“but it’s not but I came in here to say so it would be kind of weird for me to have said it”
Hey thanks for clarifying.
Think how much more satisfying you would have found it to have made this choice at the outset.
Anytime.
Cite?
(Seriously, can people post her most egregious posts/threads? I’d love to read enough to make an informed opinion… because right now, I’m stuck thinking “All of the above”.)
correction!
Damn you Siri, damn you! I get spoiled trusting you, fail to check your work and this is what you do… tsk tsk
Wow, you don’t even read over what you post via dictation? That shows great attantion of detail, right there.
It’s not her fault! It’s the ADD! It’s the mean lawyers! It’s the carbs!
Nah, she secretly wanted people to think she believed in the law of attraction and to mock her for it, so it came true. She also wanted zweisamkeit to fall prey to Gaudere’s law!
Hey guys, although I’m in sharp disagreement with the ideas Stoid’s promoting here, I’m starting to feel kind of uncomfortable with this pile-on. It’s departed from the OP topic and is getting all personal.
Well, I honestly don’t want to contribute to her feeling uncomfortable. I don’t think she’s stupid or a bad person or anything along those lines. I certainly don’t feel more intelligent than she.
If she repudiates the notion that she is attracting this hostility because she secretly desires or deserves it, I’ll happily go on my merry way. Otherwise, I think criticising such positions is better for the individual that undergoes the criticism, because they are capable of rejecting a position that is inconsistent with external reality.
Nope, that was done intentionally. 
Someone on the boards (I’m pretty sure an Aussie doper, but not sure who specifically) once posted the phrase in a thread about hilarious job application mistakes. He had received a resume that said one of the applicant’s strongest skills was “great attantion of detail”. 
It’s funny to me that you brought up Christianity, Stoid. Because on this board, your approach to discussing Christianity is quite different from your approach in this thread: True believing Christians: will you allow me to challenge and probe your beliefs?
So, essentially you started a thread with the apparent goal of pointing out to Christians the logical problems with their beliefs, and yet in a thread where people do the same with the Law of Attraction, you attempt (up until you are able), to defend the logical problems with that particular philosophy. Seems kind of inconsistent.
Also, I find it interesting that you feel so comfortable making it clear to us that you do not follow one particular spiritual belief, and then with another remain insistent that the World Will Never Know whether or not you follow it. Is there a particular reason for that?
I don’t ever want to be part of a pile-on either. However, when 99 people say “it’s a duck” and 1 person says “it’s not necessarily a duck…and I may or may not agree–you’ll never know!” then it looks to me like an invite for drama as an excuse to play the pity card when there’s a challenge. I know I haven’t been here long, but I know the behavior. This is attention-seeking and crazy making for all those involved. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a dramatic outburst a la “no one supports me here!” When again, it’s clear to me that any frustration she has was brought on by her…not just because of the topic, but because of how gamey she has been with her stance on it. At least, that’s how I see it.
Yeah, that’s the other side of it, which I also find vaguely disturbing. I just don’t get what’s the point of continuing along that line of argument. The whole thread has turned into a WTF, after it had started out with a fairly reasonable and even interesting airing of philosophical views.
What is it you think you’re accusing me of or busting me about? I’ve participated in lots of threads about lots of religions and spiritual beliefs from lots of angles - did someone neglect to inform me about some rule that says all discussion of all things pertaining to religious and metaphysical belief systems must all be treated identically? Is there some particular way that has already been defined and I failed to follow the formula way back when, or is it more that I am assumed to have picked a lane in the first thread where I discussed any religion or other belief system and am now expected to remain in that lane in perpetuity?
It looks like I ask for information a lot:
Islam, please. I just found out that Muslims believe in Jesus…
** If Jews don’t believe in an afterlife, what’s the motivation?**
So I obviously relate to being ignorant about religions and spiritual beliefs of all kinds, and I understand how people can misunderstand the details, since I have obviously done so myself.
But in the case of the law of attraction, I happen to be the one who has the information that others are lacking. So I took the opportunity to explain it, knowing full well as I did so that it would continue to be bashed and having no concern whatsoever about that, since that was not and is still not the point in my explaining it. The point was to simply do that: explain it, accurately describe what it genuine is, *fight the ignorance about it. * Better to bash something from an informed place than an ignorant one, and that applies to everything.
Which is why I loved the straight dope as a newspaper column and I sought out the forums and remain to this day, because I love the ethos of this place and participating in it with that in mind.
Mission accomplished!
And speaking of rules… is there a rule that if someone has the information about a given spiritual practice and speak of it, that they are then obligated to openly declare their own belief in or adherence to that practice when asked?
Because if there is, then I think it really should be posted somewhere very prominently so that everyone knows in advance.
It’s not just that you ask for information, Stoid, it’s that you argue the logic of the information you receive. Meanwhile, in this particular case, when other people question the logic of the Law of Attraction, you bail on explaining it, while meanwhile claiming that it makes perfect sense, and that the fault is with the person who isn’t grasping it. That’s where I see a disconnect.
Of course there is no such rule, and I didn’t actually say that I expect you to openly declare your belief. I just think it’s odd that you make it quite clear that you think traditional religions are a bunch of malarkey, whereas you’re all dodgy about what you believe in terms of this Law of Attraction. I wasn’t asking you to declare a belief, I was asking why it is you don’t want to take a stand in this particular case.
I’m not sure why you are saying this at this point, but in case I was unclear about why I mentioned those threads, it was to demonstrate that the subject of religious and metaphysical beliefs have been addressed by me in ways other than to challenge, as I had in the thread you mentioned. All in response to the idea that I would be wedded to an “approach”.
I take issue with your saying this. Having just reviewed the whole thread, I explained everything to the best of my ability and answered questions that were sincere requests for more information ( vs. attempts to get a debate going or rhetorical commentary)
Did I do that? That doesn’t sound like anything I wrote. I certainly didn’t use those words, so perhaps you are inferring that meaning from something else I did say?
Also, there’s a difference between discussing the internal logic of a set of ideas and the “logic” in terms of assessing whether a set of ideas are correct or true. I did my best to address questions that fit within the first definition, but those which seemed to be more about the second I left alone, because I had no interest in discussing the validity of the ideas one way or another, only what they are.
I don’t want to discuss my beliefs or lack thereof. To discuss why I don’t want to discuss it would in fact be a subset of discussing it. My being unwilling to participate in that discussion is nothing personal.
Do you consider my question regarding parents expecting their children to die of cancer to be an attempt to get a debate going, or rhetorical commentary? Because it was neither…it was a legitimate attempt to understand your statement that people get what they expect.
When people made it clear they didn’t understand the logic of this philosophy, you copped out with your “so sorry you don’t understand this better, that must be so frustrating for you” answers. Would you have considered that sort of answer as sufficient when you were trying to understand Christianity, Judaism, or Islam?
No one was trying to discuss the latter, as it’s taken as a given that it’s not correct or true. You were copping out on the former definition, as far as I could tell.
I never thought it was personal, it’s just inconsistent with your past behavior, so I find it curious.
Oh, PZ Myers calls it the “Courtier’s Reply”. The validity of such a criticism often depends on whether the two people discussing a concept start from similar premises. For example, a dualist arguing with a solipsist may just have no set of shared premises, other than that they can understand the individual words in each sentence the other person uses.
I responded to you about this in several ways, including explaining why I didn’t intend to continue adding to my existing response. Why are you asking this as though that exchange didn’t happen?
I respond sincerely and reasonably to people who respond to me sincerely and reasonably. If you think I’ve skipped someone who fits that definition, all I can say is that we disagree, and I’m completely comfortable with my assessments.