![\"\"](\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/_b7Eh98KJ_qI\/TNRoSwX94gI\/AAAAAAAABHU\/qie7pSMqHs8\/s1600\/faulty-door-latch-on.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nSince he explained why he would not be replying again on the comment thread<\/a> at Debunking Christianity, I figured I would cross-post it here, so as not to leave anyone in suspense.<\/p>\n Loftus wrote:<\/p>\n Leah, I\u2019m not interested. I don\u2019t know who you are. I don\u2019t care to discuss strategy online when this scholar is reading what we write. And I don\u2019t care to discuss whose questions are better. I know what I\u2019m doing. That scholar agrees.<\/p>\n Leah, had you said what you would ask and told us why there would be no problem at all. After all, we will debate 20 questions\/ issues, so there is plenty of room to take up your issues. But what you did instead was to say you were embarrassed with my questions and you argued yours were better even though you were clueless as to who I was debating and what my strategy is. Then you had the gall to talk about how Christians will react to me, and how atheists should react to me when you had no clue how I would react to you.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what I predict based on cognitive dissonance theory. You will take up a personal campaign against me in order to prove yourself right. Facts do not change people\u2019s minds. They only force people who are wrong to dig in their heels. Only people who are aware of what they are doing have a good chance to change it. Do you?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t have any personal problem with Loftus, and, to the best of my ability, I\u2019ve tried to focus on our difference of opinions, not on any personal or ad hominem attacks. \u00a0We\u2019re playing for the same side, after all.<\/p>\n It\u2019s frustrating that we didn\u2019t manage to have a dialogue on this topic,\u00a0since Loftus and I have near identical goals: we both think Christianity is false and that some of these beliefs have extremely destructive . Our approaches are opposed, but, in my mind, that\u2019s all the more reason for us to have a conversation, since we both want to optimize our approach. \u00a0I would have liked to hear why Loftus had chosen the approach he did and whether he thought my criticisms were completely wrongheaded or whether he felt that the benefit of his approach outweighed the potential harms I discussed. \u00a0After all, until he replies, I\u2019m going to keep on using tactics that he believes are counterproductive.<\/p>\n Since he\u2019s embargoed the topic until he finishes the book, I\u2019m glad to take it up with site visitors who disagree. \u00a0I\u2019m confident we won\u2019t spoil the debate by discussing it among ourselves; I think our arguments are strong enough to not need the element of surprise.<\/p>\n A final note, since this discussion became much more about possible rudeness than anti-apologetic best practices: whenever you\u2019re reading my blog, please keep in mind Hanlon\u2019s Razor<\/a> and never attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity or carelessness. \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n