Talk:Law of attraction (New Thought)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Half empty is half full

According to the way the article is currently written, LoA is bullshit. This is not entirely true, since even from a hard science POV, positive thinking and attitude, to which LoA is a close relative, are effective in solving life's problems (regardless of what skeptics' confirmation bias says). This is not mentioned in the article. Critisism section debunks connections to theoretical physics which are not really claimed in the descripton. Perhaps it should be explained that while some scientists draw parallels between new age beliefs and latest theories about the universe, others take it further and make often pseudoscientific claims in attempts to gain credibility for themselves and their packaged for sale ideas. Yes there are people out to make money selling these ideas to public, but it doesn't mean that the idea behind LoA is BS. It has not been proven or disproven whether LoA is simply a confirmation bias. Perhaps it's that and positive thinking, perhaps it's something more that we don't know. It's really a question of metaphysics and spirituality. Speaking of which, ask scientists - many will tell you they are agnostic; ask doctors or better surgeons - many will tell you that God definitely exists. In their mind, the idea of god might have nothing in common with the one Christian right is worshipping. But you simply don't know what you don't know. 69.107.71.8 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. There is nothing that the Law of Attraction can give a person that any competent grounded-in-reality motivational speaker or self-help book can give. Claims of some supernatural or metaphysical basis for the Law of Attraction puts it strictly in the category of nonsense. The promotion of the Law of Attraction over sane self-help techniques will only serve to steer people toward other equally unproveable rubbish. This is detrimental to society as a whole as it helps give scammers new techniques for ensnaring the gullible. --Rdnzl 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

LoA in essense claims that it all begins with attitude, which is pretty much in agreement with modern psychology and human experience, laid out in spiritual principles (as a man thinketh so is he). "Law of Attraction" is a convenient name for a notion that we filter out and attract reality coherent with our thoughts, and that it happens to a greater degree than we realize.

As for nonsense category - if I take an observation that the less we need people, the more they seem to need us (arguably valid from psychology standpoint), come up with some metaphysical explanation for it, shrinkwrap it and give it a catchy name, this will not make the core idea nonsense. It might make me sound out of touch - but only to those who do not share my metaphysical views. It all depends who makes what specific claims. For example Steve Pavlina, one of LoA advocates, can hardly be described as a nutjob crackpot.

Finally, gullible will always be ensnared by no-brainer concepts, be it "Law of Attraction", "Buy now pay later" or the "War on terror". To some these are sane, to others - insane. Why should someone assume the ultimate authority in deciding what is benign and what is malignant to the gullible?69.107.71.8 08:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse Me

For Isaac Newton's Law of Attraction, see Isaac Newton?????? What's the matter with you people?????? You mean for the New Age Law of Attraction, the title of THIS page should be rewritten.

Based on the results of this page to date, the entire Wikipedia Project is a failure. Isaac Newton discovered the Law of Attraction, not some washed-up New Age Gurus. Get a life, idiots. (unknown)

I've never heard Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation being called the "Law of Attraction". It isn't mentioned in the Newton article. I think that the association of "Law of Attraction" to Newton is a mistake made by people who are unaware of the term "Law of Universal Gravitation" which is associated with Newton. The link from this article to Newton is probably for these people and is not meant to associate this term with Newton. I'd prefer that "Law of Attraction" not be associated with anything scientific. I'd prefer that it instead be associated with the nutjob crackpots that believe in it and promote it. --Rdnzl 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

According to Regardie's earlier works, it appears that this article is misleading. By lumping all of these authors into a group based solely upon the moniker, their individual opinions on the matter, specifically whether "like attracts like" or "like repels like" has become ambiguous by this article. Ste4k 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That should be included and referenced then as an earlier and different interpretation than the one that is in common use now. Tyrenius 07:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this theory a little... unrealistic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.247.230.133 (talk • contribs) .

Please see full discussion on Articles_for_deletion/Law_of_Attraction Tyrenius 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--What does that have to do with a Wikipedia page existing on it?

What's the point of saying that a list of people agree with something? That's not information, but endorsement. 07:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go to the "Mathematics" article and list all those that agree with it, to follow the precedent established by this article.. --Visitor

Would it be possible that the author can expand on the Law of Attraction? This appears to be less then an outline of the theory/principles. Your missing huge portions that should be added.

• Ask: Ask what you want in an object/scenario context
• Belive: Maintain Focus; The universe will answer
• Receive: Do not hesitate when the goal is manifested; seize it with gratitude

I will add this plus additional references.

--David Peter Smith 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bible and the Law of Attraction

In it's present form the article fails to address the point of view of Christians who find no conflict between the law of attraction (when Biblically applied) and the teachings of Jesus. (thus the "lack of world-wide view" tag)

Scientific Principles and Discussion Relating to LoA

I am planning on writing a small article to add to the Law of Attraction article, because I feel its greatly mis-represented here on Wiki. Anyone who has actually read or studied the philosophy of Law of Attraction knows there are a great many scientific principles that back the theory of its existance. Electromagnitism, the basic rules of matter and energy, String Theory, quantum theories.. they play a big role. I think the reason people don't bother to look into it enough to discover this is that they think its a religion, and being they are skeptical of religion or god, they are closed off to the idea of Law of Attraction. This is not about God, or religion, it doesn't even have to be about "spirituality".. it can be maintained on a basic realistic level that doesn't fall when under factual scrutiny.GanMadar 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Make sure it is reliably sourced then. --Guinnog 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling something a "law" in scientific terms usually means that it has survived an incredible amount of rigorous testing in whichever field it is presented as "true". Moreover, I agree with Guinnog. --Visitor

--In reply: I'm doing the best I can with my limited knowledge of science to put together something to better explain what I mean... "One of the basic laws of physics is that energy is not destroyed or created, it merely changes form. Another is that everything is made up of energy, from the air, to your computer, to you.. Solid, Liquid, or Gas, no matter what the object is, it has all these atoms and particles (and possibly strings) that all move (or vibrate, if you will, thats were the term "vibration" comes in) in a bed of energy. Our minds as we know it are conductors of this energy, because when we have thoughts or memories, our brain fires up thunderstorms of energy. This is why the LoA states that our thoughts have power. A law of physics is that there is a basic magnetic force in the universe tied to energy, its called electromagentism. So that is why these people are postulating that the energy in our brains creates our reality, that what we think and the energy our thoughts have (positive or negative) draws likewise energy from the universe."-by me in a discussion with someone. My main problem is that, like I stated before.. my deeper understanding of science and physics is limited, so I'm working with the knowledge I have. I'm asking that anyone who has a good background in these things takes the actual time to look at what the LoA teachers are saying, and then try to make arguements for or against based on an unbiased (or as close as any of us can get) look at any correlation (or not). I can only assume thats why the people who made "What The Bleep" (a movie that has a similar basis as "The Secret") had people who were acredited. (for any who are interested, "What the Bleep" offers better explination of the logical side of LoA) The reason I ask even for arguements against is because so far, with my limited understanding of sciences, I can only see the possiblities and not the impossibilies. I don't really care if even this article is changed to something that states only reasons why LoA can't exist. I have been in enough discussions with Athiests to hear the same arguement about "God" over and over again "there is no factual evidence to support his/her/its existance" but it seems to me that there is a certain amount of evidence to support THIS. GanMadar14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a limited understanding of science then perhaps you should not assume, out of the starting gate, that there is any scientific principle underlying this superstition (hint: there's not). See sympathetic magic, that's all this superstition is; it predates science by thousands of years because ignorant (not stupid, just ignorant) people in the past misunderstood something important: resemblances don't affect real world results. By the way, whatever you're writing up is probably going to be WP:OR and thus inadmissible for inclusion here at Wikipedia. But you might get some sources here, here and here. Especially read that first link, concerning the Dieri of central Australia, who keep a stock of boys' foreskins around for rainmaking ceremonies (because penises "rain" urine, so this would attract real rain, of course!) — coelacan talk — 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very familiar with this line of thinking, as I have said similar things myself. "Anything which cannot be measured, isn't scientific, or therefore, real or useful". In my 20's, I left the Christian tradition in which I was raised, and turned to logic, reason, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, humanism, many other related -isms. However, now after having read people like Fritjov Capra (start with Turning Point), Roger Penrose, Douglas Hofstadter, Terrence McKenna, Leonard Shlain (these are all men of the hard sciences BTW), I have come to a different position. Here are the cogent points: While science/reason are quite useful, there are limits as to the universal application of logic, reason, mathematics, and the scientific method for understanding the natural world.. This can be demonstrated by recent developments in chaos theory (not everything in nature is predictable as in linear systems. small changes to initial conditions can have large and unpredictable consequences), quantum machanics (not every variable can be measured or known, the observer changes the observed, randomness is a fundamental element of matter, etc.) The philosophy which you express is a kind of fundamentalism or bigotry, which Capra calls philosophical materialism. It is "old school", i.e., it comes from the Cartesian/Newtonian world view that reductionism will lead us to understanding the clockwork which is nature. This way of thinking has certain flawed premises, and was smashed by the likes of Kurt Gödel, Werner Heisenberg, et. al. Remarkably, the limits of the materialistic paradigm was shown by Fritjof Capra in Tao of Physics to have been understood by ancient and pre-scientific people! It's really fantastic, and you should check it out. ...... Science needs repeatability to study phenomena, thus science cannot characterize strange one-time events (miracles?). All of this new knowledge indirectly calls for a turn to the other realm, the yin, the holistic, the spiritual, the feminine, the metaphysicical. The way of the spirit can't be proven directly w/science! To attempt that is really missing the point. It implies a world of spirit (to balance the scientific world of substance), and that changes in consciousness can actually affect the material world. I've just started watching this page, and hope to enhance the article with references from these sources. This stuff is not inconsistant w/science. It does not contradict science. And science does not disprove it either. There are different realms of thought and understanding. Science excells at describing 1/2 of the universe, and it is utterly useless to describe the other --Bill Huston ^(talk) 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, many of the sources you cite as supposedly "hard science" (e.g. Penrose) are highly speculative and disputed attempts to link things like quantum theory to consciousness. If such sources are brought into your argument, their speculative & disputed nature should be made clear. Second, if you dismiss science overall as inadequate, that would seem to undermine the very nature of an attempt to support your position by invoking "men of the hard sciences." Third, it isn't simply an issue of hard science vs. spirit; there are also questions of cognition, psychology, etc. to be addressed. Fourth, while as individuals we may feel degraded or limited by materialistic thinking, that doesn't mean that any given spiritual belief system is true. There are after all many competing visions of the spiritual, most of which propose solutions quite different from the LoA.

Rather than attempt to "prove" the LoA, why not describe more fully the beliefs involved and how these fit into the surrounding cultural context - including what skeptics have to say, and how the LoA compares to other beliefs about possible interactions between the non-material and the material? The LoA is a charged issue, obviously; why attempt to "settle" it one way or the other when so many will disagree with either stance? UsableThought 17:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that science is limited is precisely why you shouldn't run around making incredible and extravagant claims and then claiming that they are supported by science. Science doesn't support them, and in fact all the evidence is that they misuse and confuse scientific concepts.69.171.34.4 05:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

--In reply: I don't understand how not being able to disprove something isn't as important as being able to prove it. Hundreds of years ago we thought the world was flat and at the center of the universe. I also believe, on a more personal level that people who so easily laugh off what can't be directly or imediately proven are just uncomfortable with the idea of being in control, or responsible for their own lives. Thank you for your reply Bill. The only thing I would point out is that yes, the LoA can and is applied in many ways in a strictly material sense, but that its principles in the emotional and spiritual can go a long way to making a person happier and more focused.GanMadar 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm involved in other matters right now so I'll have to come back later to answer Bill fully. At the moment, GanMadar, I just want to say that I'm not discounting the possibility that attempting to use the LoA can make a person happier and more focused. That is very possibly true, as in this case we're only talking about "thinking positively." The point is just that it doesn't affect anything else outside of one's own head, any more than a bag full of foreskins brings rain. And I would argue that while believing in the LoA might make a person happy, it sets them up for great disappointment and perhaps harm, because basing one's life on falsehoods simply cannot be a sustainable approach to fulfillment... it can even make one vulernable to being taken advantage of by cults like Ramtha. — coelacan talk — 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to the suggestion that the LoA can help make people happier and more focused - there is a very real danger that for many persons the opposite is true, and that attempts to practice it are likely to be harmful, i.e. worsen existing psychological discomfort and encourage dysfunctional rather than effective choices. According to the LoA, we should seek to suppress, replace, and in general shun our negative thoughts. However, a large and increasing body of behavioral research in the U.S. and in Europe has shown that we cannot overtly control (eliminate, suppress, "change", escape, etc.) thoughts and feelings, and that attempts to do so are counter-productive, especially for persons diagnosed as clinically depressed, anxious, etc. This same body of research is demonstrating that ancient technologies such as Buddhism have been correct all along in suggesting a more fruitful strategy is to practice psychological openness by various means. Regardless, my specific objection to this page is that no legitimate outside criticisms of any kind are acknowledged, which by default suggests there are none. This is misleading, to say the least. UsableThought 15:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Law of Attraction is a delusion at best and fraud at worst. It saddens me to see Wikipedia tainted with such nonsense being portrayed as fact and any criticism of it removed. --Rdnzl 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing more and more drivel added to this article and criticism continually being removed. There is zero evidence behind the Law of Attraction. It works the same way that prayer does by tricking the user into thinking they've caused things to happen in some mystical way. The Law of Attraction is the basis of many get-rich-quick schemes and is utter nonsense. Will someone with some experience and/or authority please do something about this article. It has the potential to do a lot of harm to people by supporting the LoA when in reality, it is nothing more than a placebo used by scammers and their deluded followers to make money by attracting (no pun intended) more scammers and deluded followers. --24.7.75.170 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who need to see the proof behind all concepts, you should study up on your physics. In this case quantum physics and the zero point field and Neurophysiology, biofeedback etc. There are numerous experiments and studies that have been done and prove that indeed our thoughts do create and energy, not only the thoughts but the feelings behind those thoughts. If you would like to read a book that has packed many of these studies into a well written thought provoking accumulation check: The Intention Experiment by Lynne McTaggert. For those who do not believe in the power of your thoughts and don’t have those in check, I am sorry to say but YOU are what is bring, war, starvation, sickness, negativity and overall gloom to this earth. You may not think that you affect others with your thoughts but you do wether you intend to or not. Open up your mind and don’t dismiss something as “snake oil” before you yourself have done the research to prove it’s unworthiness. So in your theory if something is profitable or makes money in anyway in must be a scam? I know I have spend $20 in worse ways that reading a book! If you look at the law of attraction as a way to obtain material things that is very shallow and literal. I do agree the movie uses that as an example, only because that is how most people work and in my opinion were using that to get people's attention, which is unfortunate. They are very in tuned to their things and how to get more.

If you are one that feels like you need to keep your mind in a box for fear if it's potental, using 5% of your brain must be fulfilling.

The fact that you used the word "placebo" is interesting. Many studies have found that the placebo works greater that the medication etc. How does that happen? You have just proved the point that your mind is very powerful and can heal yourself and others. We are all connected by energy that runs into the universe. Just take a look at what energy frequency you are running on? Feel good? Didn’t think so. Mchakra 17:49, March 20 2007 (UTC)

You obviously know nothing about quantum physics nor any actual physics and are simply regurgitating the same old rubbish that many of us are trying to protect the public from. The law of attraction is a fraud. It has no basis in reality and whatever effects of it that people think they are experiencing come from their own actions and not some mystical mumbo jumbo. --24.7.75.170 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to be protected from your self and not worry about others! Because you know nothing about what you speak, doesn't mean that we all are like you. If you had actually taken the time to study this theory you would be able to have a much more intelligent conversation about it instead of bashing and being intolerant of people around you who are happy and finding peace and in the fact that we are all in control of our own lives and experiences. That which is like unto itself is drawn. I can guess by your statements that you are not living a fulfilling life of joy and probably have some sort of stomach problems. Let people live their own lives as find the knowledge they seek to live in success. It is not your place to judge or “save” anyone. Tell us what you have read, watched or explain the experiments you have done to come to your conclusion. Mchakra 21:01, March 27 2007 (UTC)

Too many EL

Wikipedia is not a web directory. See WP:NOT. There are way to many external links in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should also remove the portions that just list several authors. This just looks like spam when you get down to it, and it is doubtfully that any of these authors have sufficiently contributed information on the subject matter. --David Peter Smith 08:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any objections, I am removing this short paragraph (and putting in discussion) since these sources should be in either books or footnotes (currently appears as spam):

Books have been written on the subject by Michael Losier, Jerry and Esther Hicks, Penny Jordan, Sheryl Woods, Robert Anthony,[3] Kristi Gold, Liz Gerstein, David Hooper, Sandra Anne Taylor, Ernest Holmes, William Walker Atkinson, Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Collier, Israel Regardie, Anastasia Kile, Mark Allen, Bob Proctor, Joe Vitale, Lynn Grabhorn[4], and Jim Fannin.

I will move tomorrow unless there are objections. --David Peter Smith 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just World Hypothesis

Another damaging and highly relevant claim against the LoA is what social psychologists have labeled the "Just World Hypothesis." This is the tendency of many to believe that the world must make sense, therefore when bad or good things happen to people, there must be an explanation - i.e. those who suffer brought it on themselves and are to blame, while those who enjoy good fortune earned it. Researchers theorize that we instinctively want the world to be coherent so that our own plans will succeed; an unjust world would threaten our ability to successfully plan, so any data that would argue in favor of an unjust world is rejected. An example is blaming victims of crimes for behavior that supposedly incited the criminal.

The relevant link in Wikipedia is to Just-world phenomenon.

UsableThought 12:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

I think we should request that this page be protected against unregistered user edits due to the continual spam external link additions.--P Todd 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

I agree, the article was written well with solid references. Looks like somebody is spamming it with citations needed etc... As such, the typical person would not understand this subject unless they research it for a while etc.

Globalprofessor 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)globalprofessorGlobalprofessor 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this article. It makes some much sense. Your feelings definitely affect your thoughts. I recently purchased this DVD, The Secret; it will be the first time in thirty years that I ever heard of "The Law of Attraction". As far as I can remember my life has been nothing but hardship. Surround by nothing but death and violence, and I tried many things to gain prosperity, in which I become an extraordinary executive assistant, loving & patient mother, with my own home, etc...... Still, I remain grateful for everything I have. However, my past continuous left me with negative thoughts and insecurities. Four days ago my life looked great on the outside but internal hurting with fear, depression, physically aliments, anger, jealousy, etc..... After an intense viewing the movie, I decided to put all my extra attention and thoughts into positive thoughts/feelings and that every time I do have a negative thought or feeling to remind myself of the Law of Attraction and how my life is changing every time I alter that negative thought or feeling into a positive one. In the past four day of living my life by the guide lines of the Law of Attraction, I feel happier then I have ever felt in my life. Since then every day has been a great day. I am filled with an abundance of joy, really, I can't stop smiling. It's a great feeling to know what you want and how you can believe that you are the master of your universe. That you will get what ever you want through good feelings and good thoughts. I am overwhelmed with glee and excitement to put to test and commitment to these practices and continue on living a phenomenal life

You can place a request for protection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There is a serious need for this article to have a criticism section - as of now, the article is written too much with a "this theory is likely true and widely accepted" slant. Now I won't argue that the article doesn't have a raison d'etre, but it's not neutral Observer31 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This article should exist just as articles on ESP, Astrology, Telekineses and other unproven mystical concepts but it must be made clear that the Law of Attraction is not a proven phenomena. Quite the contrary. It is just another snake oil product that has no basis in reality (other than purely psychological effects). This must be made clear in the article or the article should be removed. Wikipedia cannot be made a shill for scams like this. --Rdnzl 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell has any of this got to do with Metaphysics? I've studied Metaphysics, and it has nothing to do with this new age crap. I'm removing it from the links. Saluton 01:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This entire article needs to be made factually accurate and locked. The Law of Attraction and its associated propaganda movies; The Secret and What the Bleep do We Know, are nothing more than the same old snake oil in a scientific sounding package. They pervert science for their own financial gain. By having an article here which continually has criticism deleted helps allow scammers to defraud the public by making them think that this "law" actually exists. It does not. --24.7.75.170 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To have the confidence, to speak with such certainty on such a topic; can't match that... But what I do have... I have the humility to recognize that I couldn't begin to know whether such things as LoA are true. This is something I'm certain of. I don't know and because I don't know.... It's not impossible. I suspect too, that ANYone COULD agree with this simple point. Mind you, I'm not saying that LoA is true. I'm just saying I don't know and that leaves open tantalizing prospects for me to explore. My option... It's just downright parochial thinking on our part to constrain our reality to that which we do KNOW!

Well, you know what? I don't KNOW that Santa Claus doesn't exist either... but I've got a pretty strong opinion on the matter all the same. Really, it seems to me that the whole point of the phrase "Law of Attraction" is to illegitimately elevate a rather vaguely specified hypothesis "The Power of Positive Thinking" into something that has been repeatedly confirmed by scientific experiment, that is, a "law". The LoA is not a "law" at all, it is "positive thinking" dressed up in a cheap suit. This article is actually a rather depressing example of why Wikipedia is doomed to failure... what intelligent person in their right mind wants to engage in constant edit wars with halfwits?74.102.120.157 02:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add original research. To add that material, which I have deleted several times already on these basis, editors wanting that material need to provide a published reliable source that describes Kashmiri shaivism, as having something to do with this purported law. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Law of Attraction: Getting anything you want and desire

There is both a natural law and spiritual law and they both work together to give us what we need in life. However, the mind controls all of this and it is up to us to use our minds to work the law of attraction to our advantage. Some people call this “karma” and some call it “like attracts like.” Whatever you want to call it, you can use it to get anything you want.

It is what you think about the most that becomes your reality. So your thoughts must encourage the outcome that you desire. Your thoughts affect your relationships, your money, and your well-being. If you think negative thoughts you will get negative outcomes. If you think positive thoughts, then your outcome will be positive. It is that simple.

I recently spoke to someone who wasn’t doing well with his online sales and the first thing words that came out of his mouth was, “I don’t think I am cut out for this.” Guess what, he isn’t cut out of this because that is what he believes and that is what was happening to him. His words framed his world.

The law of attraction is just like the law of gravity. It works all the time and there is nothing you can do to change it. If you change your thoughts to line up with the words that you speak, it will happen for you just as how you speak it.

The question is: are you making the law work for you or are you working against it? The key to examining your life and to find out if this law is working for you is to look at your situation and see if you have everything that you desire. If you don’t, then you are not using this law to attract the things that you want and you are cheating yourself.

You may think that this is a joke, but it isn’t. The law of attraction created the world. God spoke and it was so and the earth was created and he did it all in seven days. I know you aren’t God, but he set an example for us to follow. Call those things that seem not as if they were. He is the creator of the law of attraction and he utilized it to his advantage and that his why you and I are here on this earth.

You must believe in yourself and talk to yourself if you have to. You are in control of your thoughts. No one can go into your mind and tell you what to think. God even went further to tell us to think on things that are of a good report. He already knew that we would have bad thoughts to influence our lives in a negative way. You can train your thoughts to line up to your desires and speak it and it will happen, but you have to believe that it will.

Your destiny is in your own hands. Only you alone can change it. Don’t blame the universe or someone else. The power is in your hands and you can achieve anything you want with the law of attraction.

The law of attraction can bring you success, motivation, self improvement, get you out of depression, give you confidence, get rid of your fears and insecurities, help you to improve yourself and your marriage, help you to lose the weight you want to and give you happiness. If you want to find out more about this law, go to the website now at http://www.thelawofattractinganything.com and you will find out how to make your life better.

Cheryline Lawson is a passionate author of online books and owner of http://www.thelawofattractinganything.com and provides informative articles and information about the law of attraction. Go visit her website and see it for yourself.

Bullshit. --24.7.75.170 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WRONG CATEGORY - New Thought is not the same as New Age

Published literature exists describing the "Law of Attraction" and other New Thought concepts aged over 100 years and generally are written to present material as a quasi-scientific type of philosophy/theology.

The New Age movement on the other hand is only about 40 years old and mostly represents a more mystical or magical type of philosophy. New Age concepts have occasionally borrowed from New Thought writings but the reverse is chronologically impossible.

It is an error to equate The Secret, The Law of Attraction or New Thought articles in general as being in the same category as New Age articles.

I am changing the Category of this article from New Age to New Thought. Low Sea 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jossi changed the category back to New Age without explanation. I respect that Jossi is a major contributer here but I must undo his edit unless some explanation can be provided why this should NOT be Category:New Thought. Low Sea 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh, what on Earth would New Thought be, and how is it any different from New Age? It actually looks like you may be creating the concept yourself, which would probably go against the No Original Research Wikipedia rule. May you at least name a source? "New Thought" does not even have its own article yet... Luis Dantas 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Luis, Please do some basic Wikipedia (or even Google) lookup before you make plainly inaccurate statements. The New Thought WP article has been here since 2005 and there is another article on the New Thought Movement (the former being about the philosophy, the latter being about the various religions based on that philosophy). Low Sea 10:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New Age, New Thought ... who cares, it's still all a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap. --24.7.75.170 06:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not hippie crap at all. There is no tree hugging involved. In fact, it's quite Libertarian in nature because it says that people should take charge of their own lives and make something of themselves. It's you ultra left-wing liberals who think a nanny state is in order and that nobody should be responsible for their own actions or lives. Have you tried practicing the law of attraction or have you just decided to dismiss it out of hand? It works. 68.121.24.174 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree, it doesn't contain any semblance of respect for ones environment. It merely promotes singular self-absorption.