".

A very convenient excuse.

It is a very brilliant money making scheme they have going here. Captilizing on human natures natural tendancy towards confirmation bias. When something good happens, they will attribute it to the secret, and when something bad happens they think "Damn, i am not good enough at the secret" and buy more material. It creates a cyclic thought process, and therefore a continual money making scheme.

These new age cons are extremely smart, they capatilize on two things.

Firstly, people want something magical to believe in, so often will suspend their better judgement and accept the premise because they want it to be true. I mean, just how cool would it be if it actually were true, it is such a shame it isn't.
This is unfortunately one of human natures easiest flaws to exploit, and why superstition is so pervasive in our society.

Secondly, they capatalize on the fact that many people do not have a good understanding of science, so they dress up their concept in fake science, to make it sound scientific, and this wows all of the ignorant members of society.

If people actually had a sound knowledge of physics, biology and were able to examine these concepts critically, they would immediately see all of the things which contradict science. There are however very few people with this kind of knowledge.

This fad will eventually die out once people realize that their wishes do not come true. Until then, we will have to suffer the credulous optimists with no capacity for rational thought harping on about it.

Alas, all too true.

I find StarSeed's discourse to be utterly devoid of anything approaching sense, let alone science.

But carry on -- I'm always ready for a good belly-laugh.

M.