I would recommend that people actually watch...yeah, it takes time...to watch Hansen's presentations. I have not watched all of them but the ones that I have watched I believe have fairly well represented pro and con arguments and especially made clear the actual doctrines of the church without diluting them as will often happen when critics get their hands on things.
Would you be so good as to support this assertion with some cold, hard facts (or non-facts) from his videos? Links, time stamps?
Otherwise, aren't you blowing hot air?
Nice try. Morley is on the hook. Encourage him to pick up the pieces of his failed attempt to disparage Jacob Hansen. That's what this is about. I would encourage you to watch the video Wang linked to in the opening post. What are your thoughts? I think he nailed it. So far, the folks here have ignored and not commented on what he actually said. Par for the course. Obfuscate and deflect. Rinse and repeat. You are so disingenuous.
MG, you obviously think that your A.I. is better that my A.I.. You believe this to be true to the extent that you won't even read my A.I.. Since your A.I. is the one true A.I., would you please provide her with these prompts?
"There's a dude on the internet who has viewed Jacob Hansen videos and has developed an opinion about them. This same dude has expressed that opinion about these videos on a message board. I don't agree with this guy. I've told him that he has an obligation to view even more videos and provide time stamps before he offers up his opinion. Am I right in doing this?"
"Also, this dude is using a chatbot to offer rebuttals to my chatbot. That somehow seems unfair. The chatbot is kind of my thing, not his. I think he should have to watch my videos instead of posting answers provided by A.I.--though I've announced that the same cannot be asked of me. Again, Oh Wise One, don't you think I am right?"
I did, and I read what the response to your A.I. was from the prompts I used with A.I. to further explore any possible weaknesses with your initial inquiries. There were weaknesses. As a result I suggested that you might want to rethink what you originally said in response to Wang's original post. That is:
I imagine that the viewing of Hansen's Youtube presentations was what convinced them to leave. The weak apologetics that dominate the discourse these days are more damning to the Church than any critic ever was.
You haven't done so.
You also haven't been specific as to what his weak apologetics are in ANY specificity...simply relying on an A.I. response that has been shown to be untrustworthy because it doesn't deal in any specificity.
That is your job.
Also, up to this point NO ONE has dealt with the actual content of Jacob's presentation linked to in the original post in this thread. As I said, I think he nailed it. It seems as if someone would want to challenge him.
The lack of self-awareness is so bizarre you just have to laugh.
Says the person that doesn't respond to relevant questions. You more or less 'troll' into a thread to say, "Nothing to see here, folks. Moving on..." You're so transparent in your shenanigans. Contribute, don't disrupt. Capeesh?
I would recommend that people actually watch...yeah, it takes time...to watch Hansen's presentations. I have not watched all of them but the ones that I have watched I believe have fairly well represented pro and con arguments and especially made clear the actual doctrines of the church without diluting them as will often happen when critics get their hands on things.
Would you be so good as to support this assertion with some cold, hard facts (or non-facts) from his videos? Links, time stamps?
Otherwise, aren't you blowing hot air?
Bumping for MG(ly) 2.0 to see if he will practice what he preaches… (spoiler alert: he won’t)
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Bumping for MG(ly) 2.0 to see if he will practice what he preaches… (spoiler alert: he won’t)
Where does Morley fit in here? Have we lost our focus?
Regards,
MG
Confirmed: MG does not practice what he preaches.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Where does Morley fit in here? Have we lost our focus?
Regards,
MG
Confirmed: MG does not practice what he preaches.
You are purposefully trying to push the conversation in a direction that avoids the topic of discussion. Secret strategy? Not so secret. Keep it going and folks will forget what the thread was all about, right? As it is, we haven't heard back from Wang, Morley or others that were caught in a web of deceit. At least as far as I can tell. So...again...what is your response to Jacob Hansen's presentation as it was linked to in the opening post?
You are purposefully trying to push the conversation in a direction that avoids the topic of discussion. Secret strategy? Not so secret. Keep it going and folks will forget what the thread was all about, right? As it is, we haven't heard back from Wang, Morley or others that were caught in a web of deceit. At least as far as I can tell. So...again...what is your response to Jacob Hansen's presentation as it was linked to in the opening post?
Stay on topic dude.
Regards,
MG
Keep posting prolifically Dude, rather than spending time with family, friends, neighbours, in real life pursuits, etc. You’ve nearly caught Gadianton up…
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
