AJ113

Sabine, in the following thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=54498
You made the following remarks:

Assumptions on my account never encourage me to pursue a dialogue.

You made a very serious statement on my account . I resent the implication of that statement.

Really ? without having any personal knowledge of whom BAC is in his daily life and how he makes his choices, you can actualy evaluate the level of overall rationality of an individual whose sole contact you have with is thru cyber means ? oh come on...

Clearly you do not appreciate the practice of making assumptions on behalf of others, especially when one knows very little about that person. N'est-ce pas? Also in the same thread, you said:

(to RBAC)Of course you are not an irrational individual in all ways.
Thus making an assumption on behalf of someone that you know very little about.

(to RBAC) Whether you be a theist or non theist or anything else, as long as your choices do not consist in hurting your neighbor, you fit my definition of a rational person.
Thus making an assumption on behalf of someone that you know very little about.

(to me) A quick note before I go to work....I guess it is a matter of attitudes...... you prefer to assume the worst about Rational BAC......
Thus making an assumption on behalf of someone (me in this case) that you know very little about. You then went on immediately to say:

I prefer to adopt the benefit of the doubt. If your incline is to attribute negative notions to an individual you do not know personaly, mine is to aknowledge I do not have the knowledge of that individual and I should withold from attributing negative notions to that person.
But despite holding this noble philosophy, it did not stop you from assuming that my own preference is to assume the worst. (See above.)

Then you said:
I think what BAC means is that the definition of faith in biblical terms does not call for reason to be what inspires faith. As a christian he is then justified according to biblical standards to not rely on reason for his faith.
Aside from the fact that this is circular reasoning, my point is that you made an assumption on behalf of someone that you know very little about.

As you ignored all my accusations of duplicity, I would like to give you the chance to explain in this separate thread.

Sabine Grant

Mais bien sur... Zola.

You have thru that thread attributed to rational BAC the negative character trait that he could not be a rational individual.

When given an opportunity to MODERATE your statement by aknowledging that the fact he admitted that faith is not the product of reason YET he could still be a person who has the ability to use reason in his daily life, you pursued to reply with arguments built to justify that he has to be irrational NO MATTER what.
His personal accomplisments in his life were dismissed entirely as irrelevent to him being a rational individual. There too, you were given an opportunity to give the benefit of the doubt. However you opted to be right no matter what opportunites were given to you to modify your NEGATIVE claim of his overall character.

Where you kept pouring oil on your personal fire, I threw a bucket of water.

I made no assumptions. Any lurker in this present thread can see the entire scenario by reading your persistant statements in the quoted thread which were demeaning to the overall character of a person you have no personal knowledge of. And they were made publicaly. Without any reserve or respect for BAC's individuality.

In any case, you'd rather consider yourself a person consistently rational in any choice you have ever made in your existence to have the right to hold a public trial in which you establish the level of overall rationality of another individual.

By stating and attempting to justify that BAC has to be overall an irrational person, you made a NEGATIVE depiction of another person's character. Your claim was based on his choice to pursue his faith. No other arguments were presented.

It is quite interesting that you chose the opening title of Zola's letter..... since it was addressed to the mob of individuals who accumulated defaming arguments and brought false accusations against Dreyfus..... simply because he was a jew. Quite appropriate.

wade-w

I had to think long and hard before I decided not to close the thread on RBAC's rationality or lack thereof. I finally decided to leave it because there was some good discussion on what it means to live a rational life in general.

However, threads that are opened with the express purpose of attacking another user are not a good thing, imo. I don't see this becoming a productive thread, therefore I am going to close it now.