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

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.