Does Dinesh D'Souza know what "honesty" means?

[ImaginalDisc]

Just in time to financially exploit Easter, the wondrous and insightful Dinesh D'Souza chose to share his curious interpretation of reality with us in an article entitled "Did the Resurrection Really Happen?" (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/03/21/did-the-resurrection-actually-happen/)

Opening with the following paragraph, Dinesh wastes no time in making crap up.

The historicity of Christ, including his death by crucifixion, is a fact that about as well attested as any in the ancient world. The evidence for Christ's existence is much stronger than that for Socrates, Alexander the Great, and numerous figures of ancient times whose historicity no one doubts. Historians are unanimous that Christ was born, that he developed a following, that he antagonized the Jewish and Roman authorities, and that he was put to death. But what about the resurrection?

Sorry, but Alexander the Great's a tad better documented than J.C. At least his friends bothered to write something about him while he was still alive, and he was mentioned by non-Macedonians pretty damn extensively and quickly. Often in the form of "Oh, no! Alexander the Great has just kicked out butts. YEARGH! Quickly, placate him by renaming a city after him!"

If you're interested in reading dishonest drivel, I strongly recommend this seasonal idiocy.

[JoeEllison]

Does Dinesh D'Souza know what "honesty" means? Yes.

Does he apply it to his views and his writing? No.

[Ratatoskr]

I rant about this on my blog (http://streamofthoughts.com/).

It's funny how every evidence he comes up with comes from the bible. A book written down (and then translated a lot) several houndreds of years after these events. I'm pretty sure "artistic freedom" has been a part of it.

If only I could make a time machine and edit the original, telling the xians that I'm Jesus (the new guy), and that I want cookies.

[DOC]

I rant about this on my blog (http://streamofthoughts.com/).

It's funny how every evidence he comes up with comes from the bible. A book written down (and then translated a lot) several houndreds of years after these events.

Actually all of the Gospels were written in the first century (2 of them attributed to eyewitnesses, the apostles Matthew and John) and there were Christians in Rome as early as 64 ad during the reign of Emperor Nero, which would be only about 31 years after the resurrection.

And non-Christian writers Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, all mention Christ.

[fuelair]

Actually all of the Gospels were written in the first century (2 of them attributed to eyewitnesses, the apostles Matthew and John) and there were Christians in Rome as early as 64 ad during the reign of Emperor Nero, which would be only about 31 years after the resurrection.

And non-Christian writers Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, all mention Christ.
Oh leapfrogging Jeebus on a crutch, are you still here!!? Plyin and lyin just keep on!!.

[Moochie]

Actually all of the Gospels were written in the first century (2 of them attributed to eyewitnesses, the apostles Matthew and John) and there were Christians in Rome as early as 64 ad during the reign of Emperor Nero, which would be only about 31 years after the resurrection.

And non-Christian writers Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, all mention Christ.

Possibly true, but they weren't written in English, let alone modern English. Has anyone of your acquaintance read anything in the original? Ask them how far from the original the KJV is, for instance. Talk about "Chinese whispers"...

M.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Actually all of the Gospels were written in the first century (2 of them attributed to eyewitnesses, the apostles Matthew and John) and there were Christians in Rome as early as 64 ad during the reign of Emperor Nero, which would be only about 31 years after the resurrection.

Then why do the Gospels disagree with each other? Which is correct?

And non-Christian writers Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, all mention Christ.

A stupid lie repeated over and over by the credulous. If you go to the sources, you can easily show that this is not true.

[skeptical]

Actually all of the Gospels were written in the first century (2 of them attributed to eyewitnesses, the apostles Matthew and John)

"Attributed" is correct. It would be more correct to say that people guessed they might have been written by apostles, hoped they were, and labeled them with those names to give them apostolic authority as was done with numerous other manuscripts that did not make it into the official canon. The truth is there is much more reason for supposing they were not written by apostles than for supposing they were. The facts that they were written by very literate, Greek speaking authors weighs heavily against authorship by illiterate, Galilean peasants.

Not to mention that the gospel stories do not themselves claim to be historical accounts, they claim to be proclamations of the "good news", hagiographies of a kind well known in the ancient world. This coupled with the fact that we _know_ to a certainty that they were embellished over time (e.g. the "long" ending of Mark), means that a reasonable person would take anything reported in the stories with large quantities of salt and skepticism.


and there were Christians in Rome as early as 64 ad during the reign of Emperor Nero, which would be only about 31 years after the resurrection.

Why not just go back to Paul, writing in the 50's? Certainly there were Christians living in the 40's who predated Paul. As far as I know, no one doubts that there were members of the "Jesus movement" this early.


And non-Christian writers Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, all mention Christ.

Suetonius is a weak source, writing in the early 2nd century, and possibly not even writing about Jesus. It is not obvious that "chrestus" means "christos". Josephus is of course likely an interpolation with a bare mention probably authentic. But this misses the larger point. What these writers mention is very basic, at the very best they support that Jesus was a real person and that his followers started the Christian religion. They tell us almost nothing about Jesus' life and acts, and clearly do not support any of the magical aspects reported in the gospels.

Therefore, they cannot support the idea that from a historical point of view Jesus life is as well known as other historical figures, because its just not true.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Just in time to financially exploit Easter, the wondrous and insightful Dinesh D'Souza chose to share his curious interpretation of reality with us in an article entitled "Did the Resurrection Really Happen?" (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/03/21/did-the-resurrection-actually-happen/)

Opening with the following paragraph, Dinesh wastes no time in making crap up.



Sorry, but Alexander the Great's a tad better documented than J.C. At least his friends bothered to write something about him while he was still alive, and he was mentioned by non-Macedonians pretty damn extensively and quickly. Often in the form of "Oh, no! Alexander the Great has just kicked out butts. YEARGH! Quickly, placate him by renaming a city after him!"

If you're interested in reading dishonest drivel, I strongly recommend this seasonal idiocy.


The best part to watch Dinesh D'Souza engage himself into some serious strawmen and fallacious arguments is on youtube. Check him out on his debate against no one else but mr Daniel C Dennett. The debate is divided into 17 videos! But it's really worth checking it out.
(Here's an appetizer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4)


The way in which Dinesh completely looses the point Dennett is trying to make and completely (and rudely) twists his words can only be matched by some users in this forum (Maatorc and Dann come to mind).

I think Online Dictionaries should have people like him and perhaps some samples from this videos, to exemplify Strawman, Argument from Ignorance, Non Sequitur and other terms. More than trying to make bad advertisement on the person, I think he really brings the examples to life in his debates.

[JoeEllison]

We can, at least, always count on DOC(Devil's Only Child) to post some stupidity to every one of these threads.

[X]

I find it interesting that DOC lists Matthew as one of two possible eyewitness accounts of Jesus, when it is highly probable that the author of Matthew used the gospel of Mark as a source. Interesting also, because Mark references the destruction of the temple, something which occurred around 70 C.E. (or almost 40 years after the crucifiction).
So much for eyewitness testimony from Matthew.

Back on-topic: I have to wonder what Dinesh D'Souza thinks he will gain by telling such lies.
The only people who will be convinced are the ones already inclined to believe them.
If he is preaching to the flock, he surely has no need of lowering himself to lying. In fact, if his lies were revealed, they could cause some people to turn away from him.
If, instead, D'Souza is trying to convert people, lying is definately not the correct way to go.
At most, he can hope to convince a suggestible fence-sitter.
It hardly seems worth the risks of lying, to me.

[JoeEllison]

;3559172']I find it interesting that DOC lists Matthew as one of two possible eyewitness accounts of Jesus, when it is highly probable that the author of Matthew used the gospel of Mark as a source. Interesting also, because Mark references the destruction of the temple, something which occurred around 70 C.E. (or almost 40 years after the crucifiction).
So much for eyewitness testimony from Matthew.

Back on-topic: I have to wonder what Dinesh D'Souza thinks he will gain by telling such lies.
The only people who will be convinced are the ones already inclined to believe them.
If he is preaching to the flock, he surely has no need of lowering himself to lying. In fact, if his lies were revealed, they could cause some people to turn away from him.
If, instead, D'Souza is trying to convert people, lying is definately not the correct way to go.
At most, he can hope to convince a suggestible fence-sitter.
It hardly seems worth the risks of lying, to me.
You don't understand the mindset of the believer. They expect to be lied to... hell, they practically demand it! The faithful who he is preaching to expect to be fed a certain level of lie, in order to bolster their faith in relatively stupid ideas. What they want is not truth, but "truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)", things that aren't actually true, but fit someone's preconceived notions.

[X]

Reminds me of an opinion column in the local rag this last week.

Essentially, the author makes the case that congregations want to be taught "scripture, not theology".
In other words, they want confirmation of what they already hold to be true, not actual discussion about reality.

It makes me feel incredibly fortunate that my mother studies theology. I was never satisfied with the "Jesus loves me this I know" level of talk in church (the sermons were on the same level as Sunday School activities), in fact, that is part of what made me uninterested in the offerings of church. Being able to engage in frank and honest discussions of theology with her contributed greatly to my interest in the subject, and, eventually my atheism.

So, while I can understand the rationale behind the position, I can not understand why anybody would want it. It's utterly juvenial, and there is so much interesting stuff to learn in theology if people just let themselves learn.
Granted, most members of my church were old and acclimated to the status quo. Change would have been resisted (was, in fact).

Anyway, if you're interested, here's (http://winnipegsun.com/Comment/2008/03/22/5072781-sun.html) the op-ed piece I mentioned.

[fuelair]

;3559172']
Back on-topic: I have to wonder what Dinesh D'Souza thinks he will gain by telling such lies.
.
Same thing DoK does. Whatever the hell that is!!??:)

[autumn1971]

Hey! DOC! Right now, and without any sources, tell me what you know of David Koresh. Was he a prophet? As I am now remembering to you, everybody thought that he was a prophet.
David said he was a prophet. People believed that he was a prophet. He foretold his inevitable death to his followers, and prophesied that they too would be misunderstood and persecuted.
That's it. I am now a Seventh-Day Adventist (a suprisingly common sect here in the South, and one that believes essentially everything that Koresh said, only that he was an outlier, and must have been wrong, as the true prophet will lead them to a blood-soaked victory over the unbelievers).

[Zep]

Hey! DOC! Right now, and without any sources, tell me what you know of David Koresh. Was he a prophet? As I am now remembering to you, everybody thought that he was a prophet.
David said he was a prophet. People believed that he was a prophet. He foretold his inevitable death to his followers, and prophesied that they too would be misunderstood and persecuted.
That's it. I am now a Seventh-Day Adventist (a suprisingly common sect here in the South, and one that believes essentially everything that Koresh said, only that he was an outlier, and must have been wrong, as the true prophet will lead them to a blood-soaked victory over the unbelievers).Did this make sense to anyone else? :confused:

[SezMe]

Did this make sense to anyone else? :confused:
What struck me was that he says he "believes essentially everything that Koresh said" but in the same sentence asserts that "he ... must have been wrong," Huh?

So the direct answer to your question is trademarked by prewitt81, namely, "Nope"

[SezMe]

Actually all of the Gospels were written in the first century (2 of them attributed to eyewitnesses, the apostles Matthew and John) <snip>
At the risk of repeating myself yet once again, the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. No serious biblical scholar believes otherwise.

[RandFan]

Thank you.

I've been trying to tie down a claim by D'Souza. He says that before Christianity their was a Roman proverb, "the tears of strangers are only water". At least I think he attributes it to the Romans. In any event, everything I can find indicates that it is a Russian proverb.

Does anyone know?

[DOC]

At the risk of repeating myself yet once again, the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. No serious biblical scholar believes otherwise.

I notice very few people in here are using sources.

And are you saying there are no serious bible scholars in the 2000 year old Catholic Church or other Christian denominations that believe the Gospels were written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.

[DOC]

;3559172']I find it interesting that DOC lists Matthew as one of two possible eyewitness accounts of Jesus, when it is highly probable that the author of Matthew used the gospel of Mark as a source. Interesting also, because Mark references the destruction of the temple, something which occurred around 70 C.E. (or almost 40 years after the crucifiction).
So much for eyewitness testimony from Matthew.

In my Bible Mark is 25 pages and Mathew is 39 pages. If Mathew needed Mark as a source it would seem their Gospels should be close in length but they are not. But I guess if your an eyewitness it would be easy to add 14 additional pages to a previous account.

And Mark references Jesus' "prediction" of the destruction of the temple. You imply that he references the actual destruction, which is not the case:

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings [are here]!

Mark 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

____

And the eyewitness John who was part of Jesus' inner circle (who Jesus asked to look after His mother and who was present at the transfiguration) would have access to even more info than most of the other apostles. And this additional info almost certainly came out in his gospel.

[joobz]

In my Bible Mark is 25 pages and Mathew is 39 pages. If Mathew needed Mark as a source it would seem their Gospels should be close in length but they are not. But I guess if your an eyewitness it would be easy to add 14 additional pages to a previous account.
You're right, because it's completely impossible to make stuff up. I mean, you'd think that if people were able to write endlessly about stuff that never actually happened, there would be a word for it.

Fiction

[joobz]

I notice very few people in here are using sources.

Why should anyone bother? Afterall, when well sourced and conclusive arguments are made which contradict your prejudices, you simply ignore them.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3534620&postcount=623

[SezMe]

I notice very few people in here are using sources.

Who Wrote the Gospels by Randel Helms. As joobz notes, you asking for sources should be occassion for only laughter.

And are you saying there are no serious bible scholars in the 2000 year old Catholic Church or other Christian denominations that believe the Gospels were written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Yes.

[Bikewer]

Bart Ehrman for one; maintains in his numerous writings on the subject that none of the "canonical" gospels were written by the individuals who's names were attached, none of them were written by witnesses to the events, and all are copies of copies of copies, and written down after extensive oral re-telling.

Also, apologists seldom mention that there are over 100 "gospels" known to scholars, and dozens of early-Christian sects which all had wildly different ideas and views of Jesus, God, the universe and whatever.

[schlitt]

Dinesh D'Souza has the most grating, annoying voice i have ever heard. I find it impossible to watch the full debates he enages in. My blood starts to boil watching his straw men, his inane points with no substance, and his inability to process any argument apart from his own creations. Then to top it off hearing his voice and condescending tone makes me want to punch my monitor.

I think Dinesh debates are bad for my health.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

And are you saying there are no serious bible scholars in the 2000 year old Catholic Church or other Christian denominations that believe the Gospels were written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.


Yes.

Well then you would be incorrect, read the Catholic Encyclopedia on those Gospels for one example. And if you're so sure they were not written by those men then "who" wrote them. They just didn't spring up out of thin air. And it made perfect sense for some of the authors of the Gospels not to identify themselves. Remember they were living in hostile Roman occupied territory where people could get killed for writing such things or promoting Christianity. It would be like someone writing a book called "The greatness of the Jewish People" in 1940 Germany and then signing his name to it. What do you think would of happened to the author.

[DOC]

Why should anyone bother? Afterall, when well sourced and conclusive arguments are made which contradict your prejudices, you simply ignore them.

In case you didn't notice, this isn't my thread. You (and others) should be concerned about how other people would be interested the source of your statements to prove their reliability.

[ImaginalDisc]

In case you didn't notice, this isn't my thread. You (and others) should be concerned about how other people would be interested the source of your statements to prove their reliability.

I would hazard to guess that everyone else who has posted on this thread knows more about the history and inconsistencies of the four canonical gospels than you do. I have participated in threads with you where posters made concerted, detailed efforts to educate you, but you remains willfully ignorant.

Pearls before swine.

[DOC]

You're right, because it's completely impossible to make stuff up. I mean, you'd think that if people were able to write endlessly about stuff that never actually happened, there would be a word for it.

Fiction

Well if a guy like the physician Luke wrote fiction he sure did go through a lot of effort to give precise dates, places, and historical people. And he spent a lot of time risking his life traveling with Paul, who was often attacked and beaten up, in order to promote his fiction.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well if a guy like the physician Luke wrote fiction he sure did go through a lot of effort to give precise dates, places, and historical people. And he spent a lot of time risking his life traveling with Paul, who was often attacked and beaten up, in order to promote his fiction.

Do you have any evidence that the author of Luke was or did any of those things you say?

[DOC]

I would hazard to guess that everyone else who has posted on this thread knows more about the history and inconsistencies of the four canonical gospels than you do. I have participated in threads with you where posters made concerted, detailed efforts to educate you, but you remains willfully ignorant.

Pearls before swine.

Well if they know more than me then it should be no problem to come up with a source and a excerpt for their statements.

And if they don't want to do it for me, do it for others. This is not my thread.

[joobz]

Well if a guy like the physician Luke wrote fiction he sure did go through a lot of effort to give precise dates, places, and historical people. And he spent a lot of time risking his life traveling with Paul, who was often attacked and beaten up, in order to promote his fiction.
Have you read the Wheel of time by Robert Jordan? There's >3000 pages of precise dates places and times.
Have you read "the eight"? There are exact places, dates and historical people, but it's totally made up too.

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

Well if a guy like the physician Luke wrote fiction he sure did go through a lot of effort to give precise dates, places, and historical people. And he spent a lot of time risking his life traveling with Paul, who was often attacked, beaten up, and put in prison, in order to promote his fiction.



Do you have any evidence that the author of Luke was or did any of those things you say?

Well this Catholic Encyclopedia website gives extensive internal and external evidence for the Gospel of Luke.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

[DOC]

Have you read the Wheel of time by Robert Jordan? There's >3000 pages of precise dates places and times.
Have you read "the eight"? There are exact places, dates and historical people, but it's totally made up too.

Yea, but did Jordan risk traveling with a man like Paul whose life was in constant danger.

[joobz]

Yea, but did Jordan risk traveling with a man like Paul whose life was in constant danger.
I don't know, I didn't know him personally.

On the other hand, Stephen King wrote a story where he Met his main character, the Gunslinger Roland. He wrote a detailed account about how he met Roland before he was hit by a car. There are many accounts of King's auto accident. Does this fact prove that Roland is real? Or that he met him?

[ImaginalDisc]

Posted by DOC

Well if a guy like the physician Luke wrote fiction he sure did go through a lot of effort to give precise dates, places, and historical people. And he spent a lot of time risking his life traveling with Paul, who was often attacked, beaten up, and put in prison, in order to promote his fiction.





Well this Catholic Encyclopedia website gives extensive internal and external evidence for the Gospel of Luke.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm


QUOTE from your source:

The name Lucas (Luke) is probably an abbreviation from Lucanus, like Annas from Ananus, Apollos from Apollonius, Artemas from Artemidorus, Demas from Demetrius, etc. (Schanz, "Evang. des heiligen Lucas", 1, 2; Lightfoot on "Col.", iv, 14; Plummer, "St. Luke", introd.)

The word Lucas seems to have been unknown before the Christian Era; but Lucanus is common in inscriptions, and is found at the beginning and end of the Gospel in some Old Latin manuscripts (ibid.). It is generally held that St. Luke was a native of Antioch. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. III, iv, 6) has: Loukas de to men genos on ton ap Antiocheias, ten episteuen iatros, ta pleista suggegonos to Paulo, kai rots laipois de ou parergos ton apostolon homilnkos--"Lucas vero domo Antiochenus, arte medicus, qui et cum Paulo diu conjunctissime vixit, et cum reliquis Apostolis studiose versatus est." Eusebius has a clearer statement in his "Quæstiones Evangelicæ", IV, i, 270: ho de Loukas to men genos apo tes Boomenes Antiocheias en--"Luke was by birth a native of the renowned Antioch" (Schmiedel, "Encyc. Bib."). Spitta, Schmiedel, and Harnack think this is a quotation from Julius Africanus (first half of the third century). In Codex Bezæ (D) Luke is introduced by a "we" as early as Acts 11:28; and, though this is not a correct reading, it represents a very ancient tradition. The writer of Acts took a special interest in Antioch and was well acquainted with it (Acts 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:18-21, 14:25, 15:22, 23, 30, 35; 18:22). We are told the locality of only one deacon, "Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch", 6:5; and it has been pointed out by Plummer that, out of eight writers who describe the Russian campaign of 1812, only two, who were Scottish, mention that the Russian general, Barclay de Tolly, was of Scottish extraction. These considerations seem to exclude the conjecture of Renan and Ramsay that St. Luke was a native of Philippi.
Emphasis added

Further quotation would likely breach membership agreements.

I see no evidence, only rampant speculation and warrantless dismissal of contradictory facts to the presupposed conclusion.

[SezMe]

This is not my thread.
The fact that you did not start the thread is no excuse for not providing evidence to support your claims. If not being the author of the OP is such a constraint on you, get out of the thread.

ETA: And please learn how to use the button between the Quote button and the Reply button. It really is quite handy.

[ponderingturtle]

Bart Ehrman for one; maintains in his numerous writings on the subject that none of the "canonical" gospels were written by the individuals who's names were attached, none of them were written by witnesses to the events, and all are copies of copies of copies, and written down after extensive oral re-telling.

Also, apologists seldom mention that there are over 100 "gospels" known to scholars, and dozens of early-Christian sects which all had wildly different ideas and views of Jesus, God, the universe and whatever.

How dare you question the divine commity in its selection of the real gospels!

Burn the Heretic!

[DOC]

The fact that you did not start the thread is no excuse for not providing evidence to support your claims. If not being the author of the OP is such a constraint on you, get out of the thread.

I've probably given more sources than anyone else in here with the exception of the thread creator. Examples would be post 21 and 34.

[Hokulele]

I've probably given more sources than anyone else in here with the exception of the thread creator. Examples would be post 21 and 34.


How many of your sources have been proven inaccurate in the past? Why should we suddenly start trusting your sources now? Have you learned how to research a topic? And no, linking to the first hit in Google that seems to be friendly (i.e. the Catholic Encyclopedia) does not constitute scholarship.

[DOC]

How many of your sources have been proven inaccurate in the past? Why should we suddenly start trusting your sources now? Have you learned how to research a topic? And no, linking to the first hit in Google that seems to be friendly (i.e. the Catholic Encyclopedia) does not constitute scholarship.

I've learned to research a topic enough to attract 130,000 hits to my threads in the last 14 months.

[Hokulele]

I've learned to research a topic enough to attract 130,000 hits to my threads in the last 14 months.


Do you realize the difference between people laughing with you versus laughing at you?

[DOC]

Do you realize the difference between people laughing with you versus laughing at you?

Well, I invite anyone to go to my profile page and get a link to my 20 threads. And see how much laughing you do.

Now let's get away from your same ol' same ol' personal attacks and back to our discussions.

[Hokulele]

Well, I invite anyone to go to my profile page and get a link to my 20 threads. And see how much laughing you do.

Now let's get away from your same ol' same ol' personal attacks and back to our discussions.


Which one, the discussion of the poor quality of your sources? I would be happy to provide links if you need.

[joobz]

Why should anyone bother? Afterall, when well sourced and conclusive arguments are made which contradict your prejudices, you simply ignore them.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3534620&postcount=623

In case you didn't notice, this isn't my thread. You (and others) should be concerned about how other people would be interested the source of your statements to prove their reliability.
I'm not certain what this sentence is supposed to have said.
It seems rather nonsensical.

[joobz]

Well, I invite anyone to go to my profile page and get a link to my 20 threads. And see how much laughing you do.
I agree, DOC. I hope people will go to your threads.
Especially, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=623 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3534620&postcount=623) .
They would learn conclusive facts, such as, "Suicide rate does not correlate to % atheism."

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I've learned to research a topic enough to attract 130,000 hits to my threads in the last 14 months.

You apparently still have a lot to learn.

DOC, "page views" or "hits" do not have the signifigance that you seem to think they do. The high number of views does not mean that thousands of people agree with you. It does not mean that thousands of people think you know what you are talking about. It does not mean that you have thousands of anonymous supporters.

Allow me to spell it out for you:
H ow
I diots
T rack
S uccess

Rinse and repeat.

[Cactus Wren]

I've learned to research a topic enough to attract 130,000 hits to my threads in the last 14 months.

"I have lots and lots of hits." The Gene Ray Proof of Rightness.

[DOC]

Which one, the discussion of the poor quality of your sources? I would be happy to provide links if you need.

Don't forget to mention the "Library of Congress Exhibit" I brought into the Jefferson thread. A few of you thought that was a poor quality source, too.

And by the way, have any of you read any books by Dinesh D'Souza. I have, its called "The Enemy Within". He contends that liberal ideology (and its encroachment on the world) is the main reason much of the world hates us. And he believes this was the main reason 911 happened.

[JoeEllison]

Don't forget to mention the "Library of Congress Exhibit" I brought into the Jefferson thread. A few of you thought that was a poor quality source, too.

And by the way, have any of you read any books by Dinesh D'Souza. I have, its called "The Enemy Within". He contends that liberal ideology (and its encroachment on the world) is the main reason much of the world hates us. And he believes this was the main reason 911 happened.

It figures that a lying anti-American such as yourself would be a big fan of a lying anti-American like Dinesh D'Souza.

[DOC]

I agree, DOC. I hope people will go to your threads.
Especially, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=623 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3534620&postcount=623) .
They would learn conclusive facts, such as, "Suicide rate does not correlate to % atheism."

Since you brought it up, what is your "specific data" that makes it conclusive in your opinion.

Why don't you put your response in the other thread, since it is off topic in this thread.

[DOC]

It figures that a lying anti-American such as yourself would be a big fan of a lying anti-American like Dinesh D'Souza.

Why do you believe D'Souza, who you think is a liar and anti-American, would write a book that praises America called "What's So Great About America"?

http://books.google.com/books?id=tFcDN5D1SLQC&dq=Dinesh+D+Souza&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=Books+by+d%27Souza&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=3&cad=author-navigational

[joobz]

Since you brought it up, what is your "specific data" that makes it conclusive in your opinion.

Why don't you put your response in the other thread, since it is off topic in this thread.
Actually, DOC, the data is presented and well cited. the current onerous is on YOU to either admit error or find fault with what was presented.

I'll even bump the article for you, so that you can read it and give an honest response.


Let's remember the tie in into this thread. I do not think it is worth the effort presenting you with data. Since that thread proves that you will ignore evidence which clearly proves your prejudices wrong.

[Hokulele]

Don't forget to mention the "Library of Congress Exhibit" I brought into the Jefferson thread. A few of you thought that was a poor quality source, too.


Yup. Here's why.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2935697#post2935697