Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Round 4

"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’.


"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.

"Hawking is also not that person who goes around blabbing in the television or in the print media."
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
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?"
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.