The mere brevity of twitter feeds doesn't allow for better clarity, explanations and argumentation, which I'll label CEA. It's the lowest level of what an author can provide given its brevity. From what I've seen, Facebook is where many authors test ideas and provoke thought, so here again isn't the best place for a great deal CEA. Blogs and videos on YouTube are much better means for providing CEA. But sometimes they too are used to test ideas and/or provoke thought. Journal articles and book length treatments of ideas, especially written by scholars and especially when peer reviewed, are the highest means to provide CEA. Now let's say a scholar tweets. Is it reasonable to pick apart the tweet rather than his peer reviewed work? Surely not. The means of a tweet prohibits CEA. Therefore one must approach a tweet by a scholar with the utmost attention to the principle of charity. Furthermore, one must pay more attention to journal articles and peer reviewed books by scholars than any undergraduate student who has an audience.
The other 5 parts can be found on YouTube.
In his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, Peter Boghossian is not writing to Christians. He's writing to atheists. Christians are reading and critiquing his book of course, but the atheists who implement his strategies are taught by him to be respectful of believers as persons, using the Socratic Method. So what's going on here? He uses some rhetoric to get atheists motivated but in actual practice when speaking to Christians, as his own "interventions" demonstrate in the book itself, he advocates being respectful to them and their beliefs. He first motivates then he educates.
All believers denigrate science in at least a few areas. The more fundamentalist the believer then the more that person denigrates science. Methinks they just don't understand how it works. Below is a video showing an example with regard to venom in some animals. Notice that science makes predictions. In this case the prediction was based on evolution that venom must have existed before there were fangs, and further that snake venom was inherited from an earlier ancestor. This prediction went against common wisdom. But the evidence was found. Notice the scientist does experiments looking for evidence rather than believing any authorities. Notice also that this science is helping make our lives healthier by the development of medicines, something you will not find in the Bible, God's supposed wisdom. Seriously, do you see a mad scientist here, someone seeking to destroy people's faith?
Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact harmony with the New Testament, and that the two are “connected together;” and “that if one is true the other cannot be false.” If this is so, then he must admit that if one is false the other cannot be true; and it hardly seems possible to me that there is a right-minded, sane man, except Mr. Black, who now believes that a God of infinite kindness and justice ever commanded one nation to exterminate another; ever ordered his soldiers to destroy men, women, and babes; ever established the institution of human slavery; ever regarded the auction-block as an altar, or a bloodhound as an apostle. [Ingersoll, Debate with Jeremiah Black, theingersolltimes.com]