₦airaland Forum

ObaMan:
hey Nferyn,
Thanks for the assistance so far?

My pleasure

ObaMan:
how far does Project management take u?

What do you mean? As far as you want it to take you, as long as you've got the skills.

ObaMan:
How far have u gone in it?

I'm currently working as PM and process coach annex Project Officer for the Merchant Banking Pillar of the largest Belgian bank, Fortis. We're currently moving the organisation over to Prince2 and want to become CMMI level 2 for the complete Fortis organisation while implementing a new Portfolio/Project/Programme/Demand Management software (CA's Clarity & Open Workbench). Once that goal is achieved, I'm going to function in a Project and Process Quality Assurance role where we'll strive to increase our CMMI level. After that, no clue

Official Prince2 manual:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/RTTKxToBoxN5TA%3D%3D
PMBok (version 2002):
http://download.yousendit.com/E3C448386B6EEC41
Mind you PMI and Prince2 are vastly different methodologies (and I prefer Prince2 for IT projects)

LoverBwoy:
Thanks, im enjoying the course so far and my people management skills are fine

As long as you're aware of your fallibility, they grow with the years as well

LoverBwoy:
I'm interested in the engineering aspect more though my tutor think is should keep my options open for now

I think your tutor is right

LoverBwoy:
i've just installed the microsoft office project software - got to start somewhere

MS Project can teach you a lot of wrong habbits (e.g. imposing non-existing relationships between tasks, linking up sumary tasks, etc). Better learn to plan on paper first and do your early/late date calculations manually. It will teach you to plan rigorously and focus on constructing your WBS in the proper manner. Once you're comfortable with that, you can start using a specific software.
I once followed a course on Open Plan and the first two days we didn't even touch the computer. Probably one of the best courses I ever attended.

LoverBwoy:
Have you got any experience in engineering/construction as a project officer?

No, I'm just one of these weenies that rode the wave of the dotcom bubble

LoverBwoy:
hey long time
ive heard of that prince2 you mentioned, ive got a long way to go but im considering a career in that field

Actually Prince2 is mainly used in IT and less in engineering. They usually take a more structured and rigid approach and Project Management is far more mature in engineering than in IT. It really can get a genuine field of study in it's own right more than a simple management approach. I've been taught scheduling practices and algoritms by PM-engineers and it would be folly to apply these techniques in the immature management environment of IT, where a more basic, fundamental approach is needed.

LoverBwoy:
im currently trying to get some placemnt with Arup or any other engineering firm

Get into the game and familiarise yourself with one of the main PM software packages (Artemis, Primavera or Open Plan come to mind). Study Earned Value Management and get into formal Risk Analysis (you could try factored risk in combination with EVA and you'll have a reasonable level of control over your project(s).

LoverBwoy:
im studying engineering with project managent

Good luck, it can be a very interesting and challenging field. Above all, don't neglect your people management skills

LoverBwoy:
managing a project any kind of project, managing human resources, finance, and the likes to meet a deadline specification-quality and cost.

The best place to start is by going through the PMI materials.
If you want to, I can send you the latest version of the PMBoK
I'm currently employed at a bank that wants to introduce the Prince2 PM methodology company-wide. Prince2 scales easier than PMI to all kinds of projects and the continuous focus on business justification really drives conrete achievements.

LoverBwoy:
im doing a module that involves project management

That's a bit low on info. Can you give some more context?

LoverBwoy:
are you site on this site mate?

Not for long anymore (today, that is)

Wumine:
How can u ever say there is no God? just step out of your room and look around you, there is more than enough proof for you. look at the sky suspended above,look at the sea, flowers, mountains, the sun, beauty of the moon at night, animals, just look at yourself! and so much more. you think you evolved from monkey and monkey from what? how do you explain all this, please how do you. my dear, THERE IS GOD, a mighty one. i look around me and just marvel. God is really great.

Please don't wallow in your ignorance. All of what you point out is easily explained by science. Of course learning that science can be hard and is just too cumbersome for many people.
A simple introduction into evolutionary theory can be found here.
Refutations of creationists arguments can be found here

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=30729.msg732417#msg732417 date=1164916035]Please someone tell it to 'em atheists. I keep banging it in they ears but it's like they've got selective thinking. You don't put behavioural observance and faith in the same box. As such, u can't use behavioural observance to explain faith and vice-versa.

Then alluding/mistaking "logic" to/with behavioural observance just makes it get all sh*ttier.

More l8r. . .[/quote]In that case, why don't you explain the epistemological value of faith? How do you arrive at truth through faith?

shango:
Obviously modern science is not the end all and be all of our existance on earth and even Einstein believed in a God though not of the form most christains for example subscribe to.

Einstein wasn't even a deist. A pantheist at most, but that would be very debatable.

shango:
Human beings all through history have always needed more than science and technology to define and ascribe meaning to our lives. Science does not speak to how your fellow man should be treated, nor does it create laws or define morality within our society.

Obviously, as you rightly point out, science is mute on these topics. The only thing to ask oneself if religion does all of that. For example, religious morality is only a codification of an ingrained natural morality. Religion is not the source of that morality.

shango:
Just as the zealots crashed planes in the WTC on faith, others have done numerous good things on faith, such as Desmond Tutu's actions leading in part to the liberation of SOuth Africans from the racist Dutch Afrikaans.

We should just wonder what the balance of the good and the bad is. I tend to think the bad outweighs the good and even if religion were to cause people to be more moral (a statement that is not supported by any data), that still wouldn't say anything about whether or not the claims of religion are true. Delusions stay delusions, regardless of their utility.

shango:
Modern Science allowed rubber to be extracted by King Leopold in the belgian congo while millions where killed.

It wasn't modern science that caused these atrocities.

shango:
Just as Religious faith has created evil in the world, so has technology and modern science been used to justify the killings on millions.

Science had little to do with the justification. Technology, a derivate of science, not science itself allowed far more efficiency in whatever people wanted to do, whether good or evil.

shango:
Science can never prove to us empirically that we have to treat our fellow human beings justly because science anwsers questions about physical occurences in nature.

But it can answer questions about causes of human behaviour and this can allow us to counter the evil aspects of human nature.

shango:
You think science will ever answer why hitler killed 6 million jews or why King Leopold's rule led the the extermination of millions of Congolese all in the name of profit?

These questions are too specific to answer. What drives an individual to do something is too multi-faceted to give a correct anwer to. Only on an aggregate level can this kind of behaviour be studied.

Free:
@nferyn

abeg your pardon??

what i said is the truth

I guess your concept of truth must be very different from mine. Needless to say that your [i]truth [/i]is extremely arrogant as well

Free:
n' i will say it again,
only a fool would say there aint no God

Maybe I should consider it a compliment, to be called a fool by you

How foolish of you to think that

Free:
only a fool would say there is no God

Genial:
Yes, much in the same way marriage limits freedom.

We agree then. I'm not saying freedom is the end and all of everything, but you cannot deny that religion is the opposite of freedom in some very fundamental ways.

Genial:

And it also declares, by fiat, the validity of faith as a means of arriving at truth without even trying to establish it's epistemological validity.

I do not see that it does so. If logic does not recognise the spiritual, how do you expect a spiritual event to have epistemological validity?

Why would logic deny the spiritual. If the spiritual could be defined in a consistent, non-contradictory way, there is no need to deny it, only I haven't seen any such definition.

Genial:

You have no valid epistemological system to arrive at that statement when basing your discourse on faith. Can you show how exactly faith can possibly arrive at truth without being self-contradictory?

And how do you conclude that I base my discourse on faith? Truth is independent.

Can you establish your discourse not to be based on faith? Truth is is independent of what exactly?

Genial:

If you cannot determine the characteristics of a phenomenon, that what sets it apart from the non-phenomenon, it has effectively no meaning.

I refer to my previous post:

In the sense that validity is dependent on interpretation, its validity is questionable where it is not understood, but inability to correctly interpret a phenomenon does not render it completely devoid of meaning.

I think you missed the point here. The issue is not the existence of the phenomenon, but its interpretation, and hence its perceived validity.

I'm affraid I don't see any point at all. When defining a phenomenon, you're subjecting yourself to the laws of logic. Any discourse and meaning ultimately depends on logic. Are you saying that an interpretation of a phenomenon does not have to subject itself to logic or is based only partially on logic? If so, what else does it depend on?

kimba:
God doesnt demand our religion, he demands us and our faith.

That's exactly why religion, in any of the forms you describe, is exactly the opposite of freedom. It's submission.

Genial:
In the sense that validity is dependent on interpretation, its validity is questionable where it is not understood, but inability to correctly interpret a phenomenon does not render it completely devoid of meaning.

If you cannot determine the characteristics of a phenomenon, that what sets it apart from the non-phenomenon, it has effectively no meaning.

Genial:
Christianity does not deny the validity of rationality. It declares the precedence of faith.

And thereby effectively limiting freedom

Genial:
In this context, perhaps. But Christianity, while not denying the value of intellectual effort, recognises its limitations. It is first and foremost spiritual, not intellectual.

And it also declares, by fiat, the validity of faith as a means of arriving at truth without even trying to establish it's epistemological validity.

Genial:
The truth of existence.

You have no valid epistemological system to arrive at that statement when basing your discourse on faith. Can you show how exactly faith can possibly arrive at truth without being self-contradictory?

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722400#msg722400 date=1164488002]

Simply because you have to accept the basic elements of a religion by faith. It blocks that belief from rational enquiry.

actually it doesn't block the belief from rational enquiry, it encourages it. the Bible itself tells that the Word be researched. also you don't simply accept the basic elements of the religion. Christianity is accepted by a personal conviction by that same God, that's why i said you won't see the entity but would experrience him.[/quote]But still you cannot question the fact that:
- Jesus is the saviour of humanity
- He died for our sins
- Jesus is God
Without acceptance of these claims by faith, you cannot be Christian. Rationality is limited by these claims and thus becomes rationalisation.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722400#msg722400 date=1164488002]

Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

and what basic research has been shown? source please. error on what? and being open to suggestion bespeaks the fact that the subconscious mind is being told what to do. On the contrary, it's a personal conviction.[/quote]Go to http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ and especially follow the session by V.S. Ramachandran.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722400#msg722400 date=1164488002]

They're intellectually lazy because they refuse to examine the basis for their beliefs. they rather shelter their beliefs and rationalise them. That's being intellectually lazy in my mind.

please read my first response again. like i once said, how can you know they've refused to examine the basis of their beliefs if you haven't experienced the basis of that belief and then exsamine it?[/quote]Simply because they refuse to entertain the hypothesis that their beliefs are not valid or could have another source. Your position does not change that basic fact.

Genial:
Perhaps. But if we agree that faith is outside rationality, why should it be expected to have "any epistemological value", or indeed logical validity, in the way you refer to it? Logic presupposes that things operate according to specific laws, and so does not provide for phenomena that do not obey these laws. In that respect, logic is unqualified to explain faith and cannot be used to either validate or invalidate it.

The moment that faith based view touches on the material realm, it needs to follow the rules of that realm. In that regard, it may not be possible to validate or invalidate it, but it becomes completely devoid of meaning and validity in this world as it does not conform to it's rules

Genial:
Christianity is not rational.

That's exactly what I was trying to point out. By denying the validity of rationality, it is denying freedom.

Genial:

Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

Very true. Nonetheless it does not discount the fact of such an experience.

No it doesn't, but it gives an explantion to those experiences that is grounded in reality and that invalidates the explanation of those experiences as being somehow in contact with or understanding of a deity. The truth of that religion is vacuous, because people of all differnt religions have these experiences in their specific cultural context. It would equally validate the truth claims of Judasim, Budhism, Shamanism, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca etc as Christianity and their truth calaims are mutually exclusive.

Genial:
Christianity is irrational. Rationality is a parameter defined by human experience. Anything outside that is irrational.

Any valid intellectual effort a priory requires rationality, therefore faith equals intellectual laziness.

Genial:
The main argument against Theism is the frequent inability of its adherents to provide evidence that can be interpreted in a material, or empirical context. Whether these experiences are real or not cannot be determined solely by empirical science, unless "reality" only refers to phenomena whose existence can be proven with the methods of scientific investigation currently available.

How then would you define reality?

Genial:
Faith is irrational and illogical.

Full agreement here.

Genial:
Perhaps so, if intellectual laziness refers to their faith which, by definition, is irrational.

When resorting to faith, people are intellectually lazy.

Havila:
@goodguy,
Your submission on Michellin89 that: "You do not understand the concept of faith, yet you seem to be very definitive in your appraoch towards it. Very ludicrous, indeed!"; it is very correct and it's the best you get from all the 'atheist or humanists and the rest of the 'pseudo-intellectually hard-working' chaps.
It is just like a secondary school student who is yet to understand or appreciate the concept of Algebra in basic Mathematics trying to 'logically' explain the concept of 'Young Abraham's Theorem' in Applied Mathematics. You might not agree, that's understandable; but it is pure 'cerebral dissociation' to start trying to explain what you do not know using your own logic.

Nobody has been able to explain the concept of faith as it having any epistomological value, except as stading outside rationality and thus outside discourse. It is only relevant to those taking already an a-priori position and already subscribing to the concept of faith. It is completely self-referential, irrational and void of logical validity.

goodguy:
And how do you explain it when two or more people experience the same thing under totally different conditions?

Same cultural and social context. Religious experiences are anchored in the cultural contexts those people grow up and live in. Christians have Christian experiences, Muslims have muslim experiences, Budhists have budhist experiences, even though their specific brainstates when examined under laboratory conditions are similar.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722025#msg722025 date=1164479340]Pray tell, how does religion make people intellectually lazy? And on the question of religion, please don't make broad your generalization![/quote]Simply because you have to accept the basic elements of a religion by faith. It blocks that belief from rational enquiry.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722025#msg722025 date=1164479340]I'll use Christianity as an example 'because i'm Christian. Is it because on the stance on faith, believing in a God you haven't yet seen, yet experiencing that same God in your life.[/quote]Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722025#msg722025 date=1164479340]If you don't experience that God, then how can you know about the minds of the "religious" people and judge that they're intellectually lazy?[/quote]They're intellectually lazy because they refuse to examine the basis for their beliefs. they rather shelter their beliefs and rationalise them. That's being intellectually lazy in my mind.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722025#msg722025 date=1164479340]Exactly what can be defined as intellectual laziness and who is the more intellectually lazy? Is it those who would believe in an Entity they've not seen, yet the existence of that entity be made manifest in their lives, or is it those who have never experienced such an Entity and never known that entity, yet talk about who they don't know?[/quote]If it is real, it should be empirically verifiable. Either through direct observation or through rigorous inference. No theist has been able to do that yet. The experiental [i]evidence [/i]only exists in the mind of the one experiencing it and can easily be explained through natural neurological mechanisms. These materialistic explanations are far more convincing, as they have proper scientific basis in the material world.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722025#msg722025 date=1164479340]Saying the existence of a God is illogical does not mean it is. Imposing your own view of logic and understanding does not make it seem illogical, rather it is seeing things from your own perspective that makes it illogical to you.[/quote]There is basically only one form of logic. There is neither a theistic, nor an atheistic logic. Faith separates religious truth-claims from rational inquiry and makes them immune to logic.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=31314.msg722025#msg722025 date=1164479340]Pascal was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Faraday was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy, Gregor Mendel was religious yet wasn't intellectually lazy![/quote]Invalid argument from authority. When it comes to their religious beliefs, they were intellectually lazy, even though the argument from design still had some meat on the bones in during their lifetime, something the religious can no longer hide behind nowadays

Of course not, unless someone would define submission to the will of a deity freedom, that would be be turnng the world on it's head. Religion is the exact antithesis of freedom. The only freedom religion implies is freedom from thinking for yourself, the freedom to be intellectually lazy.

buda atum:
I find that when a human being gets to the point in their journey through life, where they can not go along alone, they find God. Many have decided there isn't no God, and they will say so emphatically, but to these I would ask they consider, "So why are you expending so much energy disproving something you believe does not exist to those who believe it does? If there weren't a God, please tell me the wisdom of your telling those who believe there is one that there isn't one? Are you not really trying to find out if there is a God, yourself? Maybe you don't know - I have been told that some might not - but the mere fact that you are on here arguing about it, having done much research, is that not sufficient proof that something exists that is referred to as God? Do you really believe that that which you spend so much energy on is a figment of one's imagination? I ask you to consider, are you imagining things; it sounds larky to me.

The reason I don't believe in God is simply because there is absolutely no evidence pointing in the direction of the existence of a god.
I tend to argue about the existence of Gods for a couple of reasons. What really catches my interest is the fact that many intelligent people, quite a lot of whom are far more intelligent than I am, believe in God, even though it flies in the face of rationality, both on empirical as on epistemological grounds. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to align on the one hand belief in a deity and on the other hand apply rational considerations to most other aspects of life. Religious apologetics isn't really rational, but only a weak form rationalisation; the question those apologetics should ask themselves is not whether or not their religious dogma can be aligned with the findings of modern science, but rather whether or not their interpretation of the facts is the most probable and reasonable among all possible explanations for the same facts. Ockham's razor should be rigorously applied to all possible explanations of the facts.

As the evidence is lacking, the only basis for god-belief is faith, which, by it's very essence, i.e. belief without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence, sets itself apart from reason. You cannot arrive at truth without basing yourself on rationality, because without rationality, truth itself becomes a concept without meaning. Once you accept that way of thinking as respectable, you effectively open the floodgates to all kinds of religiously motivated lunacy, as the essence of that lunacy cannot be questioned. Faith does not deserve respect because it fosters uncritical, unquestioning obedience to dogma.

The main reason why I argue against theistic beliefs is that the attitude of belief without evidence can - and regularly does - have some very nasty and undesirable side-effects. It is a mode of thinking that prevents honest inquiry and dissociates beliefs from their consequences, especially for those not agreeing with a specific religious worldview. The terrorists flying those planes in the WTC on 9-11 truly and honestly believed they were doing God's will. Even the moderately religious demand respect for faith, thereby creating a fertile breeding ground for the religious fanatics and lunatics.

shango:
nferyn puts all his belief in scientific theories. Like they are the be all and end all of explanations of the workings of the universe and like they have not undergone modification and revision and debunking all through history.

It's sad to see you know so little about the scientific method. Theories are always frameworks that explain the evidence and observations and of course they constantly undergo revision and are sometimes replaced by new theories. You unfortunately do not seem to understand that rival theories should explain the available evidence and observation better and that the existing theories need to be falsified in some respect for that to happen.

shango:
I gave the example of Newtons law of gravity which was the foundation and basis of several scientific discoveries and how with Einsteins theory of relativity it had to be revised as it only approximated physical observations in certain frames of references.

Yes, and? I wonder when it will enter your thick skull that laws are descriptive and theories are explanative.

shango:
Now this fool is trying to purpot that the Big Bang theory isnt a theory

Where have I done that? Maybe you should attend a reading comprehension 101 course.

shango:
and he claims to know what is a law and what is a theory.

At very least I understand it better than you

shango:
Noone needs to readup on the scientific method except yourself. If you knew what the scientific method was you wouldnt say the Big Bang theory wasnt a theory in the classical sense, same with your similar claim for the Theory of Evolution.

Persecution complex, someone?
Anyway, I never said the Big Bang Theory wasn't a theory and I have no clue what your overactive mind imagines my claim concerning the TOE to be.

shango:
Your mind is so closed and your views are so rigid and constricted its disgusting.

Pot, Kettle anyone?
Maybe you could give some evidence of my closed mind instead of repeating your idiotic assertions?

shango:
You really provide nothing to these forum except trying to inflict your superiority complex and unleash it to whomever you can.

Coming from you, I'll consider that a compliment

goodguy:
At those who say there's no God, read about Antony Flew.

Flew based his deist position (very different from the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam) on the modern version of the argument from design, more specifically on the intelligent design critique of darwinian natural selection. Intelligent design though is both morally and scientifically completely bankrupt.
You don't have to believe me, of course, the theist biologist Kenneth Miller exposes intelligent design for what it really is, a hoax, quite effectively.

You can read his arguments against Intelligent Design here or watch a video in which he debunks intelligent design here.

Uche2nna:
Like I have said before I do not intend to hold brief for the Almighty.
You complain that I should bring on the evidence when i said you should visit a library but you comfortably advised me on a google search when i asked for some clarification.You guys are really funny.

You seem to like ignoring all the arguments I made and focus on me not wanting to follow you in your weak attack on the TOE. Very convenient. If you want to debate something specific, just write it down here, for everyone to read instead of referring people to a library and thinking that substitutes argumentation

Uche2nna:
Anyway, I know I can not prove to you guys the Existence of God just like I can not count the number of hairs on my head.However,just because you do not see the air does not mean it does not exist.

Air can be empirically detected and it's composition and characteristics can be determined. No such thing can be said about God.

Uche2nna:
THERE IS MORE TO THIS WORLD THAN THE HUMAN EYE CAN DECIPHER. Have a NICE DAY

Obviously, but then you want us to leap into the belief in your God-of-the-gaps. Intellectual laziness at it's best.

Uche2nna:
POST SCRIPT
_{EINSTEIN WAS A WELL KNOWN SCIENTIST IN HIS DAYS.MENDEL WAS ONLY ACCORDED THE FATHER OF GENETICS 10 DECADES AFTER HIS DEATH. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT HE USED SCIENTIFIC METHODS TO GET TO HIS CONCLUSION.IF IT WERE THAT EASY LIKE YOU MAKE IT OUT TO BE,THEN OTHER CONTEMPORARY SCIENTISTS WOULD HAVE MADE THAT DISCOVERY NOT MENDEL IN HIS SMALL GARDEN IN A SMALL ABBOT.}

You're joking, right?
1. Einstein was [b]not [/b]a well known scientist when he wrote his Annus Mirabilis papers in 1905.
2. Mendel couldn't know anything about genes. He is the father of [i]hereditary [/i]rather than of genetics.
3. Whether something is easy or not is irrelevant. His conclusions are there for us to study
4. How does the fact that Mendel, as an abbot, has made these discoveries prove anything?
5. What can lead you to the conclusion that other contemporary scientists should have made that discovery instead of Mendel?

Uche2nna:
Yeah Mendel went to the University of Vienna not to become a scientist but a teacher.Even in contemporary society there is still a difference bw faculty of Education and the Faculty of Life sciences.Anyway,he did not even pass the teacher certification test,so officially he did not even qualify to become a teacher not ot talk of a scientist.

He practiced science, more specifically, he used the scientific method to arrive at his theory of inheritence. Ergo, he was a scientist. It's not the degree that makes one a scientist, even Einstein was only working at the Bern patent office when he was at his most productive.

Uche2nna:
Darwin theory was the prevalent one at that time

And it still is, for very good reasons: it has not been falsified, there is no evidence against it and mountains of evidence in it's favor.

Uche2nna:
and you need to be a very brave scientist to go against that.

Anyone bringing evidence against Darwinian natural selection would have a very attentative public in the scientific community. Unfortunately for those scientists, their refutations crumble even under the most superficial reading.

Uche2nna:
Well I have mentioned De Vries as one of those very few.Can u educate me on those many that really attacked Darwin's theory.

I leave this one to KAG, but a google search should help you on your way.

Uche2nna:
Morgan proved him right 50 years after but he actaully started out as a Darwinist.You want evidence,,,go to the library

Assertion does not evidence make.
Why don't [b]you [/b]bring that evidence against the TOE? I guarantee that all of your arguments can easily be refuted and that I will take the effort to do so myself. Do not just talk the talk, but above all, walk the walk.

Uche2nna:
What r they

At the very least, they don't agree

kimba:
All unbelievers of your taste wont and definitely don't have the same answers that you have given. Amongst yourselves Aethists and unbelievers, you don't agree.

Please someone get the irony-meter
By the way, are Catholics really Christians?

Gamine:
oh [b]Nferyn[/b]i get u
*whut sort of name is that^^nerfyn, lol

I already explained the orgin of my username here