God versus Science

[Old-Liu]

What he is saying, and it is right there in clear speaking, is that if you don't have the EXPERIENCES that most of us on the board have had, then you will tend to get into semantic debates, rather than ones based on experience.

How did you turn that comment into an insult?

EDIT: You won't get too much from merely watching the class, but take it for some months/years. Maybe if you go watch you will be interested enough to practice.

Well, he did callme discourteous, and I'm not - I actually enjoy debating with alternative viewpoints - even learning from them.

And it's also very worrying if people say you're not allowed to have a free voice in the debate - especially as I've just learned that I only need to know a little bit - just enough to know if it's right or wrong.

[AlexBaranosky]

Well, haven't the world's oncologists already done that for you?

Anyway - when the research is done, report back and we'll see what you found out.

Just off the top of your head, do you really think cancer is always caused by emotional trauma? Would even the staunchest supporter of Dr Hamer go unprotected in to a nuclear reactor core?

Should we just wait to have everything done for us?

Regarding the second part, I don't know, but I'd be willing to find out, rather than make some random guess and put that out there as if it meant anything, which it wouldn't.

[AlexBaranosky]

especially as I've just learned that I only need to know a little bit - just enough to know if it's right or wrong.

Sounds like a hypocritical statement from my perspective. You tell me I need to know TONS of information, but you only need to know a little bit.

[Old-Liu]

I refer again to the membership and credentials of the forum members. Dr Kissey for example.

This is why we always say that the scientific method is bigger than any one person. Dr Kissey may personally believe that qi gong cures cancer, so we put that in one side of the scales - we don't dscount it at all - we just put it in one side of the scales. In the other are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of medical experts who don't accept that qi gong cures cancer. I don't discount either side - I just weigh it.

But, of course, it's a voice for something unusual - and unusual things just need that bit much more proof - more than just vocal support, actual hard evidence, before we can all 'share' the truth.

After all, you can cite the credentialsof Dr Kissey, but I can cite the credentials of hundreds of thousands of doctors - so in the credentials game, I win, of course.

[Old-Liu]

Sounds like a hypocritical statement from my perspective. You tell me I need to know TONS of information, but you only need to know a little bit.

Well I was being ironic - you've just told me that you only need a small amount of information to know if a cure for cancer works, but I need years of practice to know if Shaolin Wah Nam qi gong works, lol. See what I mean?

Yeah, we all only need a tiny bit of information on Dr Hamer - you're right - real oncologists reports, detailing miracle cures. That's all we need.

Or, real suspicion that oncologists covered up a cure for cancer. That would do for the other side. You're right - a small amount of info.

I don't actually mind trying a bit of cosmos qi gong - I'm very open to new ideas. I just like to question things deeply first.

[Old-Liu]

Should we just wait to have everything done for us?

Well i don't know - how much time do you have? FInd a cure for cancer, design the next AI computer, work out the theory of everything, design a new damn for the Aswan...

'Should we wait for people to do everythign for us' is a twist on what really happens, which is that as a species we pool our resources, respecting each others' specialist knowledge.

[AlexBaranosky]

so we put that in one side of the scales - we don't dscount it at all - we just put it in one side of the scales. In the other are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of medical experts who don't accept that qi gong cures cancer. I don't discount either side - I just weigh it.

On the other side of the scale are tens of thousands of people most of whom have NEVER even heard of chi-kung. Of the ones who have heard of it, 99% have never learned from a genuine master. And of those who have learned from a genuine master 99% haven't learned from a master with the power and skill of someone like Sifu Wong. (Even Sifu Wong would say that it takes powerful, high-level chi-kung to neutralize something like cancer, believe)

The point is, that when only a fairly small amount of people have been exposed to a certain experience, then OBVIOUSLY they won't have the sheer numbers to tip the scale.

One man who is right is still righter than 10,000 people who are wrong or less right. So it's not about numbers.

[Old-Liu]

On the other side of the scale are tens of thousands of people most of whom have NEVER even heard of chi-kung. Of the ones who have heard of it, 99% have never learned from a genuine master. And of those who have learned from a genuine master 99% haven't learned from a master with the power and skill of someone like Sifu Wong. (Even Sifu Wong would say that it takes powerful, high-level chi-kung to neutralize something like cancer, believe)

The point is, that when only a fairly small amount of people have been exposed to a certain experience, then OBVIOUSLY they won't have the sheer numbers to tip the scale.

One man who is right is still righter than 10,000 people who are wrong or less right. So it's not about numbers.

Well that's true - but in this case, as has been stated, if Sifu Wong really has performed a cure for cancer, there surely must be an oncologist smewhere scratching his head in disbelief. Or even many oncologists - so, we get letters confirming those cases first of all, and then we use them to get a bigger study organised. Then all the oncologists of the world can see it. Man - if we're seriously talking a cure for cancer, that's an amazing thing - the world needs to know.

[AlexBaranosky]

Well I was being ironic - you've just told me that you only need a small amount of information to know if a cure for cancer works, but I need years of practice to know if Shaolin Wah Nam qi gong works, lol. See what I mean?

Yeah, we all only need a tiny bit of information on Dr Hamer - you're right - real oncologists reports, detailing miracle cures. That's all we need.

Or, real suspicion that oncologists covered up a cure for cancer. That would do for the other side. You're right - a small amount of info.

I don't actually mind trying a bit of cosmos qi gong - I'm very open to new ideas. I just like to question things deeply first.

You can't understand the depths of chi-kung by "thinking" about it. Or even studying for a week/month. It's not possible. Just like you can't walk to Florida in a day. Physically not possible. You are comparing apples and oranges. And that is annoying to have to reply to.

On another note, why do you use the word miracle? That isn't a very science-oriented word.
[EDIT: if you are going to start with cancer cures being miracles, then all of life is a miracle, so it is a moot point. Everything is a miracle.]

You can't just try a "bit" of Shaolin Cosmos Chi-kung. You have to practice regularly for quite some time. Also, I highly recommend learning from Sifu personally in Malaysia. It changed my life more than any other event in my life.

[AlexBaranosky]

Well that's true - but in this case, as has been stated, if Sifu Wong really has performed a cure for cancer, there surely must be an oncologist smewhere scratching his head in disbelief. Or even many oncologists - so, we get letters confirming those cases first of all, and then we use them to get a bigger study organised. Then all the oncologists of the world can see it. Man - if we're seriously talking a cure for cancer, that's an amazing thing - the world needs to know.

Are you a scientist? If so, perhaps you would like to offer to Sifu to organize such a thing?

[Andy]

I'm sorry, I don't accept that, Andy, and I'm insulted by it. I don't 'have' to do anything. I can leave. I can stop discussing it with you. But it is NOT a discourtesy to have alternative opinions, or to present and discuss them.

It's actually an insult to me, to call me discourteous. I'm anything but - I just have different opinions. If those aren'twelcome here - you better say - or ARE you saying that? By all means, everyone has a right to follow their own beliefs, free from justifiying them to others... but are you seriously telling me that I may not question your beliefs here until I hold them as well?

I can go, if you're saying that this forum is not opento free debate, but I'll never accept that not following the same beliefs as you is discourteous - that's just, well, wrong.

Having said that, I'm not averse to going to watch a Wah Nam class, see what goes on. Where's the nearest one to Cheshire?

If our forum refers to disease as energy blockage, then this must be accepted as part of the discourse.

If you were to semantically challenge this repeatedly, the forum discussion would break down in the manner of trolling (NB this forum is a learning resource for members).

You have previously taken a high moral stance in these discussions

• Do you concede that members of the forum are engaged - in real life not in hypothetical terms - in the cure of serious disease?
  
  
• If this point is unprovable in terms of electronic discourse, do you agree that you should have made a personal experiential investigation to confirm this?
  
  
• Do you not think that you should have first been courteous, researched the paradigm, contacted Qi Gong practitioners/researchers (such as the Shaolin Wahnam Institute) in person BEFORE blatantly contradicting the opinions of active western medics/chi kung practitioners (i.e. Dr Kissey).?
  
  
• Do you concede that otherwise you are wasting the time of people engaged in the cure of serious disease?
  
  
• Do you not agree that when it comes to morality, actions speak louder than words.

You are free to state your opinions, and we are free to argue with you - but if you want to be taken seriously (both on this forum and in life in general) you should match your actions with your words.

Im saving you time by explaining these points to you: Either SW are mistaken and we disagree (discussion ends), or you are mistaken and we disagree (discussion ends).

Either way our time and your time is not wasted in an endless discussion of theory.

Insulted? Im the one who should be insulted, on multiple occasions within this thread; I have specified two particular instances in an earlier post. You have not as yet retracted your insults.

[Damian Kissey]

One Truth or "God" vs fallible material science

Quoting Alex "One man who is right is still righter than 10,000 people who are wrong or less right. So it's not about numbers."

Well that's true - but in this case, as has been stated, if Sifu Wong really has performed a cure for cancer, there surely must be an oncologist smewhere scratching his head in disbelief. Or even many oncologists - so, we get letters confirming those cases first of all, and then we use them to get a bigger study organised. Then all the oncologists of the world can see it. Man - if we're seriously talking a cure for cancer, that's an amazing thing - the world needs to know.

Of course Sifu has cured some cancer and of course it has been documented by the hospital .

On the other hand , lets see the success rates of modern western medicine and what they know about cancer ....Excerpts from this link ...what discerning doctors say...

http://www.ghchealth.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html

"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."—Dr Diamond, M.D.

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

[Old-Liu]

Are you a scientist? If so, perhaps you would like to offer to Sifu to organize such a thing?

I'm a social scientist - so little help I'm afraid!

[Old-Liu]

If our forum refers to disease as energy blockage, then this must be accepted as part of the discourse.

If you were to semantically challenge this repeatedly, the forum discussion would break down in the manner of trolling (NB this forum is a learning resource for members).

You have previously taken a high moral stance in these discussions

• Do you concede that members of the forum are engaged - in real life not in hypothetical terms - in the cure of serious disease?
  
  
• If this point is unprovable in terms of electronic discourse, do you agree that you should have made a personal experiential investigation to confirm this?
  
  
• Do you not think that you should have first been courteous, researched the paradigm, contacted Qi Gong practitioners/researchers (such as the Shaolin Wahnam Institute) in person BEFORE blatantly contradicting the opinions of active western medics/chi kung practitioners (i.e. Dr Kissey).?
  
  
• Do you concede that otherwise you are wasting the time of people engaged in the cure of serious disease?
  
  
• Do you not agree that when it comes to morality, actions speak louder than words.

You are free to state your opinions, and we are free to argue with you - but if you want to be taken seriously (both on this forum and in life in general) you should match your actions with your words.

Im saving you time by explaining these points to you: Either SW are mistaken and we disagree (discussion ends), or you are mistaken and we disagree (discussion ends).

Either way our time and your time is not wasted in an endless discussion of theory.

Insulted? Im the one who should be insulted, on multiple occasions within this thread; I have specified two particular instances in an earlier post. You have not as yet retracted your insults.

I don't believe that Shaolim Wah Nam, or Sifu Wong have genuinely cured cancer. I do believe that Shaolin Wah Nam cosmos qi gong has helped people with depression, bad backs, various other ailments, just as I believe that if someone is depressed, or over weight, then getting out, meeting new people, doing light exercise, will start to help to alieviate those symptoms.

I don't believe that I have to accept that 'disease is an energy blockage', or that if I don't accept it then I'm a bad person or - a what? A troll? Or that it must not be challenged. However, I can accept that it must not be challenged here. I can't accept that I must not question, doubt, or vigorously challenge claims of magical cures of cancer. But I can accept that I shouldn't do it here.

I have made a mistake - and it is entirely mine. I saw 'Shaolin Wah Nam' the kung fu class/group, but I didn't see Shaolin Wah Nam the religious group. That's my error.

At the beginning of this thread I thought I was discussing an off-topic subject with a random group of varying people, of differrent opionions etc., all connected only by chance through belonging to a kung fu club. Then it began to dawn that actually, it's not an off-topic subject, it's actually part of your belief system - and people's beliefs are rarely on-topic for discussion, without it getting unpleasant, as we all know.

You have every right to enjoy your beliefs, free from any obligation to explain them to other people - and you have every right to a place where you can share and discuss those beliefs, free from external doubts or comment. That's entirley my mistake - I failed, until it was too late, to see that I was actually challenging people's religion in their own home, rather than having a general debate about a general subject.

I've enjoyed the discussion immensely. I'm a little concerned about how it's ended up - but there you go. I don't actually accept that before I can comment on whether a man in Asia is performing mircale cures for cancer I need to go to a kung fu class and train there. Even if I totally loved Wah Nam qi gong, I wouldn't see evidence of the cures for cancer - all that would happen is I would become part of the group, take on the beliefs of the group - I'd get more belief. Did Galieo need to goto Church to prove the church wrong?

In fact, I simply can not accept any of the parameters set out here to limit my ability to discuss the subject freely, because they essentially boil down to 'this place is for believers, and if you don't believe, it's irritating and discourteous to argue with us.'

That's absoloutely fair enough - I wouldn't want someone in my house boring me with why they don't agree with about my thing.

I've enjoyed the discussion immensely, and have been opened to new ideas. If I seem like I'm heavily questioning, well, I wanted to see what you actually think about it all.

What did happen? I don't know - I'm a little unsure, concerned if I'm honest - I don't think I am a troll, and I don't think I am discourteous, and I was a little surprised to see that whole line of ad hominem suddenly raise its head, and if I'm really honest, I do find it just a tint sinsiter when people tell me that there is no right to question - especially very unlikely claims, which usually need the most questioning - but hey ho. In fact, your whole post here, Andy, concerns me, if I'm truthful - you've given me the impression that something sinsiter is happening in your group - that people are being told to believe and not question - which is exactly what they did to Galileo, and all those other rebels we talked of - including Dr Hamer. I like the energy here, but that goes against everything I believe in - freedom of thought, questioning, free minds, open-ness. Not believing everything, but questioning things. I'm just a random guy, perfectly ordinary guy off the net who saw 'shaolin kung fu', dropped in, and now I'm a troll being told how naughty I am because I have different beliefs and expressed them. That's very odd feeling, I have to say.

But, for the most part - thanks, great discussion, very informative, best of luck with your training and I hope to see some of you actually at a class - I'm very interested to see what you actually do.

Peace out - sorry for any misunderstanding, but my professional instinct tells me, as does yours, probably, this whole thread is about to take a bad turn - and I just have no interest in that. I'm a debater, not a slinger. You know, if that's a troll, then there's something wrong somewhere.

[AlexBaranosky]

Hello Old-Liu,
I am pretty sure you misunderstand. In your perspective you are being silenced by a "religious" group.

From our perspective we are telling you that your opinion means little when you don't even know the subject you are talking about.

You said, "I don't believe that Shaolim Wah Nam, or Sifu Wong have genuinely cured cancer. I do believe that Shaolin Wah Nam cosmos qi gong has helped people with depression, bad backs, various other ailments, just as I believe that if someone is depressed, or over weight, then getting out, meeting new people, doing light exercise, will start to help to alleviate those symptoms."

How unscientific! You don't know even the first thing about the art, yet you already have such well-defined beliefs about it. I would love to know your answer to this: What good are beliefs without direct experience? <-- ??? (I'm not angry here, just exuberant, to be clear)

Do you see how that is problematic? How are you are going to be able to say anything about the efficacy of the art without any experience of it? (besides having scientific studies to look at: which would show you efficacy but not show you the actual experience of what the art feels like)

Old-Liu, I am not personally insulted, for the record. I don't really see how you can have beliefs about something you haven't learned before.

I know you do some form of chi-kung. Not all chi-kung is alike. Please don't consider this rude, but I would like to ask you a question or two to see if you have similar experiences to what we do daily:

1. Can you tap energy from the universe, drawing it into your body?

2. Can you direct energy to move to any place within your body, easily, and with a gentle thought?

3. Can you feel your energy flowing along your meridians clearly and unmistakably?

4. Does your chi-kung often give you ecstatic spiritual bliss? Or feel your heart literally open?

The answers to these questions will help us understand if you understand where we are coming from. If like some members of Shaolin Wahnam, you had some physical problem and when you practiced you felt energy enter you from the Universe and flow through you directly to the problem area and act on it, eventually making that problem area whole/healthy, then you might not be categorically disbelieving what such an art could be capable of.

All the Best,
Alex