Qi

[Sihing73]

Organized religion is a plague on people.
I am all for faith and religion, but what man has made of the word ( any word, take your pick) has been horrific.

Organized religion seems to become more of a political force rather than a Godly force. It is a shame that so many try to be politically correct and as a result ignore the teachings of whatever their respective religion may be. Islam is not the fanatical hate based religion that many int he West have come to believe. Nor is someone who calls themselves Christian always a good example of what the Bible teaches. Throughout history many has chosen which parts of the Bible, or other Holy Books, they wish to accept. As long as it supports them it is okay. For me it is pretty simple; if you claim to be a Christian and believe the Bible to be the inspired Word then you got to accept it all even when it does not agree with your personal view. As I often say it does not matter what I say, what matters is what the Bible says, and I am not a very good example of a Christian. I also do not believe that it is my responsibility to try and convert anyone else. If asked I will state my beliefs but it is up to the Holy Spirit to convict that person, if that is meant to be. Too often we get into needless arguments which take the focus off of God and onto ourselves. Everyone has the right to believe what they wish and all should be true to their own convicitions.

As to CHI or QI there are too many strange things which can not be explained simply for me to say for a certaintity that it does or does not exist. Personally, I feel that the human body is an amazing machine and we are learning more about it each day. It would not surprise me that something like Chi exists and can be focused with the right training. Of course, Chi could be a name for something else and we may all be on the same page but looking at different parts of the whole.

[Zenshiite]

As a Muslim it's hard for me to take seriously anyone calling Islam an "organized religion." I usually understand "organized religion" as there being some sort of heirarchy in matters of religion where someone says what is and is not of the religion and that's what you've got. Islam tends to agree on some fundamental tenets, but I'd say we are far from organized.

Take this situation with Sudan and the teddy bear. I find no insult in that teddy bear being named Muhammad at all, neither did the little boy Muhammad that named his bear after himself. Neither do the majority of Muslims in the world. Then you've got a few very vocal rabble rousers going into the streets shouting for death plus the Sudanese government biting their thumbs at the West by even charging and convicting this woman of a "crime." Then you get not only the UK's disapproval, but the disapproval of UK Muslims and Muslim organizations. Religion ain't the problem, humanity is the problem. If humanity actually practiced the moral and ethical guidelines of its religions the world would be a whole hell of alot better. As it is, we've got a bunch of religious hypocrites rousing the rabble over trivial issues to take their minds off the greater issues at hand. Like the tyrannies of various governments of this world.

As for Qi, I wonder if the scientifically biased out there aren't maybe jumping the gun just a little bit on declaring its none existence. There are a number of theories and hypotheses out there that are currently NOT provable or falsifiable in anyway that scientists have almost complete faith in. Dark matter, for one. Dark matter is what scientists say accounts for the relative lack of mass in correlation to the gravity of the universe... it's equally as plausible as saying Qi holds it all together, or God's will... or that dark matter and Qi are the same thing and more over... Qi is the Divine Breath of God in the first place. Why is it a scientist can say "we think dark matter is the answer to this conundrum" and it is assumed that at some piont we'll be scientifically, technically and intellectually advanced enough to test, falsify and prove dark matter even exists but the same cannot be said for Qi? Skeptics that aren't skeptical of their own beliefs are nothing short of the worst of hypocrites.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The issue with Qi, liek I mentioned before, is that even those that "believe" in it don't agree on what it is.

That truly is the first step.

[Drake]

Jesus was Hung Sing, right Frank?

As for qi... who knows? Can't we just admit not having a full grasp of the logic behind it just yet?

[Sihing73]

Religion ain't the problem, humanity is the problem. If humanity actually practiced the moral and ethical guidelines of its religions the world would be a whole hell of alot better. As it is, we've got a bunch of religious hypocrites rousing the rabble over trivial issues to take their minds off the greater issues at hand. Like the tyrannies of various governments of this world.

I agree wholeheartedly that man\humanity is the problem. Also, it is always the small vocal minority that seem to get all of the attention. I have friends who are Jewish, Chinese, Muslim, Black, White etc. While everyone may have their own outlook, we seem to be able to disucss things like adults with mutual respect. However, when one gets involved with "certain" religious or non\anti religious types discussion goes out the window. I find it funny how so many have to overtalk others or resort to put downs in order to get their point across.

I practice Pekiti Tirsia in addition to Wing Chun and PT comes from a region with heavy Islamic influences. My friend and training partner is a Black\African America Muslim and I am a White Christian. We have been friends for over 20 years and while we have had some interesting interactions we each give the other respect. Seems like the so called leaders of religious groups should be able to do the same.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Religion has always been an excuse, rarely a reason, for the crap that happens.
Fact is, individuals coexist jut fine, its the groups and organizations that cause crap.

[Sihing73]

Religion has always been an excuse, rarely a reason, for the crap that happens.
Fact is, individuals coexist jut fine, its the groups and organizations that cause crap.

Again I agree, look at Wing Chun, the various "organizations/lineages" argue over everything. Funny how many "individuals" can meet up and discuss differences civily. When you take ego and agenda out of it many so called differences become minor indeed.

[SouthernTiger]

Religion has always been an excuse, rarely a reason, for the crap that happens.
Fact is, individuals coexist jut fine, its the groups and organizations that cause crap.

Some people on this thread seeem to be personifying an "organization". An organization is a social and intellectual construct that only "exists" because of people. So, I am confused about your statement that people coexist just fine, when in actuality, many times they dont. And people dont need a reason (like religion) to hate on and kill others.

Many interesting (and depressing) social psychology studies show that people placed in a room will almost immediately start creating "teams" and "sides". Therfore the problem is with people....not religion or organizations. True religion seeks to reform the person and deal with our lesser nature.

Unfortunetly, yes, SOME organizations and religions are a plague. Not ALL.

Just food for thought I guess...

-Blake

[sanjuro_ronin]

Some people on this thread seeem to be personifying an "organization". An organization is a social and intellectual construct that only "exists" because of people. So, I am confused about your statement that people coexist just fine, when in actuality, many times they dont. And people dont need a reason (like religion) to hate on and kill others.

Many interesting (and depressing) social psychology studies show that people placed in a room will almost immediately start creating "teams" and "sides". Therfore the problem is with people....not religion or organizations. True religion seeks to reform the person and deal with our lesser nature.

Unfortunetly, yes, SOME organizations and religions are a plague. Not ALL.

Just food for thought I guess...

-Blake

I said INDIVDUALS coexist just fine, not people.

[SouthernTiger]

I said INDIVDUALS coexist just fine, not people.

sanjuro_ronin, I am confused.

Are not individuals "CO-exiting" referred to as people? We may be playing with semantics rather than the meat of the discussion, do you agree?

Do you disagree with my last post then?

I am interested in your take on this...

Thanks

-Blake

[sanjuro_ronin]

sanjuro_ronin, I am confused.

Are not individuals "CO-exiting" referred to as people? We may be playing with semantics rather than the meat of the discussion, do you agree?

Do you disagree with my last post then?

I am interested in your take on this...

Thanks

-Blake

I am saying that it is much easier for you and I, for example, to coexist if we have different beliefs, than it would be for a group of peoples to do so.

[Corwyn]

Sihing73
To be honest I do not care what he or anyone else thinks, however to claim someone who does not agree with your viewpoint is wrong or deluded is hardly the sign of an superior inteligence. Anyhow, saying something does not make it true nor false, nor does belief in something.

How does one perform a sucessful firewalk without buring the feet, I have never done this, nor am I inclined to do so , however I am sure that the mind and ones faith\belief would play an important role. Is this CHI? I am not sure but it shows the ability of man to overcome many things.

Sanjuro Ronin
I always love how anti-religious people and religious fanatics "sound" the same.

Please do not misunderstand my agreement with sanjuro_ronin as well. A well stated argument does not reflect fanaticism. It reflects a well thought out opinion. It is intolerance with competing views that is a sign of fanaticism.


Brown
The fanatic here is clearly Corwyn. He is unable to make his point without ridiculing those with whom he disagrees. This is a characteristic of someone who is so confined by his own worldview he is unable to behave with even rudimentary courtesy. His attitude, not the points of his argument reveal, his fanaticism

Sorry I've been busy, but reading the responses I was trying to come up with a point by point but realized that all the comments suffer from the identical unsound thinking that has crept into modern though – namely the current PC police meme that all ideas should have equal time ‘cause we have to have an “open mind”. Well you may not like it, and you may THINK it’s rude but as Sihing73 so eloquently put it saying something does not make it true. Not all ideas are equal and they most certainly do not merit equal time.

This whole notions stems I think, from peoples misbelieve that the opposite of a “closed mind” – fairly well defines, but very erroneously applied by C R Brown to my post - is an open mind. This is fallacious! Just as a “closed minded” fanatic is unwilling to entertain new ideas even when it has merit an “open minded” fanatic is willing to entertain ANY idea and give it equal weight without examination of it’s merits.

A perfect example of this “open mind” is the posts by Sihing73, - he gives equal credence to a site (an idea) which criticizes science (The Theory of Evolution) on the basis that it doesn’t have all the answers to every single question one can possibly think of, so it must be wrong. Then jumps to a totally unsupported assertion that this must mean the bible is right. At the same time he posts another link that tries to use the SAME science he denies in the first link to justify why his unsupported assertion (that the bible is right) is the ONLY possible answer. Do you not see the moral hypocrisy or the logical fallacy in this???????

Sihing wrote saying something does not make it true. What I find INCREDIBLY ironic about this statement in the light of these posts is that if you weren’t so busy lecturing me about my manners and took a moment you’d recognize that this is EXACTLY and the ONLY thing I’ve been saying. IF I am "fanatical" about anything it's evidence. That sihings assertion that jesus was real or that the bible is the innerant word of some sky fairy, or that just because you claim to feel the incredible powers of chi saying something does not make it true. You all made these unsupported assertion, I asked for proof, and you response in nutshell was “because we say so”. I can present all the evidence that the bible is a pile of rubish. I can provide all the evidence that qi can not possibly exist based on the laws of physics as described by any post so far, Yet I highly doubt that I will get anyone to even consider second guessing their belief in these things much less change anyones mind here.

Asking for evidence and demanding that seemingly incredible claims have some merit backed up by EVIDENCE is neither a sign or fanaticism or intolerance. It is a sign of a critical mind and it’s what rational people use to decide what they accept as reality. Much like what Brown did when he questioned Hendriks solipsism. One could easily interpret his incredulity towards his baseless assertion as ridicule too. It just depends on the colour shades you’re wearing on the day.

You made a claim that my response to an opposing argument was fanatic.
BUT – No argument was ever made! There was an assertion made and that is NOT the same thing! Before we can have a “civil” discussion of opposing ideas you must at least understand the difference and the process by which these two things are derived. Now as Hindrik pointed out, one CAN believe what ever one wants. However, when one asserts those beliefs as fact, or an explanation to the most complex questions without evidence, and that explanation flies in the face of LITERALLY every field of scientific endeavor known to man then one should not be surprised if they receive ridicule because they are being ridiculous. Sorry live with it.

Finally – I just can’t let this one go because it’s just SO classic –

however to claim someone who does not agree with your viewpoint is wrong or deluded is hardly the sign of an superior inteligence.

I really don’t mean this to be a flame, but there is just no other way to make this example other then pointing out the obvious contradictions in your thinking process. And note that I am just drawing this from the 2 posts you made so I might be wrong and you just didn’t have enough coffee or something)
I claim that you are wrong because I DO have a point of view based on EVIDENCE. I've made an assertion, presented evidence and made a conclusion - THAT is an arument. You have NO point of view because you are being intellectually lazy or willfully dishonest. What do I mean by this? You CLAIM to believe in god (within this post) because you heard some one make a false assertion that Hummingbirds and Bumble Bees according to science shouldn’t be able to fly so god must exist and evolution can’t be true. Then a few posts later you don’t know how people do fire walking so surely qi MUST be true! You willfully ignore or refuse to take the simplest steps to think rationally. Forget going to school or the library for books. You’re so busy looking to the magic fairies and the pixie dust for everything you can’t bother to click a link to google. This kind of laziness is worthy of nothing less than ridicule.

Anyway I’ve rambled on long enough, and I have the distinct feeling that this has been very much like throwing pearls to swine. Besides, it’s time to go to class.
I hear sifu is going to teach us how to turn into smoke and walk through walls.

[Hendrik]

Much like what Brown did when he questioned Hendriks solipsism. One could easily interpret his incredulity towards his baseless assertion as ridicule too.
Now as Hindrik pointed out, one CAN believe what ever one wants..

1, What I presen is not baseless,

However, Looking at those unfriendly questions, I just let the research data comes out via the medical community. I am not going to change the world and not intended to.


2, one Can believe what ever one wants because one often not aware of what is one doing.


3, one needs to be able to know the different between what is fact and what is just a fantasy.




IE: one could using the rule of every phone must have a wire otherwise it is not phone. So, if one have a Cell phone and using it. while the other is keeping wanting to prove this or that under thier believe of if there is no wire it cant be a phone...etc. What is the point to argue?

Certainly, A Cell phone is a Cell phone, it is high tech. it is not a plastic make believe toy from Toy R US. So, one needs to have the technology to differentiate between a make believe fantasy cell phone and a real cell phone.



As for Qi, silence, prana....

1, if one have never practice Qi cultiavation for more then 3 months and 2 hours per day UNDER a Qualified teacher and got the Zhen Qi evoke to the point of at least one could heat up the Dan Die as will, to be real honest, what to talk about? one just have no clue. one could argue critical thinking or this thinking and that thinking what is that ? how to be critical thinking about the taste of an orange without even have smell an orange?

2, If one have never practice prayer or meditation until one could enter silence or alpha at will with a qualified teacher. also, forget about it. the mind just doesnt know what is going on and what to talk about?


IMHHHO. so, why wasting life. what to proof? those who has Qi cultivate could use it for thier health to the minimum. Those who has thier prayer or silence develop always living in the peace.

as for those have never tasted what is going on why argue, try it and see for yourself what it is before typing a single word on a subject one have no clue.


I am just present a phenomenon of the nature.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Corwyn,

My criticism is not that you disagree with the ideas of others, but with the insults you manage to insert into your argument. Ridicule reveals an emotional investment that negatively influences ones judgment. Emotionalism is the source of fanaticism. The fervent ridicule in your comments indicates an emotional attachment to your point of view. While it is healthy to be concerned about the fanaticism of others it is more important to be aware of your own fanaticisms. Let us be careful to avoid becoming what we most detest in others

As for my negativity towards jesus - it is at about the same level as yours was yesterday about the pink flying unicorn, the orbiting tea pot or his wholyness the flying spaghetti monster. HOW does one have positive or negative feelings about a person that one knows does not exist unless one is delusional?

It is about the people who hide their willful and total ignorance of the world, the things they CLAIM they believe and the display of hatred and bigotry and intolerance towards all others with and for no other excuse than a poorly written fairy tale.

I don't expect you to understand, after all the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of character, and the emotional crippling required to even post such links as some kind of evidence for anything other than an example of metal disorder precludes you from understanding the joke that is these links.

But FYI _ even rabid foaming at the mouth Intelligent Designers…

( I guess jesus or daddy had senile moment ha?)

By the way if there was jewish zombie god all he would have to do is turn these…

We won't even get into details about why your All LOVE fairy…

Again to even contemplate such nonsense as reality shows a complete disregard for intellectual honesty and a perfect example of the fundie lying for jebus crowd. There is no point in arguing with someone who bothers to post such stupidity.

The manner in which you communicate yourself makes you appear just as fervent in your purpose as those with whom you criticize. While you justify your fanaticism by convincing yourself you have good reason for it, you seem to fail to consider that “ the Klan, AL qaeda, the Taliban or the neo Nazis” all believe they have good reasons for their views as well. They would make the same arguments that you do, that is, use ridicule and errors of reasoning to support their belief in their superior understanding. They would say THEY understand better than you. They would say THEY are the ones who know how to reason better than you. To set yourself apart and appear more reasonable it would be more appropriate to use reasoned argument absent ridicule to make your points.

Your understanding of Christian history and the Christian faith is very poor. As with most people who have a fanatical aversion to Christianity you focus only on the aspects of the religion that demonstrate your point and avoid evidence that conflicts with your preconceived negative conclusions. If you truly had the superior and impartial reasoning abilities you profess you would properly educate yourself on the topic before you take it apart piece meal and out of context with the lessons it teaches.

Christianity would not have survived for 2,000 years if it did not provide a benefit for humans. Whether this meets with your approval or not does not detract from the benefits received by millions of people. That does not mean Christianity does not have flaws, nothing is perfect. No one can deny that many versions of Christianity have some narrow-minded beliefs and attitudes; however these qualities are characteristics of Mankind and not Christianity. Every organization has a tendency to overextend its power; this is a universal characteristic of Mankind, NOT organizations or Christianity. This characteristic occurs no matter how intelligent or educated a person may be and occurs outside of religions as well as amongst those who consider themselves reasonable people.

The manner in which you have presented yourself makes you appear to be much less reasonable that you perceive yourself to be and detracts from your argument.

Your points may be made without derogatory comments.

[Scott R. Brown]

Much like what Brown did when he questioned Hendriks solipsism. One could easily interpret his incredulity towards his baseless assertion as ridicule too.
Now as Hindrik pointed out, one CAN believe what ever one wants..

My comment was intended to elicit an explanation from Hendrik about what the comment means to him and that is exactly what I asked. His comment is a platitude that is sometimes used but infrequently explained. I wanted to know what it means to him. I provided examples where this principle would not apply. This is NOT ridicule, it is using examples to illustrate a point.