examples of faith from atheists

Richard Dawkins stated that “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

However, even naturalistic worldviews also take some things on faith.

For the purposes of this discussion, we will define a miracle as an event which occurs outside of the natural order and cannot be repeated or explained by the scientific process.
Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary:

1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community
   
2. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
   
3. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
   
4. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.
   

Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith.

1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community
   

1. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
   

1. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
   

1. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.
   

where did the big bang come from? any answer an atheist would give relies on faith and isn't based on the preponderance of the evidence. the preponderance of the evidence is that the universe came from something else. cause and effect.

if there is evidence that there was once no life, then that's all the more reason to say it takes faith to think life came from non life. at least if there was a continual chain of life back to the big bang that we observed, we could say life was something that is part of existence. as it is now, there was non life then there was life. faith required to say how that happened without god. 

also you say it's just my opinion that consciousness is apart from the material world. it's possible i'm wrong. but you have to admit that that's what it looks like, don't you?

it's similar to those 'are humans just advanced robots' threads. obivously, it looks like we're more than just advanced biological robots. to say otherwise is just stupid. 

We don't know where the Big Bang "came from" or that it "came from" anything. Current scientific theory is silent on the matter.

You said faith is belief without evidence. If the evidence says that there, at one point, wasn't life, then there was, then that is evidence life came from non-life. Since there is evidence, it isn't belief without evidence and therefore isn't faith.

also you say it's just my opinion that consciousness is apart from the material world. it's possible i'm wrong. but you have to admit that that's what it looks like, don't you?

That's not what it looks like to me..

We are, essentially, advanced biological robots.

If you are silent on what came before the Big bang or how it happened how can you say for a fact that there was ever "non-life"?

I'm not aware that anyone claimed at one point there wasn't life.

So where is there evidence that life or the universe came from non-life?

you would have to make the assumption that there was no life but why?

To make matters more complicated faith isn't belief without evidence that is a contradiction (misconception) to what faith means and its purpose.

The Big bang of course came from a conscious Reality which is why it occurred in the first place.

This enabled the Creator more "tools" to create with obviously. Coming from a spiritual viewpoint there was/is first an omnipresent conscious activity/reality, which generates and also co-exists with energy. The amount of energy generated from an omnipresent Reality is unimaginable and it was from this Source that energy was condensed and released to create what we label the Big bang. This was the starting point at which God began the processes we observe in our universe but there was never a point in existence where there was non-life, and certainly not non-life creating life and sentient beings.

What he probably means is to appeal to commonsense and what is obvious to your own experience as a conscious being.

Sure, the physical bodies can be articulated that way but not the conscious soul, it exists independent of physical forms. The material forms are how we interface with creation.

The conditions of the early universe were not amenable to the existence of life.

The general scientific consensus is that life arose on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago.

At some point (before 3.5 billion years ago) it didn't exist. After that point (after 3.5 billion years ago) it did.

It is not an assumption, it is a rational conclusion from the available facts.

That is the definition of faith provided by the OP that I am going off of. If you have an issue with this definition, take it up with n8nrgmi.

No evidence to support this conclusion.

A nice myth, but just that: a myth.

It is not obvious to me and my own experience that consciousness is apart from the material world.

I am not aware of the existence of any soul.

Probably accurate dealing with evolution...but again, you can assert only life happens within forms on planet earth but that is a claim based on zero evidence. You're talking about the evolution of bodies, I'm talking about how evolution occurs in the first place. Ask yourself how inanimate matter produces intelligent processes and sentient beings?

The processes of our universe existed before the development of this planet and forms, and processes are associated with minds and intelligence. Correlation is the key here, instead of looking at effects articulate and look for the cause.. it's an assertion to claim conscious life did not exist prior to life on this planet. You should be asking yourself why processes occur, why energy acks as intelligence in what it produces? why should you be asking that? because you don't want to be focusing on only effects and not causes. If you accept an inferior proposition that doesn't really know how could you ever expand with another proposition that may be true? consciousness is fully articulated in spirituality whereas admittedly we are limited by our scientific understanding.

It may be a rational conclusion based upon how you interpret the evidence (not facts) if you think it's rational to accept something that is silent on the matter. Sure.

Thanks for the opinion. But is that how you approach all propositions including your own?

It's not obvious to you, you are first a conscious being and not a series of impulses or neural firing? I would say fine, but perhaps consider another way of understanding.

Well you are that, you are just making the assumption that your brain creates your conscious being and nobody really knows why because consciousness is yet an open question in the scientific community. So the only way you could have arrived at that conclusion is from atheism. Because science is silent on that matter too (consciousness/aka soul), sure it can find activity within the brain but there's activity within the brain because there is a conscious alive being that interfaces with the brain. When the soul leaves the body the brain returns to dead matter.

Now, if you were to consider spirituality along with NDE's and spiritual encounters (God forbid) you no longer have to be unaware of the soul. The soul and consciousness have been proposed through spirituality for a long long time sir. No reason to be unaware of anything unless you choose to be.

That is the kind of life we are talking about.

I'm not aware that anything exists beyond the physical.

The topic of this thread is atheistic propositions, not theistic ones.

You are confusing things. The big bang has nothing to do with life on earth. Regardless, there is evidence.

Silent on the matter of the state of the universe at and before the big bang. Not about life.

Through series of genetic mutations and selective sexual pressures over billions of years.

I don't know what you are saying or asking here.

Right, we know we have bodies without souls

but I've never seen a soul without a body.

No evidence of spirituality or NDEs.

Not from a Theistic point of view, which I believe the OPer is coming from.

We are talking about the life that transcends evolution and physical forms and why those processes happen.

Close your eyes, stop thinking and focus on the observer. Then know that it is proposed that you exist beyond your physical form, now you are no longer unaware. Being unaware would mean you have not been presented with either an experience or some other source of information. I would suggest looking into other sources to expand your data base.

I'm bringing to your attention two separate things here, the start of the Big bang and evolution. Both are processes of a Creator and that is my position. You asserted life began on earth and I'm saying you have no basis for that claim, and have no basis for the claim non-life existed prior to the Big bang.

That would include life Drafterman. If they are silent on what preceded the Big bang that includes consciousness/life.

Through series of genetic mutations and selective sexual pressures over billions of years.

That would be conjecture and assumption not fact.

You base your conclusions off the premise or assumption no life precedes forms on planet earth even though you admit what preceded the Big bang they are silent on, see what I mean? you base your conclusion off of conjecture. 

I don't know what you are saying or asking here.

I'm trying to get you to look at the processes and why they occurred. Correlating processes with intelligence and a mind is the starting point.

Right, we know we have bodies without souls

Nice assumption, we know we do have souls without bodies. See how that works lol?

but I've never seen a soul without a body.

Perhaps, but you are aware that a soul could exist independent of physical bodies right?

No evidence of spirituality or NDEs.

They are included as evidence, meaning they are evidence. Why is it atheists have no idea that testimonials ARE evidence lol??

so you think NDEs are just people hallucinating consistently themed afterlife stories when they die? what a stupid belief system you have 

Big bang theory doesn’t posit something from nothing. No issue.

We have evidence that there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life. No faith required.

We also observe order from chaos as well. Crystals form intricate and regular structures, random rules can create order geometric shapes. There is no violation of scientific principle.

Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.

No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

The OP did not say that the Big bang theory posited something from nothing. He said it has no explanation for something from nothing. We know the universe was not always here, yet now it is.

Didn't you say,..

We have evidence that there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life. No faith required.

Obviously no logic required either. So now there is life, why is your assumption of abiogenesis correct?

Especially when no instance of abiogenesis has ever been observed in all of history?

We also observe order from chaos as well. Crystals form intricate and regular structures, random rules can create order geometric shapes. There is no violation of scientific principle.

Shapes are not order.

You simply call one shape "order" over another. In the context of the OP, "order" is analogous to information. Information cannot come about from chaos.

Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.

It may also be his opinion, but he is correct. We are made of atoms. Atoms cannot think, or feel, or love.

The OP said,

No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

Though no one can yet explain how this is so, the fact remains that our consciousness exists outside of mere physical matter.

These are brute facts that cannot be dismissed by materialists.

I don't know that.

It isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence.

Things don't need to be observed in order to happen.

Regular shapes are.

Yes it can.

Correct, but certain collections of atoms can.

Not that I'm aware of.

I dismiss them.

I don't know that.

But you did claim to know that "there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life."

It isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence.

That is what an assumption is.

And there is no evidence for abiogenesis whatsoever. But I affirm your right to believe in a concept without evidence.

Things don't need to be observed in order to happen.

But they do need evidence that they happened. Things not based on your faith anyhoo.

Regular shapes are.

"Regular" is a concept in your mind, like color. It isn't in the shape.

But there is a reason we tell little kids at first that you can't subtract a larger number from a smaller one. People can only deal with what they are capable of dealing with.

Yes it can.

No it cannot. Thanks for validating the OP's claim again.

Correct, but certain collections of atoms can.

One of the cornerstones of physics is that elementary particles are exactly alike.

If you think a certain arrangement of atoms makes them alive and capable of being self-aware, I have not seen a better rendition of blind faith.

Not that I'm aware of.

You lack of awareness of any evidence for abiogenesis didn't stop you then.

It was this type of thinking Dawkins meant when he said, “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, lack of evidence.”

I dismiss them.

Of course you do. But facts don't care about your feelings. That's why they are called "brute facts". Your " dismissal" means nothing. They continue to exist after you "dismiss" them.

Yes.

What is the evidence that there once wasn't life?

That is incorrect.

Coming to a conclusion when there is no evidence is called an assumption.

Thank you, but unnecessary. There is evidence.

You should alert the scientific community post haste.

And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.

It'll be exciting and novel when you finally post it.

Incorrect.

I'm not interested enough to teach you basic physics. Be well in your lack of knowledge.

That is not correct.

That is OK. A sound education in physics is no longer common these days. I'm sure your strengths are in other fields.

It's not blind, I witness it all the time.

I daresay you have powerful eyes if you see atoms all the time. But you're halfway there, at least you admit to it being faith.

I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.

By revelation? Because you sure did not observe any evidence for abiogenesis.

I'm just letting you know that those statements can, contrary to your claim, be dismissed.

But facts cannot. And look, they still stand.

You were incorrect when you called them facts...

Luckily for me, your words don't create reality. 

...and you were incorrect when you said that they cannot be dismissed

Yet there they stand, in spite of your feelings. Perhaps you are confusing "ignore" with "dismiss".

You can ignore a fact, but dismissing one does nothing.

The fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.

Now I see the problem, this unawareness thing you need to work on and like I said it wouldn't be a bad idea that you expand your data base especially if you want to engage in religious topics so you have some awareness and more strength to your position.

God is proposed as omnipresent, meaning that there is an omnipresent awareness of the nature of consciousness and God. In other words there is nowhere something exists where awareness is not present. What makes the awareness of God omnipresent is that it's not limited to time and space, to forms and bodies. It exists independent of those, so in essence God has no bodily form therefore has no need for environmental factors to sustain physical bodies of matter.

So when we use the term "life" we are not talking about life on earth alone. We are talking about the life of God or awareness that transcends what we observe within creation.

Now, this is why I bring up energy and processes and how they act out in creation. I do this because so you will no longer be unaware that these things don't take place by themselves, there are processes because there is intelligence behind creation. Accepting the omnipresence of the Creator is not a big deal if you can accept energy, that it is omnipresent and is not created or destroyed. What a coincidence that both energy and God are proposed as the same nature and have the same characteristics...correlation again.

And, just like energy consciousness can exists within form and outside it. 

For the purposes of this discussion, we will define a miracle as an event which occurs outside of the natural order and cannot be repeated or explained by the scientific process.

I am not engaging in a religious topic.

Since I am not aware of this god, your proposal is demonstrably false.

Incorrect, that is not the definition of life being used in this conversation.

Energy and god are not proposed as the same nature with the same characteristics.

I am not engaging in a religious topic.

Ethan is representing the Theistic position, this is a religious forum. I'm sure he will be taking a religious stance. 

Since I am not aware of this god, your proposal is demonstrably false.

You're aware now, and thanks for the opinion.

Incorrect, that is not the definition of life being used in this conversation.

But, it's the proposition I want you to consider. While you are here anyway.

Energy and god are not proposed as the same nature with the same characteristics.

Lol read that again. Energy is neither created or destroyed, energy exists at all places in the universe. God is not created or destroyed and exists in all places at all times (omnipresent). Energy exists because conscious activity exists, that is why energy is even there. They co-exist. Now before you make the claim you are not aware of that note that I'm bringing the awareness of it to your attention.

where did the big bang come from?

The fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.

Right, but I have come to a conclusion based on evidence. Ergo it is not an assumption.

They're aware of it. It's where I got it from.

No one has bothered to ask for it.

I wasn't talking physics, I was talking geometry.

If you had a sound education in physics you would know that there are many distinct elementary particles, all different from each other. 

I can only wonder what you think you're seeing when you see things, if not atoms.

I have.

Ah, but I have, in fact dismissed then. So if facts cannot be dismissed, and I've dismissed then, then they aren't facts.

Do you imagine that yours do?

Regardless of what effect dismissing has, you said it cannot be done, yet it has been done.

he fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.

If there were no atoms, what was "hot" and "dense"?

Do you know that "heat" is a property of matter?

And you just admitted that there once wasn't a universe. Thanks.

Right, but I have come to a conclusion based on evidence. Ergo it is not an assumption.

Well, rational people usually require that evidence to be valid for the conclusion not to be considered assumption.

They're aware of it. It's where I got it from.

OK. Perhaps one day they will share it with the rest of the world.

And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.

It'll be exciting and novel when you finally post it.

I wasn't talking physics, I was talking geometry.

That your ignorance covers multiple fields is not something to brag about.

If you had a sound education in physics you would know that there are many distinct elementary particles, all different from each other. 

But each type exactly like the others of that type. You should follow that instinct to not talk physics.

It's not blind, I witness it all the time.

I daresay you have powerful eyes if you see atoms all the time. But you're halfway there, at least you admit to it being faith.

I can only wonder what you think you're seeing when you see things, if not atoms.

"Seeing" is another of those things that happen only in the brain. But it is photons, not atoms that excite the optic nerve.

I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.

By revelation? Because you sure did not observe any evidence for abiogenesis.

I have.

As a theist, I hesitate to trash a claim of revelation, I only think it highly unusual that your deity has "revealed" evidence for abiogenesis to you. But to each his own.

The bible seems to support abiogenesis, which simply means that life arose from non-life.

They're evidence yes, evidence of a dying brain going berserk.