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

"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.