Now is your chance

Discussion in 'Tai chi' started by Taoquan, May 8, 2007.

  1. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    I wouldn't say i know enough to be right about it, but to me it looked credible. But i would happily confer to guys like Sandus, PBear and Ckava (don't think he's been on this thread though?) to tell better how good or proper that research was from the Scientific standpoint.

    i wouldn't mind hearing the bears views on it come to think of it(think he's an actual real scientist type dude), he'll be sure to be unbiased.. and brutally upfront about it. can't wait :D

    regards
     
  2. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    hey forget it, don't worry about it. It was my fault and just a silly rant (now deleted). It is interesting stuff, but I've heard so much of this kind of polarized arguing that it has jaded me to it. It's my problem that I want to hold MA a bit seperate now.

    I don't want to effect anything on the board that's none of my business to really. carry on with the qi chat. it's all good.. I'll make myself busy. ;)
     
  3. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I know this is very late but I've been busy and reading this thread I found some things I'd like to reply to. First one being the one above...

    Taoquan we've discussed this before but suggesting that you would have to be greedy to accept Randi's challenge is hardly a water tight case. Charities don't have any limit on the size of the donation they accept you know. You also previously argued that masters wouldn't want the public scrutiny but now that argument seems quite flimsy as well as in this very thread you have presented video evidence from a popular TV show which you have argued shows Qi being manipulated. If such a master can do a demo for Ripleys believe it or not why should he shy away from performing the same feat under proper controlled conditions and win 1 million for his chosen charity at the same time? The Qigong practitioners involved in the clinical trials you occasionally site don't seem to be above trying to demonstrate their powers so again I have to ask why not provide a demonstration that would effectively silence the skeptics and provide a very strong case fort chi being taken seriously as a real phenomena... The most likely answer to me isn't that all Qi/Chi folks are too noble to provide such a demonstration (we have seen that they aren't!) but that they aren't going to be able to fool an ex-magician under scientific conditions.

    The point is however a double blind study would remove the bias because whether or not you want to prove or disprove the treatment the very fact that it's double blind means that those conducting the research and having it conducted wouldn't know which was the real treatment and which is the placebo.

    Vitamin supplements are by and large not supported by a scientific consensus as being beneficial... for specific conditions vitamin supplements do have clinical evidence but overall no... it's not science but marketing that drives the vitamin craze. As for relieving pressure from nerves well as far as I know this kind of treatment does have a scientific basis however that does not mean that people who claim to be 'relieving pressure from nerves' are actually doing so. Chiropractors and Homeopaths are generally peddling pseudo science.

    I'll get back with a detailed analysis when I have time to read it later.

    Lastly, JK I think you make quite good arguments but your tendency to slip in religious dogma when asserting the need for scientific evidence is quite contradictory. It makes it quite difficult to not see your opinion as emanating from a religious viewpoint rather than from a position of rational skepticism. And the two are very different motivations...
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2007
  4. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    Hi CKava,
    Taoquan decided to leave MAP a short while ago, so please don't be too surprised if he doesn't get back to you.

    Regarding your comment about me - thank you for commenting that I make some good points. I do however have to say that there are still a very substantial number of religious believers who are also scientists - there is no contradiction between religion and science, however much atheists want there to be.

    This has been recognised by scientists such as Sir Peter Medawar (a Nobel Prize winning Oxford immunologist) in his book "The Limits of Science", Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project (http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/coll-body.html) and by Alister McGrath, Professor of the History of Theology at Oxford (he is a Christian with a PhD in molecular biophysics. He is also a former atheist who turned to God after discovering that science could not provide the answers to many questions.) I'd recommend his books: The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins' God - Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life

    Finally, I do not consider myself slipping into religious dogma. I say whatever I think needs saying and often have a strongly religious motive for doing so.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2007
  5. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Well I'm sorry to hear Taoquan moved on I generally didn't agree with his views but he did argue in a polite and well thought out way so he'll be missed by me at least. Still for my own interest I think I'll still do some research into that article he posted.

    JKzorya I agree whether or not science and religion conflict does depend on your views. Personally, I think they don't have to conflict but that people are often too quick to downplay the conflict that does occur as insignificant- when in reality that is often far from the case. Consider for instance the main present day objections towards stem cell research, evolutionary theory and so on... mainly such objections are voiced and supported by religious organisations following a clear religious agenda.

    I am also well aware that there are many religious scientists just as I am aware of many of the arguments about how they two deal with seperate things (I own copies of Alistair McGrath's books though to be honest I don't rate a lot of his arguments). However, it does need to be recognised that there are well thought out critiques of most of these positions. Regardless while I believe that science and religion CAN be reconciled in certain ways (depending on the claims being) made that does not mean that YOUR statements necessarily achieve this.

    Overall it seems rather paradoxical to me to demand scientific evidence from Chi practitioners for the existence of Chi and then argue that science is incapable of making any comment about your the validity of your chosen religions accompanying supernatural beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2007
  6. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    The thing is, CKava, science is trying to disprove the existence of God, but it can't. My religious beliefs chiefly concern my view of the moral universe.

    However if someone makes claims that they can achieve certain effects with their qi, then they will have to be substantiated with evidence. I would also object to their qi tricks on moral grounds, hence the moral / religious crossover, but their claims have to withstand scientific scrutiny too.
     
  7. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Science is not about disproving God. The goal of science is increasing scientific knowledge if anything disproving God is a side effect and once again it's worth mentioning that you can't really completely disprove something intangible. This should be evident from this very thread...

    I consider people making claims about the eixstence of demons and their ability to effect the material world to be making similiar claims too... if demons (or God) for that matter is claimed to be interacting with our universe then we should be able to detect this interaction. With that said when people making such claims also recognise there is no scientific evidence supporting such claims then I don't have a problem with it... they are making a religious claim and are acknowledging the lack of scientific evidence for their claim. That's fine... especially when they acknowledge that they are relying on non-scientific evidence. I don't agree of course but their argument is coherent.
     
  8. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    The thing is I have empirical evidence of God, and so do many other people. I can't prove it to you though, and you can chose to disregard it.

    I assume you haven't been to the moon, but maybe people you trust say people have landed on it, so perhaps you believe that. The thing you should entertain the possibility of is that everything I am saying is true. And perhaps this claim of yours:

    is not true at all, but pure supposition. At least the idea that everyone who looks, even with a doubting mind should be able to detect the interaction is evidently untrue. On the other hand, many do detect such interaction.

    And what about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Perhaps that suggests that we might find what we expect to find, thereby proving the reality of faith.
     
  9. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    The thing is I have empirical evidence of Chi, and so do many other people. I can't prove it to you though, and you can chose to disregard it.Imagine someone making that argument to you!

    ...

    Would you accept it as valid? I sincerely doubt it! And this is exactly my point adopting such arguments after complaining about them is as we say the proverbial kettle calling the pot black... If empirical evidence existed you could show me it but I'm willing to bet that the evidence you provide will be nothing that proves that God exists. If you want to discuss the empirical 'proof' I'd be very interested and promise I will approach everything with a skeptical but open mind. Start a new thread if you'd like.

    This argument could once again be made for chi or the existence of any pseudo scientific or supernatural belief! The reason I believe people went to the moon is that there are videos and pictures taken from on the moon, it would require the GREATEST governemnt conspiracy in HISTORY to fake it and it's quite clear we have the technology to launch rockets to the moon then and now (I've seen one take off in person!). This is VERY different from any religious claim you will care to make. Therefore the analogy does not hold up landing on the moon does not require believing in anything supernatural that there is no scientific evidence for... I suspect your religious beliefs would.

    Huh? If it's a real interaction i.e. they are having an effect on the physical world why wouldn't we be able to detect it? I could understand the argument; 'Well we can't detect the interaction yet because we can't detect everything' but your argument seems to stem from the notion that something could interact with our universe and yet be completely undetectable by measuring devices. Why? If it's a real interaction why would we not be able to detect it? And once again we have another almost word for word defence for the existence of Chi as well... Chi is detectable but just not by those with closed minds and no scientific instrument could ever detect Chi because well... it's just super.

    No, no and no. I can't believe how similiar your arguments are to the ones you are so critical of! The last trick up many pseudo science and new age folks slieves is to try to use Quantum Physics to support any idea they have and here you are doing the exact same thing. Using Quantum Physics in this way is down to misunderstanding and wishful thinking that it basically means everything is possible. It doesn't. The uncertainty principle has next to no influence on objects of a macroscopic size and it in no way supports your argument that it proves 'the reality of faith'.
     
  10. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    CKava, they are not the same kind of thing at all. They only seem the same to an atheist. If a qi believer used the argument they would be lying and I am telling the truth. Do you see the difference? It doesn't matter whether or not the arguments sound the same - you need to try to understand that they might not be the same, even thought they sound as though they are.

    Now then, my empirical evidence - I could cite the existence of the world and everything in it, but I know you wouldn't accept that, despite having no counter-theory - nonetheless it doesn't prove that the universe got here how I say it did.

    OK - I have met God and Jesus in visions. I had no prior belief.

    I once saw God appear out of a tree-trunk in the shape of a lion - my best friend saw Him too in broad daylight and we both said "wow - did you see that?"

    Many years ago, I almost died of cancer and met Jesus and He said "you will be coming to see me Joanna, but not just yet."

    Another time I was very ill with a lung infection and saw Jesus rising up through my body with His arms outstretched and He pulled 3 nails out of my body, taking a nail from each of my diseased lungs with His hands and the third nail with his body and legs from mine.

    I have been spoken to by God many times. He has told me to open the Bible and the passage has always been relevant to a specific question I had asked Him for guidance on. In prayer, He once sent a light that prised my hands open and opened the Bible at a specific passage that was completely relevant to the question I had just asked Him. This kind of thing has happened so many times in recent years, that it has almost become a part of everyday life. Just recently, I had been listening to a sermon about Hebrews 11. I picked up the Bible and it flung itself open at Hebrews 11 in my hands. I wouldn't have even known where to find the book of Hebrews, let alone that specific chapter.

    It isn't the result of a religious upbringing, because my older brother was the biggest influence on my ideas and he has been a committed atheist all his life, as I used to be. For much of my school life, I even refused to attend the Christian assemblies. And I wouldn't have picked Christianity or a Jewish or Christian God to believe in by inclination - I think I'd have gone for something with way more cool points, and something that didn't cause me quite so many inconveniences. I'm an animal rights vegan for one thing - I could have picked Jainism.

    I know that in a clinical sense I am neither schizophrenic nor bi-polar. It just so happens that really weird and inexplicable things have been happening to me for a few years. I can't explain why it has happened to me, but He seems happy for me to talk about it - so I don't try to keep it secret. It sounds totally crazy, I know. I often get cold feet before posting but have to do it anyway, in spite of what people are going to think, because He tells me to.
     
  11. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    That's not empirical evidence Joanna that's annecdotal evidence. I could find millions of other people equally as convinced as you are that they really have met aliens, they did encounter Bigfoot, they can contact the dead, they can interact with angels and so on... THey aren't all frauds- many sincerely believe in what they say and they aren't all quackers either.

    In terms of just other religions I have met and studied many who would claim similiar or more explicit experiences than the ones you have had except not with the Christian God. If I was to accept your evidence as valid then I also would have no reason to doubt their's which creates a bit of a dilemma as it seems there must be multiple Gods many of whom claim to be mutually exclusive and yet they each have proven their existence to hundreds of thousands of people.

    Also, why would I not have a non-religious theory for the origin of the earth and the life on it? In fact I do... the natural explanation that the evidence points towards.

    Your explanation of the difference between you and other religious/pseudo science people is not really a difference at all. Your merely arguing that you believe you are correct and your experience has proved that to YOU... guess what? The people you criticise believe the exact same thing! I'm not denying there are knowing charlatans out there but there are also a vast amount of 'true believers' for every single religion and crack pot new age idea you can think of. Once again the simple fact is that your employing a double standard. You believe your supernatural belief because of your experiences but you argue against those providing the same argument for their supernatural beliefs. This is the inconsistency and quite frankly hypocritical side to your arguments.

    And I'm not saying all this to be rude... it's simply to point out that while I do believe you make good arguments and have sincere religious beliefs when you bring your religion into the debate your defence reveals a marked double standard.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2007
  12. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    empirical (Desktop dictionary definition):
    based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

    empirical (Oxford Dictionary of current English definition):
    relying on observation and experiment, not on theory

    Like I said - I have empirical evidence. It is verifiable by my own experiences.

    Regarding your supposition
    Consider from The Dawkins Delusion these two passages:

    I would say to you that there is only one God, but people may experience Him differently, just as two people looking at a painting from two different vantage points might describe it differently. That God exists cannot be doubted, what is important is to determine what is fake and real and what is spiritually moral and spiritually immoral behaviour. If you believe in spiritual truth and falsehood, this no longer sounds inconsistent with disavowing qi, or with challenging its existence. I do get the point you are making about why it seems the same to you, but it isn't.

    I'll try again from this angle. What if I am completely right? Forget who else could say that too. Consider for a moment that there is a God, exactly as I describe Him and He is talking to me and telling me to stick it out on MAP and tell people about my experiences of Him. Just imagine that.

    Now, what if all those "hundreds of thousands of people" that God has proved His existence to are all correct, they only think their views of Him are different. They only think the other versions of God are wrong, because they don't sound exactly like their account. Isn't that human beings all over?

    I can accept nearly all versions of belief in the one God. I would not dream of telling a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or a Sikh or a Vaisnavite that their experience of God was wrong and mine was right. I might say we have glimpsed Him from different angles, that is all. The empirical evidence therefore, is the same, we have all experienced God - only the interpretive elements are different. This is what I believe. The qi believers do not believe in God, but think they can manipulate the spiritual stuff of the universe with themselves at the top of the spiritual pile - they are trying to replace God with a cult of human spiritual dominion. A cult in which human beings are answerable only to themselves. That's magicians all over.

    If you, as someone arguing from a scientific persective, object to my using scientific arguments on the grounds that you feel I have no right to do so, then you are falling into the trap of saying God and science are incompatible, when they are evidently not. If you think I am just clumsy in my execution of scientific argument, then please feel free to e-mail me via my website explaining how you think I could use scientific arguments without compromising my religious beliefs. While you are at it, perhaps you could tell me what things you found unconvincing in Alister McGrath's book as I found it very convincing. I would be genuinely interested to hear from you on these matters.

    Regards,
    Joanna
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2007
  13. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I don't think that you have no right to use scientific arguments I just think that:
    A) If your going to use them you should make sure the science supports your point i.e. Quantum Physics.
    B) That you should be aware that the arguments you are employing can also be used against the religious remarks that often accompany your posts.
    C) That giving your religion of choice a free pass from your arguments because of personal experience makes your argument very flimsy as every other believer who claims personal experiences can make the exact same argument.

    Also in relation to God and Science being compatible I have already mentioned that I believe they can be BUT to be honest I think the religious views you have demonstrated here are not always so compatible. Believing that demons exist and can influence humans for example is a scientific claim... it's a claim about reality and about what effects our world.

    In response to the quote from Alister McGrath's book... here I don't see any problem McGrath is simply talking about two scientists with slightly different views on the role of genes. Having read Dawkins books I can assure you that he too clearly makes the point throughout that talking about genes 'controlling' people or having some sort of 'will' even the ability to be 'selfish' is simply shorthand speak. Regardless of that however I think the two do attempt to offer rationale and evidence for their arguments as they both have produced several books and having read Dawkins I know he does not claim I don't have any evidence to believe this but there you go. I haven't read Noble's book so I can't really comment fairly. Have you? Or is it just the isolated quote in McGrath's book? The reason I ask is I'm quite curious how someone could argue that we are the rationale for a gene's existence when the fact remains that gene's existed before we did? Anyway, I would suggest reading the last chapter of the Selfish Gene if you have any concerns about whether Richard Dawkins believes that our genes are in absolute control of our bodies.

    My apologies you are correct under the definition supplied your use of empirical applies. The reason I got confused is because I thought we were discussing empiricism in the context of scientific proof vs. non-scientific proof for claims.

    Empirical is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.

    In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental". In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. The term semi-empirical is sometimes used to describe theoretical methods which make use of basic axioms, established scientific laws, and previous experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and theoretical inquiry.


    I was expecting something along the lines of scientific empirical evidence i.e. I've yet to see a scientific theory based purely on personal experience and not verified by any objective measurement.

    I beg to differ with the bolded part! That aside though your seemingly ignoring the fact that many Gods are mutually exclusive i.e. it's not just a matter of interpretation- such Gods are supposed to have clearly stated they are not the same as other Gods. The Christian God does this MANY, MANY times in the bible I believe. THus while I agree with your tolerant approach that all religions might be describing the same thing the fact remains that given your way of adducing knowledge about whether God is real it would seem we have a problem as other people using your method have found out that your God is not real! And this is the problem with your argument that requires we accept the assumption that God exists and that all people who claim to have experienced direct comunication with different deities are just seeing different aspects of him. Some of said people have described how God has told them the other religions are wrong! What of them?

    That's not only magicians that atheists, humanists and many Buddhists too... and therein lies the issue I have with your critiques. Your adopting scientific skepticism when it suits your beliefs i.e. when attacking other things that you think contradict your faith but when it comes to your own beliefs you refuse to allow the same standard to be applied and indeed use the same arguments you are refuting.

    As for my issues with Alister McGrath's books I'll produce a decent response in a different thread sometime this week to explain in detail. Have you read the books by Dawkins that McGrath criticises by the way? If not I would suggest doing so and you might see why I am unimpressed by many of his arguments.
     
  14. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    Hi CKava,

    No - I haven't read Noble's book. But regarding your comment "I'm quite curious how someone could argue that we are the rationale for a gene's existence when the fact remains that gene's existed before we did" I'd say that if we assume an evolutionary perspective (which I do), genes and the creatures they manifest through have always been symbiotic and as humans evolved from other forms of life, the starting point goes right back to the very first life forms. Genes and life are surely intrinsically linked - one makes no sense without the other.

    I thought you'd pick up on the statement you bolded (That God exists cannot be doubted), but I hoped you might recognise that it was still a part of the paragraph that I began "I would say to you..." and I would say that to you.

    Yes but this was to distinguish Himself from a myriad of polytheistic child-sacrifice hungry monster gods. The same message was delivered to the Jews, the Christians and the Sikhs - we just have to now recognise it is the same God with essentially the same values and we can stop fighting each other. Certainly many Christians, Jews and Muslims do recognise that they serve the same God and Sikhism came about to try to unite Muslims and Hindus in recognition of the one true God.

    And I'd make the same objection in all cases.

    Ah well here you are appealing to an absolute standard of fairness, which at least means you are not a moral relativist. In fairness though, I don't think I have done that. It is surely down to the nature of the claims. I claim to "know" that God exists in much the same way that I would not deny the existence of anyone else I know. I think it is important to let people know that I have experienced His presence - I certainly couldn't deny it, especially as God crops up in atheist skeptical arguments quite a bit. I do not claim that my experience of God is more real than anyone else's and I do not claim that He will appear to you or anyone else, I don't claim it will happen if you "have enough faith", I don't claim you will be going to Heaven if you do or Hell if you don't (I think that issue is a big misunderstanding), I don't claim I can do anything with any kind of God-given powers (other than the ones we all generally have, such as thinking and writing and moving etc.)

    The qi believers always talk of manipulating a force - all of their claims are based on this, yet is is very evident that they can only use their qi powers on the intitiated. If this kind of phenomenon happens sometimes in some religions too, then I'm against it. I don't see any harm in asking God to help you with certain things, but don't think it would be appropriate to try to make Him do your bidding.

    I generally try not to mention God, unless it becomes relevant in some way, but I still don't really see the problem of arguing from more than one standpoint. You can make scientific appeals to some people, and they might switch off, so you could appeal to their sense of morality instead. Both objections hold water, I think.

    And science evidentally hasn't or can't disprove God, so I do not feel any great conflict in applying science. I do have (or try to have) a pretty scientific view of the world, in the same sense as someone like McGrath, or Rabbi Dr. Abraham J. Twerski, or Lord Robert Winston. I don't make any claims of being very accomplished in my scientific understanding of the world, though. I sometimes have to ask a friend or a student for a more scientific explanation of something. I sometimes take my arguments onto a philosophical battlefield too, to argue against moral relativism. Perhaps I am a little more adept in that line of reasoning - I'm probably better read in metaphysics, parapsychology and theology than the natural sciences.

    Anyway, if you think I've been hypocritical, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to be - I'll go away and think about it. Consider me feeling told off.

    Take care,
    Joanna
     
  15. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    But JK you have forgotten the Eldar Gods!

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

    They shall return!

    The Bear.
     
  16. Wuming

    Wuming Bored

    Can somebody move this nonsense to a religious thread please. This is a Tai Ji and not a God botherers thread after all.
     
  17. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    Point taken, Wuming. CKava picked up the thread (which had died off a while back) in part to have a go at what he felt to be an inconsistency in my personal position, given that I sometimes use a scientific rationale to argue against qi, whilst also having a religiously-based moral objection to qi manipulation. Polar Bear just likes to stick the boot into God and all who believe in Him, whenever he can.

    The difficulty comes when people start threads like this one - questions as to the plausibility and the moral acceptibility of qi manipulation will arise. Personally I consider qi to be completely irrelevant to Taijiquan, but many people consider it integral, so debates ensue. Religion would also be largely irrelevant (perhaps outside of how it influenced a practitioner's moral attitudes to violence) if Taiji practitioners did not insist on trying to turn the martial art into some kind of pseudo-spiritual discipline.

    I don't plan to spend my whole life having such debates though - I think the greatest danger lies within the moral relativism that is so prominent at the moment, and that is for other threads.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2007
  18. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    My apologies too Wuming (though I take offence at being called a God botherer) initially I was mainly interested in Taoquan's post however since he has moved on it's obviously hard to keep a discussion going on his points. Mind you this is a thread with the topic of trying to disprove Chi... as such the tangent with JKzorya is not entirely off topic since as I've highlighted the arguments JKzorya uses to defend her religious beliefs are very similiar to the arguments that can be used to defend chi. Anyhow, I apologise for resurrecting a long dead thread and discussing a tangent... I'm happy enough for the last few posts to be removed to the religion forum.

    Also JKzorya don't take this as a personal attack at all it's merely my opinion on an inconsistency in your position- I noticed it in this thread in particular which is why I commented. I generally find your posts to be well thought out and coherent even when I disagree with the points. And I'm not trying to 'tell you off' I have no right to do that, like I say I'm just giving you my opinion and hopefully having an interesting discussion (I am!). Anyhow since this discussion is probably in the wrong forum maybe we can continue it again at some other stage if and when it comes up.
     
  19. Dan Bian

    Dan Bian Neither Dan, nor Brian

    my first real post... in at the deep end!!!

    Here's my opinion on the whole Qi yes/no debate;

    It depends on your personal definition of Qi.
    If you think it is some mystic star wars'esque force field, then you are wrong. If you think it can be used to achieve no-touch knockouts then you would be wrong again.
    If you think it can be used to miraculously heal people of illness, you may be right. I've never experienced it so I don't want to make any firm conclusions. I've heard both good and bad tales in regard to this.
    If, like me, you would simply define Qi as energy in the body, then I'd say you are on the right track. All life needs energy to survive. We get this energy from food and drink and from the air we breathe. It's not magic, just energy...
    And since it isn't Qi that we use in taiji, its jin/jing, which I define as "energy with intention", I don't see what all the fuss is about??

    I'm sure we can all agree the body has energy in it, so why the arguements?
     
  20. fatb0y

    fatb0y Valued Member

    Encapsulation of the Qi or Religion argument

    B) I believe in _______ (insert belief here)
    A) Its a lie
    B) No its not
    B) I have had personal experience
    A) That was just a delusion or peer pressure
    B) Thousands of people agree with me
    A) Me too
    B) How do you explain stuff that can't be explained then
    A) It's a coincidence or a trick

    OK now no need to go over it every thread.
     

Share This Page