"Rationalist groups focus just on
religion" is just wrong. My opponent has a very broad definition of what
religion is, as pseudo-history, UFOs, quack medicine, and crypto-zoology seem
religious to him.
Did any member of any Rationalist
Group go and protest against quack medicine? You never mentioned quack medicine
ever in your previous round of debate. Why don’t you paste links which proves
that these members of Rationalist Group members protesting against it instead
of just blabbing it here? Moreover, there is a difference between a ‘Rationalist’
and a ‘Member of a Rationalist Group’. I mentioned in the topic of the debate
while starting this debate that those who are members of a Rationalist Groups protest
only against religion and nothing else. Protests against wrongful convictions,
quack medicine, crypto-zoology etc are done by people who maybe rationalist in
their hearts and minds but they are not ‘member of any Rationalist Group’ or go
around the television to blab that they are rationalists.
This too is wrong. The reason for his statement
is that these were the only ones he was aware of, who attack his beliefs. If he
had examined consumer protection groups, human rights groups, and civil
liberties groups, then he would realize that they are rationalists as well.
However, again there is a
difference between a ‘Rationalist’ and a ‘member of a Rationalist Group’. They
are not those who go around the television, internet and print media boasting
and bragging like you do that they are rationalists. They maybe rationalists in
their minds and hearts but they are not boasters who form a group and announce
it on the rooftop that they are rationalists. For joining Consumer protection
groups, human rights groups etc. you do not need to be an atheist and be anti-religious
by boasting that you are a rationalists.
He is
upset that any rationalist attacks his beliefs, and doing so, personally
insulting him. He believes they are spiteful, proud, and wants them to go away.
I recommend that he stop getting so hurt. If he is offended by a stranger has
to say, then I recommend that he ignore it. I am not American but I really
value their freedom of speech, where you can say what you want (outside of
libel and slander) and not worry about prosecution. I disagree with Australia,
Canada, and India where it is common to prosecute offensive speech, someone who
"offends" you. That's just sad and wrong. Freedom of speech means you
can state any views that you want. However freedom of speech is not freedom to
be heard. I ignore speech I don't like. I recommend that if my opponent will
not use scientific method or peer review to examine his beliefs, or if not
willing to examine skepticism, then he start ignoring them, and be content with
his faith.
Firstly, it seems ofcourse that
you do not belong to an English speaking country like America, because you erroneously
stated “then he start ignoring them”. I could not understand the above
paragraph that what relevance it has to the debate.
Why is
my opponent here? Because he cares. It matters to him. He is passionate about it.
Why do rationalists debate religious leaders? Because they care. It matters to
them. They are passionate about it. He apparently thinks they should be as
equally passionate about ALL causes, but I wonder if he realizes how many hours
there are in a day.
Do you mean to say that
those ‘Rationalist Group’ members do not have time? Do you realize that we have
to make out time, there is never time for anything. Do you give this excuse
while giving your high school exams that I can focus on only one subject so
only one subject be taught to me?
In reality he just wants them to go away. My
opponent has spent hours here writing and debating me. He could have been out
recycling or going for a walk. He didn't. He is here, spending all this time,
because he cares about this issue. So do I. He fails to realize that the
rationalists he sees care about this issue just as much as he does. They are
just on the opposite side of the argument, and he wishes they would all just go
away and stop attacking his beliefs.
Again, there is a difference between a ‘Rationalist’
and a ‘member of a Rationalist Group’.
Highlights:
"Washing
your hands off from your duty by giving a baseless excuse that, "This is
not our job",
- If
they're not doing their job they need to be replaced. Is it not their job? Then
they are right. If my boss told me to fix his car I wouldn't do it. I don't
know how, I'd take a very long time to do it, and it would take me away from my
real responsibilities.
You mean to say that you do
not know how to protest against the court judgments which should be based on
reasoning and debating (despite the fact that you call yourself a rationalist) but
you know how to protest against religion? This means that judgment of court
cases are not based on rationality. Strange. Again, jury members who are
selected from the common public who might not be atheists still know how to
judge a case. The example you gave is incorrect and unsuitable. If your
supervisor rings you to tell you to drive a car to receive a client from the
airport so that when he comes to the office your real responsibility of
discussing the plan and meeting goes ahead, you say that it is not your job of
picking him up from the airport, this would also take away from your real responsibility
of holding a meeting with the client.
That site did not open in
my system.
I
don't know Sanal. Never heard of him. You need to ask him instead of me why he
does what he does.
If you do not know about
him then you should know about him and surf the net because you claim that
those who are members of Rationalist Group focus on everything other than just religion.
"(...)
even though science is not his field of study, still he advocates against just
religion."
- I
bet you you are just wrong. And, you do not need to be a scientist to have
opinions about science. You don't need to be a monk to have opinions about
Buddhism. I am a fan of the scientific method, peer review, and a science
promoter. But don't ask me to recite the periodic table of elements. There are
all kinds of ways to go to skepticism. History is one way, political science
might be another.
In the previous rounds, you
stated that it is a geologist only that can answer a question related to Lemuria
located under an Indian ocean, or a Exodus happened would attract a
archeologist. Now, in CONTRADICTION of your earlier statement, you are claiming
that you do not need to be a scientist to have an opinion of science. Strange.
Stop
telling others what their hobbies or passions should be, what they should and
should not protest. Who are you? I am not telling you what to believe or what
to protest.
I am criticizing others
about their unfulfilled duties. Is fighting against religion is a hobby or
passion? Then in that case you have yourself admitted that they are just doing
it for gaining appraisal and pride. Give me adequate reasons for not telling
others what to do. This is a debate and a public platform, not your private
forum that you can irrationally dictate others with whatever you feel.
I am here to win a debate, but if you're not,
then forfeit.
You are not giving any
reasons for your debate. A debate is not a musical program that only maximum
number of claps and cheers will make you win your case. If you are stupid
enough and overconfident about yourself irrationally considering others like me
to be a fool that I will forfeit then it is not my fault.
You have in no way proven your original
statement, you've just given examples of people who attack your belief, and you
have in no way demonstrated that is all they, or rationalists, do.
It is not my fault that you
cannot realize the evidence and do not blame me if you could not understand
that it really evident. It is the authority of the Judges of this debate to
decide and judge that who is successful in proving their point. You have
defamed and insulted those judges by violating their authority.
If you are happy with your beliefs, then the best
to you. But don't put your religion in my science, cause when you do, I'll put
my science in your religion. I'll make this clear to you: When a swami or guru
claims they can make butterflies appear, or that their oil and massage cures
cancer, or that they can live for 100 days without eating, then THEY ARE MAKING
A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM THAT CAN BE TESTED. Therefore, scientists will want to test
them. If you want rationalists to stay out of your religion? Then tell your
religious leaders to stop saying they can do miracles.
Firstly, the religion does
not belong to me so stop saying ‘your religion’. This also proves that you are
not at all a rationalist contrarily to what you claim as nowhere in the debate
I have mentioned that I am religious but still you made a baseless comment that
religion belongs to me.
How about a Judge claiming
that you committed a crime without even considering any evidence like
photographs, etc.? Isn’t he acting like the same religious leader by behaving
as if he has magical powers to look into the past or psychic ability to claim
that you committed crime? Was Sanal a scientist that he protested against them?
Are you a degree-holder of science that you are claiming that you can put your
science in religion?
Again, those religious leaders
are not mine and it proves that you are irrational contrarily to what you claim
as I nowhere mentioned that I am friends with any religious leader.
"if
there are many people who protest against something that is wrong then it could
have more effect and resulted in a better way, perhaps more quickly."
- I
agree with you 100%. You seem very passionate about rights of the innocent.
Which criminal ruling are you currently protesting?
I am protesting against
WHATEVER unfair judgment given which I came across or know. Currently, I had
protested against Manu Sharma’s conviction for killing Jessica Lal which
happened in my country India. Here is the link --à http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Sharma
However, I have also
updated my FB status with wrongful convictions in western countries also.
"A
car can be driven by almost everyone as it just requires common sense,"
-
What... No! Does this explain traffic in your country? I would never ride with
anyone who uses "common sense" to drive! It's common sense that the
faster I drive, the quicker I will get home, so let's go as fast as I can!
Driving a car requires KNOWLEDGE and TRAINING. Please tell me that you don't
use "common sense" to drive a car. If so, please don't drive again,
you're a menace, until you've been TRAINED.
However, the basics of
driving are known by everyone. Again, if only experts are to intervene, why was
it not that jury members who are selected from the general public were trained
first and then allowed to sit in the jury to decide a case? If driving requires
training and knowledge, then it is also a fact that EVERYONE CAN LEARN it and
is not that difficult. However, when you attain age for attending higher studies,
some take science and others take commerce and other fields of study. All do
not apply for science and everyone cannot be trained in science as there the
difficulty level arises.
A child who learns to speak
is not ‘taught’. He learns from environment to how to speak and walk. Did you
attend driving school to learn how to drive? If so, then you stupidly wasted
money. If you think that it requires INTENSE training, then you should go and
protest against the system that only learned people are educated people who are
smart SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE TRAINED IN DRIVING.
"If
that be the case of yours that only experts should intervene, then you mean to
say that the Jury system is wrong. Why did you not atleast protest against this
wrong system? HAHAHA!! ROFL-LOL!!"
- I
thought I was clear when I was referring to experts involved in trials are
called to give testimony for the defense or prosecution NOT as members of the
jury. If this was unclear then I apologize for not being clear. Didn't you call
someone a crazy person in the comments because they used LOL, or for laughing
for no reason?
I also never mentioned that
experts can decide and ‘judge’ a case. However, it is a truth that the jury
decides and judges the cases that are randomly selected from the common public
who can be theists or atheists. I never complained that experts are called to
give evidence and not common public, but I did stress that common public are
selected as jury to judge a case, which means that people who are from the ‘Rationalist
Groups’ could have also commented against a case and protested against it.
It is not the testimony, it
is the judgment which I am stressing upon.
"You
are also ignorant that psychologists and psychiatrists also have protested
against the irrational superstitious and religious acts."
- I am
not ignorant. As I argue, all kinds of people can be rationalists, and not
experts, to have an opinion. Forgive me if I did not include every single
website, group, book, speech, documentary, or debate in the world. I figured
forty different groups would be enough.
Again, there is a
difference between a ‘Rationalist’ and a ‘member of a Rationalist Group’. You
did not give any link which proves that you do not have any reason to support
your answer.
I
really don't think you know how a Human or Consumer Rights group works. They
RAISE AWARENESS. Guess How? In the MEDIA. by "blabbing" as you call
it. Why doesn't a consumer group protest religion? WAHHHH!
Again, there is a
difference between a ‘Rationalist’ and a ‘member of a Rationalist Group’. To
become a member of a Human or Consumer Rights group, you need not hold a
certificate of a member of a ‘Rationalist Group’ or claim that you are an
atheist. Consumer Group means rights of a consumer as their name suggests.
There name is not ‘Anti-religious and consumers group’, that is why they do not
protest against religion. However, a ‘Rationalist Group’ means they all act
with reasoning for every subject, then why did they not protest against other
subjects also? Their name is not, ‘Anti-religious Rationalist Group’ specifying
that they are only against religion.
"why
do you claim that rationalists are not against religion..." I don't. You
say that is ALL they do. I say, that is NOT ALL that they do.
Well then, I will remind
your own words which you typed in the previous round, “Rationalists and
scientists and historians have no problems with religion”. Then why did you say
this statement if you claim that you did not? Honorable Judges, my opponent is
contradicting his/her statements by which you can decide that how weak his
reasons are.
"I
have still not found any convincing reason from your side that Rationalist
Groups focus on other matters also other than just religion."
-
That's because you believe that the Loch Ness Monster is a religious belief.
You don't understand what "religious" means.
Monster itself is a
mythological word which means that it is connected to religion. Moreover, you
have nowhere mentioned in the debate about that monster so there is no point in
mentioning that. Pls give me links if you claim the same. I understand religion
very well as it is related to a magic’s and blind belief on almighty. Did I
ever claim anything which defined religion in the wrong way? If so, then
mention that. I never mentioned that religion is about wrongful conviction in
the court, did I? Is this what you want to claim that religion is also about
wrongful conviction?
"(Do
they) focus on other matters like irrational government policies, wrongful
convictions, etc?"
-Yes.
I say that do not do so.
Instead of saying just ‘yes’, it would be better if you would have given some
links to prove that they really protested against that since we are here to
debate. However, you did not post any links which proves that your claims are
baseless.
"It
doesn"t matter if he does not say it clearly, you should be mature enough
to understand that what is indirectly indicative of this statement."
- You
said an opinion as a fact. I disproved you, because you have no evidence. And
you call me "not smart enough." Say what you mean. Mean what you say.
I'm trying to be clear while at the same time make sense of your ESL responses.
You are just baselessly
proud of yourself and overconfident that you have proved me wrong which you
have not in reality and there is no reason to suggest the same. If you think
that my English is wrong then prove it by sending me some screenshots by
pasting my reply in MS-Word and showing me the red and green wavy lines in my
reply. If not, then this allegation is also baseless.
"how
did you become aware of those irrational and superstitious religious acts?"
- Stop
insinuating or insulting me. You are attacking me, not what I say. When I was a
child I believed EVERYTHING. I loved stories of Mokele-Mbembe. Years later a
Google search led me to the Skeptic's Dictionary.
My original question was
that when you stated that you never protested against wrongful convictions
because you never heard of them, then why you protested against religious acts
which never involved you. This is a debate, and reasons are given for every
statement which is made. If you do not like debating, then quit.
"I
did not understand this question."
- I
know. ESL more.
Look at your own English first before you can criticize mine.
A pot cannot call a kettle that it is black. Your statement was, “But, what does what
I do have to do with your original statement?”. After speaking this type
of English, do not teach me about my English. I however, myself
mentioned that, “It is probably a grammatical error or an error
of construction of sentence” and you reversed and threw the blame back to me.
LOL!
What
does holy water taste like? I imagine mushrooms and peyote.
What has that got to do with the debate? It still establishes
that Mr. Sanal cannot physically be present to protest against religious acts
in a better way. It can taste in a variety of different ways.
why
would anyone accept a challenge in live television for a challenge which they
would likely to loose and make a fool out of themselves infront of the entire
nation?
-
because he had faith.
If he was THAT stupid, he would have not been able to fool so
many people as he would be a fool himself. If he really believed in that faith
that he can kill anyone by murmuring talisman, then he would have first tried
it in killing his enemies and everyone has some enemy or the other in his or her
life, or he would have opened a shop inviting people to give him contracts to kill
their enemies and when it is unsuccessful, he would have known before that this
is not working.
Please
never have children. or drive a car.
Did I mention that only scientists can have children? Did I
mention that driving requires that much effort as studying for science? In that
case, you should go and protest against those people who are from blue collar
society and drive a car as you are overconfident that only scientists know how
to drive a car. Pls never speak in life or walk as these are also trained to children
but according to you only scientists can learn and be trained in that.
I am
the smartest person in the world, lazy, who only wants appraisal and pride.
Thank you. This is sarcasm.
Even if you do not admit that you are here to gain pride, it
is evident that you are here for gaining pride and appraisal. It does not
matter that what you keep blabbing.
