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.
Religious
Rationalists
Rationalist group
Judge (like in a court)
Jury (like in a court)
Common Sense
Science
Scientist
Blab
He keeps using these words.
It is because that you keep
repeating your points in every round and do not include any new reasons for the
debate.
But they do not mean what he thinks they mean.
It means that you are
changing the meaning of those words which are written in the dictionary.
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.
It has some connection with
religion as it was reported first in 7th century AD by Irish monk
who showed a cross when the beast attacked a man and the beast stopped on
seeing the cross. Here is the link --à
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster#Saint_Columba_.286th_century.29
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.
Honorable Judges,
point to be noted that an error of spelling (if he or she does not mean the 2008 movie 'Religulous', but seems not likely so as this does not have any relevance here) has been made by my opponent which
is “religulous” instead of “religious”. Even if he/she meant the movie 'Religulous' then the error made by him/her is that R should be capital in 'Religulous'. I hope you penalize him/her for that
and also proves that his/her allegation
of my English being second language is completely baseless. He/she did not
provide any evidence of any errors in my English but I have provided evidence.
Thank you, now I’ll move further for countering his/her statement with my
reasons.
If it means much more then prove it by
giving links. Give me links where they are attacking pseudo-scientific,
medicine or history claims. Whatever protest he or she has shown, is somewhere
or the other connected to religion.
Honorable Judges, merely making claims other
than providing links or any evidence proves that my opponent does not know how
to debate and for this also I hope that there is penalization from your side.
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/
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/
Firstly, it is your duty to
investigate and provide evidence when you are making a claim. The judge does
not go and investigate, the police does as it is them who file charges against
the suspect. If I do your job, it would affect mine, just as you said that if you
do someone else’s job, you would leave your own job unfinished.
Secondly, this is also has
some connection with religion because if you see the paragraph titled, “CIA:
The Enemy Within?”, it states that, “Conspiracy theories involving secret societies have been with us for
centuries, frequently oriented along religious lines. Religious themes are
largely passé among modern conspiracists, but there is one secret society of
sorts that may inspire suspicion among Americans from every walk of life and of
all political persuasions”.
Thirdly, if I have to Google sites which
have no relevance then I can post and quote not just 4 but 400 sites. If you
want to prove that you are the only hardworking person and I am lazy then you
did not prove it correctly. You did not get the reason of my not searching in
Google correctly as it was due to no reason that it has relevance to your point
of debate rather than my laziness.
Even if it is something related to other
than religion, then can you send some more links to prove that they broadly
focus on other issues as well as my starting statement in round one was, “Rationalist groups all over the world are just or mainly just against religion”.
So, therefore even if I take that, then this is just one issue.
Richard Dawkins on the anti-vaccinnation movement.
richarddawkins.net/2014/01/how-vaccine-fears-fueled-the-resurgence-of-preventable-diseases/
Honorable Judges, please note
that this is the second time that my opponent has committed a spelling mistake.
It is “vaccination” and not “vaccinnation” as he/she has typed. I am sure that you would penalize him/her for
that and again it clearly proves that his/her allegation of English being my second
language is unfounded and baseless.
When I entered Richard
Dawkins in Wikipedia, nowhere
in the description it was shown that he was member of any Rationalist group. It
defined him as, “Clinton
Richard Dawkins /ˈdɔːkɨnz/, DSc, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist,[1] and writer.”, but not a Rationalist Group member or even a
rationalist.
You can check it out here
--à http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Ultimate rationalist Christopher Hitchens' views about socialism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Christopher_Hitchens
Ultimate rationalist Christopher Hitchens' views about socialism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Christopher_Hitchens
Again, whom you even
described as ultimate, Christopher Hitchens' was nowhere described in Wikipedia
as a rationalist or a member of any Rationalist Group. Even he was a member, he
was also a journalist and journalists do express their views so he did not
express it as a rationalist but as a journalist.
A member of any Rationalist
Group at home states that my children should go to school X as it is cheaper,
will you say that he being a member of a Rationalist group stated that? Every father
thinks that which school should his children go to, so give me that link where
a member of a Rationalist Group protested clearly as a member and not as any
other person.
Anyways, Christopher Hitchens
was not a member of any Rationalist Group anyway and this is defined in this
site -à http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
Also, I do not think that
he was a rationalist by his heart or mind also, most contrarily when you called
him as a ‘ultimate rationalist’ probably just copied from my nickname in this
site as The-Ultimate-Debator, as he got addicted to drinking and smoking
causing his death as a cancer. Had he been a rationalist, he would have judged
the decision of starting to smoke and drink very judiciously that he might be
addicted to it and it may cause him cancer.
And here's Bob Aganoosh talking about the flying spaghetti being:
www.scr.ewyouikn.owyo/urenotgoin/gtobo.the/rchec/kingthisany/way.org
This site also is not opening and Bob Aganoosh is so famous that he does not have any article in Google, not just in Wikipedia.
However, even if there is, flying
spaghetti is connected with religion as the Wikipedia defines it as, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is
the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism (aportmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian), a
movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the
teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[3] Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion,[3] it is generally seen by the media as a parody religion”.
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.
Honorable Judges, the above
statement of my opponent proves that he/she himself/herself agreed that
rationalists protest only against religion. You would surely agree that there
cannot be a bigger evidence than that.
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 also gave links and reasons other than
saying that if you have ignored or you are not smart enough to realize that.
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.
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.
I also gave reasons and
links which you have probably missed out due to your carelessness, inefficiency
and incompetency in smartness.
Highlights:
"You never mentioned quack medicine."
- Define quack medicine.
Highlights:
"You never mentioned quack medicine."
- Define quack medicine.
If you again goto
Wikipedia, then quack medicine also includes magical therapy and that is the
only reason that Rationalist Groups are against it.
Also, if they really
protest, then why do you not give me links and evidence?
"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?
"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?
Yes, it is not a
rationalist group. You make me go to Wikipedia again and again to prove you
wrong. In that site, the definition of Amnesty International nowhere has the
word, ‘rational’.
"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?
If they do, then give me proof and links. Honorable Judges, you can see that my opponent just makes claims and does not give any proof with links and sites. This proves that he or she does not know how to debate and I hope you note this down too as a point for penalization.
"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.
It should be, “Then he
starts/started ignoring them’. You do not know perhaps but in this site for
debate spelling and grammar mistakes are also counted for penalization, so this
is the relevance.
What do you want me to do
if I do not dismiss it? That I should misunderstand your paragraph and answer
it differently? It would be quite useless.
"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.
"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.
The one I gave example of
i.e. Sanal is acting like a hardcore rationalist and he even quit his job to
devote maximum time, but still focuses on just religion, so how could this be
his hobby if he even left his job?
"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.
"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.
Those rationalists are not
member of any rationalist group too. Also, perhaps they never got a chance to
come 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.
"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.
However, the topic of the
debate is this only, that why does a member of any Rationalist group protest
only against religion and you spoke as if you are also a member of a
rationalist group. Anyways, if you are not, then this statement though had, ‘you’
in it, was not meant for you but for those who are member of a rationalist group.
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?
A true rationalist would
first think of himself or herself rather than the world for which he or she is
doing social service. In our country, there is a system in exam that
photocopies of the answer scripts will not be given back if you suspect that your
marks are below the reasonable expectation and you are expected to score very
high marks.
If he was a true
rationalist, then he would have protested against this unfair system as it
concerns him first.
There are more serious issues
which cause more harm than religion and that is population explosion, and not
controlling it by coercive means is also irrational.
If they are concentrating
just one issue just because of its sensitivity and the amount of loss it
causes, then when you go to the police station, do they say that we will just
register cases for fraud of more than one million rupees/dollars only and not
one thousand rupees or dollars? They may give a little time than the amount
conned which is lower than the amount which is higher but atleast they register
it. It is because if they ignore the smaller cause then that may give rise to a
bigger cause and the person who conned one thousand dollars may next time con
you with one million dollars as he gets a boost that the case was not even
registered.
In the same way, wrongful
convictions cannot be dealt in isolation as this gives boost to the people and
encourages them to be more irrational and believe superstitious beliefs also
next time if you allow them to practice accepting convictions without
sufficient evidence, and this in return boosts religion and causes not just one
thousand years of injustice but one million years of injustice.
If you think that instead
of studying in kindergarten, I should straight away start with high school as
that is more sensitive and may cause more loss if I do not clear them, then how
can you write a paragraph in high school when you have not even learnt the
alphabets? Therefore, issues and causes are related with each other and cannot
be dealt in isolation by completely ignoring the other.
Also, atleast one blog or
one article should have been made by members of a rationalist group if this was
a smaller issue of wrongful conviction than religion, as in police station they
atleast do register and do some investigation even if at small level than for
bigger cases, but members of rationalist groups did not even do that.
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.
I do not need to Google because
your entire statement is wrong. Those scientists are mainly not part of any
rationalist group either.
"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.....
"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.....
Commenting on a court case
or its judgment on a conviction is something that you do not know? That means
that you do not have common sense as members of the jury are from the common
public. This is a very baseless excuse that you have given that you do not know
and if you really do not know, then you do not know anything which even a
simple guy with common sense would know.
Your supervisor told you to
just pull down the handle of the nuclear power plant which will shut it down and you say that I do not know how to do that
and if that will kill all of you then it is as good as saying that switching off
the computer will also kill me, as if there is some ghost which gets activated
by switching it off.
"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.....
"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.....
Stephen hawking may have
made claims of him being an atheist, but again, did he claim or is he part of
any rationalist group? Most scientists are atheists, as science has always
battled with religion due to its theories and evidences clashing with religion.
Honorable
Judges, this is the third time my opponent has made an error in his or her English as a grammatical
mistake has been made by my opponent by saying, “Wait this sounds familiar” without a comma after “Wait”. This proves that his or her English is totally garbled.
"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.
"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.
I already gave you evidences
above that it is connected to religion when it was first claimed to be
discovered in the 7th century AD.
"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.
"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.
What was originally claimed
by you was that by giving an example of geology, only a geologist can claim and
comment on the existence of Lemuria when I criticized that why members of
rationalist groups do not comment on wrongful convictions. That was the
original topic. So, how can you claim now that people who do not have a degree in science can also comment on science when you first stated that only a geologist can comment on existence of Lemuria? is this not a contradiction of your own two statements?
