Law of Attraction: Superior Woo

[schlitt]

If you focus on your fear of rape, and the would be rapist is focused on his desire to rape, there is a match.

OK, well you have just given proof of the absurdity of this concept.

You say that the vibrations match;

A child has no concept of leucemia, how do you explain the children that have died of it leucemia "attracting" it?

Also, How can rape be matching both a negative vibration from the victim, and a positive vibration from the rapist? It cannot be both a positive vibration, and a negative one.

Besides, who categorizes situations and gives them a vibration level anyway?

There are just so many logical inconsistencies like this, in this ridiculous fantasy.

 

[tsig]

It's been a fun discussion guys, but I'm worn out taking on all of you at once, so I'm going to select out a few more bits and then bow out for now.



You can have whatever you want.........with practice. The airplane wreck analogy I used earlier....insert it here again. Assuming that LOA is real, if you can do that for a few seconds, it would be plausible that it might take some practice to land the big stuff.



You can use different labels if you prefer. How about, 'more desirable / less desirable'. Likeable, less likeable.

Are you able to feel positive in a given moment and then tell yourself that you don't feel positive?

When I feel positive, I feel positive. It's what I feel. It's how I feel, and the sensation is more enjoyable than feeling negative.

The judgment, ultimately, is one's own. You personally decide what is positive and negative based on your own emotions and how you feel.

So if I thought it was positive to rob someone I would be LOA to someone who needed to be robbed. How would we ever prosecute criminals?

 

[Soapy Sam]

....by the way, I'm taking these posts one at a time, combining as appropriate, so be patient, I'll get to you, but my battery is almost dead, so I'll probably be back later in the day.

This is a Turing Test?

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Ok, almost out....

.
.
.
1) A heavy belief in the statistical "what is" reality, the skeptics' reality. This day in and day out focus of thought on the "what is" exposes you to..........the "what is", meaning if you believe that you are at risk, statistically, then you will be at risk, per the statistics.

2) Many will have an added negative vibration of specific fears. Some women will have an enhanced fear of rape. Some may even think of it constantly.

It would be childs play to refute these assertions. Dozens of examples spring to mind of just the opposite occuring in, well, reality.

For instance, millions of people have been drinking diet soda believing that it would help them lose weight. The opposite, for whatever reason, has been shown to be the case in recent study after recent study. I have seen speculation that the artificial sweeteners slow down your metabolism. Whatever the cause,

the "what is", meaning if you believe that you are at risk, statistically, then you will be at risk, per the statistics.

the universe has not helped people who drink diet soda lose weight, even though they truly believed that they would lose weight. Drinking diet soda does not "put you at risk" for dropping pounds. It "puts you at risk" for the opposite, gaining pounds, in direct oppoasition to the expectations of millions of hopeful dieters.

I bet anybody here could think of dozens of examples on the fly of reality working in opposition to the expectations of the masses.

 

[Mr. Scott]

How do you know spirit guides are real?

I take it on faith.

Oh, then you don't know spirit guides are real. Is that correct?

 

[Ladewig]

Ok, I'm going on hiatus for now. This thread has worn me out.

Yes, pitching disgustingly offensive ideas (the Jews brought it on themselves) can be tiring. I sometimes wonder how DOC finds enough energy to keep three threads alive at once.

 

[David Wong]

Do you believe there is anyone alive today who is able to conjure up a castle with mermaids in the moat using the power of their mind? Cos I'm pretty sure that would silence the skeptics.

Mermaids? How about a cure for cancer? Or a cold fusion reactor? Or a device that would bring clean water to the third world?

Does anybody disagree that this is maybe the most evil religious belief system ever created? The jews' negative thinking created the holocaust? The rape victim spent too much time thinking about rape? The dead baby spent too much time thinking negatively?

Holy crap. That's evil on a scale that I didn't think a rational person would be capable of embracing.

 

[David Wong]

In response to whether he thinks there are LoA experts in the world who can create "castles and mermaids":

Yes, I do, essentially, although probably not the mermaids because I don't we think we can create other conscious units, but we might be able to attract them.

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Maybe Mr StarSeed has gone off somewhere to hide and be re-born as a star. (The big luminous kind, not one that acts in movies, I presume). Do you have to water star seeds? How deep do you plant them?

However, a final question, why do the auditors of casinos never note that they payoff better than chance? Even if the LOA worked a tiny, tiny bit, people wishing and hoping as they gamble would surely produce such an effect. This has never been seen. Thus the LOA is a big pile of steaming bull defecation. :idiot:

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, a final question, why do the auditors of casinos never note that they payoff better than chance? Even if the LOA worked a tiny, tiny bit, people wishing and hoping as they gamble would surely produce such an effect. This has never been seen. Thus the LOA is a big pile of steaming bull defecation. :idiot:

Excellent point! In fact, casinos depend on people believing they'll win more than they'll lose despite all the evidence to the contrary. They do all they can to encourage people to think that the long odds don't apply to them.

Think about it, Starseed. If people who went into casinos believed they didn't have much chance of winning, most of them wouldn't place bets. Casino gamblers are the biggest positive thinkers there are. Many people will even lie about their losses (and some of them convince themselves that they're not lying). Why don't all these absurdly positive vibrations affect the outcome of the games? Casinos can calculate with incredible accuracy how much they'll take in relative to how much they'll pay out. They don't need to take into account any of the LOA's silly ideas.

 

[Married2aWooster]

Vegas as prima facie evidence of LOA's inherent flaws. Bugsy would be proud.

 

[sophia8]

Does anybody disagree that this is maybe the most evil religious belief system ever created? The jews' negative thinking created the holocaust? The rape victim spent too much time thinking about rape? The dead baby spent too much time thinking negatively?

Holy crap. That's evil on a scale that I didn't think a rational person would be capable of embracing.

Just look at Starseed's own claims that the LOA is working for him. Are he - and those he loves - happy, overcoming their problems, achieving all their goals, developing satisfying relationships, experiencing good health and generally leading contented and fulfilled lives since he started practising "The Secret"?
Well, he's become less lazy. Oh, and he's made some good shopping deals. And, er..... that's it.
Does practising the LOA kill off your empathy and altruism, and make you stupider? Or do the people who take it up start off that way?

 

[Married2aWooster]

...Does practising the LOA kill off your empathy and altruism, and make you stupider? Or do the people who take it up start off that way?

I'm not sure about any of that, but there's no question we have empirical evidence it destroys one's ability to recognize when you're spewing gibberish.

 

[Elizabeth I]

This is a Turing Test?

Um, isn't the criterion for that supposed to be that the conversation is indistinguishable from one with a sentient being?

 

[Jackalgirl]

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.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. It just takes a little imagination. "If the LOA works like /this/, than this /other/ thing happening would be unlikely." Certainly, there could be some other unanticipated "angle" of the LOA that would explain the failure, but at least it would be a start.

You are actually making a claim -- that the universe operates according to the LOA. You make very specific and detailed claims about how this works, although largely using a vocabulary borrowed from -- but pretty remote from -- science. Therefore, you should be able to imagine what would likely NOT happen if the LOA were true.

Likewise, you should be able to make some predictions that operate on the assumption that the LOA is true. "If the LOA works like /this/, then I should expect to see /that/ -- and, since this is a LAW, it should happen consistently." Again, when things don't happen the way you expect, it doesn't necessarily mean that the LOA is wrong: perhaps you set up the experiment incorrectly, or perhaps there's an angle to the LOA you hadn't considered.

However, if you can come up with an excuse for every possible failure of the LOA to fulfill a prediction, then I suggest that you are describing a universe in which there is no functional difference between the LOA being true and not being true. In other words, it's a PHILOSOPHY, but not an accurate description of how the material universe actually functions.

 

[David Wong]

In the clip from the The Secret DVD we saw earlier (included in the Chaser's War on Everything bit), The Secret guy claimed very specifically that he could create open parking spaces using The Secret.

That should be extremely easy to test, right? Just follow the guy around and watch him do it. Should be pretty amazing.

 

[David Wong]

Actually, what would be even more amazing would be to interview all the other drivers who park in that area and find out if they felt some strange compulsion to avoid the space that guy had the universe reserve for him. Also, to find out if anyone with an appointment at that building had failed to show and why, like if the universe killed some other guy with a heart attack so his car wouldn't be blocking this other dude's space.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Actually, what would be even more amazing would be to interview all the other drivers who park in that area and find out if they felt some strange compulsion to avoid the space that guy had the universe reserve for him. Also, to find out if anyone with an appointment at that building had failed to show and why, like if the universe killed some other guy with a heart attack so his car wouldn't be blocking this other dude's space.

Yeah... LOA kinda sounds like it's just a bunch of Bull, now doesn't it?
I don't know... it seems like it

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sorry, double post.

 

[godless dave]

No evidence, but this is the story of Atlantis and the origins of modern man. It was only humans because we were chosen for the grand experiment. The general idea was to create an advanced species for souls to embody.

What story? Whose idea?

Since there is no evidence that Atlantis every existed, and no evidence that there is any such thing as a life form with three strands of DNA (I don't think three strands of DNA would even work, chemically), why are you lending any credence to this story?