"Love Letters" to Richard Dawkins

I said:

I doubt he would read a well-reasoned reply to his nonsense. Fundamentalists... That is shooting fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...
You said:
I find it rather amusing when Imperial Philosopher, Types with Fingers, and others suggest that physicalists must think and feel like some sort of meat machine, rather than in the same way as nonphysicalists. It's endearingly childish.
Click to expand...
Then you said:

He has debated people with supposedly well-reasoned counterpoints, so I don't think he's too worried about it. Shooting fish in a barrel is just fun.
Click to expand...

Then I said:
Yes, poking fun at "fundies" isn't "endearingly childish" at all, I guess.

And "supposedly well-reasoned"... Nice one.
Click to expand...
Then you say:

Ah, so you think the letters he read were actually well-reasoned?
Click to expand...
Can you point me to where I said the letters he read were well-reasoned? Did I not say they were fundamentalists and therefore he is shooting fish in a barrel? And then said "nice one" about the debates you alluded to. (I was mostly highlighting objections to Dawkins in debates being characterized as "supposedly well-reasoned," your words.)

I am starting to think what they say here about you is true -- that you are here to argue and waste everyone's time.

Noted.
 
tim said:
Paul is harmless but his mind is made up, closed, locked shut, shutters down, feet up, smoke rings. You may as well talk to the wall...but as I said he is pleasant at least.
Click to expand...

Also... Then he is here to just argue (even if harmless). Thanks, I won't waste my limited time in responding. I am here to learn, not get into pointless arguments. I have done that, however, myself, but I do try to learn from my mistakes. ;)
 
Doppelgänger said:
Also... Then he is here to just argue (even if harmless). Thanks, I won't waste my limited time in responding. I am here to learn, not get into pointless arguments. I have done that, however, myself, but I do try to learn from my mistakes. ;)
Click to expand...

Paul will be here in thirty years ...just the same as he is now.
 
If you're on the internet expecting to avoid pointless arguments, you're gonna have a bad time.

And besides, throwing people out because they have a contradictory opinion is supposedly part of the reason why some of you folks don't like the skeptic groups anyway.
 
tim said:
Linda is the one that I would like to see banned but it won't happen. To be fair, I'll bet she would think the same of me.
Click to expand...

I hesistate to say this but, at one time, after reading multiple-linked threads to the old forum, I thought she might me a proto-AI run out of an MIT basement or something, unleashed onto niche forums to learn how to argue, so that later, once evolved, the AI could sock-puppet and argue into eternity about how psy sucks and capitalism is super-awesome. Or something dystopian like that.

I kid, I kid, Linda, really! ;)
 
Imperial Philosopher said:
If you're on the internet expecting to avoid pointless arguments, you're gonna have a bad time.

And besides, throwing people out because they have a contradictory opinion is supposedly part of the reason why some of you folks don't like the skeptic groups anyway.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable but this is supposed to be Parapsychological friendly forum. No ?
 
Imperial Philosopher said:
If you're on the internet expecting to avoid pointless arguments, you're gonna have a bad time.

And besides, throwing people out because they have a contradictory opinion is supposedly part of the reason why some of you folks don't like the skeptic groups anyway.
Click to expand...

I have been on the Internet for 20+ years now (and before that, BBSes). I know when it is pointless and when to disengage. I didn't say I throw out dissenting opinions. I just know at some point you have to stop arguing with people who just want to argue.
 
politicaljunkie said:
would good would banning the skeptics achieve though? It would just turn the forum into a circle jerk.
Click to expand...

No one was saying in this thread that we should ban the skeptics. Why would we? They are fuzzy and adorable.

Also see my post about how no-skeptics would not turn this forum into a love-fest, endless echo chamber. Do you really think we would all endlessly agree with one another without the Skeptics?
 
Doppelgänger said:
Also... Then he is here to just argue (even if harmless). Thanks, I won't waste my limited time in responding. I am here to learn, not get into pointless arguments. I have done that, however, myself, but I do try to learn from my mistakes. ;)
Click to expand...

If you're looking to have someone provide you with all the answers, you're bound to be disappointed. This is a forum where the subject matter is one where we don't have all the answers.

The process of learning is more than just being told what the answers are. The value of this forum lies in working together to try and figure this stuff out.

I'm not sure why you don't think Paul's posts are valuable. He has a knack, imo, for spotting and articulating questions that should be answered before reaching certain conclusions. They are often not easy to answer, which can lead to frustration. But they are almost always thought provoking, and often critical. The process of trying to work out the answer has value, imo, even if we don't reach a satisfactory conclusion.
 
Arouet said:
If you're looking to have someone provide you with all the answers, you're bound to be disappointed. This is a forum where the subject matter is one where we don't have all the answers.

The process of learning is more than just being told what the answers are. The value of this forum lies in working together to try and figure this stuff out.

I'm not sure why you don't think Paul's posts are valuable. He has a knack, imo, for spotting and articulating questions that should be answered before reaching certain conclusions. They are often not easy to answer, which can lead to frustration. But they are almost always thought provoking, and often critical. The process of trying to work out the answer has value, imo, even if we don't reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Click to expand...

Oh goodness. You think I am here to have answers provided to me? Are you joking?

His posts aren't valuable if they are posted to just argue with no other purpose and provide no information.

Edit: we've interacted before, actually. Check my posting history if you think I am here to be told answers. I do not think there are answers. Just more questions.
 
Last edited:
Doppelgänger said:
Can you point me to where I said the letters he read were well-reasoned? Did I not say they were fundamentalists and therefore he is shooting fish in a barrel? And then said "nice one" about the debates you alluded to. (I was mostly highlighting objections to Dawkins in debates being characterized as "supposedly well-reasoned," your words.)
Click to expand...
Oops, sorry about that. You were talking about the debaters and I switched to the letter writers.

I am starting to think what they say here about you is true -- that you are here to argue and waste everyone's time.
Click to expand...
Or I could have made a mistake.

~~ Paul
 
Doppelgänger said:
Also... Then he is here to just argue (even if harmless). Thanks, I won't waste my limited time in responding. I am here to learn, not get into pointless arguments. I have done that, however, myself, but I do try to learn from my mistakes. ;)
Click to expand...
What the hell is a forum like this for if not to argue and debate? Surely you don't want a vapid, back-slapping sort of place.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top