It's no secret: "The Secret" and the "Law of Attraction" are BULLSH*T

[6-heads lewis]

you guys ever heard of the theory 'depressive realism'?

people who buy into garbage like the secret and contiunously lie to themselves about their situations are actually the 'mentally sick' ones.

 

[Deep Dish]

You would be a ****ing moron if you believe that your mindset does not effect your physical body and your life. And that is EXACTLY what quantum physics is saying.

To respond to Quicksilver and Holland, I'm a gigantic proponent of positive thinking and I do surmise there is not enough time in one's lifetime to continuously, over the long-term, dwell on the negative, such as wondering "Why are people so stupid?" (but rather to wonder how did smart people become so smart). But it cannot be accomplished through quantum physics. You create your own reality figuratively and metaphorically—people like being around positive people and positive thinking might lead to action which might lead to results—but your thoughts don't shape physical reality beyond electrical activity of the brain. Paranormal / pseudoscientific / New Age nonsense is a HUGE movement—as people are naturally inclined to believe in superstitions—and correspondingly needs an equally strong rebuttal. Otherwise, the candle in the dark gets blown out and we revert back to the dark ages.

When the theologian Michael Beckwith stated “It has been proven scientifically that an affirmative thought is hundreds of times more powerful than a negative thought,” that was a bold faced lie. There are no published scientific studies—that I can find, that Skeptic magazine can find, that anyone can find. What was his source? The only reference you will find is a one-liner in a laundry list of motivational phrases. When someone lies to you, even if while delivering a positive message, they nonetheless are a liar full of humbug. Like Penn & Teller are found of saying... "and then there's THIS asswhole."

Back to science, yes there is the placebo effect which is well-documented, undisputed, and is the reason why doctors conduct double-blind placebo experiments when testing drugs, but that is not a process involving quantum physics.

The attempt to link the weirdness of the quantum world (such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that the more precisely you know a particle’s position, the less precisely you know its speed, and vice versa) to mysteries of the macro world (such as consciousness) is not new. The best candidate to connect the two comes from physicist Roger Penrose and physician Stuart Hameroff, whose theory of quantum consciousness has generated much heat but little light in scientific circles.

Inside our neurons are tiny hollow microtubules that act like structural scaffolding. The conjecture (and that’s all it is) is that something inside the microtubules may initiate a wave function collapse that leads to the quantum coherence of atoms, causing neurotransmitters to be released into the synapses between neurons and thus triggering them to fire in a uniform pattern, thereby creating thought and consciousness. Since a wave function collapse can only come about when an atom is “observed” (i.e., affected in any way by something else), neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, another proponent of the idea, even suggests that “mind” may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms….

In reality, the gap between sub-atomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum, the University of Colorado particle physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum mechanically the system’s typical mass m, speed v, and distance d must be on the order of Planck’s constant h. “If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.” Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules, and their speed across the distance of the synapse, are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it. So what the #$*! is going on here?

Physics envy. The history of science is littered with the failed pipedreams of ever-alluring reductionist schemes to explain the inner workings of the mind — schemes increasingly set forth in the ambitious wake of Descartes’ own famous attempt, some four centuries years ago, to reduce all mental functioning to the actions of swirling vortices of atoms, supposedly dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.

—Michael Shermer, editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine, while debating Deepak Chopra

Medicine is explained by physiology, molecular reactions are explained by chemistry, atoms are explained by Newtonian physics, subatomic particles are explained by quantum physics. Science is hierarchal and domain-specific. Scientists great in one field are horrible when they cross-over into another field. Espousers of quackery always complain about conspiracies of the scientific "establishment" and call for the need of a "paradigm shift", but the more realistic explanation is that scientists get trained for their field, learn to think in certain ways, and attend the same conferences, collaborate with the same colleagues. That is a good thing. They learn what are viable ideas and what bad ideas have long been discredited. This is why when you hear an anesthesiologist, neurologist, or a psychiatrist talk about quantum physics—as certainly witnessed in What The Bleep Do We Know?—your alarm bells of falsehoods should be screaming. What the #$*! do they know? Probably nothing.

 

[Holland]

When the theologian Michael Beckwith stated “It has been proven scientifically that an affirmative thought is hundreds of times more powerful than a negative thought,” that was a bold faced lie.

I think you should check your ears.
He said: "It has been proven non-scientifically that an affirmative thought is hundreds of times more powerful than a negative thought."
The Secret is based on the same stuff that Think and Grow Rich, Brian Tracy and countless others are about.

Science is great, but it is VERY limited. Do you think Columbus gave a fuuck about the fact that his ideas were not proven by science?
No, he made shiit happen.
And that's exactly what the Secret is about. MAKING SHIIT HAPPEN! No matter what your current circumstances are.

BTW: Stop dissing Michael Beckwith, that's not cool. That man has inspired and motivated so many.
What did you do?

 

[Deep Dish]

No, he specifically stated "It has been proven now scientifically..." I watched the free video for a second time and it's clear as day he said "now." The video is still available on Google for anyone to listen (at 13 minutes 43 seconds). And after all, really, if he had said "non-scientifically"—which he did not—then why make the fuss about mentioning science and "proven" if you will only negate yourself? And if so, if by non-scientific means, why should anyone believe what you say? By faith? By ignorance? By the "visionary" title to which Beckwith claims?

I stand by my dismissal of Beckwith. There are varying burdens of proof to language. The burden of proof is lowest in everyday conversations; it's spontaneous, it's off-the-cuff, it's inprecise, it's okay if someone says something inaccurate if said within good intentions. But the burden of proof rises steadily as the more time you have to think. The burden of proof is higher for Internet forums such as here, higher still for essays, higher still for articles, higher still for books, and highest of all for scientific research. There is no doubt in my mind that Beckwith and the producers, editors, of the film / book intentionally lied; there was more than plenty of time to fact-check.

Do you think Columbus gave a fuuck about the fact that his ideas were not proven by science? No, he made shiit happen.

You must find a better example because it's a myth that leading scholars at the time thought the world was flat. The issue was generally accepted no later than 1,600 years before Columbus set sail. The only question was how big. “The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.”

Even today, there are people who seriously argue the Sun revolves around the Earth. They try their best at mathematics, cosmology, philosophy, publish their papers on the Internet (although in no respectable journal), but their ideas don't gain traction with the general scientific community. No one, besides them, wonders why.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Out of curiosity, how many of you who are critiquing the book have actually read it (or at least part of it) and are not going by snippets from articles written by people who've only read the jacket cover?

 

[Quiksilver]

This argument is silly, and isn't going to be resolved. There are two different perspectives on this, and no one is going to be swayed because it means changing themselves, which is much more difficult than changing their perspective on a certain issue. Don't bother trying to convince people online, its childish and a waste of time.

Originally posted by 6-heads lewis
people who buy into garbage like the secret and contiunously lie to themselves about their situations are actually the 'mentally sick' ones.

I suppose I'm mentally sick then, does it matter? I'm still living a good life, I still use positive thinking to get whatever I want...It might not work for you, but it works for me and I could care less about your situation.

-------------

There are a whole lot of people who rely on facts and proven evidence for their perspectives. At the same time there are the "mentally sick" ones that don't need facts or evidence to have a perspective. One is just as useful as the other. Without the "mentally sick" ones, there would never be paradigm shifts and the world would stagnate and be filled with physicists and mathematics. Don't criticize what you don't understand.

 

[djbr]

And so does The Secret.

Didn't read it.

But I had this feeling that this review was made by someone who is obviously angry that maybe someone will not blame sh1t on someone else and would rather go take some action even if (some) things are really out of their control.

Still, did not read it and do not plan to.

 

[Deep Dish]

This past Friday I conducted an experiment. I'm lazy waking up in the mornings and left the house late for work. It was while being late for work, I realized I could try out this whole "law of attraction." Whenever I saw an upcoming intersection with a green light, I vigorously and repeatedly thought to myself "Stay green! Stay green!"—and with a smile! Of course, I had the occasional thought "This is bullsh*t" but always followed by positive thoughts, which of course have been "proven scientifically" to be "hundreds of times" more powerful. The stoplight turned red every time. Furthermore, while not at an intersection, I thought to myself "I DON'T want to be late, I DON'T want to be late." I arrived at work pretty much on time. During work, there were a few moments where I thought "I would love for THIS to happen", but whatever that was didn't happen and I even allowed for the "time delay".

The "time delay" is a variation of the eternally favorite escape hatch for believers in nonsense: the doctrine of non-falsifiability (or as James Randi loves to say, "unsinkable ducks"). With non-falsifiability, every failure, every piece of evidence contradicting a hypothesis is twisted around to support the hypothesis. Science dictates if you cannot be proven wrong then you are wrong.

Bob Proctor firmly and repeatedly states the law of attraction works for everyone, all the time, no exceptions. One person asserts there is no "off switch" and Proctor supports by asserting "it's always working whether you believe it or not." But what about all the times you worried about something getting stolen and it didn't, or all the times you didn't worry and it was? Last night I worried about parking my car in a street and hoping it wouldn't get dinged... but sure enough morning came and it wasn't scratched. Maybe negative thinking is the key to happiness in the universe?

One final tidbit before I call it a night. Joe Vitale was a "metaphysician" who appeared in The Secret and it's humorously been revealed the "Law of Attraction (is) not working for Joe Vitale".

 

[Quiksilver]

Originally posted by Deep Dish
Whenever I saw an upcoming intersection with a green light, I vigorously and repeatedly thought to myself "Stay green! Stay green!"—and with a smile! Of course, I had the occasional thought "This is bullsh*t" but always followed by positive thoughts, which of course have been "proven scientifically" to be "hundreds of times" more powerful. The stoplight turned red every time.

I thought I was being pretty reasonable and sensible in my other posts...I guess it didn't sink in...

You are one of the dumbest people I know..Perhaps general intelligence and common sense are prerequisites for the law of attraction.

 

[Deep Dish]

Damn insomnia...

Quicksilver, as for your posts, all you have essentially said is: nice try but skepticism (on this issue) isn't for you, this argument is silly, debate on the Internet is childish, and you don't need facts to support your views. That is hardly an argumentative stance as you haven't yet presented any actual arguments and rightfully as such are terribly unconvincing. The only "argument" I can glean is to not debate people over the Internet, of which the "childishness" I find unconvincing. Talking to people face-to-face in real-life tends to have the same dismal success rate of swaying beliefs and is riddled with errors which are less pronounced in the written form; the only drawback, as with real-life, is not to take arguments personally. I do believe there is a moral imperative to fight the good fight against erroneous beliefs and especially when they cross the threshold into popularity (e.g. the bogus myth that people use only a small portion of their brain). Lastly, if you thought that at any time anyone has been arguing against positive thinking in general then you have been grossly mistaken.

Q.E.D.

 

[jonwon]

Reading this and seeing the links to oprah e.t.c raises interest simply due to:

there is a theory of NWO and all that shi* that is flying around and in fact it can be sourced and linked and evidenced against to find supporting information about this theory on the world.

Now anytime I read about a product or anything endorsed by the oprah school of thought, it sets alarm bells ringing, I find most of her stuff pretty contradictory of its main purpose, one would assume she is either very smart and using her smoke screen charms to dupe the masses or she is clearly dumb and being controlled, much like the dim president that was supposedly voted in.

Now there I believe exists some form of control, it is clear from this garbage being endorsed and pumped out that the control seems evident on 'life is about consumerism and this is how to get it' but made in a way to keep people baaaaaing (sheep theory) and not actually DOING anything to advance.
I.E another means for the rich to stay rich whilst the masses bury there heads in clouds whilst the RICH rape them for all they have and then get together at some secret grove and make up shi* to keep the sheep at sheep level and this stuff seems to be engineered sheep fodder.

Sadly the typical male/female are clearly thick as shi* so I don’t worry two bits if some idiot buys the anal pandering of some new age ideals where by we endorse some fantasy as opposed to clear facts of reality.

To even by into that stuff would clearly show any follow of these ideals is clearly a bit clueless, i.e. the average American sad to say seems rather clueless anyway, so no wonder this shi* is a best seller, only people with lack of thought would actually buy it when it is clear it is riddled with holes it does not benefit a read after the first paragraph most probably.

This new age stuff is all very nice for feel good e.t.c but the scariest core component of this stuff, it is clearly another means for the simple to accept there lot and keep channelling positive emotions in the wake of being shafted up the back crac*, but its ok keep thinking positive whilst your world is falling down at your feet, just channel that’s all you need to do.

Reminded me of cows in a field waiting for the inevitable slaughter, munching there grass, having read, eat grass and think life is pretty and this is all there is. 1 day later on a converbelt ready for the chop. This to me seems like the average attraction follower, happy having there heads in the clouds whilst the really CLUED up are setting them selves up for the slaughter.

There is one fact about this world just one:

We are all fundamentally animals that’s why its survival of the fittest, only the best and I mean the best get what they want, the others baaa like sheep whilst the wolf picks them off and what better way to take the sheep then have them neatly penned up.

This stuff can only be ever sold to the masses who are so ingrained into the materialistic ideal of the world, so easy to sell a product that is defined on how to obtain useless shi* that you really do not need at all.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I'm seeing that few people actually have a complete understanding of how The Secret works. FYI, many of the posts in this forum that talk about goals follow the methodology that is taught in The Secret.

 

[Holland]

This argument is silly, and isn't going to be resolved. There are two different perspectives on this, and no one is going to be swayed because it means changing themselves, which is much more difficult than changing their perspective on a certain issue. Don't bother trying to convince people online, its childish and a waste of time.


Quote:
Originally posted by 6-heads lewis
people who buy into garbage like the secret and contiunously lie to themselves about their situations are actually the 'mentally sick' ones.


I suppose I'm mentally sick then, does it matter? I'm still living a good life, I still use positive thinking to get whatever I want...It might not work for you, but it works for me and I could care less about your situation.

-------------

There are a whole lot of people who rely on facts and proven evidence for their perspectives. At the same time there are the "mentally sick" ones that don't need facts or evidence to have a perspective. One is just as useful as the other. Without the "mentally sick" ones, there would never be paradigm shifts and the world would stagnate and be filled with physicists and mathematics. Don't criticize what you don't understand

Thanks for reminding me. I'm outta here.


Deep Dish, I wish you the best of luck. I hope someday you'll realise that hardcore skepticism is just not the way to getting the things you want.

If you solely rely on things that are scientificly proven you're going to limit yourself dramaticly.

The way I see it is this:
I like to have faith in myself and other people. Faith is a positive expectancy for your outcomes without proof. (other skeptics would probably label it as 'false hope' or 'mentally ill' LOL).
Skeptics only rely on belief. Belief is a negative or positive expectancy for your outcomes based on proof (whether it be scientific evidence or just other previous outcomes).
So basicly, skeptics only rely on things that have happened in the past (whether it be your past (which leads to no - little change) or other peoples past (which can lead to pretty big changes)).

Skepticism is a very limited way to use your mind. There is no imagination, only recollection of information and data that have already happened.

Faith on the other hand, cares about looking forward. It does not care about scientific proof. If it's there, nice, but it does not need it.
It's about willing to try out anything for a serieus amount of time (I really don't think your attempt of going to work was a serieus attempt, sorry).
It's having an open mind to experience new breaktroughs, while at the same time not caring so much about outcome.

Focus on committing to living a life full of joy, growth, constant improvement, fun and laughter, instead of existing a life full of attachment to outcome, scientific proof, evidence and skepticism.

Cheers

 

[Nighthawk]

Holland, would you like to buy some magic beans? I promise they are really enchanted, especially if you have faith. I know you believe in being open-minded, are willing to try anything once, and are not fussy about 'scientific proof,' so paypal me £100 and they're yours!

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

"the secret" is actually an idiot test.

Anyone who agrees with it is an idiot. This is one good way to tell if someone is very stupid. all you gotta do is ask if they beleive in it.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

As the likely "offender" who posted the very FIRST "The Secret" Thread here, I am offering my commentary. I still believe as I do. I am a confirmed Catholic, but rarely attend Church for various personal reasons. I have read and am re-reading the bible and other documents by Christian writers however, and also read various religious sources. I intend to read more material by Richards Dawkins, if anything, so that I'm not a slave to one path of thinking. I've never studied quantum physics, quantum mechanics, although I have interests in them. I doubt there's one guy with more than surface knowledge of that on here, and if they are...they're a lurker who hasn't mentioned their presensce.

Some beliefs of mine ( I don't say facts, because a fact is...we need oxygen to breathe, fish need water to live etc ).

1. The Secret and What the Bleep Do We Know summarized in neat packaging EVERYTHING all of the scholars since early man began writing. It's marketing fodder. It helped make the people truly responsible for this material famous. I have the book and original DVD ( the original link I posted a year ago ). True credit is owed to Esther Hicks, Napolean Hill, Robert Collier, Jim Rohn, etc, etc. Even the people in the videos and books got THEIR info from these people, so they weren't ORIGINAL thoughts by any means.
2. I didn't read much substance in the aforementioned article. It sounds like the same tripe written against Robert Kiyosaki by John T Reed...yet he can claim quite a few success stories.
3. People are always seeking the magic elixier, the "holy grail." Even on a site as small and unknown as this one, guys want the HOLY BIBLE of picking up chicks, and day in and day out, material is written trying to make YOU the alpha male, trying to make YOU the pimp. Without any form of BELIEF, no guy would be here. You'd either be natural or unnatural, and thereby unable to change your "stars."
4. If you want to dispute the basis of what they speak, such as "it has been confirmed scientificially that an affirmative thought is more powerful..." go for it. But there's more material backing Hill, Collier, Power of Concentration, etc, etc, than there is NOT backing it.
5. I could break many of their points apart in that article, as they seem foolish, and more of it was regurgitation of the actual Secret, than it was true information proving an alternate, and better strategy.


On to more pressing things...


1 I've spent 5 minutes give or take, NOT doing something that would get me closer to what I want. I've spent 5 minutes, getting dragged into someone else's reality. I chose to write in this thread, and therefore, let it into my reality, all with the understanding I might provide another perspective, whether it's accepted or rejected. How many minutes a day do we spend time wasting away on meaningless things that don't get us where we actually want to be?

I bet if anyone has goals...they burned up time that was better spent GETTING toward them. I mean...we could debate the veracity of The Secret...or prove it's own usefulness in your lives. Call it the Secret, call it positive thinking, call it LOA, call it whatever makes you feel good. There's no questioning as human king we have 24 hours a day, and each hour NOT spent on building something up, either maintaining our collective internal reality, OR, moving toward a goal, is moving AWAY from that goal and selling away our reality.

I've ready some pretty far out books, that require an open mind to read, and maybe my mind is open I've lost it, but rather I'd lose my mind, than cling to thoughts or things not my own. Espousing that "Skeptics" magazine is the best source of information against the Secret is ascribing oneself to only one doctrine. To only one thought form. It's like being Republican or Democrat and choosing the issue before you've heard it. In college, one source is useless for papers. In life, one source is useless (unless you're deeply religious, to which the Bible is the ONLY source), because you ASSUME to be that one thing. The mind will blow out EVERYTHING that doesn't fit that model of reality. The mind attaches meaning to things. As such, one source of info does the same thing. NLP backs that much up, and there's enough science there to waste away time til one's heart is content.

I applaud the differing perspective offered by Deep Dish, but it's only the other side of the coin. It's but one perspective, one source. I never drank from the Koolaid of the Secret, nor did I think it would get this large. I do believe it helped really boil down what alot of scholars who have been writing for over 100 years would say for guys who might not have gotten it or would even bother to take alot at. And more shocking are guys like STR8Up who have changed their reality, but naysay against even the slightest statements mentioned in the Secret. Other guys can attest to changing realities, and there are plenty of guys who've gone from geek to god, perhaps in their own mind, who have finally met women they like, jobs they want, friends they like, situations they like, etc, to refute the fact that we create reality. Do we not?

How do we not? Good or bad. We create it. I wake up. I chose to come to the office. I chose to log on here. I chose to post on here with whatever results I may get. I choose my friends. I choose picking up their phone calls that make them my friends. I choose HOW i interact with ALL people I meet everyday. I choose everything, on every level. And choice is driven by belief. And beliefs are driven by feelings and a whole slew of things woven in with that, such as past experiences, feelings, etc. If an experience is new to you, you may act as you THINK you should...and how that experience turns out COLORS all future experiences going forward from there.

I've never fully ascribed to one thing as religion, hence why I stated I'm not confirmed religious anything, as of yet. Maybe I've always seen the Secret to mean something different because I've read all the scholars presented in the video BEFORE the video was presented, but I don't see what the author of the article is driving at.

Has this author done more than just try to refute what the video says, Such as Research the authors through history that have written the material which provided the basis for the movie?

Has he gone to see who owns what books and materials, and how they lead their lives...or has he just made a blanket statement that it doesn't work? If he polled people who have read THINK AND GROW RICH, would they be better off than those who have never read it? Are guys here who have read it BETTER off for viewing the SECRET or reading Hill, et al?

I respect Deep Dish for offering alternate thought to the Koolaid drinkers. I've never been one to marry anyone topic or belief system. But this isn't CONFIRMED proof of anything, imo. It's one in probably a slew of various writers who will present THEIR reality, with what I consider to be very SKEPTICAL information, who has not tried to examine RESULTS. Results being...what has the writings of THOSE thinkers who provided the basis for the movie provided to people? Also, in what way is this writing actually helping people? Is it helping people save money? Is it helping people because some struggle and don't get what they want...?

In closing, I've had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many situations that confirm something LIKE the Law of Attraction for me (not necessarily the Secret, b/c I've been reading material way before it came out) to believe differently.

To each his own.
This is my path.


A-Unit

 

[Potbelly]

I'm not a skeptic, but the Secret truly is bull****.

I'm just a normal guy living life and making the best out of everything. I odn't believe in the secret because bad sh1t happens and it is probably out of my control (9'11), and sometimes inmy control (failing a test).

The bottom line is this, if you do not work for something, you will not get it unless you get it handed down out of sheer luck/chance from a parent or whatever.

Still, hardwork is the only sure fire way to accomplish anything. Einstein and Newton and Gates didn't know "the secret" they just worked hard.

This oncea again shows how ****in lazy and stupid most of the world is. Always trying to find an easy way out of something.

Also, some tard posted this in the tips forum....

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Law 27: Play on People's Need to Believe to Create a Cultlike Following

People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.

The very best premises upon which to base a new "faith" are ones where a negative cannot be proven. Thus, if you practice the prescribed ritual and are successful, you prove the positive, and if you practice the ritual and are unsuccessful the fault lies in your imperfectly practicing the ritual - still proving the postive. In fact the doubters only strengthen the 'faith'.

A metaphysical argument can never be proven in the physical while a physical argument can never be proven by the metaphysical. The trick is to make the metaphysical seem plausible enough to be physical.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

There are a whole lot of people who rely on facts and proven evidence for their perspectives. At the same time there are the "mentally sick" ones that don't need facts or evidence to have a perspective.

Well, actually. The law of attraction was based on facts and evidence. It was first suggested by Napolen Hill and he spent most of his life interviewing sucessful people and how they became as such. He was like a detective almost.

One is just as useful as the other. Without the "mentally sick" ones, there would never be paradigm shifts and the world would stagnate and be filled with physicists and mathematics.

You're out of your mind. The world would be even less stagnated if we had more physicists and mathematicians and scientists in general. All the stuff you use in everyday life, all the products and creations are attributed to people like this.

Whereas on the opposite end, you have the spiritual people. Like the church, whe is trying to undo all progress by mankind. Both progrees in social movements and sgientific movements.

Don't use condoms. No pre-marital sex. Experiments on dead embryos from fertility clinics is wrong... let the sick die instead. And more. Now I'm not saying you should be a scientist by any means, but don't be all spiritual without any base in reality. Balance is key.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

I'm not a skeptic, but the Secret truly is bull****.

That's true to an extent. But maybe you saw something differently in the Secret than I did.

I like to read between the lines and not take everything so literally. Like: the universe will give you what you want if you want it enough... you don't have to do anything.

That's complete bull.

If I were to redo the video I would put far more emphasis on hard work and less spiritual new age hippie crap. But if you don't take everything they say literally, its a very good movimentary.