You *believe* consciousness is a product of the molecules that make up our brain. There is no evidence to support a mechanism for consciousness therefore it can only be a belief. Where's your "skepticism" on that one?Lacking a belief, or even rejecting a belief, is not the same as adopting a belief. No faith is required. No bias is required. Only skepticism is required.
You *believe* that consciousness came into being rather than always being in existence. You have no way of knowing whether it is a quantum phenomenon that could co exist with a big bang. And even if it wasn't of quantum origin, you have no way of knowing the extent of 'existence' in which consciousness or 'life as we know it' could have been coexisting with the events we believe to have taken place.
You *believe* that what we experience is a "first order" reality and not, on some level, an illusion. And even without any of that, there is no absolute knowledge, so pretty much everything is a belief.
Besides all that, why do you guys insist that you hold no beliefs when it's so obvious that you actually believe there is no higher power. If you were truly neutral you wouldn't belittle the idea so much.
Does that sound like someone that lacks a belief on the subject? Sounds to me like you believe it is impossible for a higher power to exist.I would entertain countless possible explanations, in any scenario, before believing an impossible explanation.