UFO: The Greatest Story Ever Denied.

[_Ray A]

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

Like being a theist who doesn't "necessarily" believe in God? This isn't about "metaphysics", it's about holding two contrary ideas in your mind at the same time, then thinking you can define what others believe is right or wrong!

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.

That would be a miracle - since I've never made that "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?

I would liken being "convinced" about something of which you know little, read little, and view little, and then declare it "UFO Mopologetics", a form of self-delusion based on an a priori assumption of what "can never happen". It's like the old argument that no religion can be true because "God doesn't exist". Dale Morgan perfected the art of this splendid deduction.

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

Do you consider posting on a message board to be an offline activity?

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

Does the derogatory term "UFO apologist/Mopologist" ring a bell? When Dark J posts, it is "truth". When I post, it is "apologia".

[_Ray A]

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.[/color]

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

Dark J considers literary criticism in the form of book reviews as Gospel Truth (thus proving my point). Do you think he can get beyond this stereotype?

Place your bets.

[_Darth J]

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.[/color]

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

Dark J considers literary criticism in the form of book reviews as Gospel Truth (thus proving my point). Do you think he can get beyond this stereotype?

Place your bets.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was I meant to consider the book to be gospel truth, or the wikipedia entry about the book to be gospel truth?

[_Darth J]

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

Like being a theist who doesn't "necessarily" believe in God? This isn't about "metaphysics", it's about holding two contrary ideas in your mind at the same time, then thinking you can define what others believe is right or wrong!

Would you be able to show me where I said I don't necessarily believe in God?

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.

That would be a miracle - since I've never made that "assertion".

Oh, so you do acknowledge that my failure to be persuaded by the status of the evidence about space aliens could be based on critical thinking?

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?

I would liken being "convinced" about something of which you know little, read little, and view little, and then declare it "UFO Mopologetics", a form of self-delusion based on an a priori assumption of what "can never happen". It's like the old argument that no religion can be true because "God doesn't exist". Dale Morgan perfected the art of this splendid deduction.

Of course, you have no way of knowing how much or how little I have reviewed about claimed UFO evidences. Regardless, your premise seems to be that the videos you are assigning me as homework will educate me. The Press Club fast and testimony meeting was not convincing, but I am reserving judgment on the one where they falsified an audio recording of Douglas MacArthur.

I reiterated just today that I do not claim that space aliens positively do not exist. Maybe you could share your favorite post where I indicated my conclusion that there are no such things as space aliens?

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

Do you consider posting on a message board to be an offline activity?

No. So it's really quite silly to talk about my supposed "cherished unbelief," isn't it?

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

Does the derogatory term "UFO apologist/Mopologist" ring a bell? When Dark J posts, it is "truth". When I post, it is "apologia".

Can you share your favorite post where I claimed my conclusions about the status of the evidence for space aliens to be "the truth"?

apologist:

a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

So are you not making a defense in writing (typing) of a belief in space aliens or the idea of space aliens?

[_Ray A]

"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.

That would be true if you hadn’t been telling me for aeons what “I think”.

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

Anyone who apologises for something Dark J doesn’t believe in, or rejects on “empirical grounds”, is a “similar to a Mopologist”.

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

Just go back over this thread.

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

Who believes in a metaphysical God under the terms of his own definition, which includes ignoring empiricism and “not necessarily being a theist”.

Makes total sense. How did I ever escape this wisdom?

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?

Do you feel that your obsessive personal vendetta on my not sharing your worshipful “scepticism”, without having read the evidence, is making your case that you “treasure truth”?

[_Darth J]

"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.

That would be true if you hadn’t been telling me for aeons what “I think”.

I see. Could you provide an example of where I told you what you think?

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

Anyone who apologises for something Dark J doesn’t believe in, or rejects on “empirical grounds”, is a “similar to a Mopologist”.

All right. Did I just assert this, or did I give some explanations of why this appeared to be the case?

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

Just go back over this thread.

I mean other than that you belief in space aliens but not in Mormonism.

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

Who believes in a metaphysical God under the terms of his own definition, which includes ignoring empiricism and “not necessarily being a theist”.

Makes total sense. How did I ever escape this wisdom?

You may have escaped this wisdom by intentionally overlooking where I said that I believe that I do believe in empiricism, that I do not believe that metaphysics is evidence because it is not empirical, and where I said a few times now that I do not consider myself to be 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?

Do you feel that your obsessive personal vendetta on my not sharing your worshipful “scepticism”, without having read the evidence, is making your case that you “treasure truth”?

Well, the problem is that you are just asserting that I have not read the evidence. You don't know what I may or may not have read or seen. And you are equivocating, because you keep talking about "the" evidence after you previously acknowledged that you have not read all of the evidence that may exist.

What's the obsessive personal vendetta on my part, Ray? I mean, besides your feeling that not sharing your beliefs about space aliens equates to a personal vendetta?

How many threads did I stalk you on talking about some dog/master thing, or talking about your "stoopid" posts?

I'm going to bed now, Ray. But guess what? I sometimes listen to Coast to Coast AM on the radio while I am going to sleep. So maybe there is hope for me yet!

[_Ray A]

Would you be able to show me where I said I don't necessarily believe in God?

Sure:

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.) My subjective spiritual experiences, however, are not what I would call "evidence," because it isn't empirical. I can't show you my subjective experiences. It is possible to measure physiological responses to what are claimed to be metaphysical experiences, but that to me does not resolve the issue. A hard materialist is going to say that the physiological response is the experience. A believer in some kind of metaphysics of some kind is probably going to say that we are just measuring the body's reaction to the experience. I have no idea how either proposition can really be determined, nor how it can be determined that only empirically-measurable events are "real."

(Emphasis added)

Mr. Stak , I would guess, would call you “confused”.

Oh, so you do acknowledge that my failure to be persuaded by the status of the evidence about space aliens could be based on critical thinking?

I acknowledge that your failure to be persuaded to be based on the fact that you have not read (or viewed) the evidence, and make deductions on 15 minutes of a video that goes for one and a half hours. That’s your “trend”.

Of course, you have no way of knowing how much or how little I have reviewed about claimed UFO evidences.

Your ignorance tells a different story.

Regardless, your premise seems to be that the videos you are assigning me as homework will educate me. The Press Club fast and testimony meeting was not convincing, but I am reserving judgment on the one where they falsified an audio recording of Douglas MacArthur.

Which shows your superior objectivity.

I reiterated just today that I do not claim that space aliens positively do not exist. Maybe you could share your favorite post where I indicated my conclusion that there are no such things as space aliens?

Sure:

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

Ufology apologists are essentially indistinguishable from Mormon apologists, so it certainly fits the theme.

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

(That's not completely fair, though. Dr. Peterson actually does teach in his chosen field. Stan Friedman has done nothing but UFO apologetics since the 1970's).

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

You have your "dismissible categories" there hardened in stone.

So are you not making a defense in writing (typing) of a belief in space aliens or the idea of space aliens?

Does that make me an “apologist”? Do you, Dark J, call anyone who thinks there might be something real to this, particularly because of personal experience, “apologists”? You do. Why? Because it doesn’t fit with your personal definition of “reality”.

[_Joseph]

With more evidence for extra-terrestrial beings than Lamanites and Nephites maybe Tommy Monson will find platinum plates and translate them with a bagel in a bucket for a whole new line of scriptures?

[_Darth J]

Would you be able to show me where I said I don't necessarily believe in God?

Sure:

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.) My subjective spiritual experiences, however, are not what I would call "evidence," because it isn't empirical. I can't show you my subjective experiences. It is possible to measure physiological responses to what are claimed to be metaphysical experiences, but that to me does not resolve the issue. A hard materialist is going to say that the physiological response is the experience. A believer in some kind of metaphysics of some kind is probably going to say that we are just measuring the body's reaction to the experience. I have no idea how either proposition can really be determined, nor how it can be determined that only empirically-measurable events are "real."

(Emphasis added)

Mr. Stak , I would guess, would call you “confused”.

Let me get this straight:

I am agnostic because I believe in personal, subjective experiences with God but do not know how that could be empirically measured?

Really? Really?

Oh, so you do acknowledge that my failure to be persuaded by the status of the evidence about space aliens could be based on critical thinking?

I acknowledge that your failure to be persuaded to be based on the fact that you have not read (or viewed) the evidence, and make deductions on 15 minutes of a video that goes for one and a half hours. That’s your “trend”.

I see. When exactly was this established as a fact?

And I do not need to see the entire video to know that they faked a recording of MacArthur in the first 15 minutes.

Of course, you have no way of knowing how much or how little I have reviewed about claimed UFO evidences.

Your ignorance tells a different story.

All right. Other than your equating not being persuaded with ignorance, how exactly did we establish my ignorance? Was it that I did not recognize on sight one of the people claiming to be involved with an alleged space alien cover-up at Roswell, or was there more than that?

Regardless, your premise seems to be that the videos you are assigning me as homework will educate me. The Press Club fast and testimony meeting was not convincing, but I am reserving judgment on the one where they falsified an audio recording of Douglas MacArthur.

Which shows your superior objectivity.

Should I NOT reserve judgment on the video where they falsified an audio recording of Douglas MacArthur?

I reiterated just today that I do not claim that space aliens positively do not exist. Maybe you could share your favorite post where I indicated my conclusion that there are no such things as space aliens?

Sure:

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

Ufology apologists are essentially indistinguishable from Mormon apologists, so it certainly fits the theme.

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

(That's not completely fair, though. Dr. Peterson actually does teach in his chosen field. Stan Friedman has done nothing but UFO apologetics since the 1970's).

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

You have your "dismissible categories" there hardened in stone.

I see. So you are equating an observation that there is no persuasive evidence that space aliens have visited this planet to a statement that they could not possibly exist anywhere in the universe?

I'll help you with two distinctions that you missed: the Western Hemisphere is a finite place, and the existence of other pre-Columbian civilizations has been established.

So are you not making a defense in writing (typing) of a belief in space aliens or the idea of space aliens?

Does that make me an “apologist”?

Yes, by definition. I provided a dictionary link.

Do you, Dark J, call anyone who thinks there might be something real to this, particularly because of personal experience, “apologists”? You do. Why? Because it doesn’t fit with your personal definition of “reality”.

No, I don't. I call people "apologists" when they fit the dictionary definition of "apologist."

P.S. I didn't go to bed yet. Now I am, though. Do you mind clarifying where you intend to go with all this, by the way?

[_Ray A]

Let me get this straight:

I am agnostic because I believe in personal, subjective experiences with God but do not know how that could be empirically measured?

Really? Really?

Really.

I see. When exactly was this established as a fact?

And I do not need to see the entire video to know that they faked a recording of MacArthur in the first 15 minutes.

So you’re, obviously, not watching the rest of it, because the MacArthur segment is faked. On that alone, Dark J concludes that the WHOLE UFO PHENOMENON is “fake”. Do we have an example of a more objective poster here on Mormon Discussions? I doubt it. Now everyone bow your heads and say, “yes”.

All right. Other than your equating not being persuaded with ignorance, how exactly did we establish my ignorance? Was it that I did not recognize on sight one of the people claiming to be involved with an alleged space alien cover-up at Roswell, or was there more than that?

You’re a novice. Now do some more reading, and viewing, before exercising your vocal (or verbal) chords, or opining on that which you assessed for a whole 15 minutes.

I'll help you with two distinctions that you missed: the Western Hemisphere is a finite place, and the existence of other pre-Columbian civilizations has been established.

Now go shout “Bingo!” and go claim your meat prize.

Yes, by definition. I provided a dictionary link.

That would be the “Gospel Dictionary”? According to the word of Dark J? Your “nuances” of dissent from classical theism, and your attempt to redefine everything according to “your spiritual experience”, speaks volumes about just how “objective” you really are.

P.S. I didn't go to bed yet. Now I am, though. Do you mind clarifying where you intend to go with all this, by the way?

Only to establish that your “thinking” is limited to what you perceive as possible, not possible, reality, and not reality, and that you claim “God” when it suits you, but reject all other definitions of God as “mopologetics”.

Do you consider Mormonism to be a fraud and a delusion, while you are adamant that your “God spoke to me” experience is totally valid?