Dan McClellan On The Joe Rogan Show

[MG 2.0]

Lol. Ignore him, Philo.

Agreed. Fibber is utterly vile, with a track record so toxic and corrupt that it's genuinely sickening. Don't waste another second on him, cut him off completely and pretend he doesn't exist.

As you do, right?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Was Philo NOT being a bit arrogant?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I thought it was cool that the Mormon podcast Stick of Joseph also interviewed Dan and they all seemed to have a lot of fun and enjoyed doing it. This is everything FARMS wanted to be, and failed.

Thanks for the recommendation. Dan did a great job!

[Philo Sofee]

Much more about me. I don't suffer idiots much these days. I'd rather work on my book. It's a much more useful use of my time.

OK. I just thought I noted a tinge of arrogance in your comment.

Regards,
MG

Truth can be seen as arrogance by some, for sure. Doesn't matter to me. I know whereof I come from.....If Hanson thinks McClellan is a bad guy, because he interprets the Bible differently than Hanson does, not to mention Mormonism, it isn't arrogant of me to call Hanson an idiot.

This expose of Jacob Hanson the Mormon apologist, is STUNNING.... I have found this little gal is able to put her finger on the issue quickly, succinctly, and powerfully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYusZ4s1d-g&t=971s

[MG 2.0]

OK. I just thought I noted a tinge of arrogance in your comment.

Regards,
MG

Truth can be seen as arrogance by some, for sure. Doesn't matter to me. I know whereof I come from.....If Hanson thinks McClellan is a bad guy, because he interprets the Bible differently than Hanson does, not to mention Mormonism, it isn't arrogant of me to call Hanson an idiot.

What if Hansen agreed with and praised McClellan?

Still an idiot?

I know it's a "what if"...but I have to wonder if an idiot is simply someone who doesn't agree with you.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Truth can be seen as arrogance by some, for sure. Doesn't matter to me. I know whereof I come from.....If Hanson thinks McClellan is a bad guy, because he interprets the Bible differently than Hanson does, not to mention Mormonism, it isn't arrogant of me to call Hanson an idiot.

What if Hansen agreed with and praised McClellan?

Still an idiot?

I know it's a "what if"...but I have to wonder if an idiot is simply someone who doesn't agree with you. ...

Wow. Mg regularly projects but that is quite the admission. I don't think he realizes what he has said.

[MG 2.0]

What if Hansen agreed with and praised McClellan?

Still an idiot?

I know it's a "what if"...but I have to wonder if an idiot is simply someone who doesn't agree with you. ...

Wow. Mg regularly projects but that is quite the admission. I don't think he realizes what he has said.

Of course not! How could I if I’m projecting without knowing?

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

Truth can be seen as arrogance by some, for sure. Doesn't matter to me. I know whereof I come from.....If Hanson thinks McClellan is a bad guy, because he interprets the Bible differently than Hanson does, not to mention Mormonism, it isn't arrogant of me to call Hanson an idiot.

What if Hansen agreed with and praised McClellan?

Still an idiot?

I know it's a "what if"...but I have to wonder if an idiot is simply someone who doesn't agree with you.

Regards,
MG

No, an idiot is one that mis uses the evidence in order to get a point for Mormonism like Jacob does. Data not dogma is more important. Jacob imposes his Mormon understanding upon the Bible far too much. THAT is what makes him an idiot. He knows better. McClellen doesn't appear to me to do that. He lets the text stand and understand it on its own terms. Apologists won't do that. That is what makes them idiots.

[MG 2.0]

What if Hansen agreed with and praised McClellan?

Still an idiot?

I know it's a "what if"...but I have to wonder if an idiot is simply someone who doesn't agree with you.

Regards,
MG

No, an idiot is one that mis uses the evidence in order to get a point for Mormonism like Jacob does. Data not dogma is more important. Jacob imposes his Mormon understanding upon the Bible far too much. THAT is what makes him an idiot. He knows better. McClellen doesn't appear to me to do that. He lets the text stand and understand it on its own terms. Apologists won't do that. That is what makes them idiots.

If you’ve watched enough Jacob Hansen in his debates with other religionists and watched complete episodes of his YouTube channel then you are qualified to have an opinion.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

No, an idiot is one that mis uses the evidence in order to get a point for Mormonism like Jacob does. Data not dogma is more important. Jacob imposes his Mormon understanding upon the Bible far too much. THAT is what makes him an idiot. He knows better. McClellen doesn't appear to me to do that. He lets the text stand and understand it on its own terms. Apologists won't do that. That is what makes them idiots.

If you’ve watched enough Jacob Hansen in his debates with other religionists and watched complete episodes of his YouTube channel then you are qualified to have an opinion.

Regards,
MG

Oh, stop with the apologetic pap.
I haven't read every book about the Bible, but that doesn't disqualify me from discussing biblical scholarship. I don't know all of mathematics, but that doesn't prevent me from correctly teaching someone introductory calculus. And I haven't read every history book about ancient Egypt, but that doesn't mean I cannot discuss Egyptian history intelligently and accurately.
The issue is not whether someone knows everything about Jacob Hansen. The issue is whether they understand the particular argument they are evaluating.
Simply declaring that I must watch some unspecified number of debates and complete YouTube episodes before I am "qualified" to express an opinion is an arbitrary standard, not a logical rebuttal.
An argument stands or falls on its evidence and reasoning, not on how many hours of YouTube someone has watched.