facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old May 13, 2004, 11:28 AM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Ok, how about nihilists? Do nihilists believe in nihilism?
(if we are allowed to 'discourse-i-cally' blurr the boundary of 'belief' and not mind to assimilate with 'holding' ) according to one definition of nihilism: "A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated"

Quoting another: "The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement"

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by suds]

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by suds]
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old May 13, 2004, 11:39 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
if we are allowed to 'discourse-i-cally' blurr the boundary of 'belief' and not mind to assimilate with 'holding'
'holding' what? a 'belief'?

Is nihilism a value itself, something that is communicable or knowable?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old May 13, 2004, 11:59 AM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

'Communicability' or 'knowability' are not the pre-requisites for any belief (or a value, for that matter) to start with, even though they may have pseudo-similar physiognomies.

People proclaim themselves as muslims, hindus, christians.... But probably that is the only commonest thing among them (knowing themselves as 'muslim', hindu', christian ...). care to traverse the route of their believes, one is ought to be amazed to see the extent of their discrepancy, which implies nothing other than the 'un-communicability' or 'un-knowability' of a belief (and even more a of a value). Not being communicable or knowable doesn't discount something from being a belief.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by suds]
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old May 13, 2004, 12:02 PM
AsifTheManRahman's Avatar
AsifTheManRahman AsifTheManRahman is offline
Super Moderator
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 12, 2004
Location: Canada
Favorite Player: Ice Man, Chatter Box
Posts: 27,678

wow...

khali ekta water question e jigaisilam...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old May 13, 2004, 12:09 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
wow...

khali ekta water question e jigaisilam...
This thread filched the fluidity from 'water'
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old May 13, 2004, 12:11 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally posted by suds
'Communicability' or 'knowability' are not the pre-requisites for any belief (or a value, for that matter) to start with, even though they may have pseudo-similar physiognomies.
I disagree on the "knowability" part. To believe something, anything, whatever it is, and whatever appropriate/inappropriate linguistic label you give to it, you have to know what you believe in before you begin to believe it.

For example, you first know that pure milk is white in color. Then you believe that statement, having not known any other example contradicting your knowledge otherwise at any point in your life.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Arnab]
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old May 14, 2004, 01:59 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab

I disagree on the "knowability" part. To believe something, anything, whatever it is, and whatever appropriate/inappropriate linguistic label you give to it, you have to know what you believe in before you begin to believe it.

For example, you first know that pure milk is white in color. Then you believe that statement, having not known any other example contradicting your knowledge otherwise at any point in your life.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Arnab]
You got me there! This is what happens when you switch between your work and your talk in that frequency. Yes, I meant to say that just about the 'communicability' part and as a time-saving-quality-ruining process I copied and pasted both of them by accident. I noticed that shortly after I posted and then a sudden surge of work deluged myself, hence this hiatus.

Anyway, I agree with your "...you have to know what you believe in before you begin to believe it". By that, I assume, you mean that you know what you yourself believe in (or going to believe in), which is not tantamount to "knowing what others believe (or what beliefs are there in the air) in order to ingrain that belief in yourself". But here we have been talking about the knowledge of some belief, where the knowledge itself has nothing to do with the belief. But in your example of milk, you have shown how knowledge morphs into belief, considering knowledge and belief to be two states of a same phenomenon. For that matter, I guess the example didn't go much with your statement.

As for your example, I guess it's a bit risky to assimilate knowledge and belief. When you know something for a fact then there is no question of believing, you simply know (I am aware about projected knowledge, saying later about that). To believe in something, there needs to be some need of information/knowledge, which you compensate with your imagination. Once we add imagination (most often with impulse) to the knowledge, we call the whole thing as 'belief'. There would be no problem with that, if we could acknowledge that, belief is neither just knowledge nor just imagination. But too often we fail to do that.

As for projected knowledge, all that we know is 'projected'. And for that matter all factual knowledge are subject to change. But that need not refrain us from having 'knowledge' about something. By knowledge we mean to derive to a decision about something, which is backed by facts (which are knowledge by themselves, and subject to this definition) and maintains a logical congruity with whatever facts we have with us. Given the fact that, the 'backing-up-facts' may change, so may our 'knowledge'. So not even projected knowledge should be mixed up with belief!

I guess I should ask for aia (apology in advance) for taking so much freedom of space. Hopefully I am not committing a crime (to mods' pov), this not being the 'Bangladesh cricket' forum. Talking about mods, I was quite shocked to see Chinaman's resig. letter.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by suds]
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old May 14, 2004, 02:11 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

OK, now I sense we're veering off from whatever topic we started with (did we have anything specific in mind?). But to give you an idea of my idea of belief and knowledge and all that:

We gather information through our senses.

We store some of this information in our brain, and this storage is our knowledge.

We process our knowledge via neural circuitry and reach conclusions from it. These conclusions are our beliefs. We also store our beliefs somewhere in our brain, as part of the big knowledge storage.

I am not sure whether you want me to relate that to feminism or whatever we have been talking about so far.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old May 14, 2004, 02:31 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Nope, I myself didn't actually have anything in mind. I was just trying to have a stroll. In my short stay here I think I saw you somewhere talking about atheism, which is why I just wanted to badger you on the 'ism' thing (nothing to do with 'feminism' ). As for the term 'belief' we have some differences in how we define it. So any attempt to continue this will be somewhat 'terminological' for now. Anyway, its a fun place to visit, with all the nice people here. Cheers!

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by suds]
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old May 14, 2004, 02:39 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

I personally think all these "-ism"s are just convenient labeling.

Atheism is interesting. Atheists claim to not even know what it means by the idea "God", therefore they can't believe in it.

It's like asking: Do you believe in the existence of a white Ugnadan kid with three eyes and four legs born to two bkack Ugandan parents?

Well, I am not even sure if that is even possible, how can I believe or disbelieve in the existence of such a creature?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old May 14, 2004, 02:44 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
I personally think all these "-ism"s are just convenient labeling.

Atheism is interesting. Atheists claim to not even know what it means by the idea "God", therefore they can't believe in it.

It's like asking: Do you believe in the existence of a white Ugnadan kid with three eyes and four legs born to two bkack Ugandan parents?

Well, I am not even sure if that is even possible, how can I believe or disbelieve in the existence of such a creature?
Doesn't that sound kinda agnostic rather?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old May 14, 2004, 02:54 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Yes, it does.

In fact, if you think about it, "agnosticism" has no bearing on beief/disbelief in God or supernatural.

An agnostic is a person who claims I don't know for sure. Well, by definition, every human being is an agnostic. Because, nobody can be 100% sure about everything.

An atheist, who is also an agnostic, finds the probabilty of the existence of something supernatural so low (much like the Ugandan white kid) that he finds it rational enough to claim to have no belief in anything supernatural.

So in the atheist's mind: Yeah, there COULD exist an Ugandan freakshow like that, Carmen Electra could be my f#$%-buddy, etc. , but I choose not to halluciante like that.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:03 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Yes, it does.

In fact, if you think about it, "agnosticism" has no bearing on beief/disbelief in God or supernatural.

An agnostic is a person who claims I don't know for sure. Well, by definition, every human being is an agnostic. Because, nobody can be 100% sure about everything.

An atheist, who is also an agnostic, finds the probabilty of the existence of something supernatural so low (much like the Ugandan white kid) that he finds it rational enough to claim to have no belief in anything supernatural.

So in the atheist's mind: Yeah, there COULD exist an Ugandan freakshow like that, Carmen Electra could be my f#$%-buddy, etc. , but I choose not to halluciante like that.
Hey, missing Carmen Electra as '....'-buddy for being an atheist is not a good idea, u should quit.

On a serious note, u urself have kinda stated what I had in my mind when I started the 'ism' stuff. It is this 'filling-up-the-blank' of-a-kind '...rational enough..." idea that makes an atheist necessarily a believer (in my definition of course), and not an agnostic. Disbelieving something is tantamount believing the opposite.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:09 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Yeah, and atheist is a believer. He is a believer in the sense "I don't believe there are multiple suns in our solar system."
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:11 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Yeah, and atheist is a believer. He is a believer in the sense "I don't believe there are multiple suns in our solar system."
In absolute sense.

There is no escape.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:14 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Yeah. I don't think "escape" was part of the atheist plan anyway. This is the only way we humans think.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:18 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Which is why some considers agnosticism to be the safest policy to hold on: quite 'escapistic'!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:24 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Well, as I said, agnosticism is not really a valid policy regarding "belief". Everyone is agnostic in a sense.

If you want to be really accurate, you can say that regarding belief in the supernatural, some people practice "I-delieberately-suspend-my-judgment-on-whether-I-believe-in-the-supernatural-or-not-and-choose-to-sit-on-the-fence"-ism.

They wrongfully call it "agnosticism". But I don't care much about labels anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:25 PM
Zunaid Zunaid is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: January 22, 2004
Posts: 22,100

belief-disbelief

All belief systems essentially start off with one ormore essentially unproven axioms.

There is a God
There is no god

The scond axiom is just the negation of the first axiom.

Consider a proof system: You start off with a set of axioms and the rules of deduction. Our beliefs (disbeliefs) are then consistent within the framework of our internal proof systems.

While the truth of an axiom may not be provable, the rules of deductions should at least be provable. So two intelligent logical person with their own weltanschauun (pov, call what you will) can agree to disagree - they see the logical deductions that led to the fleshing out of the other's belief system even if they may disagree on the basic axioms:

there is a GOD
there is no god

What makes it difficult is when the rules of deduction themselves are falllacious. That's when intelligent discourse becomes impossible.

An example is the "affirming the conseuqent" fallacy.

If x, then y.
y.
therefore: x.

Another one that is often used during discussions like these are the "Appeal To Ignorance"

There is no (or insufficient) evidence establishing that x is false.
Therefore: x is true. (See Bush and WMD)

I know I am digressing a bit from the discussion, but it got me thinking about belief systems and the rest.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old May 14, 2004, 03:34 PM
suds suds is offline
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 28, 2004
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab

They wrongfully call it "agnosticism". But I don't care much about labels anyway.
Talking about labels, they also say, an agnostic is one who believes that there is no way to know whether there is a god or not. So that makes an agnostic a true believer too. I agree with you about labels.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old May 14, 2004, 05:36 PM
billah billah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 5, 2003
Posts: 5,364

Topic degeneration alert!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old May 14, 2004, 07:08 PM
AsifTheManRahman's Avatar
AsifTheManRahman AsifTheManRahman is offline
Super Moderator
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 12, 2004
Location: Canada
Favorite Player: Ice Man, Chatter Box
Posts: 27,678

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old May 14, 2004, 11:14 PM
Rubu's Avatar
Rubu Rubu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: February 15, 2004
Location: Michigan
Favorite Player: Mashrafee Mortaza
Posts: 8,361
Default OMG

i had no idea that this scientific "kach-ka-cha-ni" will go this far. c'mon guys, i'm already tired of scinece classes. regardless of the branches of the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old May 15, 2004, 12:30 AM
Zunaid Zunaid is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: January 22, 2004
Posts: 22,100

Who said atlami is science?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old May 15, 2004, 06:14 PM
Zephaniah Zephaniah is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: February 14, 2004
Posts: 1,152

Quote:
Originally posted by Zunaid
Who said atlami is science?
They say it's Atlami-science.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket