My opponent seems to
be confused about how evidence works.
It is not my fault if you are not smart enough to understand
that I know that how judiciary functions.
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.
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?
Washing your hands off from your duty by giving a baseless
excuse that, “This is not our job”, reminds me of government servants and
housemaids in my country who avoid doing work by giving this standard excuse
which is baseless.
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.
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 or should have that degree and not any degree of Arts or
Commerce? 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?
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?
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.
However, even if they are freed later with evidence, then
you must agree that they were earlier imprisoned and convicted without sufficient
evidence.
Whether someone else is bothering about it or not, but if
you claim to be a rationalist, you should have atleast spoken about it
somewhere in your blog or posted something.
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.
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.
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!!
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
You are also ignorant that psychologists and psychiatrists
also have protested against the irrational superstitious and religious acts. Here
are they:
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 proving 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
But, what does what I
do have to do with your original statement?
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”.
"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
Then again, I would also paste almost the same answer again:
You are also ignorant that psychologists and psychiatrists
also have protested against the irrational superstitious and religious acts. Here
are they:
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 Consumer 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 proving 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.
"(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.
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 but wherever he is, he
is abroad and out of India).
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."
It is opening perfectly here in my laptop/system. Here is
the link again -à http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/great-tantra-challenge-hoax-rationalist-international-india-tv-sanal-edamaruku/%20it
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.
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 versus
of Sanskrit. Even few them were, they were not those versus of killing someone
but on the contrary for restoring life.
Thirdly and lastly, 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? Do they not have
self-respect and dignity?
"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.
However, if it was a rationalist, he would have asked for
proof instead of arrogantly claiming that he was not ugly or he would have
given proof himself that he was not ugly.
He could have proved it by showing the opinion of others,
and in beauty contests judges, who are not personally related to the
contestants do impartially decide that who amongst the contestants is
beautiful, so is not a proof there?
Also, I never claimed that he was ugly, rather I stated that
he is acting like ugly girls do. Misunderstanding my statement proves that he
did not use rationality while reading and opposite of his claim to be a
rationalist.
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.
However, sometimes parents do say that we are ashamed of our
child, which does mean that other children are better than ours. If your child
is caught in a crime like stealing, you would be ashamed. However, if all
children are notorious and your child is also naughty, then you would not be
ashamed and will say that if children are not naughty then who would be? Us?
Every child is naughty so there is no need to feel ashamed.
Therefore, if it can happen this way, then why not
reversely? By stating that you are a proud father, you are indeed considering
yourself, maybe subconsciously, above those parents who cannot have children
due to biological or some other reason.
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.
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.
"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.
You claimed that rationalists are not against religion. What
I meant by question that why do you claim that rationalists are not against religion
but are atheists at the same time. I know very well that why are they atheists
so you need to teach me again.
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."
According to me, I have still not found any convincing
reason from your side that Rationalist Groups focus on other matters also other
than just religion.
"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.
Does the Skeptic’s Guide to Universe and all those books
focus on other matters like irrational government policies, wrongful
convictions, etc?