---"As mentioned above, I take a basically agnostic attitude towards life by being interested in what works."
That's not agnostic, it's pragmatic, but okay.
---"The Negative Nellies are like crabs caught in a crab pot. Whenever one crab tries to escape through the big opening in the top of the cage the others will grab its legs and pull it back in. That's why the crab pots don't need a lid."
I thought it was more about the fact that they are boiling to death, but okay. Nice way to put down anyone who happens to dissent with the Secret (by the way---YOU dissent with the Secret!!! You list a fairly large number of points that you disagree with, here and in other posts too)
---I am a licensed therapist (now I'm sure you'll accuse me of bringing this up in every post), working with adolescents every day to help them to understand that they DO have control over their actions, lives, and outcomes; that they SHOULD be grateful for the things they have; that having a positive attitude will get them MUCH farther in life than the opposite. So tell me again, how do I fit in with your narrow-minded view of everyone who disagrees with the Secret?
*I really wanted to completely ignore your post due to your snarky little comments at the end.
I for one feel there are many ways people can improve their lives. The Secret, I'm sure, is one of them. All I (and possibly others) have ever said is that if you're going to follow this book, at least consider the ramifications of some of the material in the book. Is that so bad?
I'm at work (yes unfortunately work Sundays) and it can be boring. I could ask you the same question.
You still, still, still never answered my basic question---if you threw out the nonsense in this book, why put down people who want to talk about the "nonsense" (your words), compare them to crabs being boiled to death, and tell them that if they disagree with this book they are disagreeing with the bible? That doesn't sound so positive or even nice to me.
It seems many on these threads agree on major points, but are using different standards for judging the value of the book. Some are judging it as they might judge a musical album (oops, I mean CD:-) that has a favorite song on it, but other songs they don't like. The album would certainly be worth keeping and playing for that very pleasurable song. For other readers, the untruths in the book taint all parts of the message, sort of like a bit of mud thrown into the chocolate chip cookie dough. I don't want any of those cookies, thanks! Maybe my approach is due to being a teacher. I have high standards for instructional material. I can't handle reading work by people who lie and claim science backs them up. I will admit that this disturbs me quite a bit. By the way, I totally accept responsibility for the fact that I have created a life that I love:-) I can't describe my life in any detail or you would figure out who I am.
Just a reminder: I am not responding to you as a personal attack, I am responding to things you have written (admittedly, posts in a form are not the best way to understand someone's intentions).
It is difficult for me to believe that you are not wedded to any particular religion, doctrine, or school of thought when you write things like "thank Jesus for the Secret" and "if you mock the Secret, you are mocking the bible."
As far as my pointing out the misuse of the word agnostic, I was just being a jerk. Admittedly.
n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
1. character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. 2. a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
PSI said: "As mentioned above, I take a basically agnostic attitude towards life by being interested in what works. What works for me may not work for you although the things listed below work for enough people that I'm convinced that there is something to them."
Please read my post more carefully. This was in the definition of AGNOSTIC: "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something." I still think you were describing pragmatism as opposed to agnosticism....but fine...you're right you're right you're right and I was a jerk for even bringing it up (which I acknowledged, like, 3 posts ago!)
Hey man if I can say one thing---if you go on my thread "the Secret: pros and cons 2" you might see that we agree about some of the basics here more than you realize.
I did object to your saying that bashing the Secret is bashing the bible, but you know that already....
And as far as Paulette goes---yes I do agree with and appreciate a lot of what she says but I do think she jumps to conclusions at times. I think she jumped to the conclusion that you were antisemitic because you said I bring up my Judaism in every post and that no one cares. (that is what you said, I hope I didn't misstate it). Of course I still disagree with that, but I do think she quickly jumped to the conclusion that you were antisemitic.