Chestertonian Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I thought Dinesh D'Souza beat him. His brother, Peter Hitchens, did pretty well against him too. FWIW, I liked Hitch, and I do hope God has mercy on his soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 The winner of these particular debates I'm referring to (Not all debates have winners, true) received far more claps from the audience and their fame rating went through the roof. He was the key to many theists turning into athiests. In this instance he was the winner. Many times over. Can YOU think of any religious debates he lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 D'Souza is a staunch neoconservative, and began his public career while still at Dartmouth College, writing for conservative publications like theDartmouth Review, which became notorious for its racist and anti-gay content under D'Souza's editorship, and The Prospect.[4] In this period, he criticized Dartmouth's policy of affirmative action and used the publication to attack gay rights and gay students. In one issue of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza published an interview with a Ku Klux Klan leader. However, far from being controversy-seeking and "edgy" journalism (contrast with John Safran interviewing KKK leaders), the piece was accompanied by a photo of a lynched black man, and the rest of the publication became well-known for its mocking tone of "black speak." The Review also frequently "outed" gay students against their wishes. His far-right slant on many subjects led others to nickname him "Distort D'Newsa."[5] He then went to work for the Policy Review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 Seems a bit of a nut to me, who would listen to him. LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestertonian Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 (edited) You really had to google 'D'Souza'? You're either a really uninformed Hitchens cheerleader, or you're a troll. My bet's on the latter. Edited August 4, 2013 by Chestertonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 No I know that bigoted fool but not very well. I was been lazy and I couldn't put it as eloquently as Wiki. Plus I didn't know about the KKK connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestertonian Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 (edited) Except the excerpt you posted was actually from 'rationalwiki,' some militant atheist faux 'encyclopedia.' The regular wiki page on him wasn't juicy enough for you, huh? Edited August 4, 2013 by Chestertonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 No it wasn't juicy enough but still juicy all the same. Whatever one you look at the bloke is still a racist bigoted moron. Would you respect the opinions (any opinions) of a guy associated with the KKK. I'm guessing you would right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 May God bless him, may the angels lead him into paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 Nice sentiment thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 D'Souza is a legit intellectual. Did you know that Christopher Hitchens favorably reviewed his book, "Life After Death: The Evidence"? He definitely didn't agree with you about D'Souza being a fool. You need to stop using wiki for a source - ANY type of public-edited source is a suspect one. If you go to a wiki every time you need to learn about someone, you will be easily controlled by mob think. Do your own reading and think for yourself. I don't really watch any of these debates because they are very boring. It's not possible to prove God exists. It's also not possible to prove he doesn't exist. Let's watch a couple people try for a couple hours. Snore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestertonian Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 No it wasn't juicy enough but still juicy all the same. Whatever one you look at the bloke is still a racist bigoted moron. Would you respect the opinions (any opinions) of a guy associated with the KKK. I'm guessing you would right? Ya, the KKK and I are tight. Please don't tell them I'm a non-white Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 How patronising. I read Hitchens, Dawkins and Michael Baigent lol. I do use wiki a lot but your jumping on the bandwagon by assuming they accept anyones post and take it for gospel.There's tons of sources I use if i'm stuck on something hard, but tbh, I didn't think it necessary in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 You're most welcome Quinn. It's from the Catholic burial rite: The priest, facing the body, says: Into your hands, O merciful Savior, we commend your servant. Acknowledge, we humbly beseech you, a sheep of your own fold, a lamb of your own flock, a sinner of your own redeeming. Receive him into the arms of your mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the glorious company of the saints in light. As the body is borne out: May the angels lead you into Paradise. At your coming may the martyrs receive you, and bring you into the holy city, Jerusalem. I took a year of Islamic philosophy, and they also have beautiful rituals for commending the dead. O Allah! Forgive him and have Mercy on him and give him strength and pardon him. Be generous to him and cause his entrace to be wide and wash him with water and snow and hail. Cleanse him of his transgressions as white cloth is cleansed of stains. Give him a better family, a better home, a better spouse. Take him into Paradise and protect him from the punishment of the grave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn Posted August 4, 2013 Author Share Posted August 4, 2013 Wiki Says.... In 1976, Baigent moved to England, where he met Richard Leigh, the man who was to be his roommate and frequent co-author. Leigh introduced him to the alleged mystery ofRennes-le-Château in France, and Baigent launched into research on the matter. In the same decade, Leigh introduced him to Henry Lincoln, an English television scriptwriter, while Lincoln was lecturing at a summer school. The three discovered that they shared an interest in the Knights Templar, and took their Jesus bloodline theory on the road during the 1970s, in a series of lectures which later developed into the 1982 book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Published on 18 January 1982, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail popularised the hypothesis that the true nature of the quest for the Holy Grail was that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child together, the first of a bloodline which later married into a Frankish royal dynasty, the Merovingians, and was all tied together by a society known as thePriory of Sion. These ideas were later used as a basis for Dan Brown's international bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. The theory that Jesus and Mary were in a carnal (physical) relationship is based on Baigent's interpretation of the Holy Kiss on the mouth (typically between males in early Christian times, thus signifying Mary's emancipation), and spiritual marriage, as given in the Gospel of Philip. The theory was perpetuated by authors Laurence Gardner andMargaret Starbird. The day after the publication the authors had a public clash on BBC television with the Bishop of Birmingham and Marina Warner.[6] The book rapidly climbed the bestseller charts, and had a sequel, The Messianic Legacy. The book has been described as "a work thoroughly debunked by scholars and critics alike"[7] and it was called "one of the all-time great works of pop pseudohistory" in a review in the New York Times Book Review. [8] Later, he and Leigh co-authored several books, including The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (1991) in which they primarily followed the controversial theories of Robert Eisenmanconcerning the interpretation of the Scrolls. LOOKS OK TO ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now