UFO: The Greatest Story Ever Denied.

[_Darth J]

I think it is very apropos to have a thread on ufology on a board dedicated to talking about religious faith.

Obviously you missed all the references to Mormonism and God, Brigham Young and speculation on creation; a Mormon Ufologist; Dawkins on God, etc.

I understand your urge, though, to mock what you don't [want] understand.

Faith precedes the miracle?

[_Ray A]

Faith precedes the miracle?

Listen, fellow, last week you accused me of "following you around". I desisted, and bid you goodbye, and came here to try to have respectful discussions on this subject, minus your empty mockery. If you want to make this thread Terrestrial, which seems to be your aim, then we can return to the old game, but I ask Dr. Shades, or whoever moderates, that only these exchanges between you and I become Terrestrial.

[_Darth J]

Faith precedes the miracle?

Listen, fellow, last week you accused me of "following you around". I desisted, and bid you goodbye, and came here to try to have respectful discussions on this subject, minus your empty mockery. If you want to make this thread Terrestrial, which seems to be your aim, then we can return to the old game, but I ask Dr. Shades, or whoever moderates, that only these exchanges between you and I become Terrestrial.

I'm talking specifically about a topic you raised. And I have not posted any Terrestrial-level anything. That is not comparable to you going to unrelated threads and talking about how you want to play some kind of dog game.

Are you admitting that you cannot discuss the topic you introduced without resorting to ad hominem tirades?

[_Ray A]

I'm talking specifically about a topic you raised. And I have not posted any Terrestrial-level anything. That is not comparable to you going to unrelated threads and talking about how you want to play some kind of dog game.

Are you admitting that you cannot discuss the topic you introduced without resorting to ad hominem tirades?

Is this what you want me to respond to, in all seriousness?

And ufology even has its own Daniel Peterson. His name is Stanton Friedman.

I wonder where we're going to find some UFO artifacts. Maybe in Zarahemla?

Are you admitting that you cannot carry on a respectful conversation without resorting to ad hominem tirades?

Your whole purpose, which even Blind Freddy can see, is to disrupt this thread.

[_Darth J]

I'm talking specifically about a topic you raised. And I have not posted any Terrestrial-level anything. That is not comparable to you going to unrelated threads and talking about how you want to play some kind of dog game.

Are you admitting that you cannot discuss the topic you introduced without resorting to ad hominem tirades?

Is this what you want me to respond to, in all seriousness?

And ufology even has its own Daniel Peterson. His name is Stanton Friedman.

I wonder where we're going to find some UFO artifacts. Maybe in Zarahemla?

Are you admitting that you cannot carry on a respectful conversation without resorting to ad hominem tirades?

Your whole purpose, which even Blind Freddy can see, is to disrupt this thread.

Ad hominem is attacking a personal characteristic that is irrelevant to the issue.

As to my point that UFO apologetics and Mormon apologetics are similar in every meaningful way, comparing Stanton Friedman to Dr. Peterson is entirely relevant.

Except, as noted previously, that Dr. Peterson actually does something besides apologetics, whereas Stan Friedman does not.

Do you feel that there is anything ironic in your preemptive strike that anyone who does not share your opinions about space aliens is closed-minded, living in the Stone Age, and a priori has not looked at the evidence?

[_Darth J]

Ray:

Perhaps you would like to explain why UFO apologetics is meaningfully distinguishable from Mormon apologetics.

ETA: Note to mods---

If you feel that I am saying anything unworthy of the Celestial Kingdom, please move only that and not the entire thread.

[_Ray A]

Ad hominem is attacking a personal characteristic that is irrelevant to the issue.

As to my point that UFO apologetics and Mormon apologetics are similar in every meaningful way, comparing Stanton Friedman to Dr. Peterson is entirely relevant.

You know it is not relevant:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

The Peterson/Friedman comparison is wholly unwarranted, and totally irrelevant.

Except, as noted previously, that Dr. Peterson actually does something besides apologetics, whereas Stan Friedman does not.

The Peterson/Friedman comparison has nothing to do with this subject. Nor does finding evidence "in Zarahemla".

Do you feel that there is anything ironic in your preemptive strike that anyone who does not share your opinions about space aliens is closed-minded, living in the Stone Age, and a priori has not looked at the evidence?

Do you feel there is something ironic in someone who complains about being "followed around", then starts following around that same person with ad homenim irrelevancies in an attempt to hijack a thread?

[_Ray A]

Perhaps you would like to explain why UFO apologetics is meaningfully distinguishable from Mormon apologetics.

For one, I see far more evidence supporting the UFO/alien phenomenon than I do sustaining Book of Mormon historicity.

But I'm not going to play your mind games anymore, Dark J., because both you and I know where this is leading.

[_Darth J]

Ad hominem is attacking a personal characteristic that is irrelevant to the issue.

As to my point that UFO apologetics and Mormon apologetics are similar in every meaningful way, comparing Stanton Friedman to Dr. Peterson is entirely relevant.

You know it is not relevant:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

The Peterson/Friedman comparison is wholly unwarranted, and totally irrelevant.

I am comparing UFO apologetics to Mormon apologetics. Comparing Dr. Peterson to Friedman is specifically relevant.

Except, as noted previously, that Dr. Peterson actually does something besides apologetics, whereas Stan Friedman does not.

The Peterson/Friedman comparison has nothing to do with this subject. Nor does finding evidence "in Zarahemla".

Again, this is specifically relevant to the comparison of UFO apologetics to Mormon apologetics.

Do you feel that there is anything ironic in your preemptive strike that anyone who does not share your opinions about space aliens is closed-minded, living in the Stone Age, and a priori has not looked at the evidence?

Do you feel there is something ironic in someone who complains about being "followed around", then starts following around that same person with ad homenim irrelevancies in an attempt to hijack a thread?

You do not appear to know what "ad hominem" actually means. "Saying things I don't like" is not the definition of "ad hominem."

Nor am I threadjacking. In your OP, you explained your rationale for posting this thread on this board. I am responding to the rationale of posting a UFO thread on this board.

[_Darth J]

Perhaps you would like to explain why UFO apologetics is meaningfully distinguishable from Mormon apologetics.

For one, I see far more evidence supporting the UFO/alien phenomenon than I do sustaining Book of Mormon historicity.

But I'm not going to play your mind games anymore, Dark J., because both you and I know where this is leading.

I'm not playing any mind games, or any other kinds of games. I genuinely would like to know the difference between UFO apologetics and Mormon apologetics, apart from their respective subject matters.

Is "I believe in one, but not the other" the standard for addressing this question?