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

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