Law of Attraction: Superior Woo

[Ron_Tomkins]

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?

I think it's because he takes it on faith.

Considering what he bases his arguments on.

 

[Sasha]

200 posts and all I've learned is that the Universe is run by vibrators.

I should be feeling a lot happier.

All the time.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

200 posts and all I've learned is that the Universe is run by vibrators.

I should be feeling a lot happier.

All the time.

Nominated

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok, almost out....

This type of question was already asked and answered a few times before, which is why I skipped it, but, I'll tackle it again.

Not at all. You just keep asserting your point without supporting it in any way whatsoever. And usually your assertion is incoherent--often using words that carry no meaning at all.

A rape victim, or any crime victim, would have one, and possibly two basic categories of focused thought, as I understand it.

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.

As I said, we can coreate our reality with others. Nothing comes into our reality that isn't a vibrational match, wanted or unwanted.

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

And do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that rape victims exhibit more "negative vibration of specific fears" than non rape victims?

(Since you can't seem to define "negative" or "vibration" in any meaningful way, I can only take this to mean that some rape victims attract the rape because they're afraid of being raped. Any proof? Frankly, I'd bet that the correlation runs the other way. People who are more afraid--by the way, you do know that children and men can be rape victims as well, don't you? you keep saying "women"-- are probably more likely to take steps to be safer.)

Any proof that your belief about the probability of a macro-world event (don't start saying "quantum"--we're not talking about subatomic particles) can affect the probability of that event?

By the way, isn't there an awful lot of overlap between 1 and 2? (Thinking you're likely to be raped and being afraid of being raped--aren't they similar kinds of thinking?) So, is there any evidence that victims have this opinion more than non-victims?

No, there is no such proof at all. You're just making absurd assertions with no evidence.

So, your support for your argument is just to assert your point over and over again.

 

[Sasha]

Nominated

Thank you kind sir.

 

[Rasmus55]

Stop making so much sense Joe! You're confusing the lad.

And this is supposedly an argument that LOA is not judgmental? You've just said it's all based on personal judgment in direct contradiction to your previous statement that I was commenting on.

So again. . .is LOA judgmental or not? How can positive/negative and desirable/undesirable at the same time be a judgment and non-judgmental?

And I still find it despicable that you hold victims 50% responsible for what's happened to them.

So what thought pattern in a rape victim attracts the rape?

Joe is making just way too much sense. And to push the matter futher, consider the case of the baby born with a horrible condition, say blindness. Who chose this afflication? Certainly the baby did not will it upon himself; such a suggestion is absurd. Did the parents? What would motivate the parents to so choose?

Of course, this hints at basic hindu beliefs from which the LOA draws rather liberally. In fact, many LOA supporters/writers/theorists are hindus from India. It is a matter of caste really. For instance, a person born blind under the classic hindu caste system is considered "untouchable". Why is he untouchable? Well, because he was sinful in a previous life, and we know this by virtue of the mark of his sin, which manifested itself as blindness, lameness, or some other physical defect or illness. And if none of these visual deformities/infirmities, then by virtue of his birth to parents who were themselves untouchable. In this sense, society allowed itself to immediately identify those who were previously sinful and receiving their juste punishment in this life by apparent deformity of some type or misfortune of birth. The caste system was therefore reinforced and perpetuated; existing even to this day.

The LOA reiterates this in a subtle manner. We can immediately know that successful person A has a "positive" (read virtuous) attitude by the fact of his success alone. Yet person B, to whom some misfortune befell, even if it befell while in the womb, we know by virtue of the misfortune has a "negative" (read sinful) attitude/perception/orwhateveritscalled manifestation of supposed reality. It is the reinforcement of a corrupt social control mechanism, and you've purchased right into the thing. I get such a kick out of new agers who try to dress up elements of old Eastern, particularly hindu, religion/beliefs and try to pawn them off on Westerners who are completely ignorant of the sometimes stunning rationals for those beliefs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And Rasmus, I contend that this stuff is also compatible with some Protestant ethics in the west. It is faith alone (not good works or actions) that separates the saved or elect from the damned. Under double predestination, who has faith is also predetermined (by God a name for the universe's consciousness?). It's a completely different rationale, but the upshot is the same: people who enjoy prosperity do so as proof that they are among the saved, while the poor and wretched must be among the damned, and we don't owe them anything.

 

[ExMinister]

Star Seed sounds just like so many others who buy into this until something really lousy happens to them personally. It's sad. Then they realize how damaging it is. When they've been diagnosed with cancer or some other disaster befalls them, and when their New Age friends are all secretly convinced they must have done something to bring it on themselves, suddenly it isn't a lot of fun anymore. Or when they've tried to visualize themselves healed of heart disease or some other thing and failed, they just haven't tried hard enough or they're secretly negative. It so similar to the Christian view that God rewards good behavior and punishes the bad (substitute the Universe here, operating impersonally), so that when something bad happens, they just know their fellow Christians all must think they've done something morally wrong and they feel guilty. It's destructive and I wish everyone would just knock it the hell off. The last thing sick, grieving, or suffering people need is more guilt.

 

[abkaiser]

For anyone interested, DBSkeptic has just posted a review of The Secret. Brings up some of the points mentioned here, as well as a listing of The Secret's internal inconsistancies.