“Give me answer for ‘2+2’.”
” Oh 2+2? It is so beautiful answer. So lovely response. 2+2 is amazing!”
———————–
Answer to 2+2 is straight away 4 and if I reply subjectively like above, it is foolishness.
Same way, if you ask me question for subjective domain and expect objective answer, it is also not appropriate.
Movie PK questions domain of faith. So one friend asked:
“Are this rituals not blind faith?
Feeding cow — to get a job
Pouring milk to Mahadeva — in order to get your wishes fulfilled…”
Now this is about faith. Subjective question. So answer cannot be binary Yes or No with some proof in favor or against.
This is how I answered:
“Have you seen bacteria? Have you seen virus? If not, why do you take so called antibiotics drugs? To kill whom?
You take it out of sheer faith. Nothing else.
And I am against the antibiotics so what do I do? Do I make fun of those who take antibiotics for their blind faith on drugs?
No. I show them negative impact of drugs on body. It is subjective. Everyone experience the side effects. You don’t need lab results to prove it.
Same way, personal vows and rituals is beauty of Sanatana dharma. Configurable vows. They are harmless, unlike your blind faith for antibiotics which actually pollutes environment too. 
😀. Show me negative impact of my personal vows on environment or family or self. Instead of showing negative impact or correction expected, movie PK shows blanket denial. That is foolishness. Childishness. If it was purposeful (like all Disney ventures are i.e. propoganda), it is dangerous.”
That’s a really bad argument.
You take antibiotics because, even though you cannot see the bacteria, they exist.
As a matter of fact, you only need to use a microscope to see them, thereby proving the existence of bacteria, and thus the efficacy of antibiotics.
Wheras no instrument is yet invented to prove the existence of God. Your rituals are indeed based on faith. Which is perfectly fine, but nothing like your argument.