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

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.