Their question:
“What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?”
My response…
At first glance this question appears simple enough. I can think of many fascinating subjects I have read about over the years; nanotech, “gray goo”, 11-dimensional space, relativity, the possibility of time travel, quantum entanglement, wave particle duality, virtual reality. There flows a never ending stream of ideas that wells up from the spring that is the Mind of Man. I could have selected any item from this list, or more, and would have provided a reasonably interesting response. How does one choose from such a fantastical array of knowledge? Technology can indeed appear strange or magical to one unfamiliar with a particular field of study. Some feel that medical wonders, from stem-cell research and genetic engineering to face transplants, are the definition of the word “strange”. Others may perceive the political and ideological mindset of their “enemies” to be the pinnacle of the eldritch.
But to ask an atheist what he “believes” to be true introduces quite a different “texture” to the question posed. The meaning of the word “believe” may easily be misconstrued. I am often bewildered by the multiple usage of some words from the English language. To some, “belief” is only given to that which has overwhelming evidence to support it, such evidence that there is no point to even use the word “believe”. Does one say: “I believe the sky is blue”? No. We say: “The sky is blue”. We can test this statement through many types of observation, experimentation, and verification. We know the sky is blue. Some use the word “believe” in the same manner that they use the word “think”, e.g. “I believe I’ll have another beer!” – the two words are interchangeable here. Then we come, of course, to the most common meaning of the word “believe”, that equivalent to “faith”; acceptance of a proposition without any need, or desire, for supporting evidence whatsoever.
I avoid the use of the words “believe” and “belief” because of their imprecise usage. There are, however, certain words I’ll use in spite of their misuse. For example, I have no qualms stating that I’m an “atheist” even though that word has been intentionally misused and demonized, perhaps since its inception. An atheist is simply one who does not believe. To be an atheist one need only answer “no” to the question “Do you believe [in god(s)]?” No further assertion is made.
I prefer to use the verb “know” instead of “believe” and, like Great Lady Science, accept that knowledge can be transitory and must evolve as new evidence is discovered. Ironically, my answer to the question “What is the strangest thing you know to be true?” would bring me back to the issue of faith.
The strangest thing I know of is the ability of the human mind to accept the most incredible of statements by the simple application of the magic word “faith”. How is it that, in the 21st century, we still have people that believe the world is only 6000 years old in light of the evidence from various fields of science in support of its vastly older age? How can one ignore mounds of fossil evidence for the progression of evolution and only see the “gaps”. What is it that allows the brilliant scientist who, otherwise, demands empirical data to advance his theories, to assert that there is a god when no one has presented any evidence to corroborate the existence of said deity? Is it a mental blind spot, a type of intellectual laziness used to avoid investigating fully the reason one believes one fable over another?
This strange thing called faith intrigues me. I have studied several of the mythologies of various civilizations throughout history and I find the subject fascinating. The majority of us appear to be so desperate for answers that we will accept any concept of reality that we are subjected to at an early age. We indoctrinate our children into a system of thought handed down by our progenitors and our children will usually teach their own children the same vision; the meme propagates. The evolution of religion presents the prime example of this strange ability to close the mind to healthy skepticism and reason. I wonder if we have herein evidence for the existence of a parasitic meme, one that propagates from the pulpit and lives in symbiosis with those that hunger for its anesthetic affects.
I look forward to a future where such strange ideas as faith and belief have faded into obscurity and disrepute as have the gods of old. A future where the unknown is regarded as an opportunity, not an enemy to be feared and obscured by the blinders of myth.
What’s the strangest thing you “believe”?
Thank you Spocko! Consi, the ball is in your court.
Consi snuck his reply in before mine, so I’m double dipping. You ask:
You’ve already admitted that life did come from non-life:
So what is the argument? As I’ve said, we don’t know how it happened. But happen it obviously did. As to the other questions, I’ve already answered them. Of course, “who” and “why” are inapplicable to abiogenesis, because there was no “who” to have a “why”.
Stating first there was no life and then there was life is not the same statement as non-life begot life. They are two different statements. If you don’t understand the distinction, and why the distinction is important, then I can’t help you.
Oh? Pardon my stupidity, Consi, but I don’t see the distinction, unless you have some exotic definition for “begot”. If first there was no life, and then there was life, then life perforce came from, or was begotten by, or developed from, or evolved from, or was self-organized by, non-life. If you disagree, please explain why.
Then we are done.
Nice exit, Consi. I’ll know better next time, and not attempt a rational discussion with you. Cheers, zilch
Well Consi, I can see the distinction, and it’s a pointless one. Clearly life came from nonlife; at issue is the modality of that change. Nonlife can’t “beget” anything or it would be alive, but it can be transformed by an external force into something alive or at least self-replicating, which is on the road to life. Was that force God, or some nondirected interaction of energy and matter? In a nutshell that is the question of abiogenesis.
Plainly you want to believe the former. Over the years I have found that class of explanations to fail repeatedly on observable things, so tend to prefer the class of explanations with a much better track record. It is not an assertion of fact so much as an assessment of probability.
What about that pointless distinction, then? Even if we managed to create self-replicating molecules in the lab by combining energy and matter in approximation of early Earth conditions, you’d continue to insist on the God model of abiogenesis. I go by track record, you go by what you wanna believe. But you don’t ‘wanna’ believe you are capable of any such unsophisticated bias in your assessment of probability.
Fine with me, believe whatever you want. Just don’t pretend you’re all that logical.
Go read my posts above. What I have said, is directly contrary to that. I actually believe….ah to hell with it. I said I was done when zilch couldn’t see the distinction and so I am.
Except where non-life is the sole resource from which life could have appeared, given that the existence of life is evident. You’re right though. At least this early in, we need to establish that non-life was the only basis from which life could appear.
To say the contrary, however, is to say that life brought life. Specifically, it minds that life preceded life. Life cannot precede itself.
Thus, when it comes to the origin of life, there is no other option. Or at least, there is no reason for us to assume that there is some other option. “Life from non-life” is sufficiently general to encompass all possibilities.
It’s not “5+7=12”. It’s “5+7=7+5, because addition is commutative”. It is not conclusive, but it is not irrational. Maybe I’m wrong.
Guys… I think he clicked on “unsubscribe”! Get out the beer!
Bummer – I enjoyed that better than school.
For just a flash (of seemingly non-intelectual understanding) I actually understood what Consi meant by the subtle difference between the two issues.
Then DoF captured it with: at issue is the modality of that change.
That ‘small’ gap between life and non-life – what filled it?
One fills it with god and ID; one fills it with nature.
Ultimately it’s just about the source of that energy – did it come from a knowing entity or not?
One desires a reason for being; the other needs no being for a reason to be.
Yeah – it’s 11am. A beer sounds good.
Damn, John! You hit the bottle early, don’t you?
Ah, beer is for breakfast. On my day off yesterday I was into the bourbon around noon…..
Back to original concept of the thread:
I don’t believe that Jack The Ripper was the sexual serial killer that most believe him to be.
I believe that the killings were politically motivated and that the killer was a leader in the anarchist movement at the time. Probably Russian, probably a failed medical student from Trinity.
Actually it’s quite late and anyway I blame DoF.
I would never have thunk of it if he hadn’t mentioned it.
Being retired with no bodies depending on me I rarely plan a day – they just seem to transpire.
It’ll be interesting what this one morphs into.
I have one stubby left in the fridge, about 3 glasses of Fruity Red left in the cask, about a 1/4 glass of Stones Green Ginger Wine left in a bottle, the club is about 250 metres away and I have $40 left to last till next Thursday.
Decisions.
Weird, isn’t it?
My good mate* just rang to ask if I felt like going to the club for lunch and then … ?
How can I refuse?
It means he’ll shout** all afternoon and all I gotta do is pick him up and take him home.
My innocent looking little (girl’s) car knows the way – the only downside is that it’s Race Weekend (Bathurst 1000) and there’re lotsa people and imported cops in town.
Ah. If you don’t take risks, how do you know you’re alive?
It’s not as if I’m gonna get shit-faced paraletic pissed but I know I’ll definitely be over the legal 0.05 limit.
*A mate will help you move a couch – a good mate will help you move a body.
** Shout means to buy a round. It’s a left over from the old days when you had to shout over the noise in the public bar to get a drink. It’s probably in the Urban Dictionary but my PC’s doing its ‘I’m not gonna let you open another window’ thing.
Oh, that’s right, I’ve already had a coupla joints as well – I wondered why I felt a bit ‘pissed’.
Remember KPG. In Oz, pissed can also mean drunk?
Seeya later.
Exactly my reasoning, Patness, which is why I politely asked Consi to explain what distinction he saw. Assuming that any God is also alive, and that we’re talking about the whole Universe here, every scenario is covered, except the common creationist position that “God has been here forever”. But Consi already ruled that out by agreeing that there was no life first, and then life. So there’s no distinction that I can see.
I guess I’m done too. I’m disappointed that Consi turned tail rather than answer a simple polite question. Even though we disagree about many things, I had thought he was more civil than that. Live and learn.
Damn. I missed that obvious one completely.
LJ- Drive careful, my man. In my wild and crazy youth, on various occasions I drove drunk (well, tipsy), stoned, and high on acid. Tipsy was the most dangerous. Don’t do it. Cheers, your guardian angel.
Oh, but we could have had such fun if Consi had considered the possibility that God is not ‘alive’ as we understand the term. Which would likely be true, as we understand the term. So that would be life ‘from’ non-life, which begs the question of why it has to be a God and not a natural process. Or is Consi a sun-worshipper?
OK, I guess I’m a sadist.
I know I am- no Sun, no life.
Another possibility that we could have had fun discussing is that God is alive, and created life, but is not in the Universe. Or perhaps God is not Anywhere or Anywhen, and not Anyhow or Anywho, but still created life. I’m rambling…
I believe that the US Government is in possesion of multiple crafts and organic specimens originating from our distant planetary future of a 1000+ years hence, entirely based upon my own personal conjecture.
And i’ll deny I ever posted that sentence.
I believe that the Church wouldn’t last beyond the 22nd century.
tsk tsk
Organized religion is reaching the end of its rope
There are several things I believe which could easily be considered weird. I believe that popular music has not progressed one rat’s ass worth since the late 1970s. That is not to say it has stopped developing, but, that it has stopped improving or showing any originality. I believe that organized religion is the world’s great curse. I believe that
gods are the invention of man and not that man is the invention of one or more gods. Finally, I belive it is time for a drink.
Nah, those aren’t so weird. Lots of people hold similar views.