« Expelled from Expelled | Main | Evolution Not Responsible for Hitler »

March 21, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Holy heck. Plato, Newton and Einstein all knew the secret....and now even moses was in on it too, and even had the best one!

....That's why he spent 40 years wandering around in the desert.....

Thanks for keeping tabs on these nutters. Fundamentalists can only dream of the kind of sales these idiots get, yet their ideas are often even dumber.

Sounds like an all star cast.

The video The Secret had a dash of good advice mixed in with a whole bunch of nonsense. The good advice is basically to figure out what you want in life and to focus on it, which really does work, but not at all for the reasons they said it does.

But in this new movie, it sounds like they've gotten rid of even a hint of anything worthwhile and have gone whole-hog nonsense.

what I find so ridiculous (among so many ridiculous things) is how this moses code has been banned (by whom, I wonder) for all these years, and suddenly this guy 'unlocks' the code? it sounds just like the Da Vinci code, which is so obviously how it's being marketed. but yeah, it sounds like a recycled version of the secret, just on a larger scale!

The Moses Code and Secret were good films. But the one I liked best so far was the opus. It features many from the cast of the Secret, but the thing I liked about it was that I actually left with some very valuable information that I could apply diorectly to my life. It was real tangible stuff. for a guy like me that isn't as new age savy as others this for me was the best most practical film yet. I hope it will change the world. I believe it can. I believe their message is so much more accessible for people like me. Here's the website www.TheOpusMovie.com

The Moses Code and Secret were good films.
Bzzt! Oh, I'm so sorry, but that's not correct. As a parting gift, here's a copy of our home game; just visualize it hard enough and it'll arrive in eight to ten weeks. Thanks for playing!

Wow. "new age" fanatics are one thing, but somebody who actually believes that its not bullshit, and aspires to be more "new age savy?" Wow. That is a whole new woo.

Its not hard to be savy, Gord. Just make it up as you go along, and you'll be an expert.

The moses is great and I really liked the secret movie too. if you want you can read more about moses code at https://www.moses-code.com
enjoy!

Sam and Gord:

Read this and all the related articles, then think about what the Secret and all that other horse shit says about what the daughter either wanted or didn't want hard enough.

That's some nice world view you people promote.

That story is so hard to beleive.... I couldn't even read the article through the first time without getting so infuriated.

I wonder if Godwin's law will change to use this guy as an example of the worst of evil.

Who wants to bet if he prayed before eating meals?

Who are any of us to decide what is right or wrong to others, when are we to understand this?. If moses code, the secret and related is good for anyone Ok. And if not is ok too. Is that a problem?.
aah humans!!

Re: "all that other horse shit..." For easy reference:


Atheism: I can’t believe this shit. Religion is to blame for this shit!

Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.

Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it.

Buddhism: If shit happens, it isn't really shit.

Zen Buddhism: What is the sound of shit happening?

Presbyterian: This shit was bound to happen.

Episcopalian: It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it.

Congregationalist: Shit that happens to one person is just as good as shit that happens to another.

Unitarian: Shit that happens to one person is just as bad as shit that happens to another.

Lutheran: If shit happens, don't talk about it.

Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us?

Creationism: God made all shit.

Quakers: Let us not fight over this shit.

Darwinism: This shit was once food.

Feminism: Men are shit.

Existentialism: Shit doesn't happen; shit IS.

Stoicism: This shit is good for me.

Mormonism: God sent us this shit.

Scientology: If shit happens, buy our book and see "Dianetics", p.157.

Jehovah's Witnesses: >Knock< >Knock< Shit happens.

Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this shit!

Agnostic: What is this (horse) shit?

Nihilism: No shit.

Discordian: Who gives a shit?

Visiting Alien: Ahh humans!!


[Expertly copied & pasted from the Close-to-Complete Ideology and Religion (Horse) Shit List.]

Who are any of us to decide what is right or wrong to others, when are we to understand this?
We don't decide what's right and wrong, the facts do. It's not a matter of opinion whether or not wishing makes things real; it's not a matter of opinion whether or not thoughts send out energy waves into the universe. These are matters of objective, observable fact, and idiocy like "The Secret," and likely "The Moses Code," are demonstrably wrong.
If moses code, the secret and related is good for anyone Ok. And if not is ok too. Is that a problem?.
Yes, it's a problem, because liars are fleecing people out of their money. Why would it be "ok too" if there were no good in it? "If they're doing something with some benefit, even if it's fraudulent and potentially harmful, then it's ok. And if there's no benefit to it, just the fraud and potential harm, that's ok too." Sorry, but I care more about people than you seem to.

What "good" is there in The Secret? What "good" is there in The Moses Code? Judging by The Secret (and What the Bleep), since I haven't seen The Moses Code yet, what we have are empty pop philosophies that encourage laziness and solipsistic self-absorption, and further the problem of magical thinking that's damaging to science, damaging to progress, and damaging to individuals. It's a philosophy that falls apart if you look at it too hard, that blames victims for crimes and promotes revisionist conspiratorial history. That is harmful.

Maybe you don't have a problem with charlatans and frauds getting people to pay hard-earned money for harmful lies, maybe you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true, and that's fine. Some of us, however, have some feeling of compassion and drive for justice and progress.

Ooh oh, let's apply Salvador's genius to everything.

Who are any of us to decide what is right or wrong to others, when are we to understand this?. If pedophilia, child pornography and related is good for anyone Ok. And if not is ok too. Is that a problem?.
aah humans!!

Salvador, let me give you some advice. Engage brain, then type.

So you are right and Im wrong isn't :-)

Thanks for prove my point.

What? What point?

Salvador:

Unless your point was to make yourself look completely foolish, then what point was proven exactly?

Your idiotic "who is to say what is right or wrong" merely proves that you should probably be institutionalised for the safety of others. Or do you indeed believe that if pedophilia makes someone feel good, it is ok?

Isn't fun arguing about a topic.

My respect for your belief and way of thinking gentleman.

Best wishes

A visiting alien ;-)

I think that religion is the biggest separator of people. I respect anyones belief and worship rituals. How can we be so ignorant to think that the way we believe and how we practice religion should be pushed on everyone else. Thats what wars are made of. I know that the Moses Code doesnt want you to think you are God. Its a way to change your thought process to help God dwell within you and to see God in otheres, bad or good. We are all to quick to judge each other and should wake up and look at the big picture.

It's not about judging each other, it's about quality control.

The Secret and this Moses Bullshit is extremely negative. Fear and greed inspire willful ignorance rather than intelligence, personal courage and acceptance of reality.

Of course if you plan things out and pay attention to your attitude you're more likely to get what you want than if you don't. But that is not what they are selling. They are selling the (non-existent) Law of Attraction, for $700 million and counting, as if it is a physical law discovered by Sir Isaac Newton u.a.

That is pure ugly greed from both buyers and sellers.

And telling children they can get a bicycle if they wish for it hard enough is a form of child abuse.

Cindy:

I think that religion is the biggest separator of people.

Nothing wrong so far.

I respect anyones belief and worship rituals.

Why? Why should anyone respect anyones belief and worship rituals? Without reservation or qualification? You respect any type of belief or worship ritual? What if human sacrifice was to be re-instated?

How can we be so ignorant to think that the way we believe and how we practice religion should be pushed on everyone else.

Ok, nothing to disagree with here.

Its a way to change your thought process to help God dwell within you and to see God in otheres, bad or good.

So it's about a particular god, and only that god? Isn't it in truth just more hopeful wish making just like The Secret, but tied to one particular groups religion? How come what you think the Moses Code is differs from what they say it is on their own website?

We are all to quick to judge each other and should wake up and look at the big picture.

Who do you think is not looking at the big picture? Are you? What do you think looking at the big picture means?

"We are all to quick to judge each other and should wake up and look at the big picture."

As JB points out, looking at the big picture is exactly what the review and this thread are about. May I ask why you think looking at the big picture means not "judging"?

They are making money (somebody quoted $700 million) off something that is causing people to want to be better human beings and improve humanity. I think thats fantastic in my eyes.

There are plenty of companies out there that are making a whole lot more money and causing ill health who are also using apparent faulty science (Big Pharma anyone, or perhaps my favourite Monsanto?)

Ah, the old argument by "Yeah, well. Big Pharma." Grow up.

If you are happy that people can lie and charge for it, why don't you go into business?

You sound like the very model of high moral standards. In fact, you think it is fantastic that people charge other people for stuff they are lying about and almost certainly know they are lying about. Perfect. The ends justify the means, right?

Of course, it's Big Pharma who are the morally bankrupt ones though.

Hypocrite.

There are plenty of companies out there that are making a whole lot more money and causing ill health who are also using apparent faulty science (Big Pharma anyone, or perhaps my favourite Monsanto?)

Well, don't spare us the details then, fire away. I'm sure you have mountains of evidence that amount to a compelling case for such a broad generalisation.

Jeremy, they haven't shown any serious work into proving it's worthwhile.

As for your stab at evidence-based medicine, show something meaningful. It's not perfect, but it's way above woo, which gets free passes.

Malpractice is a problem, but that's infrastructure, not theory. The risk/benefit ratio is still very good. With woo, it's all risk (even if it's just the risk of inaction) and no measurable benefit.

Oh, and Big Pharma conspiracies don't get you very far. It'd have to be worldwide and able to silence everyone who signed up to help people.

I dont think there is a Big Pharma conspiracy. But the fact that they ghostwrite their own studies or cover up the harmful effects of some drugs (Merck for example) indicate to me that they operate some very shady business practices.

As for Jimmy. I actually do believe what they are saying in their films so your argument about my morals hold no weight as far as I am concerned. Not sure why you are gtting so angry either, considering I was fairly polite in my approach.

Anyway I watched The Moses Code and wanted to be a better person. Unfortunately those who died from taking Vioxx didnt get a chance.

By the way Bronze Dog thankyou for being polite in putting your point across. I dont mind having a discussion, as long as it is civil.

Jeremy, if you really believe that Plato knew The Secret, I would love to know exactly why you believe that.

And Newton? Einstein?

Why do you believe that these people support Rhonda Byrne's ideas?

To tell you the truth I actually have no evidence for their supporting her ideas or for their not supporting her ideas and therefore cannot give you a definite answer.

If that question was in response to my quote "actually do believe what they are saying in their films" I should clarify by that I mean the philosophy and idea/s not necessarily specifics such as what you asked which I think is impossible to prove or disprove.

There is plenty of evidence that Plato, Newton and Einstein do NOT support Ms Byrne's philosophy in any way. She has made an unbelievably stupid statement with those claims. Really really dumb. Or she was lying.

Does that mean anything at all to you?

Yes of course that means something to me. Can you send me somewhere where I can see that evidence, I am most interested.

I just dont see how you can prove or disprove that unless they are sitting in front of me here today.

Jeremy, I'll assume you are really interested, and I'll post a few thoughts about evidence below. Below for now, I will refer you to you're completely valid statement...

"I just dont see how you can prove or disprove that unless they are sitting in front of me here today."

...And point out that you must be absolutely horrified that Ms Byrne would make such claims in fornt of an huge international audience.

???

Indeed totally agree. But as I stated above it is the philosophy/idea I agree with not necessarily anything else.

And yes I am truly interested Re evidence. Im not going to comment until I see it.

You've got a fundamental error in your thinking, Jeremy. To claim those figures believed in The Secret is a positive claim. Without evidence for the positive claim, we tentatively accept the null hypothesis: That they didn't. It's not up to us to prove that they didn't believe in it.

I tentatively believe that leprechauns do not exist. That's because there's no positive evidence to show that they do exist. Until someone shows me a leprechaun or, say, a letter from Einstein mathematically describing the law of attraction, I don't see what's wrong with favoring the null hypothesis.

There is nothing wrong with favoring the null hypothesis at all. But to prove it is a slightly different matter. Perhaps Einstein didnt believe in the Law of Attraction. Its still an impossibility to prove. And vice versa.

As for evidence, I think you know you are asking me to prove a negative. But seeing as you say you're interested in looking more deeply, I'll offer the few leads I can think of.

I think Ms Byrne probably heard of Plato's Theory of Forms (or Ideas), which at first might sound like it means something like what the Secret is talking about. It says that things on earth are a pale shadow of their true and perfect Form. It has an interesting connection to mathematics, but actually is much more subtle than Byrne's crass interpretation of it, and I can only guess she read it in a Neo-Platonist book rather than Plato himself.

As for Newton, I have some memory that he was a member of some religious secret society, maybe a freemason - many famous people were. But I have no inkling at all of where the idea could come from that he believed in The Secret - beyond the obvious, that any Christian who believes in prayer "knows the Secret".

Newton was an alchemist and held religious views typical for his time. His ideas on alchemy were of course wrong, and to claim his authority for anything other than his strictly scientific writings is misleading. His scientific works are in absolutely no way compatible with the Secret. He believed in God and found a place for him in his scientific philosophy, but that place was completely and utterly removed. He wrote that the physical laws take place in the "sensorium" of God - the mind of God kind of- but he did not believe that God occasionally overrules or directs the physical laws so that some jerk can get rich quick.

As Skeptico points out, Joe Vitale claims that the LOA is a law, just like the law of gravity.

Einstein of course said "God doesn't play dice", which I guess Ms Byrne decided means that God will send you pretty earrings or a parking space if you pray for them. Einstein's science is well documented, and I have never heard any suggestion that anything he wrote even remotely suggests he believed what Ms Byrne claims he believed.

I think if you want to make claims like in front of such a massive audience, you should check them out first. Just becuase the audience itself doesn't mind being lied to, in fact seems to positively like it, doesn't make it right in my book.

As for your belief in the philosophy of the film, what did you make of the Skeptico's criticisms and the other reviews on the links?

Yakaru, thanks for taking the time to write a detailed post. I did find it interesting to read and yes I was aware I was asking you to prove a negative.

The thing is I am not trying to back up her claims in that regard. I am just saying you cannot prove either way. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didnt. I personally dont care myself.

I know yourselves as skeptics attribute a lot of things that we cannot understand by science to the placebo effect. In my view and opinion (not necessarily fact), this is a great example of the Law of Attraction.

As for Skepticos criticisms I will say that the piece on James Van Praagh made me laugh (I think the bingo card piece). All the psychics I have come across have always been severely troubled or very ill and I have always felt uncomfortable about the whole thing.

See Im not one sided! ;-)

I dont think there is a Big Pharma conspiracy. But the fact that they ghostwrite their own studies or cover up the harmful effects of some drugs (Merck for example) indicate to me that they operate some very shady business practices.
1. Who is this "they" you refer to? "Big Pharma" isn't a single entity. 2. Got a citation for any of this? You call it a "fact" that "they" "ghostwrite" their own studies and cover up the harmful effects of some drugs. Where do these facts come from? What does it mean to "ghostwrite your own study"? Ghostwriting is getting someone else to write something for you, claiming to be you. If you write your own, then it's not ghostwriting. Moreover, studies aren't written, they're conducted. Reports are written, describing the studies. And I'm not sure how they can be ghostwritten when the authors are listed in the papers.

What drugs have had their harmful effects covered up? You do recognize the difference between "covering up effects we already know about" and "reporting effects that we didn't find out about early enough," right? If they were covered up and you know about them, they must have been revealed; who did the revealing? I can guarantee you it wasn't conspiracy theorists and anti-medicine kooks. Not that I'm accusing you of being one, I'm just making the point. Scientists, working within the medical research field, using the normal skeptical scientific method, are a corrective force for any potential conspiracies and cover-ups. Science isn't perfect, but it is self-correcting.

As for Jimmy. I actually do believe what they are saying in their films so your argument about my morals hold no weight as far as I am concerned.
Why would you believe what they say? What reason do you have to believe their claims? What evidence do they present? Just watching the trailer suggests problems: for one, saying "the next stage of evolution" represents a profound misconception of how evolution works. Second, there's no evidence whatsoever that the character of Moses is even based on any real person (in fact, there's no evidence that the Jewish people were ever enslaved in Egypt at all). That's not even getting into the mystical claims, that's simple matters of fact that they've got wrong.
Anyway I watched The Moses Code and wanted to be a better person. Unfortunately those who died from taking Vioxx didnt get a chance.
How about those who die from ceasing their cancer treatments due to the lies of bullshit quasi-philosophies like "The Secret"? What chance do they have?

Every drug has side-effects and dangers associated with it. Every idiot philosophy has similar dangers and consequences. Who's more up-front about it? Because while there are studies and evidence to support the efficacy of pharmaceuticals, while the risks are well-known generally before a drug goes on the market, while regulations are in place to require drug manufacturers to disclose even minute risks associated with the drug, no such safeguards are in place for pop philosophies. There's no fine print on the back of "The Secret" which says "the claims herein are based on no evidence whatsoever, and following them to their logical conclusion would require you to believe that every victim of even the most heinous crime was wishing to attract that crime to himself or herself." I'm listening to an interview with the author of "The Moses Code," and while I'm hearing an awful lot about how God and Moses had a chat around a campfire and how God told Moses his name (which is a secret code that allows you to cause miracles), I'm hearing absolutely no evidence for the existence of God, the existence of Moses, or the existence of miracles.

To tell you the truth I actually have no evidence for their supporting her ideas or for their not supporting her ideas and therefore cannot give you a definite answer.
Oh, I see. So, while you're perfectly willing to condemn "Big Pharma" for the risks and problems that occur despite years of development and careful research and double-blind placebo-controlled studies to ascertain the risk levels through thorough assessment of the evidence, you accept with no evidence whatsoever claims about God, Moses, and the "secret lost pronunciation" of God's true name, which is the source of the Law of Attraction.

I suppose we should all follow suit, and believe anything for no good reason, if it "helps us to become better people." Evidence is for chumps; let's ditch the whole scientific method altogether. That way, no one will ever die of Vioxx again. We'll all believe what feels good, and anyone who dies of pneumonia or smallpox or the common cold must have been attracting it to themselves anyway. The rest of us can live on God's nametag alone.

If that question was in response to my quote "actually do believe what they are saying in their films" I should clarify by that I mean the philosophy and idea/s not necessarily specifics such as what you asked which I think is impossible to prove or disprove.
It's actually quite easy to prove or disprove specifics like what yakaru asked. It's also easy to prove or disprove the philosophy.
There is nothing wrong with favoring the null hypothesis at all. But to prove it is a slightly different matter.
Fail.

Or, to be a little more wordy, you don't "prove" the null hypothesis. You accept it until evidence demonstrates it to be incorrect. It's a pretty basic principle of finding things out that you don't believe outrageous claims without evidence.

Perhaps Einstein didnt believe in the Law of Attraction. Its still an impossibility to prove. And vice versa.
So, why does Byrne claim he believed it if it's impossible to prove? After you're dead, I guess I'll say "hey, remember Jeremy? He fantasized about raping cattle." I mean, it's an impossibility to prove you didn't, so I can say it all I want, right?

But as to Einstein, he certainly didn't believe in the necessary components of the "Moses Code" (i.e., a God for whom there is a secret name):

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

He didn't believe in prayer or the supernatural:
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.

Did Einstein believe in the Law of Attraction? Well, he never mentioned said law, was a skeptic and a scientist, and denied the existence of the supernatural and that there could be supernatural causes for natural events. Shake the magic 8-ball and..."All signs point to not on your life."

But since he's not here to tell us himself, then I guess it's fine for Rhonda Byrne to claim otherwise. What's the word for claiming something that you know isn't true? It's on the tip of my tongue...

I know yourselves as skeptics attribute a lot of things that we cannot understand by science to the placebo effect.
Um...no. We attribute a lot of things that we understand perfectly well to the placebo effect. Specifically, the body's tendency to heal itself, and people's profound ability to fool themselves, mistake correlation and causation, deny coincidence, and find patterns and agency where none actually exists.

What, exactly, is science unable to understand? If it's observable or has effects, science is equipped to understand it.

In my view and opinion (not necessarily fact), this is a great example of the Law of Attraction.
What's an example of the Law of Attraction? The placebo effect? I don't recall the Law of Attraction saying "some percentage of any group of people in a study will recover even without treatment." I recall it saying "like attracts like; thoughts become things."

What you've done is create a Law of the Gaps--"I don't understand this, therefore it must be the Law of Attraction at work." The fact is that the placebo effect covers a range of different totally prosaic, totally natural effects; it's not some vast vacuum of scientific understanding where you can just safely assume it's magic.

Thoughts become things. Placebo effect (or even nocebo). Same thing in my book mate. Your belief is so strong about something, it becomes reality. Any effect (placebo) is thought to be based on the power of suggestion. That is placebo. That is Law of Attraction.

As for ghostwriting and coverups.

https://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/15/1800

What I have realised is that skeptics are a bunch of people that cannot comprehend or face the fact that sometimes there are things that we do not understand and may never understand from a scientific point of view and that feeling of being out of control scares them.

Im happy believing what I believe. As for you guys, it seems this community is very negative and cynical, and as like attracts like I wont be visiting this site anymore ;-)

Jeremy:

I wrote this before i read your recent comment-

Well done for staying this long and keeping content in your posts. Here are a my thoughts to your comments:

"The thing is I am not trying to back up her claims in that regard. I am just saying you cannot prove either way. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didnt.."

How come Rhonda can claim facts without a shred of evidence, yet we are not allowed to criticise her for it, because suddenly we can't know either way?

Why this double standard? Why does she get a separate set of rules?

She claimed that Albert Einstein agrees with her! Einstein. Albert Einstein agrees with Rhonda Byrne, he just wasn't capable of putting it into words the way Rhonda could.

This isn't a case of "can't say either way" - Rhonda Byrne HAS said either way. She claimed that Einstein's theories have been fundamentally misinterpreted, and that Special and General Relativity do NOT contradict the law of attraction, so every other person who has studied Einstein has misunderstood him. Byrne says she (and "her" Einstein) are right. Everyone else is wrong.

She has taken a bold and clear-cut position on this. She didn't say maybe, maybe not. Either she was wrong to be so bold, because you "can't say either way"; or the onus is on her (and those who agree with her) to back up these extraordinary claims.

"I personally dont care myself."

So you think maybe the entire edifice of modern science is fundamentally mistaken, and maybe not. Who cares. Maybe Rhonda Byrne is the only person to correctly understand Special and General Relativity; maybe not. Who cares.

I do care about it, because she is adding value to her product, by taking a person's life work, which is very highly valued all over the world, and distorting it - devaluing it, to add value to her own product.

I don't think it is ethical to use someones life work like that; to use society's values like that. It cheapens both. Now millions people, children and adults, think they know something about Einstein. It's cheating, and it's bullshit, and it sets the tone perfectly for the rest of the film.

What the film is selling is a LAW. If you know how to use the LAW of attraction, you will have POWER. That's what everyone wants - hence the emphasis at the start of the film about the powerful rulers of the world supressing the LOA. She is selling the POWER that the rulers don't want you to have.

Then they offer you the same POWER that Einstein had. (So it is relevant if he really believed it not.)

If they present the LOA as anything less than a LAW, it would diminish its selling potential. I refered you to Skeptico on this, because he challenged Joe Vitale on it, asking how come it doesn't always work. Vitale said if it doesn't work, the person was doing it wrong. So the LAW always works, and if it doesn't it is YOU who is wrong and not the law. After insulting him a bit, Vitale deleted skeptico's comments from his forum. Well that's power.

Check out the comments thread to the post on the Secret, and read especially Mora's comments. She agrees with the position you have taken on this. See if you agree with her.

P.S. Yes, the psychic bingo is quite funny isn't it.

PPS, I can understand your reaction - it isn't so pleasant to have a group of unknown people analysing your ideas and holding you to every word you wrote - particularly if, as you mentioned, you are in the process of sorting out your ideas.

Hope you got something worthwhile. Happy journey.

People find it particularly convenient to stick words in Einstein's mouth without citation of where or when.

One thing I just found with a quick Google search: The letter Tom Foss was quoting went to auction. We can be confident those opinions are authentic, given that evidence.

As for the crap about The Secret, or Einstein supporting whatever woo is fashionable this week, I always get a red flag raised whenever anyone brings up Einstein. Heck, during that scare from "Colony Collapse Disorder," people started bringing up some alleged Einstein quote about how agriculture would collapse in X years without bees. Why would Einstein say something like that? He was a theoretical physicist, not a botanist, entomologist, or any kind of biologist. (Though I can imagine bee problems being a large blow to agriculture.)

The answer to that: Einstein's just the generic smart guy uncreative people use to prop themselves up. If they were really smart, they wouldn't need name dropping. They'd be able to show us the science and math.

Jeremy:

I actually do believe what they are saying in their films so your argument about my morals hold no weight as far as I am concerned.

So you believe that the victims of the Holocaust brought it upon themselves? You believe that child rape victims deserved it because they brought it on themselves? You believe that when a woman suffers a miscarriage, they brought it on themselves? You do believe in the Law of Attraction after all, don't you?

Did you really ever stop to follow this idiot idea through to what it means about unpleasant occurrences, not just the fluffy happy wishful stuff?

If you have, then yes my argument about your morals does hold weight. They're repugnant.

Not sure why you are gtting so angry either, considering I was fairly polite in my approach.

I don't care how polite you are if you promote repugnant, morally bankrupt lies in a public forum. If you do, I get angry.

Anyway I watched The Moses Code and wanted to be a better person. Unfortunately those who died from taking Vioxx didnt get a chance.

So, what about people who die in a plane crash - did they attract the crash? Did they get a chance from the Secret?

I know yourselves as skeptics attribute a lot of things that we cannot understand by science to the placebo effect. In my view and opinion (not necessarily fact), this is a great example of the Law of Attraction.

This and later comments appears to demonstrate that you do not really understand the Placebo effect. How do you define the placebo effect?

Thoughts become things.

So, genocidal thoughts become the Holocaust. Thinking about being raped becomes rape. Thinking about your parents beating you becomes child abuse. So, all those vicitms brought it upon themselves. That's some nice philosophy you believe in Jeremy. Can't imagine why I would be angry.

Placebo effect (or even nocebo). Same thing in my book mate.

You definitely don't appear to understand the placebo effect.

Your belief is so strong about something, it becomes reality.

Miscarriage. Muggings. War. Genocide. Sexual assault. Disease. Violent crime. Hate. Nice philospophy you have there. Blame the victims. Now why would I be angry?

Any effect (placebo) is thought to be based on the power of suggestion. That is placebo. That is Law of Attraction.

Absolute crap.

Placebo is NOT the power of suggestion. Any effect is not thought to be the power of suggestion.

What I have realised is that skeptics are a bunch of people that cannot comprehend or face the fact that sometimes there are things that we do not understand and may never understand from a scientific point of view and that feeling of being out of control scares them.

Oh how original, smug and arrogant. It amounts to "Skeptics don't believe what I do so I am smarter than they are."

As a skeptic I understand better than any woo that there are things we don't understand, that there may be things our brain is hard wired to never being able to understand and I accept that. I accept that we come up with verifiable theories and hypotheses to explain what we can. The woo makes up things to fit in the gaps of understanding and claims that makes them understandable. Who really sounds scared?

Im happy believing what I believe.

Translation:
I like keeping my head in the sand, I don't need to critically examine my beliefs as long as I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside that makes me feel special.

As for you guys, it seems this community is very negative and cynical, and as like attracts like I wont be visiting this site anymore ;-)

Good. And really, do you people have anything new and interesting to say other than "Oh you are so cynical and negative because you believe in logic, evidence and reason."

Prove that I am a cynical and negative person, go on, try it.

You're the person who believes in blaming the victims, in promoting claims you can't prove either way, and making money from something you can't prove and may be lying about. Who is the negative cynic again?

Something I've put together that would be very beneficial for woos to seriously read: The Doggerel Index.

As for anger and cynicism, you should pay closer attention to woos. I get angry with them specifically because they're everything you accuse skeptics of being. And they want us to be just like them.

Thoughts become things. Placebo effect (or even nocebo). Same thing in my book mate.
In your book? You mean, your book written by someone with absolutely no knowledge of medicine or the scientific method? Your book, written by someone who admittedly believes things for no good reason? Yes, I'm sure your book is authoritative on the subject.

The placebo effect is not "thoughts becoming things." Even if your misunderstanding were correct, it would be "thoughts becoming treatment." But it isn't. The placebo effect has very little to do with thoughts having some effect on the body, and much more to do with thoughts having effects on thought and the body having effects on the body. It's a combination of normal, natural healing and the psychological tendency to fool oneself and give in to confirmation bias. There's no magic or mind over matter involved.

Your belief is so strong about something, it becomes reality.
That's not the placebo effect. It's also not reality. No matter how strongly I believe it, I cannot transform into Superman.
Any effect (placebo) is thought to be based on the power of suggestion.
By whom?
As for ghostwriting and coverups.
I see ghostwriting, and that's a problem (it's also a problem that was uncovered and explored by scientists). I don't see anything in there about cover-ups or lying about the dangers. Yes, there's a clear violation of ethics there, but that's certainly not enough to suggest that this is the norm or even widespread. Moreover, there's a much clearer example here of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process, in that this paper examining the phenomenon of clinical ghostwriting was published! Some "Big Pharma," not even able to keep their unethical actions from being published in the Journal of the AMA.
What I have realised is that skeptics are a bunch of people that cannot comprehend or face the fact that sometimes there are things that we do not understand and may never understand from a scientific point of view and that feeling of being out of control scares them.
Then you've realized a fantasy that you've concocted. Keep believing that fantasy, Jeremy, but it ain't true and never will be.

Skeptics comprehend more than most that there are things we don't understand. In fact, skeptics are just about the only people who are willing to say "I don't understand that," while everyone else says "it's magic!" See, skeptics are perfectly willing to admit a lack of understanding when such a lack exists, rather than trying to shoehorn in some supernatural explanation without any evidence or good reason.

As for "may never understand from a scientific point of view," I'm curious what those things might be. I mean, it's possible that we may never be able to discover whether or not anything existed before our universe, I suppose. But a large part of that is because anything that came before our universe could not have physical effects in our universe. And there's the rub: if something has an observable effect in the universe, then science can study it. If something has no observable effect in our universe, then how can it be said to exist? I've heard woos claim for years that there are things beyond science's ability to study, but I have yet to hear any good reason why. Care to be the first, Jeremy?

Im happy believing what I believe.
Translation: I'm closed off to the possibility that the things I believe for no reason may in fact be wrong.
As for you guys, it seems this community is very negative and cynical, and as like attracts like I wont be visiting this site anymore
Who's got the over/under on this one?

Ah, negative and cynical. Never heard that before. I mean, obviously we're being negative, since we're claiming that there are things science cannot understand and there is no way to prove or disprove such things, and that we believe things for no reason. And we're clearly cynical, since we believe that the medical community and pharmaceutical companies are terrible monolithic organizations just out to hurt innocent people.

Wait, hold on, those are your beliefs, Jeremy! Strangely enough, the only place where "like attracts like" is in a mirror.

And, as usual, Jimmy has said what I wanted to say before I say it.

"Einstein's just the generic smart guy uncreative people use to prop themselves up. If they were really smart, they wouldn't need name dropping. They'd be able to show us the science and math."

This is a version of godwin's law isn't it? If we talk about evil, internet writers refer to Hitler. If writers talk about hard to understand stuff, they refer to Einstien. Someone needs to name this effect.

Yes, it's exactly the same trick - people who say Rhonda Byrne is as smart as Einstein, are banking on a) the statement barely registering because Einstein's name is by now an acceptable generic product name, b) that no one will be prepared to seriously question it because so few people understand Einstein anyway; and c) if they do dispute it they can be thrown off with "prove he didn't say it".

And given the ideology behind this stuff - that jews created the Nazis - it is one of the rare cases where a Hitler analogy would be more appropriate. (See comment thread on The Secret, or talk to ANY Secretard.)

Mary Manin Morrissey is in this movie as well. She founded a New Thought church called Living Enrichment Center that closed in a $10,000,000 scandal. Her husband went to prison for money laundering. She's a total fraud. They all are.

Her husband went to prison after a plea bargain where his wife was set free if he pleaded guilty to money laundering. It was clear they both spent the money together.

She was forbidden to be active in any more non-profit religious organizations. She is now running a FOR profit religious organization. She's currently repaid $70 000 out of $10 million she owes her victims.

I didn't see the Moses Code (for some reason!) but I'd bet they kind of glossed over the "thou shalt not steal" part.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site