Posts tagged ‘debate’

February 5th, 2014

Guest Atheist: Why I Engage With Theists

by Max Andrews

I’m often asked why I engage with theists. When I was invited to write this guest post, I thought a lot about what I wanted to say. I think what I want is to focus on an analysis of these words: ‘engage’, ‘theists’, and ‘why’ .

Beyond merely arguing with theists, talking to them, or talking *at* them, I engage with them. To me, this involves two things. The first is civility. Civility is, broadly, a dispositional attitude that permits disagreement while eschewing rudeness. The second is intellectual curiosity. This involves being genuinely interested in what one’s opponent has to say – not just for the purposes of defeating their arguments, but for the purposes of giving them a fair say, and perhaps learning something yourself.

Now on to ‘theists’. I do engage theists in discussion often, but the fact that they’re theists is incidental. The group of people I’m interested in engaging can be described as something like ‘individuals who are interested in academic issues (philosophy, science, politics, history, etc.); and who, like me, place importance on civility and curiosity’. Some members of that group just happen to be thiests, and they’re no different than any other member of that group – they’re capable the civility and curiosity described above. 

February 1st, 2014

Craig vs. Carroll — The Debate of Christianity’s WLC vs Atheism’s WLC

by Max Andrews

Two of the champions of their fields, philosophy and cosmology, discuss the role of God and cosmos. Feb. 21-22 the two intellectuals will wield their minds—an event to not miss! William Lane Craig is, undeniably, a leader and champion of the defender of the Christian faith with an unparalleled CV.

Sean Carroll is a rising leader in the atheist community. I hope he replaces Dawkins (a blithering, nonsensical, philosophical inept, egomaniac) and Lawrence Krauss (who decides to change the fundamental modal ontology and “cane the question” and by that he means “I didn’t like the question to begin with.”–again someone who is philosophically incompetent.) Look Krauss’ technical papers are good but stay there. Stop talking theology or philosophy because you embarrass yourself.

November 7th, 2013

Truth Will Rise to the Top Through a Free and Open Exchange in the Marketplace of Ideas

by Max Andrews

The English poet John Milton did well when he said that “Truth will rise to the top through a free and open exchange in the marketplace of ideas.”  I am so encouraged when I have and see a substantive dialogue with someone concerning an issue.  This is certainly important in every day discussions, blogs, and teaching.  I assist in managing and teaching an Intro. to Philosophy course at university and I always encourage my students to make us work hard to convince them of what we believe to be true.  Do not simply sit there and take what I say and teach prima facie–challenge me, challenge the thoughts, challenge your thinking.

August 1st, 2013

Transcript and Thoughts on My Debate with Justin Schieber

by Max Andrews

Over the last month or two I’ve been working on a written/audio debate with Justin Schieber of Reasonable Doubts. The topic of the debate was “Does the Christian God Exist?” I imagine the debate may have been released earlier had it not been for my delayed responses due to health issues and moving out of our house and preparing to embark on our move to Scotland. I have apologized to Mr. Schieber concerning this and I extend apologies to the readers and listeners.

I was actually expecting much stronger arguments from Mr. Schieber. Two arguments were off topic and the other one was a far metaphysical and modal stretch. You’ll be able to read his arguments in full but here are my thoughts :

June 1st, 2013

Upcoming Podcast Debate with Justin Schieber

by Max Andrews

During the month of June I will be debating Justin Schieber from Reasonable Doubts on the question: “Does the Christian God Exist?”. The debate is designed for a very substantive and rigorous interaction and exchange. The whole debate will be posted online closer to the end of June. The format will be:

  • 20 min. Opening (Max)
  • 20 min. Opening (Mr. Schieber)
  • 15 min. Rebuttal (Max)
  • 15 min. Rebuttal (Mr. Schieber)
  • 10 min. Second Rebuttal (Max)
  • 10 min. Second Rebuttal (Mr. Schieber)
  • 5 min. Closing (Max)
  • 5 min. Closing (Mr. Schieber)

The only downside to the debate is that the format takes away from the spirit of a live interaction. However, there are many perks to this. The time in between recordings will allow for a full, robust response from each of us. I anticipate this to be a very, very good exchange with thorough explications of the arguments. A transcript of the debate with our sources will also be made available.

May 26th, 2013

A Missing Argument from March’s Debate

by Max Andrews

In preparation for my debate this past March I went through my opponents blog to find relevant arguments he may use. (He didn’t use any I had expected. Instead, he just did the scatter-gun approach by putting little, ineffective arguments out there hoping they’d stick instead of presenting a few robust, substantive arguments.) I found this argument on the impossibility of God from omniscience and omnipotence. I expected this because these are the types of arguments atheists should be using. In order to demonstrate a universal negative one must demonstrate that the referent is impossible or logically incoherent; that is, since contradictions are the only things that cannot obtain. To much misfortune, the argument was not presented. If it had been presented the debate would have been much more substantive. (To watch the debate for yourself, watch it here. Don’t take my word for it.)

March 30th, 2013

The Great Debate: Review

by Max Andrews

The following is a guest blog post by Shaun Smith. Shaun is completing his MA in Philosophy and attended the debate.


​Thursday night at Liberty University there was a debate over the existence of God. This debate was meant to liberate all thinkers from every walk of life. Theist, Atheist, and Agnostics alike were going to usher forth the new age, with perfected reasons, a scope towards utopia, and a… said no one ever. Max Andrews of Liberty University brought forth compelling arguments, including the infamous ontological argument. Dan Linford, of Virginia Tech, came with a few scattered thoughts, and a selected amount of tactics to try and move the conversation into, well, nothing really. Though, Linford I think had a few great points that he really could have sponged out for the audience. Listen, it isn’t about a winner or loser, its about reasoning together and furthering the discussion. However, I found that there were a few issues that did not bring out that initial goal.

March 29th, 2013

Twitter Feed From the #LUGODdebate

by Max Andrews

I have much to say about last night’s debate I participated in concerning the existence of God but those comments will come later. We asked those in attendance (at least 400) to use the #LUGODdebate hashtag if they decided to live-tweet the debate. I’ve taken screen shots of the hashtag’s feed from the beginning of the debate until now (lunchtime Friday). Most of those tweeting were Liberty students but you’ll be able to gauge the atmosphere of the debate and the performances. My Twitter handle is @maxeoa (just an FYI if you spot it in the feed). The feed is in order from the most recent uses to to the earliest uses.

Screen Shot 2013-03-29 at 1.10.59 PM

February 18th, 2013

“Does God Exist?” – Upcoming Debate at Liberty University

by Max Andrews

I can now announce that on Thursday, March 28 from 7.30-9p I will be engaging in a debate with Dan Linford from Virginia Tech on the debate topic, “Does God Exist?” Dan is in the philosophy PhD program at VT. He and I debated each other last year (in partnership with Josh Nixon and Beau Bradley). Last year we debated at VT, and this year we will be debate on the campus of Liberty University.

The precise location has yet to be determined but it’s currently scheduled to be in DeMoss 1113. That room holds about 300 but from initial surveys I suspect we may need to find a larger room. We currently plan on having the debate filmed so we should have it available online sometime afterwards. I’m hoping to find a way to stream the debate online. If anyone knows how we can do that please let me know. I’ll be using #LUGODdebate as the Twitter hashtag (@maxeoa). This will help gather interactive thoughts from attendees after the debate. More information will be shared as time gets closer.

Debate format:

  • Moderator Introductions
  • 17 minutes opening (Max—affirmative)
  • 17 minutes opening (Dan—negative)
  •  7 minutes rebuttal (Max)
  • 7 minutes rebuttal (Dan)
  • 10 minutes cross-examination (Max asks Dan questions)
  • 10 minutes cross-examination (Dan asks Max questions)
  • 5 minutes closing statement (Max)
  • 5 minutes closing statement (Dan)
  •  20 minutes of Q&A
    • Total of 78 minutes of debate and 20 minutes of Q&A

You can view our debate from last spring here.

November 1st, 2012

The Problem of Internet Atheists

by Max Andrews

There are many problems in philosophy such as the problem of evil, the problem of miracles, the problem of historical knowledge, the problem of what there is (Quine), the Gettier problem, and several others in various fields.  However, I’ve noticed a problem with the ‘internet atheist’ community.

Before I continue I want to give a general indication for what I mean by an internet atheist, which can include several agnostics as well. An internet atheist will have certain giveaways such as: trolling, one who cites Richard Dawkins as a philosophical champion, appeals to the tactics of PZ Myers (anyone who reads PZ Myers and is quite aware of logic, fallacies, and social etiquette may suffer from face-palm syndrome–the problem of excessive disappointment resulting in the face resting on one’s palm followed by a deep sigh), being completely oblivious of opposing views, as well as the following properties…

Internet atheists have this habit of coming out of no where. What I mean by that is they have the habit of plowing their way into conversations.  For instance, while writing this last sentence I received a tweet from some internet atheist about some tweet I made several days ago in which I said that the OT law didn’t treat women immorally and that the problem was a societal issue. (Edit: 3 Nov. 18.08: Tweet removed. The individual didn’t really fall into the category I’m describing here.) I could provide more tweets but I honestly have no desire to go back and read them.

EDIT: Here’s another great tweet in which I’m told to be a theological equivalent of a Nazi collaborator. I’m serious, I’m not that creative to make this stuff up.