What don't I believe? I bet you can think of many things to insert into that statement. In my case they would almost all be true. Therefore, feel free to insert whatever you want.

The only thing I currently see as a belief is the belief that my perception and understanding of the world will continue to change as I am exposed to new ideas, new challenges, and new evidence. All I can truly do is observe and use reason.

I don't truly BELIEVE anything other than the idea that my mind will continue to change. Belief is the path to dogma. Belief can be the end of questions. I don't plan to ever stop asking questions.

I don't believe in any of my current thoughts other than the idea my mind will continue to change.

I don't have the answers for you.

I only have possibilities...

They may also only be shadows of possibilities...

My current world view is always based upon the probabilities that my mind has weighed at that given time in reflection of the evidence and ideas that I have understood. Some of these ideas will come from other people. Some of them will also come as sudden epiphanies as something goes click in my mind and one or more pieces of something slide together to give me a new idea.

I will surely share these ideas. Yet they are not certainties. They are my speculations. Even I do not say "This is how it is!" as in such a case I would be doing everyone that heard me a disservice.

I would be treating reality as though I was the finality and had the ultimate answer.

I don't.

There is always more to learn. There are always more things that I didn't know that will change how I interpret things.

There is another path though. It is a very dreadful path as far as I am concerned. Sadly a large amount of the world seems set upon walking it.

That is to not question. That is to call things settled. That is to attack anyone with other ideas that do not fit "belief". That is to look to the easiest path, which is always the path of least resistance.

What does walking the path of least resistance mean?

It means following the path you already know. It means pushing aside the things that would challenge your world view. If that noise gets too loud then the easy path is to find a way to silence the noise so you don't have to hear it.

Yet that path is not a path to truth.

It is the settled path.

It is a path that has a name. It has been called stagnation. It has been called static. It has been called tunnel vision. It has been called a fairy tale.

It has nothing to do with reality. It is about ignoring reality for the sake of the comfort provided by walking the easy, unchanging path.

It is very easy to play checkers once you know the rules. It can be very frustrating for someone that dominates checkers when they learn a new game such as Chess, or Go that have more complex rules and more possibilities. They will no longer dominate for some time. If they embrace it they may at some point reach the point where they dominate again, yet even those are not the end of changing and advancing.

Walking the easy path is simply like demanding the world always follow the rules of checkers. If someone suggests the idea of Chess. Attack them. Call them names. Dehumanize them. Call them blasphemer. Call them infidel. Call them denier. Call them racist. Call them conspiracy theorists. Call them whatever it takes to keep the path clearly focused on checkers. You can then dominate.

Sadly that path is stagnate. It offers nothing new. New things do not come from being unchallenged. New things do not come to those who would silence questions, or new thoughts. It is a dead end path. It is going nowhere.

It can get worse. Often people walking that path will revert (regress) to older avenues for attacking new/challenging ideas. They will revert to the ideas used by religions to oppress challenge to their dogma. They will revert to ideas used by evil past dictators to repress and dehumanize populations. They will revert to unwavering and solidly fortified mental positions where they already think they know it all and thus do not need to consider any new information. This is the same path those that are brainwashed, in cults, in past religions, and blindly following mass murdering tyrants walked. This is the same path those that drank koolaid en mass and died walked. This is the same path those that killed themselves assured they would ascend to some master spaceship walked. This is the same path those that burned thousands at the stake walked. This is the same path that those who killed historical scientists who were proven correct walked.

I'd like to close with a simple section on science.

Science is the knowledge and possibilities to explain observable data that was found using the scientific method. It is NEVER settled. There is no room in science for the label "denier". Those who use such a label are not scientists. They instead are those trying to protect the dogma they have settled on. They are operating from belief, not science.

Now I was inspired to write this piece after reading the following article:
Climate scientist retires, then declares ‘I am a skeptic’ – Offers to debate – Rejects ‘denier’ label: ‘We don’t live in medieval times’

I, like the scientist who wrote that article am aware that this problem of dogmatic belief extends to many things beyond climate change. What things do you think people should not be able to question?

Trump?
Borders?
Socialism?
Capitalism?
Communism?
Vaccines?
Official 9-11 narrative?
Hollow Earth?
Moon Landing?
Whether the earth is round or not?

The truth is people should always be able to question. That doesn't mean their conclusions will be the most probable based upon current information available, but it is important that any question be permitted to be asked. If they present new information and new ideas they can change our world for the better.

If you feel the need to silence people then to me that is a path of evil.

Evil to me is simply defined as taking the choice away from other people. Rather than convincing them you believe you have the right to force them. It is simply the idea of voluntary versus involuntary. I don't see it getting much simpler than that.

For those of you that are religious and believe God gave us free will. If so, who are you to deny free will to other people?

I'm off until I think of something else I feel like writing. For now, I'll say it again.

I don't believe

EDIT: A statement I should use instead of "I believe" which I do use still occasionally though really my intent is more along the lines of "I think it is probable that..." This leaves some room for uncertainty.