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]

You wrote on Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:14 pm

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.

Well actually Zzyzx you didn’t challenge me to a debate on “the truth and accuracy of TUB.� You’re trying to pull a bait and switch routine to setup up a Topic in a way that makes it impossible for You to lose and me to win. Very few sources are 100% accurate. Yet you want me to defend the position that The Urantia Book is 100% accurate. That’s crazy. We couldn’t even cover 100% of the material presented in The Urantia Book in years.

So you want to come in and make a few points about a few things in the Urantia Book that may not be able to be proven and then say on that basis the whole book is “Hogwash� or worthless because you can’t determine what is true and what is false.

The fact of the matter is that on Dec. 19, 2008 you asked me to suggest a topic for a head to head debate.

Post 242: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:22 am
Is there a related topic that you would suggest as a separate thread or as a Head to Head debate?

Than again on Dec, 21,2008 and in response to my suggestion of a possible debate format you agreed to a "point / counterpoint" style of debate�, and again ask me to suggest a Topic.

Evidence to support the Christian Bible.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 672#210672

Post 244: Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:11 pm
joer wrote:
Since this is a civil debate, does that sound good to you? Let me present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP than you respond to it and show your evidence that counters it. Than I’ll respond to the evidence you presented.

Again, are you suggesting that I must accept your "evidence" without questioning or criticizing?

Are you expecting me to "prove it did not occur"?

joer wrote:
Than You present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP. I’ll respond to it and show my evidence that counters it. Then you have the final response to my counter.

Than we will repeat the process moving forward with new evidence each time. Hopefully we won’t get stuck on repetitive objections and replies about the same old eveidence.

What you propose sounds a bit like "point / counterpoint" style of debate.

joer wrote:
How’s that sound Zzy? Would that be acceptable to you? We can always ajust the review procedure by agreement when we need to spend more time on certain evidence or issue.

Yes.

I suggest that we set up a one-on-one debate in the Head to Head sub-forum, agree upon practices and policies, and ask two moderators to very closely moderate our discussions.

What topic do you suggest?

Then you went on to challenge me three times between then and Jan 5, 2009 on the Evidence to support the Christian Bible. about the Urantia Book that I had never introduced as a source for evidence or a reference in support of a source on that thread.

What does the Urantia Book teach about the "Star"?

Joer,

Since you seem reluctant to answer my question about what the Urantia Book teaches about the "Star of Bethlehem" I will help you.

These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts.

Urantia Book part #4 page 351
http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper122.html

Do I remember correctly that you have indicated in the past that you are a proponent of the UB?

What the Urantia Book (that I seem to recall you supporting) teaches about the "star"

I finally CHALLEGED YOU TO A DEBATE ON THAT TOPIC (as you had twice before requested) ON UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS on Jan. 6, 2009.

Evidence to support the Christian Bible.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 240#213240

Post 302: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:51 am

The question on the Urantia book here as you pose it doesn’t seem apropos because I didn’t introduce anything from the Urantia Book as evidence in this thread. I presented strictly scientific, historical and literary critical analysis of the evidence presented and it's association to the biblical reported “existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.�

This thread isn’t about the Urantia Book it’s about science, logical and rational knowledge and the bible.

And I’ll go "one on one" with you on the Urantia Book any day. If we take turns presenting something from the Urantia Book for the other to refute. Does that sound Just to you Zzy? You go first putting the onus on me to make the first refutation. Than I go with something from TUB you can refute. In the end well see what the score is on points made or refuted by each of us. I think it would be nice if we pick a panel of willing judges to judge the debate. That way our opinions of our own work won’t mean as much as the judges opinions in terms of whose position won the most merit. Right?

We could each choose half the judges from those willing to participate. We could choose either believers or non-believers to be as our pick for judge. I’d rather have an objective Atheist or Christian than a fundamentalist Atheist, Christian or other, judge my presentations. You pick who ever you want.

That sound fair to you Zzy?

....And I’ll gladly debate Zzy one on one on The Urantia Book under the terms I’ve presented in this post.

About 5 hours later after investigating the head to head debate forum and subforum I presented your lead-up challenges asking me to suggest a Topic and MY CHALLENGE TO YOU TO DEBATE YOU on the tentative Topic that the Urantia Book contained more True than False information.
Head-to-head subforum
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 270#213270

Post 7: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:45 am

Zzy made five posts that have led me to accept his challenge to Debate head to head. (one on one). These are excerpts from the five posts

What you propose sounds a bit like "point / counterpoint" style of debate.

joer wrote:
How’s that sound Zzy? Would that be acceptable to you? We can always ajust the review procedure by agreement when we need to spend more time on certain evidence or issue.

Yes.

I suggest that we set up a one-on-one debate in the Head to Head sub-forum, agree upon practices and policies, and ask two moderators to very closely moderate our discussions.

What topic do you suggest?

Is there a related topic that you would suggest as a separate thread or as a Head to Head debate?

What does the Urantia Book teach about the "Star"?

Joer,

Since you seem reluctant to answer my question about what the Urantia Book teaches about the "Star of Bethlehem" I will help you.

These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts.

Urantia Book part #4 page 351
http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper122.html

Do I remember correctly that you have indicated in the past that you are a proponent of the UB?

What the Urantia Book (that I seem to recall you supporting) teaches about the "star"

I responded with this tonight on the Evidence to support the Christian Bible. Thread:

The question on the Urantia book here as you pose it doesn’t seem apropos because I didn’t introduce anything from the Urantia Book as evidence in this thread. I presented strictly scientific, historical and literary critical analysis of the evidence presented and it's association to the biblical reported “existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.�

This thread isn’t about the Urantia Book it’s about science, logical and rational knowledge and the bible.

And I’ll go "one on one" with you on the Urantia Book any day. If we take turns presenting something from the Urantia Book for the other to refute. Does that sound Just to you Zzy? You go first putting the onus on me to make the first refutation. Than I go with something from TUB you can refute. In the end well see what the score is on points made or refuted by each of us. I think it would be nice if we pick a panel of willing judges to judge the debate. That way our opinions of our own work won’t mean as much as the judges opinions in terms of whose position won the most merit. Right?

We could each choose half the judges from those willing to participate. We could choose either believers or non-believers to be as our pick for judge. I’d rather have an objective Atheist or Christian than a fundamentalist Atheist, Christian or other, judge my presentations. You pick who ever you want.

That sound fair to you Zzy?

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

Than finally a few hours later you responded not with a challenge as you here now suggest, but an OFFER to debate me on “the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book but not on unfair or irrational terms.� (Meaning not on any terms under which you could possible lose.)

Evidence to support the Christian Bible.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 262#213262

Post 305: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:58 am
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).

So no need to pretend you challenged me “to debate the truth and accuracy of the UB.� You OFFERED to debate me on those grounds. Your challenge is to the grounds for debate that I suggested. I don’t mine the challenge to my suggestion, I just don’t care much for the deceptive tactics. But I guess some believe that’s to be expected on a debate forum. I believe you can use open and honest tactics also. And expose deceptive tactics for what they are.

I’ve suggested many things in terms of an outline of areas of decision making to be decided. That we review what will be acceptable evidence methods and references. We have both touched on these things. I acknowledge that you have not accepted my initial challenge to you to debate the Urantia Book on the terms I initially suggested, nor have you accepted any of the Topics I have suggested as of yet. And that you have suggested alternative Topics and basis of debate entailing that I defend the position that the book is 100% accurate that I have not accepted for the reasons stated. So for the purposes of this debate Setup the Topic and positions are still not finalized.

That being the case let me move to another issue that we have both touched on. But before I do that, I would also like to leave a link to the source material from which we will be extracting material to be discussed and debated. I’m sure Zzyzx may agree with me that it would be impossible to debate every bit of the over 2000 pages of the source material to effect a complete analysis and debate of 100% of ALL the source material contained therein.

While Zzyzx’s link was a non-flattering association to third party New Wave site, (as one would expect. right?) This is a link to one of the Original Sites Officially representing The Urantia Book. It’s original material can be searched viewed and listened to Online here.

The Urantia Book: Table of Contents
http://urantiabook.org/newbook/index.html

Spiritual vs. material basis of reality - next post

[joer]

Spiritual vs. Material basis of Reality

I’ve brought this up and you’ve asked for clarification and/or explanation of it.

In Post 308: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:28 am I wrote:
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.

In Post 310: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:54 pm Zzyzx wrote:

joer wrote:
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?

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

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.

In Post 9: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:24 am I wrote:

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.

So to clarify in Post 238: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:10 am I laid out this argument which contains the definition of a "spiritual basis of reality" and describe how it is to be used as evidence or proof.�, that you ask for.

I love the way you pose things Joey. It has an openness of being willing to explore it’s most profound meanings. As you’ve also “correctly� observed some on posts sides of an argument are more protective and demanding that their view is the unequivocally “correct one�.

So where does the 'eyes of what is actually correct' come from? Isn’t it the accumulative “eyes of the seer� assenting to the meaning evolved by a school of thought recognized by all adherents of this group of a common perspective based on the “basis of reality� that is in the case of a materialistic POV is scientifically proven, rational logical and acceptable evidence by the adherents of that group?

For the believer wouldn’t be the same things with a different “basis of reality� or maybe a several “basis of reality�. One for the spiritual and one comparably to the material realist’s “basis of reality�

So that the 'eyes of what is actually correct' for the believer would be, the accumulative “eyes of the seer� assenting to the meaning evolved by a school of thought recognized by all adherents of this group of a common perspective based on the “basis of reality� that is in the case of a spiritualistic POV is personally experienced, revelationally conveyed, based on Faith and [is] rational logical within it’s Spiritual “basis of reality� and [is] acceptable evidence by the adherents of that group?

And both positions would be TRUE in the “eyes of their respective adherents� when your following statement is applied to them.

In Post 245: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:17 pm I used an analogy of the baby the in the bath water, where the bathwater symbolized the spiritual basis of reality that would be discarded by the materialist Remember this one, Zzy?

[/b]I’ve been trying to avoid the temptation to engage in a discussion or debate if you will on supernatural events. Confused, wisely I believe, for this OP eliminated the need to meet those challenges. While you continue it seems Zzy, to wish to enter into those kinds of debates I still must avoid them as I believe they are indefensible positions by the terms of acceptable material realities and proof.

Since you will not entertain a spiritual basis of explanation for supernatural events I can’t help you there my friend.

BUT what I’ve been trying to do on this thread is Save the Baby from getting throughout with the Bath water in terms of biblical or biblical related scenarios. If the bath water is the materially untenable biblical positions or events. The Baby are those persons, places, things, events or stories that DO have some basis or possible basis in material, historical or scientific reality.

So evidence in a Sipritual basis of reality is personally experienced, revelationally conveyed, based on Faith .

And since you claerly don't accept tha spirtitual basis of reality, it would NOT be evidentiary acceptable by you thus would be exculded rendering certain content of The Urantia Book (that of a spiritual nature) indefensible by exclusionary evidentiary rules. Thus by your refusal to accept spiritual evidence based in a spiritual basis of reality I could not defend the Spirtual reality evidence based in that reality. So your proposal to have me defend 100% content of of The Urantia Book would be defeated by your exclusionary evidentiary rules.

But that's not important. Because even in your own area of expertise "a material bassi of reality" any attack you mount against the content of TUB based in material reality will most likely be refuted.

Post 9: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:24 am
Either way, your unclearly stated contention and position that TUB is pretty much worthless in terms of truth will be refuted.

So even though you won't get your easy "supernatural" defeat you're looking for, are you willing to risk your reputation as a champion of Material Reality against the Material Reality as presented in the contents of a book you've painted as pure "hogwash"? It would seem you'd be able to defeat the material precepts in TUB easily.

In Post 242: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:22 am you said:

I am willing to discuss geology or Earth scienc as one who has studied and taught in the field. Is there a related topic that you would suggest as a separate thread or as a Head to Head debate?

OK, care to test your 21 century knowledge of geology with that of a book that's plates for printing were prepared in 1946 over 62 years ago. Is it possible that it could contain geological data that was discovered after 1946.

This is just for practice. to see if you might be interested in a debate on the material knowledge contained within the pages of the Urantia Book.

quetsion:

Where are the oldest rocks on earth to date located?
When were they identified as the oldest rocks on earth?
What were believed to be the oldest rocks on earth before these were discovered?

Those sound like pretty interesting geological questions right? Willing to risk your reputation as a geologist who made a challenge on Dec 19, 2008 "to discuss geology or Earth scienc as one who has studied and taught in the field", against a 62 year old book that you've painted as primarially hogwash?

Are you feeling lucky? Well are you? Come on let's have some fun Zzy, then we can get back to this exciting task of debate rules and structure.

[Zzyzx]

.
Joer,

I am here to debate the issue of truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book NOT the multiple "creative" limited topics and "challenges" being proposed.

If you are unable or unwilling to defend the UB as being truthful and accurate, kindly say so straight out.

I have requested "Close Moderation" of this thread, beginning now, to insure adherence to Forum Rules and Guidelines and to additional rules we may agree upon. I suggest that we each invite one of the moderators to be involved.

Let's cut through the BS.

1. Are you willing to defend the Urantia Book as truthful and accurate or are you not?

2. Are you willing to debate the issues and make NO personal comments or are you not?

3. Are you willing to follow Forum Rules and Guidelines or are you not?

[joer]

I have presented no BS, but will gladly help you to continue to CUT through yours as I have already attempted to do, if you like and if that is how you refer to your efforts so far.

Zzyzx, did or did you not ask me to suggest a Topic for debate?

Evidence to support the Christian Bible.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 672#210672

Quote:

Post 244: Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:11 pm
joer wrote:
Since this is a civil debate, does that sound good to you? Let me present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP than you respond to it and show your evidence that counters it. Than I’ll respond to the evidence you presented.

Again, are you suggesting that I must accept your "evidence" without questioning or criticizing?

Are you expecting me to "prove it did not occur"?

joer wrote:
Than You present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP. I’ll respond to it and show my evidence that counters it. Then you have the final response to my counter.

Than we will repeat the process moving forward with new evidence each time. Hopefully we won’t get stuck on repetitive objections and replies about the same old evidence.

What you propose sounds a bit like "point / counterpoint" style of debate.

joer wrote:
How’s that sound Zzy? Would that be acceptable to you? We can always adjust the review procedure by agreement when we need to spend more time on certain evidence or issue.

Yes.

I suggest that we set up a one-on-one debate in the Head to Head sub-forum, agree upon practices and policies, and ask two moderators to very closely moderate our discussions.

What topic do you suggest?

Have I not already attempted to find a Topic to in an attempt to accommodate both our positions?

Post 2: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:36 am

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�

By the way you never gave me a definite answer to this Topic suggestion on Jan 8th. “How do you determine the Truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book's Contents�
Then you say:

I am here to debate the issue of truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book NOT the multiple "creative" limited topics and "challenges" being proposed.

So what’s up with that Zzyzx????? First you civilly invite me to suggest a Topic than YOU REFUSE to Debate anything other than the ONE TOPIC you present. And so far you have only presented ONE. And ONE that I have already exposed for it’s bias in the favor of your position.

Did you not present all these personal preferences of yours?

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.

I raised these issues.

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.

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

Do you 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?

Then you say:

I am here to debate the issue of truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book NOT the multiple "creative" limited topics and "challenges" being proposed.

So now I’m supposed to be forced to follow your preferences because you refuse to discuss the fairness of them or of mine? What about your statement “adherence to Forum Rules and Guidelines and to additional rules we may agree upon?� It seem to me you’ve been reluctant to discuss “any additional rules� with me much past the point of stating your own preferences. I’ve been trying to get you to engage in that discussion for structuring the debate for some time now. It seems, all you do is present you conditions an demand that I debate you on your terms without a open and copacetic review of the rules regarding allowable evidence, methods of debate and references.

Do you feel this step is not important? I suggested an outline of process, you have not agreed to it or offered a better process for dealing with the issues we have both raised that I took reasonable effort in compiling for our review.

Now you want to railroad me into your Topic, your conditions, your parameters and rules of debate with very little effort, regard or attention on your part for my suggestions on my preferences, conditions, rules and/or parameters of this debate.

I’m sure most here might agree, it seems a bit terse on your part.IMHO

[Zzyzx]

.
Let's try again. These are simple questions. A "yes or no" answer will do.

1. Are you willing to defend the Urantia Book as truthful and accurate or are you not?
Yes? No?

2. Are you willing to debate the issues and make NO personal comments or are you not? Yes? No?

3. Are you willing to follow Forum Rules and Guidelines or are you not? Yes? No?

[Confused]

MODERATOR NOTE:

Forgive my intrusion from your selected moderators for your Head to Head, but the details of what your Head to Head will cover should probably be done via PM and once the actual debate question/propositions have been established, they should be listed in the OP so the moderators know what rules you have agreed on and what format you will be following. Looking at the Head to Head OP between otseng and Zzyzx on the Global Flood, or by McCulloch and Achilles on Free Will are both good templates.

[joer]

Thanks Confused.

[Zzyzx]

.

MODERATOR NOTE:

Forgive my intrusion from your selected moderators for your Head to Head, but the details of what your Head to Head will cover should probably be done via PM and once the actual debate question/propositions have been established, they should be listed in the OP so the moderators know what rules you have agreed on and what format you will be following.

Thank you Confused. Your comments are not intrusion, but are welcome. I request very close moderation of this thread. I agree that details should be handled via PM.

The questions I have posed repeatedly, however, are major items – not details. I prefer that Joer's answers be in public view rather than private communication.

If he is unwilling to follow Forum Rules and Guidelines and is unwilling to refrain from personal comments he is unwilling to debate honorably and ethically.

If he is unwilling to defend the Urantia Book as truthful and accurate, he is unwilling to debate the topic. The topic is "Is the book truthful or is it not?" The topic is NOT "How can I restrict the debate to points that I think I can defend?"

My key questions remain unanswered:

1. Are you willing to defend the Urantia Book as truthful and accurate or are you not? Yes? No?

2. Are you willing to debate the issues and make NO personal comments or are you not? Yes? No?

3. Are you willing to follow Forum Rules and Guidelines or are you not? Yes? No?

I will send a PM concerning details – once these fundamental questions are answered.

I can understand that a person familiar with the Urantia Book would be well advised to NOT debate its truth and accuracy because much of the book CANNOT be defended with reason and evidence – and much of it appears to be similar to science fiction or fantasy.

Instead of debating the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book one can attempt to maneuver debate into "selected parts", "how can accuracy be determined", "is the book more truthful or accurate than untruthful and inaccurate" – or any of a host of other questions to AVOID actually attempting to defend the book as being truthful and accurate.

For the record, I AM willing to debate the truth and accuracy of the UB, I AM willing to follow Forum Rules and Guidelines and I AM will to refrain from personal comments.

I AM here to debate the truth and accuracy of the UB – honorably and ethically. Are you Joer?

[joer]

Zzyzx while you courteously address Confused’s welcomed suggestion.

Thank you Confused. Your comments are not intrusion, but are welcome. I request very close moderation of this thread. I agree that details should be handled via PM.

Onfused wrote:

the details of what your Head to Head will cover should probably be done via PM and once the actual debate question/propositions have been established, they should be listed in the OP

You seem to immediately violate her suggestion for us to formulate our question/propositions privately via PM with the following:

The questions I have posed repeatedly, however, are major items – not details. I prefer that Joer's answers be in public view rather than private communication.

And while you state you are willing to follow forum rules it would appear that if Confused’s suggestion was more than a suggestion, for example if it was a moderators decision wouldn’t it have been more proper to discuss your desire to address me Publicly with your questions with Confused via PM, because you didn’t use the suggested PM method which Confused suggested?

13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

And I don’t think there’s any need to cast aspersions on my debating honor and ethics as a tactic to get your own way, or for any other reason.

If he is unwilling to follow Forum Rules and Guidelines and is unwilling to refrain from personal comments he is unwilling to debate honorably and ethically.

Might not that be seen as inflammatory?

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

If he is unwilling to defend the Urantia Book as truthful and accurate, he is unwilling to debate the topic.

So if I don’t debate the Topic you insist on, then I’m not willing to debate? What about your unwillingness to debate my Topic suggestions concerning the same Material? Does that mean your unwilling to debate the Topic?

The topic is "Is the book truthful or is it not?"

What happened to “defend the Urantia Book as truthful and accurate�? Are we allowed to rephrase what ever Topic we decide upon whenever we like?

The topic is NOT "How can I restrict the debate to points that I think I can defend?"

That’s right. That’s only what you’re trying to do as I’ve already shown. You haven’t achieved your goal yet.

My key questions remain unanswered:

As do mine that were stated before yours.

I will debate “How do you determine the Truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book's Contents� or any other Topic about The Urantia Book that we mutually agree on. I will not debate a biased Topic of my opponent’s creation, that he insists I debate without nay consideration of my input on the matter.

I will send a PM concerning this post immediately. And I apologize to Confused for feeling the need to defend my position publicly in response to Zzyzx's Public Aspersions cast upon my position and effort in the attempt to structure a fair debate as well as upon the source I choose to defend.

You write:

I can understand that a person familiar with the Urantia Book would be well advised to NOT debate its truth and accuracy because much of the book CANNOT be defended with reason and evidence – and much of it appears to be similar to science fiction or fantasy.

As I also can understand someone trying to get a leg up on an opponent by casting aspersions on a source even before it’s evaluated by fair and honest debate.

Instead of debating the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book one can attempt to maneuver debate into "selected parts", "how can accuracy be determined", "is the book more truthful or accurate than untruthful and inaccurate" – or any of a host of other questions to AVOID actually attempting to defend the book as being truthful and accurate.

I’m sure anyone attacking the truth and accuraccy of the book will careful cherry pick the weakest and hardest or most controversial concepts presented in the book to attack while leaving the strong truthful statements contained in the book to be lost with the attempted discrediting.

I agree to debate “How do you determine the Truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book's Contents� A Topic I presented to you Jan 8th. To which you have not directly responded, while INSISTING I address your Topic as presented on Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:13 am

I will respond to you in kind sir. When you see fit to offer me the same courtesy you request.

I agree to follow these rules as they are presented in, Debate Forum Intro and Rules and any other rules we agreed to by mutual agreement. As we agreed to do before this debate structuring process got under way.

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature).
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
6. Do not debate in the discussion subforums. They are only for general discussion to get to know one other better.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
8. Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagarism.
9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).
10. Spamming (duplicate posts, advertisements, etc) is not allowed.
11. Hacking into other peoples' accounts or the forum will result in instant account banning and IP banning.
12. Do not post personal information about other people (license plate numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, phone numbers, etc). Information deemed personal by the moderators will immediately be edited.
13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.


I AM here to debate honorably and ethically, period. Are you Zzyzx?

Peace be with you Zzyzx. I hope we can work something out via PM and bring it back here for debate.

[Confused]

MODERATOR SUGGESTION:

Thus far, nothing has actually been stated on what is to be debated. Rather there is tossing comments from other threads around but nothing actually suggesting what the debate is even about and now we are reduced to uncivil posts whereas you two were very civil on the open forum to one another. It is in this moderators opinion that we work through this via PM's between both Zzyzx, joer, Confused, and Fallibleone until a suitable solution has been obtained and the debate topic is very clear so it can be moderated appropriately or until both parties agree they cannot debate the topic and we simply walk away from the head to head. If Fallibleone and I are to appropriately moderate this debate, we need to know exactly what your debate question is, what each persons stance is, and what rules of evidence are acceptable. Can we start there without bringing in posts from other threads? My suggestion is that everything previously posted gets scrapped and we start from scratch, with no reference to other threads and posts.