A debate of jointly selected points from the Urantia Book.

[joer]

Zzyzx and I are working out the rules and details and will update as agreements are made.

[joer]

Zzy wrote:

You "don't know" if you are honorable in debate or if you duck questions?????

Well you say I don’t duck questions:

Zzyzx wrote:

I credit you with being honorable in debate and not one who ducks questions that they cannot answer.

I trust your judgement. You’re the Top debater I’m not. Who better to judge my debating characteristics. Thank you for your confidence

You wrote:

Do you realize that "Mathew" and "Luke" give two DIFFERENT locations for the birth scene? Does that complicate the issue of having a "star" stop over the birthplace(s)?

Not off the Top of my head. But with the analytical critical historical and literary analysis evidence for understanding the Bible I’m presenting, perhaps we can better understand if their being "DIFFERENT" really matters.

You wrote:

Let's see, are you proposing that I present something from a book that you favor for you to refute – and if you don't refute it you make a "point" – or do you make a "point" if you do refute your own reference?

Why does that sound a bit silly?

Because you’re trying to make it sound silly? What’s the matter zzy? “Are you getting cold feet?�

You continued with:

I will GLADLY debate Head to Head regarding the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book but not on unfair or irrational terms.

I agree to have a closely monitored structured debate – and suggest alternating posts in which one question is asked and one answer is provided for the previous posted question – (i.e., answer one, ask one).

Who goes first?

What Rules of debate will we follow?

Any limit of the length of the answer or complexity of the question, like multiple embedded questions? ( Like asking two, three, four, five or more questions in ONE. )

How about limitations of content? Like only questions about things that pertain to a what can be proven by a material basis of reality or will a spiritual basis of reality be acceptable?

I don’t mine you using rules as long as the content of debate is not limited by exclusionary evidentiary rules.

Or a “no holds barred� type of debate?

I have the same concerns about you as you’ve indicated about me in your closing statement:

Are you willing to debate Zzyzx "one on one on The Urantia Book" under FAIR and reasonable terms? OR do you require a stacked deck to feel competent to debate the issue?

So lets set it up! We’re both game. Lets crank out the parameters of this debate and get going.

Do want to review allowable references before we start so we eliminate objections to reference during the debate so we can focus on Topic instead of nit picking about acceptable references?

Speaking of Topic, I suggested,

"Is the Urantia Book more valid or invalid in terms of the Truth contained within it's Material?"

on the Head to Head thread and you said you would debate:

the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book

So how about “How do you determine the Truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book's Contents�

I agree to have a closely monitored structured debate – and suggest alternating posts in which one question is asked and one answer is provided for the previous posted question – (i.e., answer one, ask one).

Sounds good to me. How’s our structuring process going so far? You don’t need to infer I’m trying to "stack the deck" or belittle my suggestions. Just tell me what How you want to set it up. I’ll make suggestions and we can work out in a copacetic fashion

How about the idea I presented about an outside judging panel comprised of the judges WE choose? I think that would make it a little more interesting don’t you?

I’m excited about the opportunity of trying to setup and execute a fairly structured debate with you, Zzy. I really respect the intensity and plethora of questions you ask. I welcome a chance to keep the questions down to a “one to one� basis. I’m pretty slow and it will give me a chance to keep up with you while you keep up with all the threads you post on. I love your vitality and I'm thankful your willing to spend a little of on a debate with me. Thank You brother.

I look forward to a debate where the structure is setup to keep the focus on the topic and avoid to many divergences. How about you Zzy?

Should we move this debate setup to the Head to Head thread now?

[joer]

Are you willing to debate Zzyzx "one on one on The Urantia Book" under FAIR and reasonable terms? OR do you require a stacked deck to feel competent to debate the issue?

You have an advantage in that I do not attempt to structure a debate in my favor as you did with your opening suggestion. However, I will overlook that and attempt to come to agreement regarding what is fair and equitable.

Do want to review allowable references before we start so we eliminate objections to reference during the debate so we can focus on Topic instead of nit picking about acceptable references?

I am not in favor of any specific list of allowable references; however, a discussion of categories or types of acceptable reference or evidence is agreeable. What do you suggest?

Speaking of Topic, I suggested,

Is the Urantia Book more valid or invalid in terms of the Truth contained within it's Material?"

I am not inclined to measure the "relative truth" of a work used for reference.

What IS your position regarding the UB? I have asked several times in various threads with no response.

Notice that I do NOT say that the UB is all "hogwash" or that it does not contain some (however limited) truthful, useful or accurate information. I DO say that it seems difficult (at best) to identify literally truthful parts, if any, from those that are not literally true.

I have much the same attitude toward the bible, the koran and other revered texts. There may be some truth but what is true is not evident or necessarily identifiable. I ask proponents what criteria can be used to distinguish between truth and fiction or untruth – and have never received a coherent reply.

One problem we may encounter in structuring our debate is what constitutes evidence. I am far more a realist than a spiritualist. In fact, the latter is foreign to me. "Feelings" or "voices" do not impress me as being evidence of anything more than a person's emotional responses. Testimonials (personal attestations) are no more convincing – they are unverifiable personal expressions / opinions / observations. Personal opinion does NOT constitute evidence – though expert opinion (widely recognized experts) may have some (not absolute) merit.

"Convergence of evidence" is significant in my view. Single points of "evidence" that cannot be substantiated I regard as being questionable (possibly true, possibly false, or partially each – with no way of knowing which).

I am NOT willing to assume that supernatural beings exist or that they influence human affairs – or that "god" or "aliens did it". Stories about such beings or nature-defying feats do NOT constitute evidence in my estimation UNLESS they can be shown to have occurred literally, physically in the real world.

Circularity in argument does not furnish proof (citing a source to prove itself or citing a closely allied source) – such as "The bible (or UB) is true because it says it is" or or because these people say it is true or "this chapter of the bible is true because another 'independent' chapter says something similar"

Excuses for lack of evidence do not constitute a valid argument in my opinion. If one takes a position I credit them (often incorrectly – but I am generous) with having evidence upon which to form an opinion or reach a conclusion. Stating that they have a conclusion but can't find evidence to support the conclusion is a concession of default.

One is entitled to their own opinion but they are NOT entitled to claim possession of FACT or truth unless they can demonstrate that possession.

How about the idea I presented about an outside judging panel comprised of the judges WE choose? I think that would make it a little more interesting don’t you?

I suggest that we select two moderators rather than judges. In my opinion readers are independent judges. I am not interested in "points" or in "winning" – that is not my motivation to debate.

Each of us can invite one moderator who is wiling to act in the capacity of insuring that we follow the rules of the forum, the guidelines for C&A, our agreed rules and ethical / honorable conduct.[/quote]

Are the points valid/invalid in terms of truth and accuracy?

A debate of jointly selected points from the Urantia Book.

[joer]

I'll see if I can organize the preferences, suggestions and ideas we enter so far Zzyzx. So we can track the changes and additions. Is that agreeable to you. We can collaborate by PM or email if you like.

I like your suggestions and I have some questions and will review some of the links you've provided.

Thank You for your guidance and considerations so far.

I will remove my signiture out of respect for your POV. Good Will my friend.

I'll add my signiture back after we get things settled.

[Zzyzx]

.

I will remove my signiture out of respect for your POV. Good Will my friend.

I am not affected in any way by your signature.

We have NOT agreed upon a topic for debate. I have not agreed to be bound to "jointly selected points" from the UB.

I have asked many times now for your position regarding the UB and I have supplied mine -- clearly stated. That information is fundamental, in my opinion, to establishing a debate topic.

Why do you seem unwilling to state a position? Are you in stealth mode?

[joer]

.

I will remove my signiture out of respect for your POV. Good Will my friend.

I am not affected in any way by your signature.

We have NOT agreed upon a topic for debate. I have not agreed to be bound to "jointly selected points" from the UB.

I have asked many times now for your position regarding the UB and I have supplied mine -- clearly stated. That information is fundamental, in my opinion, to establishing a debate topic.

Why do you seem unwilling to state a position? Are you in stealth mode?

All of those things are forth coming my brother. And I assume we will be working on them together. I understand we have agreed on virtually nothing EXCEPT the intention to debate and generally something involving The Urantia Book and it's veracity.

While at the same time we have each made numerous requests, raised many issues, recommended many references to be considered in setting up the structure of this debate.

I'm relying on you Zzyzx to work with me. And I'm trying to work with you. What I'm trying to do now is extract all of those things we've mentioned of which topic and debate outlines are only two, so we can work through them in coming to agreement. There are many things to discuss including what you just mentioned. topic and positions.

I wrote:

Zzyzx and I are working out the rules and details and will update as agreements are made.

I'm assuming that nothing was set in concrete yet, as we've just begun So Topic and title and outline will be forthcoming as WE BOTH agree to terms. Does that sound Right to you Zzyzx?

While you've rightly voiced concerns about the Topic and position. One concern I have is your comment about "proper use" of Bolding, underlining, and other highlighting used for emphasis. While I use it extensively you use it very little, But while I haven't looked through ALL the suggested references and rule lists you've given me. I have reviewed the rules on this thread and head to Head forum and others and HAVE NOT FOUND the rules for "proper use" of these tools for adding emphasis to written expression as you might use voice inflection, and fluctuation of tone and force, in a verbal debate. If you can help locate those on this site it would help tremendously in learning the "proper use" of these tools of written debate that compensate for the lack of voice emphasis in verbal debate.

Thank You in advance Zzyzx. Good Will to you. I'll see if I can finish the compilation of our suggestions so far, tonight. I'll post it here and then wait for you to reorganize and go through it refining our suggestions and adding more to your liking. Than perhaps we can go over the requests and propositions for debate structure one at a time in an orderly fashion. Perhaps we can both suggest an order in how we process our debate structure desires. For example each of our expressed general positions should probably come before The Topic outline and the Outline should change in accordance to what method and/or kind of evidence or references we agree on as acceptable. As we refine our methods of debate we can refine our intended positions to defend or support and work to a Topic Title that is representative of the overall structure, outline of points to be debated, and acceptable methods of debate. Many of these things we've both already brought up and need to be reviewed and decided upon.

I've noticed many times how you number your questions and points in a post. So I will attempt to extract our suggestions of debate structure, methods, positions, etc into a numbered list that we can than check off as we review each item or additional items that are added as we review. Than you can reorder the list to your liking adding what you like. So we can make our review as complete and satisfactory to each other as possible. And once we reached an acceptable staring point we will begin following the rules and outline we have both agreed to.

Does that sound OK with you Zzyzx?

If you have a more thorough approach. Please present it while I prepare mine.

Thanks Zzyzx. I appreciate your patience and willingness to work towards a Fair and well defined and structured Debate.

[joer]

OK Zzyzx. I came up with 7 main areas of decision making. The first and last two won’t need much work IMHO. The other four will take perhaps a little more resolution to come to terms. IMHO. Number 4 could probably be divided into two divisions. Please tear it up Zzyzx. Reorganize it and please add all your influence that I most likely overlooked, changes and additions. Then lets review. Sound OK to You?

1. What IS your position regarding the UB?
2. What constitutes evidence?
3. Allowable references?
4. What methods of debate should be allowed disallowed? What Rules of debate will we follow?
5. Judging? How shall the debate be judged?
6. What should the Topic be?
7. Who goes first?

1. What IS your position regarding the UB?
Zzyzx wrote:

I have asked many times now for your position regarding the UB… That information is fundamental, in my opinion, to establishing a debate topic

. – Agreed.

Someone (Besides you) asked me a few days ago. And I had to think a minute of how to sum up my position on it. I said, “I’m contingently for it while Zzyzx is totally against it." Now that was before you posted this. I was surprised. I see your position is conditional also. I had no idea Zzy. I’m impressed with your appraisal of it. I thought it would be totally one sided from your expressions about it in past posts. I am impressed that you would share that

Zzyzx

Notice that I do NOT say that the UB is all "hogwash" or that it does not contain some (however limited) truthful, useful or accurate information. I DO say that it seems difficult (at best) to identify literally truthful parts, if any, from those that are not literally true.

I have much the same attitude toward the bible, the koran and other revered texts. There may be some truth but what is true is not evident or necessarily identifiable. I ask proponents what criteria can be used to distinguish between truth and fiction or untruth – and have never received a coherent reply.

I have asked many times now for your position regarding the UB… That information is fundamental, in my opinion, to establishing a debate topic. –

Agreed.

2. What constitutes evidence?

Zzyzx wrote:

A.)One problem we may encounter in structuring our debate is what constitutes evidence. I am far more a realist than a spiritualist. In fact, the latter is foreign to me. "Feelings" or "voices" do not impress me as being evidence of anything more than a person's emotional responses. Testimonials (personal attestations) are no more convincing – they are unverifiable personal expressions / opinions / observations. Personal opinion does NOT constitute evidence – though expert opinion (widely recognized experts) may have some (not absolute) merit.

B.)"Convergence of evidence" is significant in my view. Single points of "evidence" that cannot be substantiated I regard as being questionable (possibly true, possibly false, or partially each – with no way of knowing which).

C.)I am NOT willing to assume that supernatural beings exist or that they influence human affairs – or that "god" or "aliens did it". Stories about such beings or nature-defying feats do NOT constitute evidence in my estimation UNLESS they can be shown to have occurred literally, physically in the real world.

3. Allowable references?

Joer

Do want to review allowable references before we start so we eliminate objections to reference during the debate so we can focus on Topic instead of nit picking about acceptable references?

Zzyzx

I am not in favor of any specific list of allowable references; however, a discussion of categories or types of acceptable reference or evidence is agreeable. What do you suggest?

4. What methods of debate should be allowed disallowed? What Rules of debate will we follow?

Zzyzx

A.)Circularity in argument does not furnish proof (citing a source to prove itself or citing a closely allied source) – such as "The bible (or UB) is true because it says it is" or or because these people say it is true or "this chapter of the bible is true because another 'independent' chapter says something similar"

B.)Excuses for lack of evidence do not constitute a valid argument in my opinion. If one takes a position I credit them (often incorrectly – but I am generous) with having evidence upon which to form an opinion or reach a conclusion. Stating that they have a conclusion but can't find evidence to support the conclusion is a concession of default.

C.)One is entitled to their own opinion but they are NOT entitled to claim possession of FACT or truth unless they can demonstrate that possession.

D.)I request that in a Head to Head debate that you use the forum's quote function properly to identify the person quoted and that you reduce the overuse of unnecessary formatting such as and .

If you make a good point I will be aware. In general debate threads you may feel it necessary to bold and underline – but overuse of bold and underline is, in my opinion, distracting for readers and is an indication that one has little confidence that their points are noticeable or significant on their own.

E.)I suggest that we AGREE upon what rules to follow. A good place to start may be the thread in General Chat that suggests rules for a Head to Head debate. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9405 -

Agreed

F. I do NOT propose that what anyone (myself included) says in that discussion is appropriate for every debate – but rather that the thread is a good place for the participants to START developing an acceptable set of rules and conditions.

-understood

Reference suggestions by Zzyzx:
Based upon the ideas presented in that thread and other ideas, participants proposing a debate can discuss, perhaps by PM to avoid cluttering threads, the "rules of engagement" to apply to a particular debate.

Another crucial thread is "Guidelines for the C&A subforum"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741
Insert UB beliefs / book where appropriate.

Another apropos thread that contains some useful information (though not "rules") is "Debating for beginners (and others)" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9533


Joer

A.)Any limit of the length of the answer or complexity of the question, like multiple embedded questions? ( Like asking two, three, four, five or more questions in ONE. )

Zzyzx :

Suggest wording with which you would be comfortable and I will consider what you say. –

OK we’ll discuss it

B,)How about limitations of content? Like only questions about things that pertain to a what can be proven by a material basis of reality or will a spiritual basis of reality be acceptable?

Zzyzx wrote:

Define "spiritual basis of reality" and describe how it is to be used as evidence or proof.

– OK will do.

C.)I don’t mine you using rules as long as the content of debate is not limited by exclusionary evidentiary rules.

Zzyzx replied:

What do you mean you don't mind ME using rules? Are you in disagreement with having rules for debate? If you agree then WE have rules to which we agree.

My Bad. -it should have read “our using� instead of “you using�.

Specify exactly what you mean by and how you interpret and apply "not limited by exclusionary evidentiary rules". …?

OK but it’s relational to “ the content� so it must be included in the question and should read minimally like this: “the content … is not limited by exclusionary evidentiary rules.�

5. Judging? How shall the debate be judged?
joer wrote:

How about the idea I presented about an outside judging panel comprised of the judges WE choose? I think that would make it a little more interesting don’t you?

zzyzx wrote:

I suggest that we select two moderators rather than judges. In my opinion readers are independent judges. I am not interested in "points" or in "winning" – that is not my motivation to debate.

Each of us can invite one moderator who is wiling to act in the capacity of insuring that we follow the rules of the forum, the guidelines for C&A, our agreed rules and ethical / honorable conduct.

6. What should the Topic be?

Speaking of Topic, I suggested,

"Is the Urantia Book more valid or invalid in terms of the Truth contained within it's Material?"
Zzyzx

I am not inclined to measure the "relative truth" of a work used for reference.

Joer continued:
on the Head to Head thread and you said you would debate:

the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book

So how about “How do you determine the Truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book's Contents�

Zzyzx wrote:

I agree to have a closely monitored structured debate – and suggest alternating posts in which one question is asked and one answer is provided for the previous posted question – (i.e., answer one, ask one).

and

We have NOT agreed upon a topic for debate. I have not agreed to be bound to "jointly selected points" from the UB

. Agreed

7. Who goes first?

Zzyzx wrote:

You may choose. It makes no difference to me.

Agreed

[Zzyzx]

.
I await a clear and inclusive statement of your position regarding the Urantia Book.

[joer]

.
I await a clear and inclusive statement of your position regarding the Urantia Book.

OK Zzyzx, to keep things clear and organized lets discuss and engage on question one.

1. What IS your position regarding the UB?

In response to this question I have stated my position clearly and concisely:

“I’m contingently for it [TUB]

This is my position until the rules of debate, presentation of evidence, methods of debate, and acceptable references are resolved.

And in regards to the same question you write:

...I have supplied mine -- clearly stated.

With out clearly and openly stating "This is my position."
You did provide this, which I presume you are referring to as your clearly stated position:

Notice that I do NOT say that the UB is all "hogwash" or that it does not contain some (however limited) truthful, useful or accurate information. I DO say that it seems difficult (at best) to identify literally truthful parts, if any, from those that are not literally true.

I have much the same attitude toward the bible, the koran and other revered texts. There may be some truth but what is true is not evident or necessarily identifiable. I ask proponents what criteria can be used to distinguish between truth and fiction or untruth – and have never received a coherent reply.

Well lets see how clear it is.

You wrote,Notice that I do NOT say that the UB is all "hogwash". What's that mean Zzyzx? You are starting with a negation of a possible position. How clear is that?

Ok So your NOT saying that TUB (the Urantia Book) is all “hogwash�. Well what are you saying and what are the implications of this statement? First of all you it can be inferred from your statement that The Majority of TUB is all “hogwash�. Yet you leave an escape mechanism in there. That is your negation “not saying that�. It’s double talk Zzyzx. Right off the bat.

Then because of the conjunction “or� another thing you're NOT saying is, “it does not contain some (however limited) truthful, useful or accurate information.� So right off the bat your impinging on the veracity of TUB by NOT SAYING two limited perhaps minimally positive things about the book. That it’s not hogwash and it has some truthful, useful or accurate information. So you give the appearance that you are conceding something when in fact you are conceding nothing because you're NOT SAYING it. A nice trick perhaps BUT hardly clearly stated.

A Clearly stated position would be to clearly state what your position is. Which is, you think it’s mostly hogwash and it doesn’t have much truthful, useful, or accurate information if any at all.

That would be clear. BUT YOUR NOT STATING THAT. No wonder I was so surprised I was initially fooled by your probable ploy. Oh Well, that’s why we’re going through these debate rules process right? To clear these things up. Intentional or not.

So you go on to say:

I DO say that it seems difficult (at best) to identify literally truthful parts, if any, from those that are not literally true.

Now you state your position a little more clearly but you still have a play on words with the almost “literally truthful� juxtapositioned with “the not literally true�. It sounds nice but it's not very clear. And you’ve created a phantom contradiction because you said that you didn’t say that "it does not contain some (however limited) truthful, useful or accurate information." Which would be a contradiction with, "it seems difficult (at best) to identify literally truthful parts, if any, from those that are not literally true."

BUT since you said you didn’t say that, it’s not really a contradiction.

My, but you do have a way with words Zzyzx.

Then you say “I have much the same attitude toward the bible, the koran and other revered texts.� So now not only do I have to defend TUB, because you have associated it with the Bible and the koran and other revered texts. Now I have defend it from associated negative positions in those texts or separate it from those texts opening my self up to attacks of denying the possible truths that are in those texts. So you’re setting me up for a "damned if you do damned if you don’t" scenario.

No thanks I’m just defending TUB.

Now when you say . “There may be some truth but what is true is not evident or necessarily identifiable.� Since you’ve associated it with “the bible, the koran and other revered texts.�, are you referring to the truth in those texts, the truth in TUB, or the truth in all of them?

For the purposes of this debate I’m only arguing in support of TUB. And only in areas that are supportable by the type of evidence allowed in this debate. I’m not defending ALL other religious texts, sacred, revered, or otherwise. If we allow only a material basis of reality I will only argue the truth or veracity of materially based points. If we allow a spiritual basis of reality I will argue the veracity of spiritually based points.

Either way, your unclearly stated contention and position that TUB is pretty much worthless in terms of truth will be refuted.

Now your last point of your unclearly stated non-specifically declared position is this “I ask proponents what criteria can be used to distinguish between truth and fiction or untruth – and have never received a coherent reply.�

Now again because of your association of TUB with other texts, your use of "proponents" is unclear. Is it proponents of the bible you were asking, proponents of the Koran you were asking, proponents of other “revered texts� you were asking or proponents of TUB you were asking, or all of them together or any of them in combination that your were asking?

Do you see how you dilute and convolute the clarity of a clearly stated position by the way you use words?

Simply and clearly stated our positions are these:

I will be arguing in support of or “PRO� TUB’s veracity in the areas we settle on for debate.

And you will be arguing against or “CON� the veracity of the areas of TUB we will be debating.

Our positions will be better defined after we establish the rules on acceptable methods, presentation of evidence and references.

I’m open for examination of my position as it is presently clearly and concisely stated. May I suggest that we complete areas 2, 3 and 4 before returning to Area 1 for final formulation of our stated positions.

Does that sound acceptable to you Zzyzx?

[Zzyzx]

.

I await a clear and inclusive statement of your position regarding the Urantia Book.

OK Zzyzx, to keep things clear and organized lets discuss and engage on question one.

Joer,

I challenged you to debate the truth and accuracy of the UB. I have NOT challenged you to debate the truth and accuracy of SELECTED PARTS of the UB, or methods of determining the truth of the UB, or whether the UB is more truthful than non-truthful. Although any of the latter may be interesting topics, they are VERY different from debating whether the UB is true and accurate.

Do you concede that parts of the UB are NOT true and accurate?

If you refuse to concede that point, you ARE maintaining that all parts are truthful and accurate and I challenge you to defend any and all that you claim is true. If the book is true and accurate you should be proud to defend any point.

If you DO concede that parts are truthful and accurate and others are not, our topic of debate becomes, "Which parts, if any, of the UB are truthful and accurate?" I am not opposed to that topic PROVIDED that truthful AND untruthful parts are clearly identified and acknowledged.



For those not familiar with the Urantia Book (or Urantia Papers), it consists of a large number of writings by anonymous authors purporting to represent communication from extraterrestrial beings Including "contact" with an unidentified human through what appears to be described as a series of trances. It has been succinctly described (by a "friendly source") as:

Urantia Book: a book and teaching given to humanity by celestial beings; the book describes the nature of multidimensional reality and the history of the local universe, as well as the life and teachings of Jesus.
http://www.iamuniversity.ch/moodle/mod/ ... sortorder=