I guess I missed it at http://www.nouilles.info/sdpix/index.html
But maybe there’s another gallery I’m not aware of.
Fantastically, thank you for asking! I’ve lost about 55 pounds and I’m feeling great.
That’s a potentially good point, though you mess it up by attributing it to your opponents yourself (and spare me any “I didn’t explicitly say I knew for a fact you blahblahblah-”. Your phrasing is obvious).
Nope.
And nope… and nope. Thanks for playing!
I’m not really following what you mean here, what you are referring to in anticipating my response. So I guess no need to worry I’ll respond that way.
Good! Consistency is a good thing.
I’ve posted it on this board before. If you’ve suddenly got such a big a hardon for me, find it yourself.
Hmm. Well, keep it up then.
Oh, forgot to post this:
Claiming to be disinterested when it’s apparent you’re not is disingenuous though.
That makes no sense. If you don’t believe in it and mentioned that, it would serve to make it less about you, since no one would have any grounds with which to attack you. Only if you did believe in it would it be about you.
And what the hell do you think I would actually discuss about you? I just pointed out that you have given every reason for people to believe you believe in the Secret. You know a ton about it, you say nothing negative about it, you won’t say you don’t believe it when it makes sense to do so, and you get all defensive anytime anyone accuses you of believing it.
The only reason I would discuss your belief with you is if you keep insisting that we somehow don’t know what you believe. And even then, I’m not to inclined to do so, since you have shown in the past that, once you get your mind at something, you won’t change it no matter what the evidence to the contrary. I only said anything to point it out to the person I was responding to.
And perhaps to dare you into proving me wrong. If you really don’t believe, admitting it will get people to no longer focus on you.
A: Why would you think I was claiming that I am never sarcastic at all? Of course I’m sarcastic sometimes. How weird.
B: But the posts you cite in the other thread contain no sarcasm, either. Everything I said I meant. (I think, I scanned and nothing popped…)
I didn’t say I was disinterested in the subject itself, that would make no sense. When I am disinterested I don’t participate in the discussion at all. What I have no interest in is how people ultimately view the belief system, which is different than being disinterested in the topic altogether.
What an odd way of looking at things. Why would my belief in anything at all be grounds to attack me, vs. the belief I hold? And if you agree that you are entitled to attack the belief, then you don’t need to know whether it is mine or not in order to proceed with that attack. If you don’t agree, and feel you have some inherent right to attack me and somehow think it’s my responsibility to make sure you don’t by giving you what you want, well, then, I guess that makes you a bully and me someone that has no interest in being bullied.
But that makes no sense: the only reason it is coming up is because other people are making it an issue, not me. I stated at the outset what my intention was, and others decided to ignore that and press me or make assumptions about what I believe. Since I made my intention and purpose clear at the outset, I felt and feel no responsibility to anyone else to answer their demands for knowledge of my mind. I issued no invitation and in fact sought to preclude the inquiry. That others made the decision to ignore that is not my problem.
Again, it’s your issue, not mine. I took responsibility for where I wanted to be in this and communicated it directly, specifically, and unambiguously. How other people behave after that is not my responsibility to control at all, much less by the rules they set for me to follow.
It’s possible to be disinterested in the outcome of a thread and still participate in it. For example, the moderator in the Straight Dope Presidential Election thread will do his best to remain disinterested, but not uninterested.
On the other hand stating that:
While simultaneously asserting that it works like the law of gravity or that people get what they expect, as in science, strikes me as disingenuous.
That’s your failure not mine. Because I explain how something works doesn’t mean I believe it. I can explain Christianity- doesn’t mean I’m Christian. I can explain Mormonism-doesn’t make me a Mormon. I can explain Scientology-doesn’t make me a Scientologist.
Correction: I don’t become defensive I am simply correcting peoples assumptions and assertions that I believe. I would do exactly the same if people were assuming and asserting that I don’t believe. But they don’t make those assertions. All I am interested in doing is correcting people who assert anything as a fact when it comes to my beliefs on this subject, because no one knows.
Do you condemn this? If not, it’s entirely reasonable to operate on the view that you’re condoning it. If you want to attempt to demonstrate a phenomenon, you’re going to have to do better for cites than linking to the wikipedia article for “Religious Science”, which is to my mind a contradiction in terms. Science is founded on the principle of empiricism and evidence (and since Popper, disprovability), while religion is founded on the principle of faith. Nothing is gained in the synthesis of those two things.
For example, to support the last statement quoted above, you’d need to refute the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can’t, I expect you to retract the comment, or at least add a disclaimer that “this is a widely held misconception”.
I’d also like to see your psychological articles that demonstrate the effects of wishful thinking - perhaps the “stereotype threat” would be a good place to start.
As an aside:
Tu quoque.
Edit:
Forgot to point out that adherents to “The Secret” are probably suffering from a form of confirmation bias, in which they overemphasise times when their anticipation was correct. This is amplified when someone that believes in “The Secret” becomes successful: the spotlight fallacy comes into play. It’s similar to the Ponzi schemes in which a rich person gives a lecture on how to become rich quick. The simplest method throughout history has been to divorce gullible people from their possessions voluntarily by charging them for attending such lectures. Same schtick in prosperity theology.
Uhnf, missed the edit window on a comment that occurred to me. “The Secret” essentially mandates a belief in dualism. There is no method of divorcing thoughts from the physical processes that give rise to them in an empirical fashion. Thus, empirically, thoughts are a product of the environment and not the other way around. To believe otherwise is to stray beyong what we’re capable of demonstrating empirically and requires a faith in a spirit of some sort that is communicating thoughts intangibly to each individual.
Only if you operate from the bizarre position that everything in life must be condemned or condoned which I do not, but you apparently do.
Well, I don’t want to attempt to demonstrate a phenomenon. Should that change I’ll be sure to let you know.
Stoid speaks with forked tongue.
Last night I was drunk and angry about some stuff that’s been going on for me personally. I lashed out and took a couple cheap shots at Stoid. I apologize to her for the personal attacks.
That’s very nice of you, Lord Ashtar. Apology accepted.
You are arguing. People are saying things, and you are rebutting their points with your own. Then they rebut your points, and you rebut their rebuttal. That’s the basic definition of arguing.
I believe you that you are not trying to defend or promote this belief system. But your posts sound like you are promoting and defending, because what you will do is explain the belief system works from the perspective of a believer in a post and at no point say that you don’t personally believe that belief system. So anyone who reads those posts will think you’re promoting and defending those belief systems.
Come to think of it, you’re kind of acting like Bricker, except instead of looking through the legal lens for a thread, you’re looking through the crazy person lens. I can dig it.
No, I’m an atheist. As I imagine are most of the people angry enough about The Secret to argue with you about it.