DEBATE: Frodo Vs Kyu

[fr0d0]

Can we have a comment thread? Can I ask for no quoting of anything, just original thoughts of our own. Current thoughts & no excerpts from the Kyu archives, for example.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Not established. See post 12

Is this another dodge?

God - Kyu refuses to discuss
Science - I have very little knowlede of, so couldn't discuss that
Evidence - We've discussed in some depth, and have reached several conclusions. Kyu denies these conclusions like he always does.

Firstly you could have fooled me because you have participated actively in several threads which have had science based content ... furthermore I wasn't actually talking about discussing the scientific method per se (although it may come up). Secondly I know a lot more about god/s than you want to admit and that you don't like what I say doesn't equate to a refusal to discuss the subject. Thirdly that we have discussed something already isn't the point; the point is the formalised discussion of the subject at hand and how a debate of that format will pan out.

All I can say is that I have a very good idea exactly how my first post will form up so I am very, very prepared to debate this subject ... if you are not then please feel free to suggest something else.

Can we have a comment thread?

I don't see why not.

Can I ask for no quoting of anything, just original thoughts of our own.

The rules/format I am devising wasn't going to be quite that strict but I was heading in that direction.

Current thoughts & no excerpts from the Kyu archives, for example.

Even though I wasn't planning on using my own material verbatim, I have to ask if that's fair? I mean my own archives, whilst comprehensive, are my own thoughts and are no different in principle than using one's own education and experience ... would I ask that you don't use anything you have learned?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

God - Kyu refuses to discuss
Science - I have very little knowlede of, so couldn't discuss that
Evidence - We've discussed in some depth, and have reached several conclusions. Kyu denies these conclusions like he always does.

Firstly you could have fooled me because you have participated actively in several threads which have had science based content ... furthermore I wasn't actually talking about discussing the scientific method per se (although it may come up). Secondly I know a lot more about god/s than you want to admit and that you don't like what I say doesn't equate to a refusal to discuss the subject. Thirdly that we have discussed something already isn't the point; the point is the formalised discussion of the subject at hand and how a debate of that format will pan out.

All I can say is that I have a very good idea exactly how my first post will form up so I am very, very prepared to debate this subject ... if you are not then please feel free to suggest something else.

I'm interested in science, but profess no knowledge of the subject. My interests here are purely philosophical.

I have no doubt you have considerable head knowledge of various deities and religious dogma. This knowledge being non debatable to you I understand. You have said more than once, I think, that you don't wish to discuss the subject wider than this. Philosophy, for example, is beyond your interest.

You haven't discussed the subject of evidence, you've consistently and uniquely pleaded non understanding of my point. I've explained myself in countless ways and you still plead that I haven't answered you. As far as I can see you stubbornly refuse to consider the idea, for no apparent reason. It'd be dull if you just kept that up.

From the subject title you've chosen I don't really know where you want to go with this. I'm not really interested in evidence of God's existence. It ranks way down there off my radar, to be honest. It is of high interest to non believers I grant you. You kid yourself though if you think it's of much interest to me. I will still discuss this if you really want to though.

Current thoughts & no excerpts from the Kyu archives, for example.

Even though I wasn't planning on using my own material verbatim, I have to ask if that's fair? I mean my own archives, whilst comprehensive, are my own thoughts and are no different in principle than using one's own education and experience ... would I ask that you don't use anything you have learned?

Only problem with that is it lets you off the hook when in the interest of debate live thoughts are precisely relevant where past thoughts never truly are. Of course we draw on our experiences when forming opinions. I think of your opinions as set in stone as it is. I don't think it would make you look plausible quoting from your own personal bible.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Firstly you could have fooled me because you have participated actively in several threads which have had science based content ... furthermore I wasn't actually talking about discussing the scientific method per se (although it may come up). Secondly I know a lot more about god/s than you want to admit and that you don't like what I say doesn't equate to a refusal to discuss the subject. Thirdly that we have discussed something already isn't the point; the point is the formalised discussion of the subject at hand and how a debate of that format will pan out.

All I can say is that I have a very good idea exactly how my first post will form up so I am very, very prepared to debate this subject ... if you are not then please feel free to suggest something else.

I'm interested in science, but profess no knowledge of the subject. My interests here are purely philosophical.

As are mine, we just happen to disagree over what true philosophy is.

I have no doubt you have considerable head knowledge of various deities and religious dogma. This knowledge being non debatable to you I understand. You have said more than once, I think, that you don't wish to discuss the subject wider than this. Philosophy, for example, is beyond your interest.

Again no, I am interested in philosophy, that I happen to disagree with you over the value of abstract philosophical thought is another issue entirely.

You haven't discussed the subject of evidence, you've consistently and uniquely pleaded non understanding of my point. I've explained myself in countless ways and you still plead that I haven't answered you. As far as I can see you stubbornly refuse to consider the idea, for no apparent reason. It'd be dull if you just kept that up.

I HAVE discussed the subject of evidence, I just disagree with you on what constitutes evidence.

From the subject title you've chosen I don't really know where you want to go with this. I'm not really interested in evidence of God's existence. It ranks way down there off my radar, to be honest. It is of high interest to non believers I grant you. You kid yourself though if you think it's of much interest to me. I will still discuss this if you really want to though.

Then suggest something different ... I want to discuss that in particular because I believe there is much to gain from a formal debate.

Even though I wasn't planning on using my own material verbatim, I have to ask if that's fair? I mean my own archives, whilst comprehensive, are my own thoughts and are no different in principle than using one's own education and experience ... would I ask that you don't use anything you have learned?

Only problem with that is it lets you off the hook when in the interest of debate live thoughts are precisely relevant where past thoughts never truly are. Of course we draw on our experiences when forming opinions. I think of your opinions as set in stone as it is. I don't think it would make you look plausible quoting from your own personal bible.

My own personal bible? Don't you mean comprehensive answers I have taken a considerable time to research and understand? I can only assume that the reason you do not want me to use my own resources is because you fear what I am capable of with them.

Now, I was rather under the impression you had agreed to debate ... if so on what subject? Are we going to debate or are you chickening out?

Kyu.

[leo-rcc]

Kyu, can we make a deal to cease all hostilities towards Fr0d0 and only discuss thecontent and format of the debate with him? Likewise, Fr0d0, will you please stop with the responses to Kyu's barrage?

Only you can prevent forest fires.

[fr0d0]

Kyu, can we make a deal to cease all hostilities towards Fr0d0 and only discuss thecontent and format of the debate with him? Likewise, Fr0d0, will you please stop with the responses to Kyu's barrage?

Only you can prevent forest fires.

Sure

---

I'm interested in science, but profess no knowledge of the subject. My interests here are purely philosophical.

As are mine, we just happen to disagree over what true philosophy is.

I think philosophy misses the point. Actual academic philosophy. Do we need to agree on this?

Again no, I am interested in philosophy, that I happen to disagree with you over the value of abstract philosophical thought is another issue entirely.

This surprises me (if that's the right word)(your interest in philosophy). I believe my philosophy to be entirely rational, and not at all abstract. I also limit my philosophy to Christian biblical reference. Is that what you mean by abstract? Don't feel you need to answer this BTW.

I HAVE discussed the subject of evidence, I just disagree with you on what constitutes evidence.

I think I know what you're saying here. A premise for me debating would have to be that you allow me to have my source of evidence. I don't require you to agree with it, just for me to call on it as my rational basis. I hope that's fair. If not, please say why and I'll consider it.

From the subject title you've chosen I don't really know where you want to go with this. I'm not really interested in evidence of God's existence. It ranks way down there off my radar, to be honest. It is of high interest to non believers I grant you. You kid yourself though if you think it's of much interest to me. I will still discuss this if you really want to though.

Then suggest something different ... I want to discuss that in particular because I believe there is much to gain from a formal debate.

Well if you do then lets go for it.

My own personal bible? Don't you mean comprehensive answers I have taken a considerable time to research and understand? I can only assume that the reason you do not want me to use my own resources is because you fear what I am capable of with them.

No, I think it'd be very easy for you to block quote, without having to put much thought into the actual debate in hand. I also think it's make you appear disingenuous.

Now, I was rather under the impression you had agreed to debate ... if so on what subject? Are we going to debate or are you chickening out?

I'm up for it if you are.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Personally I think fr0d0 should accept the debate

Why? I wouldn't in his place, Kyu would cream him,although I doubt he's intellectually honest enough to admit even the likelihood.

Besides,I simply can't be bothered arguing with presuppositional apologists. Their arguments are old and tired and they argue from an unshakable position of personal certitude.

[fr0d0]

lmao @ padraic

"Their arguments are old and tired and they argue from an unshakable position of personal certitude."

[Giff]

The debate would probably be more fun then healthy.

But if Kuy will cream him, then let there be cream!

There probably should be a weigh in so that they are in the same weightclass, or shall there be no rules? Last man standing perhaps?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, can we make a deal to cease all hostilities towards Fr0d0 and only discuss thecontent and format of the debate with him? Likewise, Fr0d0, will you please stop with the responses to Kyu's barrage?

Personally I don't think my behaviour has been bad over the past few days (sorry, I'm 51 ... alzheimers or something similar) but yes, I agree to more carefully review my posts before I post them.

Kyu

---

On philosophy, no but it could well be one of my focuses in the upcoming debate and no by "abstract" I was not specifically referring to religious philosophy.

Evidence is part of my proposed debate title so, again, I would plan to discuss the nature of evidence there.

I fail to see why I should not be able to use my own resources but I give you my word I will not block quote any of my articles (by which I mean whole articles) in the debate and by that I do not mean I will dodge your concerns by changing minor points. If, however, something (some part of an article I have written) says something in a way I cannot improve upon I reserve the right to use that part of the article without reference (unless that source article is itself referred from elsewhere).

I will post a suggested debate format shortly.

Kyu