Hi James, welcome back.
It's Mike, as the first initial M was a poorly-planned (not foreshadowing, not foreshadowing) attempt to make a pseudo-pen-name (a-la-M-Night), but seems to have instead come across instead as an honorific than an initial.
I've changed web hosts and have yet to re-up the page OP references, which, as I explained in another thread, was a prior version I'd assembled initially as a draft version. I then decided a better angle was to create a newer version as a YouTube
pause-to-read-style video (since the original WWGHA video was a YT video, I decided a YT response would be more appropriate), and made the linked missive obselete/oldver. I'm not certain how OP obtained the link posted, since it wasn't linked in the video description.
I will confess also that I've conceded on the point I made regarding sampling size (00:24) although I don't particularly comprehend why exactly it should be conceded (as explained in the video's description section).
I think its concession more or less boils down to a personal philosophy on whether a given survey sampling size is a credible indication of whether "3 out of 4 doctors" think one way or another, and whether "from those we surveyed" need or not be appended to the claim.
There seem, to me, to be too many different ways of interpreting survey results, that I am far less likely to trust survey results as a genuine indicator of popular opinion unless an overwhelming/landslide majority of the people, of whom the assertion is made, participate.
To suggest a sampling size of 1,100 doctors adequately represents ~4.6 million doctors seems preposterous to me, but several self-proclaimed statistics experts assured me this sampling size is perfectly healthy to make such leaps. I decided not to press it, although I still disagree with it.
Feel free to respond, that's why...
I think one thing I failed to communicate is that the response is generally a discussion-provoking response, rather than a strict
allow me to inform you of the Truth so please adjust your mind accordingly type response. I think too few Christians adopt this angle, and too few of those interesting in hashing it out with silly Christians are willing to adopt the idea they are discussing matters with a brainstormer type and instead prefer to believe they are battling wits with a
This Is How It Is type and respond accordingly.
I have long been a Devil's Advocate sort, on occasion to excess, to side with the dissenting view interminably. Before I knew Christ, I believed (although unresearched/unverified) that this kind of personality was unwelcome in the church, so was turned away by my own presumptions -- when instead I think you will find quite a healthy congregation of those willing to momentarily suspend a staunch position on scripture to entertain an idea, such as that (hypothetically) perhaps, "Love is a decision, not an emotion" and then defend or refute the position without resorting to small arms fire, as it were.
A significant portion of my response is a
criticism of the WWGHA video's technique and roundabout style of presenting its position, whereby relying on emotionally-driven language and open-ended questions.
The Goobidy-Foop portion is a translation of the video, permitting the opponent to adopt a Christian-eyed view of how the presentation comes across, in tone. If there is any ire that arises from the Goobidy-Foop section, from those who are pro-WWGHA, then its message was well communicated -- that the original WWGHA is essentially a poorly-executed attempt at criticizing popularly-held Christian views that Christians themselves criticize
each other of already, but with the presentation that the video itself stands as the one who is speaking out.
