So how about a "Rationality, Scepticism & Atheism" section?

Don't be silly UQD. You know you love it.

I think people who do these things are inclined towards goodness yes

but sometimes the Churh provides confidence, motivation, even just the opportunity to meet like minded people

In cities there are more opportunities- in villages like those in South Wales where we are atm, so much focuses on the Church, it's by far the best place to meet people, and likewise the source of much community support. Back home the role of the vicar was almost non existent outside the Church; here old Arthur is an immensely important part of the community, and not just the Christian one either; he spends loads of time helping refugees do forms etc- things that in other places would be done by local charities etc

And like many villages if that didnt exist there'd be nobody to fill the gap- most residents either work 15 hour days to pay the mortgae or are elderly (or here, are students)

we are good at that kind of thing
i can well imagine the effect

all said with a beatific smile of course!

in that case and in that example i totally agree, challenge away

but a lot of religion doesnt harm anyone- most people are not extremist.

Far better imo to use energy educating about the genuine messages of the faith branches / tackling extremism than bothering joe x over his daily prayer

Am more than happy to say all extremist religion is bullshit, the vast majority of extreme anything is worrying- that is the nature of extreme things

which is of course very buddhisr

middle way anyone?

But what if you think what another group believes is actively doing harm to another individual or society? I am, for example, very worried about the strengthening of the Christian Right in the Sates, and increasingly, here. People can believe that the world was created in 7 days if they want to, but if they start wanting it to be taught in schools then I want them stopped.

"I don't agree but will defend the right to ....."

disagree with every fibre of my being

unless something causes us or others harm why on earth should I want to deny them that?

the old lady (loads here) whose only social life is Church based? The Nun who shuts herself quietly away to pray? The Christian Aid worker acting in China as part of DEC?

It's no more my business to criticise than the colour of your shoes

unles they're crocs obv

kc not all faiths are the same- some don't have a gd to start with, others have 1 or millions.

UQD it belongs in philosophy, because thats what it is. Unless we're going to have a category fo each belief sysem which would be bollocks frankly

Unless someone is directly causing you harm , I dont understand why you cant let others just be.

I agree,UQD, but people who use Chinese herbs, or St John's Wort are always saying that they don't trust conventional medicine. I want to biff them on the head and say "It's a drug, you peanut brain - where do you think aspirin comes from?" But I don't, because I'm a nice person.

And, actually, I do make a distinction between the clearly bonkers and the placebo. I put the allergy testing by hair analysis into the clearly bonkers camp - and homeopathy into the placebo camp. Simply because I think there is more possibility of exploitation (emotional and financial) with then bonkers ones.

I do think it's moderately easy to tell, though. At a risk of offending some people - the clearly bonkers stand out a mile. Then there are the "well if it makes you happy - and it might just be doing some good" And then the "OK, this clearly works in some way that we don't yet completely understand" And finally, "It's a drug. Just because it's a plant doesn't mean it's not also a chemical - where do you think practically every drug you could take comes from?"

that's what I mean -- you can't tar all alternative therapies with the same brush, you have to examine the merits of each one

once you've accepted that there is a different path, it becomes more difficult to choose which one

stuffitlama - I don't think any conventionally qualified medical practitioner would ever tell their patients/clients that they could cure cancer by having coffee enemas, or that they could diagnose allergies by looking at the hair, or...I could go on. Now that's charlatanism. Discovering that back pain can be eased by acupuncture and learning how to do it is not.

there are lots of orthodox medical people who've gone over to the dark side

what about them? were they charlatans all along? or did they use their evidence based methodology to look for something that really worked for their patients?

Read though (most!) of this and am firmly with UQD. I think that we all accept the "I don't agree but will defend the right to ....." arguement far too readily. Some also use it as a reason not to question others beliefs.

I am an athiest - I see no reason to believe in a God, and plenty of reasons not to.

I feel kind of disappointed that people need to believe that there is "something else out there" in order to live a fulfilling life.

I don't see that religion has a connection with alternative/complementary therapies????

I don't think most complementary therapists want to practice 'medicine'. Their view of what constitutes health is usually very different from that of an orthodox doctor. People use complementary therapy because for them, it works. It does the job they want it to do (i.e. makes them feel better in some way).

It's always been this way. If something works - in that it does the job people want it to do they will use it. Orthodox medicine initially became big, not because of clinical trials but because it was better and works better than the alternative (bleeding etc).

Complementary therapy will remain big -despite sneering about lack of clinical trials- because it makes people feel better.

it is possible for the two to co-exist. In China for example both orthodox and chinese medicine is widely used and both are accepted.

We're lucky to have access to both. Orthodox medicine obviously is able to tackle many -particularly serious- conditions far more successfully than complementary- but there are many many conditions that impact on health that it has very little it can offer. Long term pain for example- can often be difficult to control with orthodox medications, can respond very well to complementary. Ditto back problems. My son's condition - severe autism- currently there is bugger all that orthodox medicine can offer us - apart from risperidone - but quite a lot that we can try out from complementary therapists that make his life easier.

UQD - do you subscribe to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast? I suspect you do given that you mention the James Randi forum, but if not it's well worth a listen. As is Skeptoid.

I really really really want to go to TAM6 though - why aren't there any decent atheist/skeptic conferences in the UK

But yes, I'd like a Skeptics board here

Actually, I don't, generally, have a problem with properly regulated complementary therapies. I wasn't thinking about acupuncture, for example. I was thinking about the iridology, crystal healing end of things. And the people who diagnose allergies through the post. That sort of thing.

I completely accept the placebo effect. And the fact that a therapist having time to listen to a person might in itself be curative. It's just a shame it has to be wrapped up in pseudo scientific clap trap.

I often see the 'stopping them seeking other help' thing. Most alternative therapies are being asked to put their house in order- all the official alternative therapies I know of include some training in orthodox medicine and include a lot on 'when to refer' - signs and symptoms that need referral. This is treated as an important part of the training.

I know for example, a homeopath who was able to persuade someone to take AZT when they had, up to that point, refused.

Of course there will always be charlatans- in any walk of life- but the reason that alternative medicine is growing is because it offers something for many that orthodox cannot. And it makes people feel better - that's why people go,and then go back. They feel better. They're not interested in clinical trials. They just want to feel better.

The majority of alternative practitioners are not earning huge amounts of money either. The ones who earn the most are actually the ones that are most orthodox (eg chiropractors).

I don't mind people believing in anything they want to. In fact I would vigorously defend their right to do so. I do mind however:

a) people exploiting the vulnerability of others by selling them cures/therapies/whatever that have no proven basis in fact, are not properly tested and at best do nothing and at worst give false hope and stop people actually doing the things that might help them.

b) people telling my children that one particular set of myths, legends and fairy stories is superior to another.

c) people saying that they realize that there is a vast array of scientific proof for something, but, actually, they prefer to believe something else because they held a pendulum over it and it went anti-clockwise.

LONG LIVE THE ENLIGHTENMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

His first wife or the current incumbent?