The Instigator
The-Ultimate-debater
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Rwicks
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Rationalist groups focus just on religion which is wrong. I agree to this & they should focus on all

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
The-Ultimate-debater
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,116 times Debate No: 64380
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

Rationalist groups all over the world are just or mainly just against religion. However, there are several other topics were rationalism is not used and Rationalist Groups do not protest against them or seldom protest against them and not at that level which it should be as per its requirement.

Indian Rationalist Groups like Sanal, a Dravidian, have also just copied the west and just target religion instead of other issues, just to gain appraisal and feel proud arrogantly by boasting that they are the only people who are smarter than everyone. I agree to it but if you do not then let's start a debate.

If you want to start conversation, then start debating else do not comment because I will block your profile after replying.
Rwicks

Con

I will start by clarifying what I believe a "rationalist" to be. I will assume my opponent is referring to rational skepticism, someone who uses or accepts the scientific method and peer review as basis for their knowledge, and will proceed with my counter from this understanding.

I disagree with the statement "Rationalist groups focus just on religion." I would argue that when a debate between religion and rationality occurs, that this is shown in the media much more than other issues rationalists contend with. "Scientist disclaims the existence of mermaids" just isn't as sexy as a Bill Nye vs the Creationists debate.

From my opponent's comments I would argue that this is the only side of rationalists that he sees. He seems to be unaware of the incredible amount of work that rationalists publish dealing with claims such as UFOs, homeopathy, ghosts and ghost hunters, demons and exorcists, chiropractic medicine, ESP, therapeutic touch, alternative medicine, "all-natural" medicines, pseudo-history, reincarnation, anti-vaccinations, conspiracy theories, Atlantis, Illuminati, Jesus and Mary Magdalene had kids, auras, crypto-zoology, spiritual mediums, fortune tellers and astrologers, and so many more "Junk" science and history issues.

I also disagree with my opponents comments that rationalists state their opinions "just to gain appraisal." I would argue that they are not doing this to be liked or to get famous, but rather to promote rational and logical thinking and the scientific method. They are not trying to get themselves famous, rather they are trying to get the scientific method famous. If they do come across as arrogant it may be because they are frustrated that anyone takes what they consider to be "hogwash" seriously.

I would challenge my opponent to find five examples of a rationalist claiming "that they are the only people who are smarter than everyone." That's what fundamentalists and extremists believe. Rationalists change their thinking and ideas based on new evidence. Science and history is all about research, and a scientist who claims they know everything already, well, his job would be done, he could pack up, lock the door and go home. It is the fundamentalist or extremist who says that they have some secret knowledge, some ultimate truth, and those who don't think like they do need to be pitied or converted. The rationalist is not trying to get you to accept science. It would be nice, but they aren't trying to force you to agree with them or blindly believe. But when someone makes a claim and says that it is science or history, well then, a scientist or historian will examine the evidence and tell you what they think.

Rationalists and scientists and historians have no problems with religion. There are very many religious scientists and historians, but their belief comes from faith, not from science. There is a clear line between what can be known through faith and what can be known through evidence and testing. It is when a religious person makes a scientific or historical claim when the rationalist steps in to say, "where's the proof, besides your holy book?"

To restate, Science vs Religion makes the news a lot more than any other kind of rationalist debate. The History Channel has a long running series on Alien Archaeology and it makes for fascinating if not frustrating viewing, but a show where a scientist sits down and says "there is no proof of anything these guys are saying" would be over in two minutes and wouldn't make for good viewing. Science vs Religion is sexy and makes the news, the other debates not so much. This is the basis I believe in why my opponent's statement "Rationalist groups focus just on religion" is wrong, and that rationalists do indeed "focus on all."

I would recommend that my opponent subscribe to a few skeptical pod casts or magazines, where he would find that rationalists very rarely cover religion, except where it intrudes upon science, such as Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

"From my opponent's comments I would argue that this is the only side of rationalists that he sees. He seems to be unaware of the incredible amount of work that rationalists publish dealing with claims such as UFOs, homeopathy, ghosts and ghost hunters, demons and exorcists, chiropractic medicine, ESP, therapeutic touch, alternative medicine, "all-natural" medicines, pseudo-history, reincarnation, anti-vaccinations, conspiracy theories, Atlantis, Illuminati, Jesus and Mary Magdalene had kids, auras, crypto-zoology, spiritual mediums, fortune tellers and astrologers, and so many more "Junk" science and history issues."

All the above mentioned work of people who claim as rationalists are closely related to religion, especially UFOs. Has any person who claims to be a rationalist ever protested against accused who are wrongfully convicted for the crime which they never committed? This is the most sensitive issue as the wrongfully convicted person looses major portion of his or her life in prison for the crime he or she never committed and believing in religion may only make them do some acts like folding hands in Church or any religious place but does not make them loose a major portion of their lives in prison or cause death to them.

Courts also function upon evidence to convict any accused, just like scientific experiments and research. Therefore, if they wrongfully convict any person on insufficient evidence, have you ever gone and protested against those convictions?

Here is a case of wrongful conviction, in which two accused people were held not-guilty after he spent 28-29 years in prison for the crime they did not commit and one of them died in due course in the prison. ---> http://www.mirror.co.uk...

And there is one more case of Andrew Mallard. You can enter his name in Google and find out that how he was also convicted for the crime he did not commit.

Or I'll just paste it here and you can go through the link. ----> http://www.en.wikipedia.org...

SO, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANY RATIONALIST GROUP 'EVER' PROTESTED AGAINST THESE WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS? ANY BLOG OF RATIONALIST GROUP OR A POST OR A WEBPAGE? OR ANY INTERVIEW EVER PROTESTING AGAINST WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS?????

"I also disagree with my opponents comments that rationalists state their opinions "just to gain appraisal." I would argue that they are not doing this to be liked or to get famous, but rather to promote rational and logical thinking and the scientific method. They are not trying to get themselves famous, rather they are trying to get the scientific method famous. If they do come across as arrogant it may be because they are frustrated that anyone takes what they consider to be "hogwash" seriously.

I would challenge my opponent to find five examples of a rationalist claiming "that they are the only people who are smarter than everyone."

1.) Had they been a true rationalist, they would have protested against other irrational acts also, like someone buying items from a store without checking that the item is worth that amount or not.

2.) Here is a story of a person who claims to be a rationalist but has given up his duty of spreading rationalism just because there was a threat that he might be arrested when he claimed that statue of Jesus was dripping water was nothing but condensing and not weeping Jesus. He was charged as per Indian law for insulting someone's faith and religion and therefore he fled from India to Sweden fearing arrest, but in this way he also gave up his duty of protesting against religion and supersitions in India.

Now, if this person really wanted to protest against religion, he would not have run away like a coward who is more interested in saving his reputation rather than protest against religion and spreading scientific thinking, which proves that he is concerned mainly of his reputation which includes his boastful nature of claiming that he is smarter than anyone else. Here is the story to that ---> https://www.youtube.com...

3.) In this video ----> https://www.youtube.com..., it is shown that the person who claims to be a rationalist challenged a hermit to kill him with his magical spells. However, in this blog, --> http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com... was proved that the entire TV reality show of this challenge was scripted and stage-managed. Now, it clearly shows that the person who claims to be a rationalist was trying to gain cheap publicity to gain attention and appriasal by which he could feel proud that he was the only smart guy in India.

4.) In this twitter account of a person who claims to be a rationalist, which he is not in reality, arrogantly stated that he is not ugly. Had he been a true rationalist and not claim that he is a rationalist just to satisfy his feelings of appriasal and pride from people by appriasing him that he is the only person who is smart, he would have been modest and asked for evidence for the accusation instead of arrogantly denying the accusation without giving his own counter-arguments. ---> https://twitter.com...

5.) Here, in this link, this person claims to be an atheist for which he is 'proud' of. Had he been doing it for just spreading knowledge and true wisdom, he would have never been proud of of but rather stated that he is just using his common sense which anyone can use. Feeling of pride by that person indicates that he wants to gain appriasal by which he could feel arrogantly proud that he is the only one who is smarter than everyone. ----> www.meetup.com/Humanism-Atheism-Rationalism-Philosophy-HARP/messages/boards/thread/45717092

The rationalist is not trying to get you to accept science.

Rationalists and scientists and historians have no problems with religion.

Then why are many people who claim to be rationalist are atheists? Why have they not protested against axioms and postulates in science which were later proved wrong and why do they always brag about science as if they have more knowledge than Einstein and Newton?

To restate, Science vs Religion makes the news a lot more than any other kind of rationalist debate. The History Channel has a long running series on Alien Archaeology and it makes for fascinating if not frustrating viewing, but a show where a scientist sits down and says "there is no proof of anything these guys are saying" would be over in two minutes and wouldn't make for good viewing. Science vs Religion is sexy and makes the news, the other debates not so much. This is the basis I believe in why my opponent's statement "Rationalist groups focus just on religion" is wrong, and that rationalists do indeed "focus on all."

I did not fully understand that what point you are trying to make and how did you conclude that they focus on all. For debating against religion, they would sit for hours in news channels and accuse religion. However, if they focus on all then give me links of their interviews or blogs where they have protested against those subjects other than religion.

I would recommend that my opponent subscribe to a few skeptical pod casts or magazines, where he would find that rationalists very rarely cover religion, except where it intrudes upon science, such as Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Again, instead of telling me what to do, why don't you just paste some links here like I did when you asked examples? if they have protested against those subjects other than religion, then it must have some reference on the internet. Why don't you simply post them here? I am, btw, subscribed to Indian Rationalist Association's newsletter and all or mostly what I received are their protests against religion.

Thank you.
Rwicks

Con

My opponent seems to be confused about how evidence works. An appeal to ANY authority is not how research works. If someone makes a scientific claim that evolution is not real, for example, then a biologist would respond. If someone says Lemuria was located under the Indian Ocean, then a geologist would respond. If someone says that the Exodus really happened, then an archaeologist would respond. Stephen Hawking might be a very smart man, but he wouldn't be called into a murder trial to prevent scientific evidence, because he's a theoretical physicist, not a forensic scientist. Rationalists typically respond to irrationality in their own field of study.

My opponent states that the innocent being imprisoned is an example of rationalists not "focus on all." I would ask my opponent, how does he think these innocent people were freed??? Does he believe they just wish really hard? Do they use appeals to emotions to get the innocent free, or do they use.... I don't know, evidence?

What my opponent fails to understand is that rationalists typically comment on their field of study, not on others, unless they are very very familiar with the research. You're not going to call an archaeologist who is an expert on ancient Korea in on a murder trial. You'd call a lawyer, a forensic scientist, psychiatrists, psychologists, and someone who knows about DNA. You know, specialists who know what they're talking about.

If my opponent is unaware of groups that use reason and evidence to fight for the unjustly imprisoned, I would highly recommend he check out groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and so many other examples of groups that fight for the falsely accused. Here are two that fight for the innocent using scientific methods:
innocenceproject.org
innocencematters.org

Here's a list of Human Rights groups that act in India:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_organisations_based_in_India

So no, I have not gone and protested at a court where I believe someone is about to be wrongfully imprisoned. Why? Because I have never been aware of any such cases happening where I have lived. I'm not connected to any case, nor emotionally involved, neither am I a lawyer or a forensic scientist. I'm not an expert or involved with the details of the case. But, what does what I do have to do with your original statement?

"All the above mentioned work of people who claim as rationalists are closely related to religion, especially UFOs." - wut i don't even ...... You're so wrong you're not even wrong. I don't want to turn this into a "who believes in what" debate. Let's focus on your original statement.

"Had they been a true rationalist, they would have protested against other irrational acts also, like someone buying items from a store without checking that the item is worth that amount or not." - That's what consumer protection groups do. They use research and evidence to judge quality. You know, rationalism. Again, experts in their field. Again, I recommend you Google the following groups:
Consumer Guidance Society of India
All India Consumer Protection Organization
The Consumers Eye India
United India Consumer's Association

"(He) has given up his duty of spreading rationalism just because there was a threat that he might be arrested..." - So what? Sounds like his ideas weren't changed. Also, fear of losing freedom for holding a rationalist view seems to be the motivator for him leaving India. Who would want to live in a country where stating scientific fact means jail time? I am sure he still complains about India, he just does it now from overseas. If the laws change, he'd probably be back. I don't understand how not being physically in India gives up his rights to state scientific views or protest Indian laws. Was he a coward for not willing to face jail time for his beliefs? Probably, I don't know the man. Did he leave India because he said he was smarter than someone else? No.

I remember the whole rationalist guy versus "I can kill you with my mind bullets" magic man debate on Indian television. It was awesome. I'm going to need a specific link to Sathya Sai Baba's post, as I am assuming you are referring to his "Critic's Deceipt exposed" link but when I click it I get: "We're sorry! This account is currently unavailable."

If I remember correctly, the magic man later claimed that the reason why the rationalist didn't die, was because the rationalist was protected by a more powerful god. Sathya Sai Baba's "blog clearly shows"? No. A religious leader who is invested in attracting followers, is refuting the claims of a rationalist? A faker who had hoarded 7 million dollars collected from his followers by the time of his death? Color me surprised that he would attack anyone who disagrees with him or might hurt him in his bank account.

"Ugly" is in the eye of the beholder, not based on rationalism. You might think a painting is awesome, others might think it is a mess. He and others could have thought he was handsome, maybe others did not. I cannot scientifically prove my opinions of "best" or "most handsome." I for one think I am devastatingly handsome. Others might disagree.

Being "proud" of something does not mean you think you are smarter. I'm proud to be a father. That does not mean I think other fathers are worse than me, or that I am better than people with no children.

SO, looks like you got one guy, not even a scientist, who says he is "proud" of being an atheist. I'm still waiting for you to show me where a rationalist says he is "smarter" than others.

"Then why are many people who claim to be rationalist are atheists?"

Because they demand proof. There is no proof. Religious beliefs are faith and SUPER natural, which means they can not be tested by science. When they have been tested, results are negative or inconclusive. If the religious make a claim, the rationalist asks, where's the proof? If there is no proof, they do not accept the claim.

Again back to the original debate. Science vs Religion makes the news a lot more than any other kind of rationalist debate. The reason why is because IT IS MORE INTERESTING AND MORE PEOPLE WANT TO WATCH IT, not because rationalists don't do anything else. Science vs Religion is sexy and makes the news, the other debates not so much.

Again, this is the basis I believe in why my opponent's statement "Rationalist groups focus just on religion" is wrong, and why I believe that rationalists do indeed "focus on all."

"However, if they focus on all then give me links of their interviews or blogs where they have protested against those subjects other than religion."

I gave you lots of examples already. You though apparently believe that a rationalist talking about the existence of the Loch Ness Monster is, for some reason, religious.

And for my opponent's reading pleasure: The Skeptic's Dictionary is one of my favorites, I also used to subscribe to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast. The Skeptic's Bible is also awesome. I also highly recommend the website What's The Harm? Google them.

Bad Martial Arts
Bad Science
Committee For Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP)
Debunker
Doubtful News
Expelled Exposed
Fallacy Files
James Randi (JREF)
GMO answers A Talk.Origins for GMOs
RationalWiki
Rbutr
Seek The Evidence
Skepticism Conventions Guide
Skepdoc, The
Skeptical Analysis of the Paranormal Society
Skeptical OB
Skeptical Raptor
Skeptic Friends
Skeptic North
Skeptics On The Net
Skeptic Tank
Skeptics Society, The
Skeptics Book of Pooh-Pooh, The
Skeptoid
Tony Youens UK Skeptic site
Debate Round No. 2
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

It is not my fault if you are not smart enough to understand that I know that how judiciary functions.

Is it written in the dictionary while explaining the meaning of a ‘rationalist’ that he or she is that person who uses reasoning and asks for proof only for religious acts? If I ask for an experience letter as a proof from a candidate before employing him then it means that I am being rational while employing someone, so why should not this be a part of a rationalist’s job when this is also irrational when someone employs a person without verification?
Stephen Hawking is also not that person who goes around blabbing in the television or in the print media that he is a rationalist.
The South Indian and Dravidian person named Sanal, who claims to be a rationalist holds a degree of ‘Arts’ and not ‘Science’. However, he brags as if he is the only one who knows about science which is not and was never his field of study. Do you mean to say that all rationalists hold a degree of science and whoever joins the Rationalist Group must be having a degree of science? What about Sanal then who holds a degree of Arts and Political Science? If his degree is in Political Science, then why did he not protest against the irrationality of voters who vote for their government just on the bases of symbol which happens commonly in India and then brings the whole country in jeopardy? Just because there is no religion involved here?
However, even though science is not his field of study, still he advocates against just religion on the bases of science and claims as a protector of science.
It is said that he was a rationalist since he was 15. Therefore, if it is true, then he should have protested against the irrational system of education in our country where photocopies of answer scripts are not given back to those candidates who think that they have got marks lower than the reasonable expectation, but he did not protest against that just because there was no involvement of religion. Is it not clearly indicative that it fully concerned him?

I can put the same reasoning for rationalists who protest against religion. There are psychologists and psychiatrists protesting against these superstitious and religious beliefs, so why are you also protesting against it when someone else is already doing that? They are freed after many years when they have already lost their youth inside the prison.
There is no restriction that only one person can protest against a particular topic and 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.
Again, is it written in the dictionary while explaining the meaning of a ‘rationalist’ that he or she is that person who uses reasoning and asks for proof only for religious acts? Do you think that only Micheal Schumacher knows how to drive a car? A car can be driven by almost everyone as it just requires common sense, be it a very smart scientist, an expert car racer or a blue collared illiterate worker.
Therefore, for a court’s proceedings, when a jury is called, do they call on the bases of those who were lawyers before or had some legal background or do they randomly call from the general public as it just requires common sense?
If general public can be called for deciding a case, then why can’t rationalists comment on the case?
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!!
You are also ignorant that psychologists and psychiatrists also have protested against the irrational superstitious and religious acts. Here are they:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.newswise.com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
So, if psychiatrists and psychologists are protesting against superstitious and religious beliefs, why are you trying to gain appraisal and pride by protesting there also and why do you not laze around and enjoy yourself just like you did it when it came to people who got convicted wrongfully?
These human rights groups are not those who blab and brag around the television and in other forms of media that they are rationalists. They genuinely believe that they should protest against this unjust system and not like you who wants just to gain pride out of trying to prove that you are the only person who is smart.
There is no restriction that only one person can protest against a particular topic and 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.
In that case, how did you become aware of those irrational and superstitious religious acts? Did you have any psychic dream? You should be in the casinos and earning money in that case.
Howcome I became aware in that case? Did I have a psychic dream that there was a wrongful conviction?
If you used internet to find out this site of debate.org, then why did you not use the same internet to find out these wrongful convictions too and used this internet for full purpose?
Were you a psychologist or a psychiatrist, in that case, or a scientist or an expert that you started protesting against irrational and superstitious religious acts? You were neither involved in any religious acts and someone folding hands in Church does not involve you in anyway so why did you protest against those acts?
I did not understand this question. It is probably a grammatical error or an error of construction of sentence. If you mean that what does protesting against wrongful convictions has to do with rationality then I would ask that what does protesting against religion has to do with rationality?
Do you mean to say that the Judges should convict an innocent person without evidence and it is not irrational but blindly believing in religion is irrational? If yes, then in that case, I would only state that you fit the idiom of “Pot calling the kettle black”.

If you have the same reasons for consumers as for human rights, then again pls refer to the above.
Did our freedom fighters ever run away from the country they were fighting for? They gave independence to our country while staying in India and serving jail terms.

If he was really concerned for spreading rationalist ideas then he would have surrendered to the police and applied for anticipatory bail.

Protesting from abroad has lower effect than protesting from India itself as now he cannot physically go to places where irrationality is there and participate in feel and touch experiments, like if water is holy and that can be tested by tasting it, he cannot taste it while sitting in Finland (He is perhaps in Finland and not Sweden, I may be wrong).
It is opening perfectly here in my laptop/system. Here is the link again -=664; http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com...

Sathya Sai Baba’s post proved that the entire challenge and the live experiment was ‘fixed’ and ‘stage-managed’ and not at all real as claimed as the holy man or the magic man whatever you call, was claimed to be a famous magician, so famous that we could not find even article, or a webpage or a blog of him in the internet or no reference of him anywhere on the television or in the media.

Secondly, whatever he was uttering was not at all the couplets of Sanskrit. Even few of them were, they were not those couplets of killing someone but on the contrary for restoring life.

UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO CHARACTER LIMIT, I CANNOT POST MORE… THEREFORE I HAVE POSTED MY ENTIRE ROUND OF DEBATE IN THE COMMENTS. PLS GO THROUGH THE COMMENTS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.
Rwicks

Con

"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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

"Hawking is also not that person who goes around blabbing in the television or in the print media."
- www.google.tl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=is%20stephen%20hawking%20atheist%3F

I don't know Sanal. Never heard of him. You need to ask him instead of me why he does what he does.

"(...) 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.

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 here to win a debate, but if you're not, then forfeit. 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. 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.

"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?

"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.

"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?

"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.

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!

"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.

"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.

"(Do they) focus on other matters like irrational government policies, wrongful convictions, etc?"
-Yes.

"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.

"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.

"I did not understand this question."
- I know. ESL more.

What does holy water taste like? I imagine mushrooms and peyote.

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.

Please never have children. or drive a car.

I am the smartest person in the world, lazy, who only wants appraisal and pride. Thank you. This is sarcasm.
Debate Round No. 3
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

Honorable Judges and my worthy opponent, pls go through http://debateorg-round4.blogspot.in... this round of debate as this forum has a character limit.

Thanx and regards.
Rwicks

Con

19,707 characters? Wow, ok, whatever, it's your debate. I've only got one round left. Before closing, I would like my opponent to define what he thinks the following mean:

Religious
Rationalists
Rationalist group
Judge (like in a court)
Jury (like in a court)
Common Sense
Science
Scientist
Blab

He keeps using these words. But they do not mean what he thinks they mean. I think he believes that "religious" = "paranormal." Therefore to him, because the positive existence of the Loch Ness Monster cannot be proved or explained by science, the Loch Ness Monster, to him, is a religious phenomenon. In his mind, rationalist means "anti-religious." But rationalists, "rational" groups, and rationality mean so much more. His error is in thinking that rationalism involves ONLY attacking religion, when they are against any and all pseudo-scientific, medicine, or history claims. But again, anything that cannot be proved, like the positive existence of UFOS, is to him, religious. And that's just religulous.

Since he seems too lazy to Google, here are four, concrete examples, of awesome rationalists, talking NOT about religion. Skeptic.com and Michael Shermer on JFK conspiracies:
www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk-conspiracy-theories-at-50-how-the-skeptics-got-it-wrong-and-why-it-matters/

Richard Dawkins on the anti-vaccinnation movement.
richarddawkins.net/2014/01/how-vaccine-fears-fueled-the-resurgence-of-preventable-diseases/

Ultimate rationalist Christopher Hitchens' views about socialism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Christopher_Hitchens

And here's Bob Aganoosh talking about the flying spaghetti being:
www.scr.ewyouikn.owyo/urenotgoin/gtobo.the/rchec/kingthisany/way.org

My opponent's argument now seems to consist of I am a horrible, horrible human being for not chaining myself to court house doors, therefore he is right in saying rationalists only protest religion. Ok, I'm a monster, lowest of the low, thank you, you've made me cry... I need to call my mother. Feel better now? You have attacked me, called me lazy, prideful and arrogant, and accused me of being selfish and basically a bad, bad man. I think I need a tissue. Does this mean, in any way, by any rule of debate, that you have proven your argument? No, no it does not.

I've given you EVIDENCE and PROOF. You have given me examples of TWO (2) guys who are anti-religious and you say that is ALL every rationalist group ever does. You have in no way proven your argument.

Highlights:
"You never mentioned quack medicine."
- Define quack medicine.

"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."
- So Amnesty International is not a rationalist group?

"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."
- Yes, yes they do. You just haven't seen them. Are you confused about what "group" means?

"it seems ofcourse that you do not belong to an English speaking country .... because you erroneously stated "then he start ignoring them". I could not understand the above paragraph that what relevance it has to the debate."
- Then (next) he (you) start (begin) ignoring (not listening to) them (the rationalists). "No, I'm not, YOU ARE!" is just weak. Do you really want to start counting our grammar mistakes? What relevance? You don't understand one clause, so you dismiss the whole paragraph? By the way, native English speaker, ESL teacher for 10 years. BOOM! Summary: ignore speech you don't like.

"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?"
- Of course not. Everyone has a job or duty, like studying. But even when you're studying you still listen to music or watch a movie. You have a passion. You have hobbies. Most "solo" rationalists promote a cause in their spare time. It's their passion, their hobby, their interest. If they become an expert in what they are talking about, they might even appear on TV.

"Again, there is a difference between a "Rationalist" and a "member of a Rationalist Group". "
- I can concede that there are many "rationalists" who like what they have heard and consider themselves rationalists without truly understanding the scientific method. But those aren't the ones you see debating on TV.

"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?"
- I am not here protesting religion, or the justice system. I am here debating YOU. I am not saying that religion is wrong. I am saying YOU ARE WRONG. I'll tell you what. The next time someone gets wrongfully convicted in my community and there is a public outcry and strong evidence, I'll go protest. I'll go chain myself to the court house doors. But, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." - Ancient Vulcan proverb. Your "rationalists" believe religion to be the cause of war, racism, discrimination, the caste system, false hope, false promises, inequality, and thousands of years of injustices. What is all that against the life of one man? Does rationality only belong to the anti-religious? You seem to think so, and you are WRONG. Again, many scientists, historians and "GASP" even rationalists are religious. They just know how to separate FAITH from EVIDENCE. You don't. And no, I'm not going to provide you links. Go spend 5 seconds on Google.

"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."
- I mop the floors at the nuclear power plant. My boss asks me to shut down the reactor. I don't know how. We all die. I have failed from my real responsibility of cleaning the nuclear power plant.....

"That site did not open in my system.""
- Google "Stephen" "Hawking" "atheist." If you do not know about him then you should know about him and surf the net because you claim that he never blabs about religion. Wait this sounds familiar.....

"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."
- I have never said that "Rationalist Group focus on everything other than just religion." You say that is ALL they do. I say that is NOT ALL that they do. See the difference? I concede that there are SOME rationalist groups whose main focus is religion."But you said that ALL rationalists ONLY protest religion. I've proven you wrong IF YOU CHECK OUT THOSE GROUPS and you understand that LOCH NESS MONSTER IS NOT RELIGION.

"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.""
- It's strange how you twist meanings and what I said. What was clear was that I myself would listen to and respect more a geologist's response about the existence of Lemuria, because he has used evidence and peer review.
Debate Round No. 4
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

Honorable Judges and my most worthy opponent, for debate round no. 4, I mistakenly pasted the wrong address of the link. For round 4, pls ignore the wrong link which was posted earlier in that round and go to this link -----à http://debateorg-round4.blogspot.com...

For this round, i.e. round no. 5, pls go to this link ----à http://debateorg-round5.blogspot.in...

Thanx.

Rwicks

Con

Rwicks forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@Rwicks. If you start deciding that whether I had made it evident or not then you are insulting the Judges and me also because you are nobody to teach me that what I provided and what I did not and teaching the Judges also that whom they should vote for.

I have already patented those words like 'evidence' etc. Therefore, you will not gain anything by speaking those words and you are behaving like a frustrated cat who scratches the pillar but does no harm to the pillar but her own nails itself.

If you are stupid and incompetent that you could not understand the evidences which I gave then it is not my fault. You did not address the Judges as "Honourable" which is again an insult to them.

Honourable Judges, as you can see that he or she has just made an airy decision that who is victorious. He has not provided any reference to any evidence but straight away declared in the air that who has won. The guy whom I mentioned i.e. is Sanal is the self-proclaimed president of his organization/group called "Indian Rationalist Association" which my opponent did not realize.
Posted by Rwicks 2 years ago
Rwicks
I think you may be right about internet connectivity, my internet was on again off again yesterday. Please forgive me that I had no idea when you posted in round 5 and didn't start a stopwatch to count down how much time I had left.

But I do think something might be wonky with the timers on this site. I refreshed this site, it said 15 comments here, you posted the 15th "1 minute ago." Then a minute later when I check my messages and click the most recent one "your 18th comment" it now says "21 hours ago" But it doesn't matter anyway, as you never once proved that "ALL rationalist groups do is ONLY OR MOSTLY attack religions" because you provided not one bit of evidence except for two guys, not even groups. You didn't link to every rationalist group in the world and proved that they only attack religion, at all. Judges, vote for me!

Also, learn what ad hominem means. Then stop doing that.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
Honourable Judges, I have screenshots to prove that my opponent posted this comment of justification of forfeiture only 2 hours ago, while the last round of the debate and the entire debate itself ended more than 5 hours ago, which further proves that his or her excuse of this being a technical glitch that he or she could not post the last round of the debate is baseless and unfounded.

If you want to see the proof then I can show you the screenshots proving that the debate ended much before he complained about that technical glitch by posting that comment below. Pls send me a message or comment it here if you want to see those screenshots.

The real reason of his or her forfeiture is that he or she was not competent enough to debate and could not prepare his or her debate on time. Even if my opponent now posts this last round of debate somewhere on the net then I am sure that you would agree that he or she should be penalized for not preparing debate on time as submitting your debate on time is also a criteria, as thinking of reasons within a time limit or at a short time also proves how smart you are to debate.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@Rwicks. Even if what you are saying is true, I think that when the debate was showing that you had more than one hour left to post your round, your access to internet was disconnected. That is why it was still showing more than one hour as the time was paused.

However, you were careless about time and did not realize that time was already over and therefore when you reconnected your internet then the panel showing time that you had more than one hour to post (which was actually paused due to internet disconnection) changed to voting panel.

With this carelessness, I am sure that the Judges can make out that you are not that smart and therefore your reasons given in this debate can be doubted that they are a result of deliberative mind and they are likely to be weak.

Also, the time shown that your comment where you tried to justify the forfeiture of your last round is that it is posted 2 hours ago. On the other hand, the time for the debate of the last round has ended much before 2 hours. This proves beyond doubt that the time showing more than one hour but its changing directly to voting panel was due to internet disconnection that the time was paused and your thinking that it is glitch is wrong. The real reason is that you were careless about time.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@Rwicks. You are making an excuse that due to some error in the site you could not post the debate, as nobody ever experienced such problem in the past. Why would there be any such error in the first place as a server is a machine and machines do not make mistakes as humans do?

Even if I agree that it was due to some technical glitch and if you really had something to debate then you would have posted it in some blog site and pasted the link here in comments like I did for previous rounds. However, it has been proved that it is a baseless excuse as you did not even do that.

You did not have the smartness to post it on a blog site and paste the link here in comments which proves that you do not have the smartness to debate either and all your reasons given previously in this debate are weak.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
Honourable Judges, as you can see my opponent, "Rwicks" has forfeited the last round so it is quite obvious and I am sure that even you would agree that he or she has ran out of words for debating.

Also, it proves to a very great extent that my opponent does not know how to debate his points for this topic, as the last round is the most important round than all other rounds where debaters usually put their best but my opponent forfeited the last and the most important round.

I am sure and need not be mentioned that you would penalize my opponent for that and vote accordingly. Thank you.
Posted by Rwicks 2 years ago
Rwicks
Uhm...I will assume this is a glitch and no manipulation on my opponent's part, but when I attempted to post my argument for round 5, it says that the debate had been closed and I was taken to the voting page? It said I had more than an hour left and was counting down when I attempted to post, now it says I forfeited the round?
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
Honorable Judges and my worthy opponent, the blog for debate of round 4 which I posted is not opening. Therefore, pls go through http://debateorg-round4.blogspot.in... for this round of debate.

Thnx and rgds.
Posted by Rwicks 2 years ago
Rwicks
There's a character limit for a reason. I will respond to your blogspot this time, and manage to fit it here on this website into the character limit. But if you cannot succinctly sum up your round with the space provided, then you should forfeit this debate.

Are you going to block me now for commenting here?

Also, can I have the phone number for the cyber police please?
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
For debate round 3

I think that it would be much easier to post that round of debate somewhere on net where there is no word limit. Here is the link ----> http://debateorg-round3.blogspot.in...

Pls go through the above link for that round of debate.

Thanx.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
The-Ultimate-debaterRwicksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeit really just sealed this. It seemed like both debaters were weak in certain rounds, but the final round secured it for Pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
The-Ultimate-debaterRwicksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. I was worried about Pro utilizing exterior pages for presenting his own arguments, but due to Con never contesting his doing so I will leave it at that. Con forfeited the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. For this, he loses conduct. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. Con forfeiting the final round allowed for Pro's arguments to remain standing unchallenged, and thus he met his BOP. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources ranging from Wikipedia pages to .org, for this they tie as both were of similar quality in terms of academic integrity.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
The-Ultimate-debaterRwicksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture