UFO: The Greatest Story Ever Denied.

[_Darth J]

Darth J, just wait till the Tralfamadorians come for you.

I know. I'm so totally screwed.

[_Ray A]

Ray A has conscripted me into the diehard skeptic brigade---the ufologist equivalent of "anti-Mormon"---based on nothing more than my statements that I do not find the evidence compelling or persuasive that space aliens have been visiting the Earth.

You have a whole lot of contradictions in this post, but I'll begin with this one. Remember, it was you who entered this thread on the wild assumption I was engaging in "the equivalent of Mormon apologetics", a "UFO Mopologist", so to speak. So don't be so quick to talk about "poisoning the well", or, "wash your finger before you point it".

I really don't have any particular interest in UFO's.

.

Nor any real knowledge of the subject and its finer complexities, as if all UFO researchers are "nutjobs". You know, finding evidence in Zarahemla and all that. You let out your true motives (and misunderstandings) in your very first post.

So, have you viewed the whole video yet?

My only real interest in this thread is looking at the mindset of apologist behavior that seems to have some common presenting behaviors, regardless of the belief system being defended.

Don't flatter yourself too much. It was obvious from the start that finding the truth about UFO/aliens was not your primary aim, but you were motivated by some "higher purpose", like finding out why these deluded people can believe in such things. I.E., "nonsense" which you
are "not interested in".

[_Ray A]

Because of my subjective experiences that I feel are spiritual in nature, I believe in God. (However, believing in God does not mean one is a theist. As MrStakhanovite sometimes explains, theism is belief in certain philosophical propositions about God.)

If you hold "certain philosophical propositions about God" then you are a theist of some variety, unless you want to escape every classical definition of theism. I am an agnostic theist myself. Mr. Stak doesn't have a corner on this, either:

An agnostic theist believes that the proposition that at least one deity exists is true, but per agnosticism also believes that this proposition is unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in....

Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, that God should be worshiped and that humans should be compassionate toward one another. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church.

So by your definition you may not be theist, but if you believe in God, then you are a theist of some sort. If you don't like that idea, then maybe you should go with deism, which is still though a form of theism. The only problem with that is that it contradicts the idea that God could tell you "the Book of Mormon isn't true". While some deists allow for minimal "God intervention", it doesn't get to the level of God personally speaking to you about whether a religious text is true or not.

[_Ray A]

Name-calling and well-poisoning is what you do when you do not have the wherewithal to respond to critical thinking coming in contact with your cherished beliefs.

Or one's cherished unbelief. Critical thinking works both ways, and if you are one-dimensional, so to speak, you're not a critical thinker! But merely replacing one form of dogma with another.

The New Inquisition.

[_Darth J]

Ray A has conscripted me into the diehard skeptic brigade---the ufologist equivalent of "anti-Mormon"---based on nothing more than my statements that I do not find the evidence compelling or persuasive that space aliens have been visiting the Earth.

You have a whole lot of contradictions in this post, but I'll begin with this one. Remember, it was you who entered this thread on the wild assumption I was engaging in "the equivalent of Mormon apologetics", a "UFO Mopologist", so to speak. So don't be so quick to talk about "poisoning the well", or, "wash your finger before you point it".

An theory based on observed behavior is not an "assumption," Ray. Testing that theory is not poisoning the well, either. I keep asking you to show me why UFO apologetics is different in some meaningful way from Mormon apologetics. You're still not giving me a reason to doubt my theory about that.

I really don't have any particular interest in UFO's.

.

Nor any real knowledge of the subject and its finer complexities, as if all UFO researchers are "nutjobs". You know, finding evidence in Zarahemla and all that. You let out your true motives (and misunderstandings) in your very first post.

Naturally that must be the case, because everyone who views the evidence "properly" will agree with the proponents of the evidence.

By the way, I was talking about ufology. I could make the exact same statement about Mormon apologetics, so I thought I should specify to avoid confusion.

So, have you viewed the whole video yet?

I'm working on it. I only have so many hours I can allocate to UFO's each day, Ray. You can't expect me to be like Stan Friedman, who has nothing else to do.

My only real interest in this thread is looking at the mindset of apologist behavior that seems to have some common presenting behaviors, regardless of the belief system being defended.

Don't flatter yourself too much. It was obvious from the start that finding the truth about UFO/aliens was not your primary aim, but you were motivated by some "higher purpose", like finding out why these deluded people can believe in such things. I.E., "nonsense" which you
are "not interested in".

And you have certainly negated that premise!

Although I never called people who believe in space aliens "deluded," nor did I call it "nonsense." I said the evidence was unconvincing.

Is your consistent use of the false dilemma and "us vs. them" mindset yet another way that you are showing me how I am mistaken about the similarities between UFO apologetics and Mormon apologetics?

[_Darth J]

Because of my subjective experiences that I feel are spiritual in nature, I believe in God. (However, believing in God does not mean one is a theist. As MrStakhanovite sometimes explains, theism is belief in certain philosophical propositions about God.)

If you hold "certain philosophical propositions about God" then you are a theist of some variety, unless you want to escape every classical definition of theism.

So by your definition you may not be theist, but if you believe in God, then you are a theist of some sort. If you don't like that idea, then maybe you should go with deism, which is still though a form of theism. The only problem with that is that it contradicts the idea that God could tell you "the Book of Mormon isn't true". While some deists allow for minimal "God intervention", it doesn't get to the level of God personally speaking to you about whether a religious text is true or not.

I believe that my exact words were, "believing in God does not mean one is a theist." I used the unqualified term "theist." That is different from denying that I may be "some kind" of theist.

Do you think you will ever get tired of mischaracterizing what I said about a spiritual experience after I came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is fiction? Or is misrepresenting what I said so you can find something about which to claim I am wrong one of those ways that you are showing that you as a UFO apologist are different from a Mormon apologist?

[_Darth J]

Name-calling and well-poisoning is what you do when you do not have the wherewithal to respond to critical thinking coming in contact with your cherished beliefs.

Or one's cherished unbelief. Critical thinking works both ways, and if you are one-dimensional, so to speak, you're not a critical thinker! But merely replacing one form of dogma with another.

The New Inquisition.

That link to The New Inquisition certainly would mean something if I had not just recently talked about a belief in certain metaphysical possibilities.

And I am already well aware that any critical thinker will invariably share your belief in space aliens. You need not take up more bandwidth making this assertion.

Tell me, Ray: since you consider being unconvinced about the status of UFO evidence to be a "cherished unbelief," do you consider not going to Hawaii to be a vacation?

Do you consider not posting on a message board to be online activity?

ETA: What name-calling did I direct toward you, Ray?

[_Darth J]

Name-calling and well-poisoning is what you do when you do not have the wherewithal to respond to critical thinking coming in contact with your cherished beliefs.

Or one's cherished unbelief. Critical thinking works both ways, and if you are one-dimensional, so to speak, you're not a critical thinker! But merely replacing one form of dogma with another.

The New Inquisition.

Jim Lippard described the quality of research in the book as "very shoddy". Lippard listed inaccuracies about the Esperanza stone, fish falling from the sky and the alleged Mars Effect. The book had a large number of typographical errors. He also said that Wilsons' message about avoiding dogmatism was worthwhile, that the book was entertaing but that readers should be careful about taking Wilsons' explanations seriously.

Kristin Buxton compared Wilson to Martin Gardner, noting that Gardner has written on many of the topics that Wilson writes about in the book, taking very different points of view. She pointed out that Gardner doesn't think it is easy to exactly define pseudoscience, nor does Gardner think his ideas are infallible. She mentioned that other reviewers had pointed out problems with the research and that the book needs to be read with care.

Yes, you have certainly put me in my place by your reference to that book, Ray.

[_Ray A]

I believe that my exact words were, "believing in God does not mean one is a theist."

And I believe you are talking nonsense.

I used the unqualified term "theist." That is different from denying that I may be "some kind" of theist.

Feel free to exempt yourself from historical definitions of theism, and by all means invent new ones. And don't forget to say that you're a lawyer with a "critical mind!"

Do you think you will ever get tired of mischaracterizing what I said about a spiritual experience after I came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is fiction?

Do you think you'll ever mischaracterise what I said about virtually everything? I'm a "UFO Mopologist", says Dark J. So it is so!

Or is misrepresenting what I said so you can find something about which to claim I am wrong one of those ways that you are showing that you as a UFO apologist are different from a Mormon apologist?

See what I mean?

Dark J doesn't accept classical terms of reference to define himself, and invents new ones, then claims the sole right to define who I am.

You're a real gem, Dark J.

[_Darth J]

I believe that my exact words were, "believing in God does not mean one is a theist."

And I believe you are talking nonsense.

"What Ray thinks" has been my guide for the way I have been trying to live my life, so this is certainly a disturbing development.

I used the unqualified term "theist." That is different from denying that I may be "some kind" of theist.

Feel free to exempt yourself from historical definitions of theism, and by all means invent new ones. And don't forget to say that you're a lawyer with a "critical mind!"

This would really mean something if I specifically said that I am not a qualified theist, or if I had denied that I may be some subset of theist.

Do you think you will ever get tired of mischaracterizing what I said about a spiritual experience after I came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is fiction?

Do you think you'll ever mischaracterise what I said about virtually everything? I'm a "UFO Mopologist", says Dark J. So it is so!

No, I said that UFO apologists are similar to Mopologists.

What was the difference, again? I can't seem to remember where you demonstrated otherwise.

Or is misrepresenting what I said so you can find something about which to claim I am wrong one of those ways that you are showing that you as a UFO apologist are different from a Mormon apologist?

See what I mean?

No.

Dark J doesn't accept classical terms of reference to define himself, and invents new ones, then claims the sole right to define who I am.

You're a real gem, Dark J.

Okay, except that I did not do any of the above. The only thing I said is that I am not an unqualified theist.

Do you feel that your obsessive personal vendetta based on my not sharing your cherished beliefs is helping make your case that you are not a UFO apologist?