Dr. John Dickson To Me: "You are the 'Donald Trump' of pop-atheism"
Dr. John Dickson (@johnpauldickson) is the Director, Centre for Public Christianity; Minister, St Andrew's Roseville; Honorary Fellow, Ancient History, Macquarie University. Yesterday he said that I'm the Donald Trump of pop-atheism. *Ouch* I mean *ouch*!! Now I'm not one to highlight such an utterly ignorant slam on me, but I think it's instructive of the lengths some Christian apologists will go to try to discredit me. The question for my readers is what I said or did deserving of his slam, except that I'm truly a gadfly in the Socratic sense of someone who laid to waste his claims to certainty. Doing what I did to shock deluded people into reality will not be regarded kindly by them. So they will lash out. You'll notice I was polite but forceful. The question is why he lashed out at me. Barring any reasonable explanation, he did so because he could not answer me.
Now there are many atheists who consider having a friendly discussion with scholars like Dickson as a badge of honor. It makes them feel important when someone like Dickson speaks to them. That places all of the power in the apologist's lap. So these atheists can be like lap dogs, trying to gain their approval. The apologists therefore are in the position of determining for the rest of us who are the important atheists. So an additional question is why we should bow to them and their delusions in order to feel worthy? Consider apologists for Scientology or Mormonism. Why is it considered a badge of honor when they take notice of us and then say it was pleasant having a conversation, when they're bat shit crazy like Christians? They are all deluded. They are all massively wrong. In fact, the evangelicals I deal with like Dickson, are to be likened to the Trumps because they support Trump in America.
These completed discussions took place on Twitter separated by dotted lines.
-----------
Dickson: Behind the scenes with @amyorrewing as she talks about the Resurrection on our national broadcaster.
Loftus: Why isn't the resurrection a historical fact accepted by historians, just as they accept Constantine's conversion and reign?
Loftus: Why must someone make a case for the resurrection at all?
Dickson: Most experts accept that Jesus did what others thought were miracles but remain agnostic how. Ditto: resurrection.
Loftus: There's a limit to what can be Tweeted. Experts? Others? Agnostic? I have no confidence ancient people could know a miracle took place.
Dickson: That's my point. Contemporary secular specialists agree: Jesus did what ancients deemed miracles. It's just that history can't adjudicate.
Loftus: Agreed! Now tell us why you believe what historians cannot adjudicate. If they cannot do it how else can we know? Or, are you a psychic?
Dickson: Simple: my background convictions about the existence of God make evidence of miracle working believable as miracle working.
Loftus: Special pleading! Jews Muslims and others believe in God but deny the historical evidence for the resurrection. God belief gets you nowhere!
------------
Dickson: The only way Science could undermine God's existence is if it stopped revealing a logic to the universe. But then it would undermine itself.
Loftus: Nope. Not unless you require science to prove with certainty God doesn't exist, which is utterly unreasonable. See Christianity in the Light of Science.
-----------------
Dickson: Christianity's unique theoretical basis for the full dignity and equality of the sexes, explained by @amyorrewing
Loftus: Nope. Christianity has been and still is in many ways at war with women. See the chapter on women here.
-----------------
Dickson: Pleasant, insightful conversation b/n an atheist and a Christian on (where else) @ABC Radio National
Loftus: If you're having a pleasing discussion then someone on my side doesn't know enough to make you feel the force of the arguments.
Dickson: Or some intellects recognise they are each other's match, and so get on with a conversation
Loftus: What you need is a dose of reality. I guarantee that it won't be pleasant, not due to obnoxiousness, but because delusions fall hard.
Loftus: ...while other intellects like me find faith to be unworthy of thinking adults, but fitting for children.
Dickson: I don't know if it's an American thing, or just Trump era thing, but you sound overblown.
Loftus: I'm confident, having been where you are now and having investigated it 45+ years and having published 10 books on it.
Dickson: You, @loftusjohnw, are the 'Donald Trump' of pop-atheism: "I've got the best arguments. The best. No one's better. I even wrote a book ..."
Loftus: Say that until you read the blurbs the authors who write for me and the books I authored. Is that the kind of superficial research you do?
Dickson: You keep making my point. Trump does, too.
Loftus: Mere assertions from you based on a failure to do your research responsibilities.
Loftus: ...that's 10 critically acclaimed books, actually, which were all recommended by scholars on both sides including at least one Christian scholar.
Now there are many atheists who consider having a friendly discussion with scholars like Dickson as a badge of honor. It makes them feel important when someone like Dickson speaks to them. That places all of the power in the apologist's lap. So these atheists can be like lap dogs, trying to gain their approval. The apologists therefore are in the position of determining for the rest of us who are the important atheists. So an additional question is why we should bow to them and their delusions in order to feel worthy? Consider apologists for Scientology or Mormonism. Why is it considered a badge of honor when they take notice of us and then say it was pleasant having a conversation, when they're bat shit crazy like Christians? They are all deluded. They are all massively wrong. In fact, the evangelicals I deal with like Dickson, are to be likened to the Trumps because they support Trump in America.
These completed discussions took place on Twitter separated by dotted lines.
-----------
Dickson: Behind the scenes with @amyorrewing as she talks about the Resurrection on our national broadcaster.
Loftus: Why isn't the resurrection a historical fact accepted by historians, just as they accept Constantine's conversion and reign?
Loftus: Why must someone make a case for the resurrection at all?
Dickson: Most experts accept that Jesus did what others thought were miracles but remain agnostic how. Ditto: resurrection.
Loftus: There's a limit to what can be Tweeted. Experts? Others? Agnostic? I have no confidence ancient people could know a miracle took place.
Dickson: That's my point. Contemporary secular specialists agree: Jesus did what ancients deemed miracles. It's just that history can't adjudicate.
Loftus: Agreed! Now tell us why you believe what historians cannot adjudicate. If they cannot do it how else can we know? Or, are you a psychic?
Dickson: Simple: my background convictions about the existence of God make evidence of miracle working believable as miracle working.
Loftus: Special pleading! Jews Muslims and others believe in God but deny the historical evidence for the resurrection. God belief gets you nowhere!
------------
Dickson: The only way Science could undermine God's existence is if it stopped revealing a logic to the universe. But then it would undermine itself.
Loftus: Nope. Not unless you require science to prove with certainty God doesn't exist, which is utterly unreasonable. See Christianity in the Light of Science.
-----------------
Dickson: Christianity's unique theoretical basis for the full dignity and equality of the sexes, explained by @amyorrewing
Loftus: Nope. Christianity has been and still is in many ways at war with women. See the chapter on women here.
-----------------
Dickson: Pleasant, insightful conversation b/n an atheist and a Christian on (where else) @ABC Radio National
Loftus: If you're having a pleasing discussion then someone on my side doesn't know enough to make you feel the force of the arguments.
Dickson: Or some intellects recognise they are each other's match, and so get on with a conversation
Loftus: What you need is a dose of reality. I guarantee that it won't be pleasant, not due to obnoxiousness, but because delusions fall hard.
Loftus: ...while other intellects like me find faith to be unworthy of thinking adults, but fitting for children.
Dickson: I don't know if it's an American thing, or just Trump era thing, but you sound overblown.
Loftus: I'm confident, having been where you are now and having investigated it 45+ years and having published 10 books on it.
Dickson: You, @loftusjohnw, are the 'Donald Trump' of pop-atheism: "I've got the best arguments. The best. No one's better. I even wrote a book ..."
Loftus: Say that until you read the blurbs the authors who write for me and the books I authored. Is that the kind of superficial research you do?
Dickson: You keep making my point. Trump does, too.
Loftus: Mere assertions from you based on a failure to do your research responsibilities.
Loftus: ...that's 10 critically acclaimed books, actually, which were all recommended by scholars on both sides including at least one Christian scholar.
0 comments:
Post a Comment