I think people should be careful doing Reiki

[lottieandmia22]

This post assumes a belief in spirituality so I'm not interested in debating that specifically. If you want to please start your own thread.

From what I can see, reiki is channeling occult energy through people's bodies and is therefore potentially risky. It seems to me that new age practitioners will repeatedly say they don't believe in malevolent entities but I think this is naive.

One of my friends told me that his dad was never the same after he became involved with reiki.

And also nearly everyone I've met who has done it was told by the reiki practitioner that they are 'special' have a 'gift' or could easily become a reiki master.

just a snapshot of people who are not experienced in such matters & therefore closed minded. You are right in there being no point in arguing that though. Why bang your head on a brick wall

But we are experienced: in science and logic! Its you who is not. It is you who are closed minded, you are unwilling to listen to reality, living instead with lies and fairy tales.
Banging your head on a brick wall....there is probably someone charging for that and telling you it will unblock your chakras and free your mind. And you'd believe it.....

Vicious and nasty, comes down to swearing and name calling every time. There's just no need for it.

bfgdreamtree I am experienced in science and logic. I have an MSc in Chemistry and have worked in research for 18 years.

My experience has humbled me. Unlike the many arrogant posters on this thread.

But we are experienced: in science and logic! Its you who is not

Presumptuous to say the least🙄. The 2 are not mutually exclusive you know, though you might need to open your mind a tad to accept that.

I'm done 😘

Learn to read. You have buggered up the defintion of supernatural now philosophy. Your struggle with basic reading comprehension is your problem, stop trying to make it mine.

Tabby, funny I've a degree in English language, linguistics and literature. Even taught the subject. Amongst having other qualifications. Wonder how I managed it really....

Grow a fucking clue.

And you believe you are not rude...l

Reiki, of course, does have an underlying philosophy associated with its practice. As such this philosophy could be described as 'the philosophy of Reiki' . According to the quote I posted from the OED, a philosophy can be " A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle...".There is an underlying belief system that informs Reiki's practice. This philosophy is the philosophy of Reiki, Reiki's philosophy. Which is what I referred to in my posts and why the OP is correct to post on this board concerning Reiki.

I'm not the only person to acknowledge this,

"While Reiki has no religious affiliations, it does have its roots in Eastern healing philosophies. The term “Reiki” is actually based on two Japanese symbols “Rei” and “Ki.” “Ki” is a term that can easily be identified with the Chinese word “chi,” as found in practices like Tai Chi or acupuncture. Like “chi”, “ki” is the unseen internal life force or energy that circulates in our bodies and maintains mental, physical, emotional and spiritual balance and wellness."

(http://www.healthandhealingny.org/complement/reiki_history.)

T.b.h your complete lack of engagement, apart from to disagree with everything I say, apparently for the sake of disagreeing with me, does feel like you are attempting to gaslight me. Like earlier in the thread when you repeatedly insisted hypnosis' efficacy has been scientifically proven. This is despite me quoting, more than once, the NHS conclusion (from reviewing studies it cited) that it has not found to be so. You seemed to be claiming the existence of a couple of magazine articles from National Geographic and Huffington post had proved me to be in the wrong. Again not engaging with anything contained in the quote from the NHS or the studies it referred to in the link I provided.

Not everything that relates to those things is a philosophy. Put down the dictionary and actually think for a minute.

Everyone here actually knows reiki is bunkum. You know that. why argue?

You'd probably find a lot of philosophies 'bunkum'. I'm not sure you would see any validity in the philosophies of Søren Kierkegaard, for example.

Magpie

Oh, really....a website promoting Reiki thinks it's a "philosophy"? How amazing.

It isn't. It purports to be a therapy. It claims to be able to "do" something. Hence it is not a philosophy and neither does it fit any dictionary defintion of the word.

I have engaged with you. I explained to you why reaching for the supernatural does not work logically. You ignored everything I said and just called me rude. We've been here before, many times. We've even had the boring "define supernatural" conversation where, just like now, you tried to change the defintion to make your "argument" sound less silly. It didn't work then so I am surprised you attempted it again.

I don't disagree with you for the sake of it, I disagree with you because I disagree with you. Because everything you say is wrong. Because you begin with your conclusion and then desperately try to find "evidence" that supports you, right down to wilfully misrepresenting dictionary defintions of words, which is about as low as anyone can scrape.

My final word: Science has proven that Reiki does not work and has no measurable impact on anyone. This is not a surprise because science has shown that there are no mysterious energies floating around the universe waiting to heal someone's asthma. This is a fact. I am most dreadfully sorry if it goes against your worldview, but that's your problem.

Speakout Oh, wind your neck in. Anyone who wastes the time of a university to study a masters in Chemistry and comes out believing in "universal life forces" & with no appreciable understanding of scientific methodology has no business calling anyone else "arrogant". Although, it as clearer then you realise that you are no scientist, although the less clued up might fall for it.

Oh, and I have not even mentioned hypnosis so I have no idea what you are on about.

All I will say about it is that it is significantly more credible than the invocation of "spirits" which you were blabbing about not long ago.

(Odd, btw, that someone with a degree in English doesn't understand that "invoke" has more than one defintion. Just saying).

You'd probably find a lot of philosophies 'bunkum'. I'm not sure you would see any validity in the philosophies of Søren Kierkegaard, for example

Please don't sully Kierkegaard by using him to defend your nonsense about reiki. If for nothing else on this thread, you should be ashamed of that.

But we are experienced: in science and logic!

Who are the we you are referring to bfg?

Tabby, the efficacy of Reiki is unproven not disproven. That is the very most I have said in support of it.

Please read my posts properly if you are going comment on them. I don't even particularly believe in Reiki's efficacy, either and have said so numerous times on this thread. I merely will not ridicule people who do believe its has worked for the because if they believe they have a experienced a result from it they could actually be amongst a minority of people it does work for. There are nearly always exceptions to the statistical norm within empirical studies. Just as not all empirically proven medications or therapies work for everyone.

I even have talked about how I believe only empirically proven effective treatments should be available on the NHS because taxpayer's money is being spent and that is the best way to utilise the funding. What works for most people.

Regarding my understanding of dictionary definitions, I have not changed it for the sake of argument. Language is fluid though and not absolute. It evolves and changes over time and across different sectors of society. May I suggest you remember this. My way of comprehending the English language certainly is not wrong, though, and has served me well throughout my academic career. Added to this, I think it incredibly arrogant to deem yourself simply in authority over myself and others regarding the correct interpretation of dictionary definitions without stating any particular reason why you believe this is so.

Odd, btw, that someone with a degree in English doesn't understand that "invoke" has more than one defintion. Just saying).

Of course I do. However it is pretty humourless of you not to see the irony in your own use of the word, considering your views, Tabby.

Tabby, the efficacy of Reiki is unproven not disproven. That is the very most I have said in support of it

And in that you are categorically wrong. It IS disproven.

Are you saying you do not believe the results of scientific studies but you do believe anyone who tells you they feel like Reiki worked for them?

Oh, and I have not even mentioned hypnosis so I have no idea what you are on about.

Apologies, I confused you with another similar poster. Easily done.

Of course Reiki works for some people. The placebo effect is very powerful.

Are you saying you do not believe the results of scientific studies but you do believe anyone who tells you they feel like Reiki worked for them?

I believe it is possible for there to be truth in both. I totally trust neither until I have examined the available data and conclusions arising from it myself.

But they directly contradict each other. And you aren't going to examine anything, are you?

(don't you feel a little arrogant saying you won't believe scientists until you and your english degree have reviewed their evidence?)

"Like earlier in the thread when you repeatedly insisted hypnosis' efficacy has been scientifically proven." I think you mean me. It wasn't repeatedly. I thought I had seen a a proper trial that showed that hypnosis was proved to be effective in stopping smoking, but I was mistaken. And said so very quickly. If I make a mistake I acknowledge it.

.

The placebo effect is very powerful.

What I am saying is aside from the placebo effect, Bert. Just as there are people who are an exception to the statistical norm for whom empirically proven medicine does not work for, I believe there will be people for whom therapies work for in exception to the statistical norm. Until the mechanisms are fully understood, by which they work for these exceptional people, no one can really say if they are indeed working as a placebo or not.

He didn't mean Reiki

I believe there will be people for whom therapies work for in exception to the statistical norm

Despite this being DISPROVEN by science? You just ignore everything you don't want to hear. And you have the cheek to call others closed minded? Shame on you.

Like earlier in the thread when you repeatedly insisted hypnosis' efficacy has been scientifically proven." I think you mean me. It wasn't repeatedly. I thought I had seen a a proper trial that showed that hypnosis was proved to be effective in stopping smoking, but I was mistaken. And said so very quickly. If I make a mistake I acknowledge it.

Yes you did, Bert. It was meta (I realise on rereading) who made the same mistake but showed little acknowledgement for it. This was the poster I was remembering.

Despite this being DISPROVEN by science? You just ignore everything you don't want to hear. And you have the cheek to call others closed minded? Shame on you.

Show me that actual word, 'disproven' in a scientific study, bfg.