Oooof. Wow. That hit.

I need a trigger warning for this. Hot coffee just exited through my nose at a high rate of speed. Thanks for that.

Lmfao

This observation should be shocking.

it's only SA if we allow her to speak up 👀

Right…lol

Dan is metal 🤟

Dan is metal 🤟

The slow, song-song speech pattern is very effective on kindergartners

It’s worst in science. My wife of 40 years airily dismisses anything I say about the field in which I hold an advanced degree. Science is the only field where people take “alternative” seriously. I want to use an alternative carpenter next time. They don’t buy into the whole conspiracy of “big nail.”

The problem is really in education itself. Schools teach people that facts learned third-hand are valuable and make "us" smarter. That's not how it works in the real world, yet schools and grades mislead people into thinking that having a set of facts is all that is important. Schools don't teach people that a fact you can personally confirm through your own personal understanding of the sources is way more valuable than a fact that you read from any odd expert -- even from Dan McClellan. Authority figures should _inform_ us, not rule us -- otherwise all we get into is a battle between authority figures. Churches just make it worse. There it's _all_ about harmonizing with third-party dogma.

@@philsphan4414I understand where you are coming from. Doctorates in Neurosciences and Pharmacology and I still have to tolerate a father-in-law making comments about covid vaccines and how that it is little more than the flu.

Well Jesus didn’t go to college so check mate

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - 1995

Good point. I would like to add (to what Dan said) that those opinions are EDUCATED opinions. Educated by STUDY and text analysis so that it is "our best understanding" A general survey of what "people" think about a passage regardless of their understanding of textual criticism, would just yield a consensus of VALUES most people share (the general zeitgeist) and the commenter in the clip above is right in criticizing that approach to bible reading (as he unknowingly does the same himself)

Apologetics is always rather fascinating to me in that respect. KZfaq channels like Testify that are willing to put in hundreds of hours reading apologetic works about why scholars are confused and not doing their job right, and think those apologetic texts make them an expert in the field. But discount the thousands of hours of training done by actual scholars as "echo chambers" that just reinforce existing beliefs and are biased against the Bible. It seems like there must be some sort of projection going on there to think the entire field of Biblical scholarship are the ones trying to twist the texts to say whatever they want them to say.

Thank you for spelling that, as I couldn’t figure it out to look up. But now I need to find a way to use that. 😁

Well he did use hermeneutics first. I don't know if he used it right, but ye gods did it sound out of place. Like he dragged out his biggest word for this argument

He probably looked up "consensus" but not "academic consensus." If he really is as proudly uneducated as he claims, he doesn't put any weight in academics. When people do this to me, I usually try to see why they think I make no sense. Often, I am merely uninformed.

The old guy is really asking for a slap, like he is making me irrationally angryb

Well, he missed that Dan is not a theogian, missing the fact that Dan is Mormon is a lesser offense, I guess.

Laughed too hard at that one.

Actually, I quite like it as a collective noun for academics (taken out of this snarky context, though)

🤺🤺🤺🤺😎😎

the "murder of crows" part though.. managed to score a tripple bingo of ad hominem, disingenuity, and ornithophobia ( ò)

The problem is that evangelicals like him don't ACTUALLY think they're dumb, they know academics and scientists think they're dumb. So when they say "I know I'm stupid and uneducated", it's a rhetorical device; they don't see themselves that way. They think they're smarter. That's why his tone and rhythm when he rattles off chapters and verses is, if you spent enough time in church, "authoritative".

I saw that too. Lol learned a new word woohoo!

I found a reference from 1977 "A number of scholars in recent times have argued that the basic sin ... was ... a flagrant breach of ... hospitality" Charles Baker, David Field, Brian Hoare, Tom Jones, Gordon Landreth, Ken Taylor. “Homoxesuality”. Third Way, 1(25)7-10, December 1977.

Yeah, and these kinds of folk like the person in that video have the same apologist arguments they always have. I heard this idea back in the early 90s when I was in college in a study of religion class. The apologist haven't changed their argument one iota.

It's not. First heard that in the late 70s at a Baptist college in West Virginia by an excellent Bible scholar who regularly read to us from original language texts. Good scholars are everywhere. Dan stands on the shoulders of giants.

The obvious immorality of giving one's virgin daughters over to be raped can not _possibly_ be a lesser infraction than allowing consensual same-sex intimacy. Based on that aspect alone, the text is clearly not fundamentally about homosexuality. Even if we take into account the diminished status of females and children that was a baked-in feature of the culture at the time, the loss of the daughters' virginity would make them unmarriable and therefore fit only to be wed to the rapists (impossible if the rape was perpetrated by a group), to find employment as prostitutes or to remain with their father and thus become a burden to his household. It is a massive financial and reputational hit that is being offered in exchange for sparing the guests from being assaulted, so why would this kind of an offer be made if the issue was simply about a disapproved of sexual act between adult, male same sex participants? To put it plainly, _if you guys want to sin, go right ahead, because it's not going to be my soul facing judgment._ Instead, if we read as the apologists do, a man sets his virgin daughters out to be sexually abused rather than let some grown men knowingly incur the wrath of God on themselves. It's plain that, at best, the apologists and evangelicals are focusing on the wrong aspect of the story and, at worst, are simply shoehorning the story into their personal feelings about homosexuality.

@@TestUser-cf4wj there are other factors to consider in Lot's defense - consent was the father's to give so it wouldn't be doing anything wrong - penetrating a woman did not denigrate them beyond their natural inferiority as women as it would a man - they were betrothed to men of the town which might restrain them from wronging their own definitely unacceptable by today's standards. given the limited options in a dreadful situation, the lesser wrong in its day.

Thank you. Needed that.

👍🏼👍🏼

@lisaboban I figured I wouldn't be the only one lol

I had to come in to find the comment proclaiming on tergiversate

I feel I have a pretty large vocabulary but I had to stop on that one and hit the dictionary. That's a 10 dollar word for sure.

We're all negotiating the text to fit our worldview.

Right..lol

Context: Dan is LDS. They don’t drink caffeinated beverages. The subtle jab here is that Dan has mentioned his religious affiliation in several videos. The creator of the response video starts off his rant as if he’s very familiar with Dan (“everybody’s favorite theologian…”) which is not only a wonderfully passive/aggressive ad hominem attack on its own, but also suggests a familiarity with Dan’s videos that the creator obviously does not have.

@@MrMortal_Ra If you are asking why LDS folks don’t drink caffeinated beverages, my answer is a big “I don’t know.” I’m not LDS, but I have had coworkers who are members of that church and I know that is something they avoid. I’ve never asked/researched the reason why. I just found the whole coffee point indicative of Dan’s subtle sense of humor and -as I speculated - a little jab at the apologist creator’s self-claimed familiarity with Dan’s videos. A larger question, for me, is to wonder how DM squares his love of ‘data over dogma’ with the Book of Mormon, which I’m sure - with his level of linguistic expertise - he knows is a nineteenth century creation, golden tablet stories notwithstanding. Perhaps he has done some videos on that before or discussed it in his podcast. I started watching his videos relatively recently, and I know he has a huge back-catalog of them that I haven’t watched. 🙂

@@MrMortal_Ra The traditional avoidance of tea and coffee in LDS circles is based on the "Word of Wisdom" section in Doctrine and Covenants (mostly authored by Smith, and understood to be divinely inspired), as interpreted by the church: Quoting from the LDS church's website to make sure I represent its official position accurately: " Although coffee enjoyed wide approval by the mid-1830s, including within the medical community, a few radical reformers such as Sylvester Graham and William A. Alcott preached against the use of any stimulants whatsoever, including coffee and tea.19 The Word of Wisdom rejected the idea of a substitute for alcohol. “Hot drinks”-which Latter-day Saints understood to mean coffee and tea20-“are not for the body or belly,” the revelation explained.21 Instead, the revelation encouraged the consumption of basic staples of the kind that had sustained life for millennia. The revelation praised “all wholesome herbs” and explained that “all grain is for the use of man & of beasts to be the staff of life … as also the fruit of the vine that which beareth fruit whether in the ground or above ground.” In keeping with an earlier revelation endorsing the eating of meat, the Word of Wisdom reminded the Saints that the flesh of beasts and fowls was given “for the use of man with thanksgiving,” but added the caution that meat was “to be used sparingly” and not to excess.22 " I don't know the details of how the interpretation leading from "hot drinks are not for the body or belly" to the current teachings regarding authorised and banned drinks emerged. The footnotes are just referencing bibliographic resources, and I don't have the time to go through them. But see Doctrine and Covenants 89 (vv 5-10) for the relevant section. As an aside, I don't know whether this is why Dan McClellan doesn't drink coffee, since he largely keeps his personal religiosity and practices private (even in interviews on more "confessional" channels than his), and from the few LDS I know, practices seem to somewhat vary on that front; just a quick google search redirects to articles like: "Why more and more young Latter-day Saints are drinking coffee". So Dan McClellan not drinking coffee might be due to doctrine, but also to personal taste or other reasons. (More data are needed, as the wise like to say!)

@@MrMortal_Ra Mormon rules. They aren't supposed to drink caffeinated beverages. So coffee is a sin. Dan is a practicing Mormon in good standing and he observes these rules. It's no different from other religions. catholics have rules specific to their particular faith tradition as well. For example, for Catholics, you need to have confession because that's a sacrament. These are just things that the higher ups set up as doctrines and all the followers have to observe these rules. "In Doctrine and Covenants 89:8-9, the Lord forbids our using tobacco and “hot drinks,” which, Church leaders have explained, means tea and coffee. Modern prophets and apostles have frequently taught that the Word of Wisdom warns us against substances that can harm us or enslave us to addiction." Oh.. and it may be that Dan gains comfort from his religion. It may be a source of how to view the world because we all have frameworks we look at the world through. It may help how he acts in relationships with family and friends and associates. We all have them. Yes, I as an atheist, have a lens by which I look at the world. I'm far more materialist and consequentialist but every part of my life experience flavors how I interpret the raw input of this world into comprehensible information. As long as people understand and are aware of this, and they can respect the other human beings (other living creatures hopefully), we can all sort of muddle together. Dr. McClellan the professional academic has trained himself to be academic with regards to these texts but Dan McClellan, the husband, father, friend, son has a right to engage in those activities that help him ground himself in living. There are loads of stupid and ignorant atheists. I'm continuously learning the depths of my ignorance.. and I was a Christian for a long time. Too long.

@@MrMortal_Ra You would have to ask Dan, but I don't believe that he discusses his personal beliefs publicly.

I think this part was meant to be funny, but it's hard to tell

What an ignoranimus. -Bugs Bunny

Same here.

It reminds me of those boxes at fire departments and police stations that people can put babys in and the box sets off an alarm so they will be taken care of and kept warm and not die, the point is to keep babys from dying, but everyone focuses on the act of abandoning the baby and criticizing the box for "encouraging" child abandonment like, that's definitely not the boxes purpose

He was trying for the suave "I'm just a simple country lawyer" effect, but ended up merely shouting "DURRRRR" at the top of his lungs instead.

Observant modern-day Jews do follow the prohibitions on shellfish and mixed fabrics, though I don't see that in Leviticus 20. And they follow other prohibitions in Leviticus 20, though there is no death penalty.

It's because they want to make the opponent look unreliable and biased for their Christian viewers. For example they call Ehrman always secular and atheist. But they won't tell you that he was an evangelical Christian himself.

Depends on what tradition you’re coming from. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t believe the seven deadly sins have biblical basis and they are rooted in Catholic tradition and dogma. The tradition I can put of viewed pride (and other negative emotions such as anger) as not necessarily good or bad but it depended on how they were deployed. For example, pride in family, religion, country was considered “good” while pride in yourself was “bad.” At a guess this apologist probably views his own prideful behavior as “good” pride in his religious beliefs. I find it unbearable to be honest.

@@MrMortal_Ra Some of his opponents actually do have stupid arguments though

@@mcdonaldsorwhatevers then criticise the argument, not the person

Because if they actually understood it, they’d be forced to acknowledge they’re wrong and change their mind. Which would punch a huge hole in the armor of their faith.

What data analysis tools do you use? I'm very interested in a paralell evaluation, but I am not talented enough to assist. I'm currently in the last semester of my Master's.