Saturday, November 24, 2012

Oh the Irony!

A recent "Abraham" daily quote reads, "You are really individual beings, with very special talents, and it would be nice if teachers had the time, or parents had the awareness or skill, to see the children as the very individual, very special beings that they are. So that rather than trying to drum them into one category, they are, instead, appreciating the special insight that each child brings to the sea of diversity and contrast which is the stuff that creation comes from."

Yet another slam against parents and teachers.  I've mentioned before that Esther-as-Abraham likes to point out how everyone else, especially educators and family, are doing everything wrong.  The Abraham preachings definitely have appeal to the disgruntled and the "black sheep" of the world.  (As a bit of a "black sheep" myself, I can relate.  I now realize that I was not meant to turn my brain over to someone else, however, just because I'm a bit different!)  

According to "Abraham", in this quote above, teachers and parents just don't have time, awareness, or skill to properly educate/parent children.  Guess what, folks, this is simply not true!  Sure, there are lameass teachers and deadbeat parents out there, but there are also excellent specimens of both. The education and parenting scene are not as grim as Esther would have us believe.

And the IRONY here is that we have a woman who presents herself as a teacher (while posing as Abraham she says all who are "attracted" to "Abraham" are teachers to their core) who, while criticizing actual teachers, is simply LYING to hundreds if not thousands of people each and every week.  Not teaching.  Lying.

The implication in the above quote is that teachers and parents could be doing a better job.  Yet does Esther offer anything of value?  As I've stated repeatedly, I find her teachings worthless and in many cases dangerous.  I also find them disempowering.  And, I find it immoral to claim to speak on behalf of God and perpetuate the myth of "let go and let God."  Those who adhere to the teachings become slaves to a non-existent inner being/vortex.

Sure, there's room for improvement.  Teachers and parents aren't perfect.  However I would say that by and large the overwhelming majority want what is best for their students/children.  (Can the same be said for Esther Hicks?)

I would like to emphasize that I do not mean to minimize genuine suffering at the hands of teachers and parents.  Unfortunately this is a reality for some.  My point here is that it is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black for Esther Hicks to say that teachers and parents are lacking in what they have to offer. 

By the way, if anyone would like to provide a defense of Esther Hicks, in case I may be mistaken and she may have something of value for her listeners, I'd be glad to hear it.  No logical fallacies.  Here's a handy chart for your review:



  1. There was a poem, "Not waving, drowning". I guess "Not teaching, lying" is the one for the New Age.

  2. Mariah--how fair, let alone rational, is it to invite a "defense of Esther Hicks", which you say you will be "...glad to hear", and then, before anyone has even offered anything at all, you limit said defense with "no logical fallacies"? Wow! And I don't see any responses. What a shock!! No wonder the blog is no longer as interesting as it used go be. I think you offer well thought out topics...but without open and honest discourse...even the best material will always fall is happening. Go back to open discussion.

    1. Flipside- it's both fair and rational for me to remind people to leave the logical fallacies out of the discussion. It is most unfair (and irrational) to perpetuate a lie.

      As for the lack of responses, is it my fault no one has stepped up with any kind of proof of Esther Hicks' claims that is free of logical fallacies?

      People have the notion that they can discern knowledge through intuition, and/or that they can FEEL that something is true or correct. Esther Hicks, and most all spiritual or religious "teachers" perpetuate this line of flawed thinking. This is simply not true. When people sit around discussing their experiences and beliefs with regards to the supernatural, what is being discussed is BELIEF and nothing more. This blog is not a place for people to sit around discussing their own beliefs. There are plenty of other places online for that. It seems as though you consider me unfair for not designing a blog to YOUR liking. If you'd like, I can tell you how to set up a blog, it's VERY easy.

      I've written a bit of what this blog is about. I also discuss critical thinking and how various religions and spiritual practices wipe out a good portion of a person's critical thinking faculties.

      I know you think I want to see the demise of Abraham-Hicks Publications. Honestly, I could not care less about AHP. Esther will probably run it into the ground herself without any help from little ol' me. And, as I said in a recent post, in my mind Hicksianity is no different from Christianity, one is just more recently made-up and less socially acceptable, but both promote belief is nonexistent supernatural entities. This belief in nonexistent supernatural entities (singular or plural) leads to disempowering life choices, and I've had enough!

    2. Continuing my train of thought here, here's a nice quote from the author of "Critical Thinking about New Age Ideas"-- "We have the right and the freedom to believe whatever we want, but there is a vast difference between believing and knowing. To know that something is true is to be able to answer adequately the question 'How do you know?' In other words, we can give empirical (testable) reasons for asserting our claim. If we can't give such reasons, our 'knowing' is actually nothing but believing in disguise."

      This is why I said "no logical fallacies". To use his words, empirical (testable) reasons for asserting your claim only.

    3. That's just so funny. Mariah frowns on the act of cheating through an argument with logical fallacies, and someone shows up to complain that a "no cheating" rule is unfair.

      Methinks flipside is insecure.

      What's next? Is someone going to show up to complain if she specifies no lying?

    4. Thanks for the comment, bronzedog! Right, I should probably specify "no lying" as well. And how dare I suggest people not cheat?!?!

  3. Hi, I used to be a fan of Abe-Hicks for 7 or so years. I read the books, listened to the audios & lately got livestream. It's taken me a long time but I've finally given it up. And I feel so much better!!

    I agree with you that something isn't right about Abe-Hicks.

    from Esther belittling people in the chair, advertising vehicles & dubious Hollywood films, giving dirty/threatening looks to the viewers on the webcam, making everyone feel thick as shit in the hotseat, to going on rants & then saying "we're being you!".

    There were some real horrible workshops this summer. One was so bad I deleted the whole thing. Depressing.

    Oh coupled with the fact Jerry Hicks clearly doesn't believe in the teaching at all.

    Abe said on a caribbean cruise "doctors kill every one of their patients", in another they'd never recommend E & J to go to the doctors, and that any illness could be fixed in an afternoon with alignment.

    So off Jerry toddles to the hospital, doctors & has chemotherapy then promply croaks.

    Hmmmm..... WTF?! Why is anyone still listening to these charlatans? Seriously, wake up people.

    1. Hi Anony! People listen for as long as they will listen. Belief in the supernatural and concepts like "faith" and "trust" are deeply ingrained in many of us. Most would not consider such large scale fraud, and so our minds come up with some other solution for the inconsistencies.

      I thoroughly believe you that there were some real horrible workshops this summer! I stopped tracking them because they were boring and repetitive... and awful!

      The inconsistencies with Jerry Hicks' death are many, too many to just explain away by saying he was ready to transition into non-physical. Particularly when Esther offers no proof of any kind of non-physical. :) I wonder what it's like for her to know he's dead dead dead and not talking to her when it's 5:55 while carrying out the act that he is still present and helping her pick out new shrubs, or whatever. Or is she seriously deluded and believes she's in contact with her dead husband? Either way, it's pretty pathetic. (Unless she's seriously mentally ill, then shame on those around her for riding her coattails and not getting her the help she needs.)

  4. Also that truly terrifying noise Jerry was supposed to be making at the first workshop since his croaking was beyond a joke.

  5. @Flipside (November 26, 2012 9:56 PM)

    To be honest, I found your comment for the most part a piece of transparent concern trolling. I consider such behavior to be not only insincere but destructive of communication. For that reason I have decided to highlight the first part of your comment on my blog.

    Here's part of it, and I apologize to Mariah and other commenters if the tone is a little more harsh than is usual on the comment threads here.

    "...So that’s an all time first. I’ve never seen anyone explicitly stating that logical fallacies are exactly the kind of things you need when defending a spiritual teacher, so it’s unfair to preclude them.

    This might come as a shock to Flipside, but logical fallacies are statements that are demonstrably wrong. If you make them, you are being wrong and talking rubbish. You are saying that it is unreasonable to expect people to defend Esther Hicks if they are not allowed to talk rubbish while doing so. I don’t know who you are, and I’ve never seen any of your comments there before, but I am glad that you have put your standards for communication — and your implicit estimation of Esther Hicks’s teachings — so clearly on the record...."
    (BTW Flipside, I don't moderate comments on my blog, so you are welcome to reply there!)

  6. There ya and unrestricted discussion. We've not had it here for awhile. Even if critical of what I posted I so much more appreciate this kind of innerchange, rather than Mariah's well stated topic(s) going without any, or very little, response. Thank you too, Yakaru, for the invitation to your unrestricted blog. I may take you up on it. Your blog site info again? Just for the record though, your observation that my comment..."for the most a piece of transparent concern trolling"in your opinion, I didn't completely understand. If you meant that I'm trolling as a follower of AHP or Abraham, I can catagorically deny that. Never have been a follower...never attended a seminar nor bought a book. If you meant something else, please clarify for me so I can respond coherently. Thanks.

    1. I have never restricted open dialogue. I have and will continue to restrict arguments containing logical fallacies. Even here, Flipside, you make a false claim, that I restrict discussion. I keep things fair and honest. That is all.

      I don't require discussion under my posts. Enough people are reading the posts that I am satisfied as a blogger. There are far more lurkers (hi!) than commenters here, and I'm ok with that. If a discussion gets going, great, but your concern for my blog is unfounded.

    2. @Flipside,

      You claim not to know what a concern troll is (typical troll move, BTW). Well it's what you've done in both your comments on this thread. It's that kind of nonsense that forces bloggers to turn on comment moderation. As a reader, I hope I never have to see another comment from you here ever again. You have contributed nothing to the topic. Quite the opposite: you have openly tried to derail the discussion, both by going off topic (harping on about comment moderation) and by insisting on the right to use logical fallacies.

      Your professed concern about the quality of the site is, of course, what identifies you as a concern troll. And if you've been repeatedly submitting the same kind of comment again and again about comment moderation, then you've been spamming this site as well. I think you are being extremely childish.

      Also, I hope you have been harassing the Abe forums and sites about their moderation policies too. I keep reading here about topics being prohibited there and discussions removed. Hicks is running an unethical multimillion dollar business, whereas Mariah is doing this voluntarily. I hope you are conducting your spamming and trolling there proportionately.

      You were asking for the details of my blog, well the link is still there in the first comment. (Boy, doesn't know what a concern troll is, can't recognize a link, attempts to troll but makes an idiot of himself...Who is this guy?)

      Should you comment there, your comment would appear immediately; but if your comment were to be as far off topic as both your comments here have been, it would swiftly disappear again. Unless of course if it's as hilariously stupid as your first comment here, then it will stay up for entertainment purposes.

    3. Welcome to the internet. There are lots of trolls out there that will engage in all sorts of behaviors that undermine rational discussion of an issue, and that includes blatant logical fallacies that have been pointed out thousands of times.

      I sometimes like to roast trolls, so I can tolerate a lot of bad behavior because it gives me rhetorical ammunition: I can simply point out their logical fallacies, make good counterpoints, and the trolls get to be held up as a bad example, indicative of a failed idea.

      Some people, however, don't like having to counter every stupid repetition of worn out fallacies, since these are commonly spewed out to obfuscate and distract from the issues, rather than clarify them. They waste time, can be emotionally draining to deal with, and produce nothing worthwhile in themselves. That's why Mariah is discouraging fallacious arguments. She's more interested in the actual issue. What's the problem with that?

    4. Yakaru and Bronze Dog- Thank you for your supportive comments. I appreciate them very much! I thought it would be worth it to flesh this out a little bit, which I why I published Flipside's comment in the first place. This is a good discussion to have here.

      And Flipside has succeeded in taking attention off my original point in this post, which is that Esther does not offer any teaching of any value, and makes untrue and derogatory remarks during her workshops!

    5. PS, Flippy, you're famous. Not only did Yakaru do a post about your comment, someone started a thread on a discussion forum: Flipside Flips Out

      ...and if you really want to contribute to the conversations here, Flip, you need to Google things yourself.

    6. I guess Flipside is busy hectoring the Abe forum to stop censoring and moderating. And of course he's also posting there under the name Flipside too. And he's probably then going to move on to all the other blogs that use comment moderation and try and convince them to "open" their discussions so that he can post off topic illogical raves about things that he's completely neutral about.

  7. You guessed wrong. Just busy with more important stuff.

  8. @Flipside,

    Well it's great to have you back. Your contribution to this "open and unrestricted discussion" that you so desperately wanted to have, has so far been __________ (fill in the blank).

  9. So, nothing to say while your schedule was free, flipside?


    Incidentally, I've been freed up quite a bit, since I got past one big moment in my life: I successfully defended my master's thesis, so I'll be graduating next week.

    I'm thinking about writing up a big post explaining why logical fallacies are stupid, waste time, should be discouraged, and so on. Apparently there's a need to explain the obvious. I blame the mainstream news outlets, politicians, self-esteemsters, and this newfangled jazz music.

    1. Congratulations on that, Bronze Dog! That's an awesome accomplishment! And that would be a fantastic post. And helpful, really.

      Thanks for adding this blog to your blogroll, by the way!

  10. A great post by Bronze Dog:

    Why Fallacies are Stupid

    Flipside is quoted once again!

  11. Flipside says ..."for the most a piece of transparent concern trolling"in your opinion, I didn't completely understand. If you meant that I'm trolling as a follower of AHP or Abraham, I can catagorically deny that. Never have been a follower...never attended a seminar nor bought a book."

    The above is also a classic response from a "transparent concern troll." I have never followed, listened to, or bought anything from said subject of post, but I am concerned that you aren't playing fair with those who follow this person, and although I have no vested interest in this person whatsoever,I feel it is my duty to stand up for them.

    1. Hi Tina! I'm glad you pointed that out!

    2. Additional kudos from me. I thought about it, but didn't bring it up. Here begins something of a rant.

      There are times when people are handing out unfair criticism and that can tempt people into playing devil's advocate for something they aren't greatly familiar with out of a sense of equity and desire to raise the level of discourse to valid arguments instead of mud-slinging fallacies.

      That's certainly not what Flipside is doing, but he tried to feign such when he stuck up for using logical fallacies to defend certain ideas. Thus Flip was actually arguing that Hicksians should be allowed to act unfairly in an argument, which should raise red flags. It's arguing that the field should be biased in Hicksianity's favor.

      A Hicksian would likely know that arguing for a bias towards their own side would be transparently dishonest, so it's not unreasonable to speculate a Hicksian would feign neutrality to try and make it look more reasonable.

      The first problem is that we're not that stupid, since we know that logical fallacies are something to be discouraged in any argument. From what I've seen, Mariah's going to have the advantage in a fair argument under regulation logic and has no reason to play under anyone's house rules that make illegal moves legal. If we're wrong, we're wrong, and we want to know precisely where and how we went wrong. We can't discover that if we only "lose" due to cheating opponents. Asking for permission to use logical fallacies is an announcement that you lack confidence in your position and that you need to cheat in order to win.

      We're also not that naive. You might make an argument for Switzerland, but people generally don't dedicate themselves to neutrality. Everyone's got an agenda, whether they realize it or not. Science and logic are how we minimize the effect of those biases. Even if Flipside really isn't a Hicksian, we've got reason to doubt his sincerity, since he's trying to defend the use of logical fallacies. The thing about critical thinking is that if you apply it to one belief, you might apply it to another. Flipside might subscribe to some similar woo and is trying to quiet the doubts by claiming fairness is unfair.

    3. Nice rant, Bronze Dog. Flipside's comment was in response to my statement that I was willing to hear evidence of Esther Hicks' claims, as in, I'm willing to be shown wrong. I wanted to remind anyone interested in taking me up on it that I'm not willing to sort through logical fallacies.

      I'm in favor of all honest communication, always have been.


Your comment will be reviewed before being published. Thanks.