Does Maturity Make a DBA?

  • Thank you for demonstrating your lack of maturity. You obviously have continued to argue when there is obviously no way you will convice me you are right.

  • I think the crux of the whole thread is thus

    Religious people tend to have faith in the idea that practising religion is in itself a sign of maturity though no evidence can be proposed for that concept.

    Non-religious people attempt to empirically demonstrate that this concept is flawed, but to no more avail than attempts to prove or disprove the existence of deities

    It seems more than a little pointless to go on.........

    :rolleyes:

  • mtucker (7/30/2009)


    Since it's impossible to prove the non-existence of diety, the denial of said existence is just as much a question of faith as the assertion of the opposite. It's knowledge without proof. Either point of view can be backed up by logic and reason, by a variety of forms of evidence, but neither can be scientifically proven. Thus, they are both faith, by definition. Again, that makes athiesm a personal or group avocation built upon faith, which makes it a religion.

    [\quote]

    It is not practically possible to prove the non existence of a deity, correct. The implication of this fact is that the burden of proof is on those who claim a deity exists. Without such proof the rational conclusion is that there is no god.

    Logic and reason alone cannot prove anything without evidence. There are no 'a priori' proofs for anything, let alone god.

    The leap of faith required to believe in God is over a gulf of zero evidence (the bible does not constitute evidence by any reasonable definition, scientific, or legal, for such an extraordinary claim)

    This is very different from coming to the conclusion there is no god because there is no evidence. The two stances can hardly be said to have a comparable amount of faith involved.

    GSquared, of course I live in another country - why else would I say that I dont live under your constitution. The legal definitions that apply in the US are hardly the last word on anything. I suggest you read a few dictionary definitions , atheism does not qualify as a religion by any stretch of the imagination. Consider this: you are an atheist with regard to the Viking God Odin (I assume) - do you consider this lack of belief in Odin to be a religion?

    I have read dictionary definitions. I even cited them in my posts.

    I don't actively deny the existence of Odin. I also don't assert the existence of YHVH/JHVH, to be as specific as possible. My belief in diety isn't one that would be recognized by most people on this planet. I do believe in a "prime mover unmoved", I most certainly believe in a created universe as opposed to one that "just happened". I also most certainly believe in the immortality of the human soul. But this isn't the place to discuss the specifics of my beliefs, because it takes days of discussion to get into the details, and without those, none of it will make much sense. Does that make what I believe and what I deny a religion? Absolutely. But my particular take on Odin, Thor, Ishtar, Inana, Quetzalcoatl, and Amaterasu, is merely a minor detail in an organized body of theological and spiritual axioms, postulates, theorems and conclusions.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • Those of us who believe do so on Faith. It guides us, and strengthens us. It helps us through the darkest times of lifes, and provides peace during the good times.

    It weakens you. You are an intelligent person who forces himself to discard rational thinking in order to maintain faith.

    Prove this.

    Nobody has ever been able to prove that assertion, despite vast efforts. There is a cornucopia of evidence that contradicts it.

    Don't make such an insulting assertion unless you're prepared to back it up.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • mtucker (7/30/2009)


    Lynn, a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy regardless of what you believe. You can believe 1+1=3 as much as you like, but it is incorrect. Circular reasoning is not valid because it assumes the conclusion in the premise. The argument from incredulity is a fallacy because you are simply saying 'I cant imagine any other way, so it must be that way I believe'.

    And yes, the burden of proof is on you to prove that God exists. There is a simple practical reason for this; it is not possible to prove that God does not exist - there is no way anyone can visit every corner of the universe to find him. So, if you claim he does exist the onus is on you to provide support for this point of view, and also to show that it is your God, and not some other.

    My position is simple, there is no evidence so there is no reason to believe.

    This is the same reason you do not believe in unicorns and fairies. Or will you say that I must believe in unicorns, fairies, and every god anyone has ever thought of until I can prove they dont exist?

    Prove that gravity and inertia exist.

    Can't do that either. You can postulate them and arrive at axiomatic definitions of them, but you can't actually prove that either one exists. You can observe that things fall down. You can observe that Earth goes around Sol. From these observations, you can postulate that something causes that, and can measure that something, and arrive at pseudo-constants for it (as modified by Relativity, of course), and thus postulate that some force exists which could be called gravity and that another force exists that could be called inertia. But you cannot actually prove the existence of either.

    Thus, that puts gravity and inertia into the same category as God, unicorns, and fairies, by your logic.

    All "proof" rests on posulates, codified into axioms, allowing for logical conclusions. But without the original postulates there, there is no proof.

    This is the whole basis of all laws of logic. You, by demanding proof without accepting basic postulates, or even defining them, are not engaging in a simple logical fallacy, you are violating the basic precepts of logic itself.

    Don't hold yourself higher than people you disagree with. You're just coming across as insulting and arrogant. You aren't engaging in "superior logic" nor "superior reason". I suggest spending a couple of years studying the subjects of logic, theology, and philosophy. You will benefit from the studies.

    On the other hand, if being close-minded, spouting nonsense, making arguments that have already been covered in great detail by some of the greatest minds the human race has ever spawned, and being arrogant and insulting, are your actual goals, you're doing a bang-up job of it. If those aren't your goals, get educated on the subject. You aren't yet. It's fun, interesting, and will open up horizons for you that you currently have closed off. Once you've done that, then we can have a fun and interesting discussion. Till then, you're just being the Britney Spears of philosophy, all show and no content. (See, I can be insulting and arrogant too! I'm learning from you already! Isn't this fun!)

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • I'd say you think that about religion Brad, because most of the people you meet are Americans and they are religous people. I however are not either American nor religous.

  • I think it's like what came first the chicken or the egg? I think that DBA's personality is such as you described, but when they start out they are much less so. That personality type is drawn to that career (DBA), but once they (people) are in that career (DBA), the career demands put upon them make them use those traits much more fully and those traits become more developed, because they are used that much more. So no, you are not imagining that at all. That's just my take on it.

    Linda

  • Linda_2006711 (8/6/2009)


    I think it's like what came first the chicken or the egg? I think that DBA's personality is such as you described, but when they start out they are much less so. That personality type is drawn to that career (DBA), but once they (people) are in that career (DBA), the career demands put upon them make them use those traits much more fully and those traits become more developed, because they are used that much more. So no, you are not imagining that at all. That's just my take on it.

    Linda

    Yes indeed this explanation sounds familiar. It became a popular generalization for a whole group of people starting with the Germans for their high tolerance of Nazi-era atrocities.

  • camassey (8/6/2009)


    Somehow, I don't think it's particularly fair to compare the development of stereotypical DBA personality traits and the rise of the Nazi party... perhaps this needs to be put in perspective?

    Nazism is also a direct outgrowth of a faith-based initiative. How's that for a perspective?

  • sjsubscribe (8/6/2009)


    camassey (8/6/2009)


    Somehow, I don't think it's particularly fair to compare the development of stereotypical DBA personality traits and the rise of the Nazi party... perhaps this needs to be put in perspective?

    Nazism is also a direct outgrowth of a faith-based initiative. How's that for a perspective?

    So are democracy, literacy, accounting, vegitarianism, and graham crackers. Your point is?

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • camassey (8/6/2009)


    sjsubscribe (8/6/2009)


    Nazism is also a direct outgrowth of a faith-based initiative. How's that for a perspective?

    *shrug* I imagine some people might disagree with you, and I'm not even sure how that's relevant to this discussion.

    All the more reason why we need to be vigilant against group-think. I know it's hard to grasp the connection, but anytime you start using faith or religiousness or spirituality (or whatever it's called) as a test or an indicator, you're well on your way down the slippery slope. The best example of how we avoid such thinking is our constitution, where such tests have been expressly barred. Understanding that is an essential first step to maturity.

  • sjsubscribe (8/6/2009)


    Linda_2006711 (8/6/2009)


    I think it's like what came first the chicken or the egg? I think that DBA's personality is such as you described, but when they start out they are much less so. That personality type is drawn to that career (DBA), but once they (people) are in that career (DBA), the career demands put upon them make them use those traits much more fully and those traits become more developed, because they are used that much more. So no, you are not imagining that at all. That's just my take on it.

    Linda

    Yes indeed this explanation sounds familiar. It became a popular generalization for a whole group of people starting with the Germans for their high tolerance of Nazi-era atrocities.

    Are you intentionally trying to prove Godwin's law?

    Edit: And do you understand the traditional ramifications for doing so?

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • GSquared (8/6/2009)


    So are democracy, literacy, accounting, vegitarianism, and graham crackers. Your point is?

    That faith or lack of faith has no bearing on maturity or being a DBA. Hope I'm not being too vague here.

  • sjsubscribe (8/6/2009)


    GSquared (8/6/2009)


    So are democracy, literacy, accounting, vegitarianism, and graham crackers. Your point is?

    That faith or lack of faith has no bearing on maturity or being a DBA. Hope I'm not being too vague here.

    No. You're not being too vague.

    That statement also doesn't actually contradict Brad's original statement on the subject.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • GSquared (8/6/2009)


    sjsubscribe (8/6/2009)


    GSquared (8/6/2009)


    So are democracy, literacy, accounting, vegitarianism, and graham crackers. Your point is?

    That faith or lack of faith has no bearing on maturity or being a DBA. Hope I'm not being too vague here.

    No. You're not being too vague.

    That statement also doesn't actually contradict Brad's original statement on the subject.

    The article I read had "people of faith" in bold in a bullet point. And goes on to identify "individuals with these characteristics" in the author's experience shown maturity. Which article are you referring to?

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 159 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply