An atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist.

This debate has been interesting and challenging, which hopefully means it's been entertaining as well. I extend my thanks to all the readers for taking the time to analyze our arguments and vote. I especially thank my opponent for instigating this debate and responding with so much care. In case it isn't obvious, I argue against the resolution by discrediting atheistic presuppositions. If I can show that a naturalistic worldview is not cogent, then I can show how the theistic worldview, by contrast, accounts for human experience. You may wonder if my opponent is guilty of having made assumptions at all, and I contend that he has. In fact, we both have. Suffice to say, all people make assumptions about reality, whether they'd like to admit it or not. For example, my opponent objects to my appeal to metaphysics when rationalizing absolute moral laws. On the surface, his complaint seems to have merit. But my opponent is no more neutral on the issue than I. He says his presuppositions are "more profound for there is tangible reality in which can be analyzed whereas yours cannot." My opponent claims that only tangible (i.e., physical) reality leads to profound knowledge. This claim itself, however, is not tangible but philosophical. My opponent assumes a physical-only reality whereas I assume a dual one, composed of physical and metaphysical planes. Neither of us can prove our positions via our senses. So how do we determine which worldview is true? By evaluating which set of assumptions best justifies our human experience. Human experience is replete with appeals to absolute morals. There are some who say that morality is relative, but eventually appeal to absolute morality when another's actions hit too close to home. My argument has been that atheism cannot rationally account for absolute morality. To clarify this, I'll defend my contentions one last time. 1. Morality is absolute. My argument began by proving that morals must be absolute to be coherent, and I did so by showing that relative morality was a self contradiction. Thankfully, as confirmed in my opponent's final round, we agree that morals are absolute. I used the term "conceded," but was really just affirming that he and I see eye-to-eye on this matter, not that he was "giving in" to my point in any sense. I apologize if I painted my opponent in a bad light. To state it more simply, he and I seem to agree that relative morality is not logically defensible. Therefore, I will not belabor this point further. 2. Moral laws are immaterial. Our disagreement becomes obvious in my second point. Absolute morals must be immaterial in order to be laws, as anything else reduces morality to convention and unpredictability. While my opponent agrees with the logical problems associated with relative morality, his genetic explanation is not adequate to explain absolute moral laws. Genetic morality cannot be measured or predicted because evolution is non-teleological. When I said evolution has no purpose, I meant it has no goals, no ends, and no design for nature, and to say so leads to pantheism. Evolution is only about survival of species and perpetuation of genes. Organisms have just as much potential to devolve as they do to evolve, and we cannot accurately predict which will happen. Furthermore, there is no notion of "better" or "worse" with natural selection, only "different." My opponent claims we've evolved from relative morality to absolute morality, but how does he know whether or not we will evolve to be even more altruistic (or less)? Indeed, he doesn't know and can never know. His adherence on this genetic explanation for absolute morality is based on faith. Atheists that presuppose only the natural order are forced to find morality within that order, but are unable to do so rationally. Whether found in genetics, brains, society, etc., morality cannot be absolute in their worldview. However, absolute morality is cogent when explained as being outside of nature, as being a law apart from humans and society. Only when they are immaterial can we say that something is always wrong or always good. Once immaterial moral laws are accepted, we are left with few worldviews and definitely not the atheist worldview. 3. Christian theism is the necessary precondition for absolute moral laws. This point of contention relies heavily on how well I've convinced the reader of point two. If my opponent has conclusively shown that absolute morality is found in evolution, then you must accept his claim that religion has errantly claimed morality for its own. But if evolution cannot account for absolute morality, then my opponent's claim is empty. In my arguments, I show that only theism rationally justifies immaterial and immutable moral laws, for only theism accounts for immaterial entities whatsoever. Specifically, Christian theism accounts for such entities because it presupposes an immaterial and immutable God. Again, this is a transcendental argument. We must ask ourselves what is necessary for metaphysical and unchanging moral laws to exist. Since we cannot empirically analyze the metaphysical, we must rely on reason and logic. Knowing that all people have a worldview, we can logically infer the necessary precondition by rejecting any worldview that cannot coherently account for moral laws. Atheism is one such worldview. By process of elimination, theism is the necessary precondition for absolute moral laws. (I do not have time or space to eliminate all worldviews here, but that is not necessary since atheism is the worldview in question in this debate.) 4. Atheism denies its premises when engaging in ethics. My opponent says he was mortified when I stated that atheists borrow the Christian worldview. Reading carefully, the reader will notice that I said atheists do this knowingly or unknowingly. My logic is quite simple. If moral laws are absolute and non-physical, then only the Christian worldview can account for them. Ergo, when an atheist engages in ethical behavior, they contradict their own assumptions about reality and instead live as though they believed in the immaterial. Genetic morality may fit the bill when it comes to academic discussion, but when an atheist encounters a real life situation in which genetic morality is no longer in their favor, they will appeal to something transcendent--to immaterial absolute moral laws. Such appeals to immaterial, invisible, immutable entities only make sense given theistic presuppositions. As stated earlier, this is a battle of worldviews. The atheistic worldview cannot account for absolute morals. Atheism is ideologically predisposed to amorality. Sure, people claiming to be atheists can be and often are moral. They love their children and kiss their wives, but in so doing, they live incoherently. They deny immaterial morals one moment and appeal to them the next. Thus, when a self proclaimed atheist engages in ethics, they deny the very ideology they work so hard to defend. They deny atheism altogether, even if unable to realize it. A true atheist follows the ideology without contradiction, and in so doing, accepts its implications. Insofar as morality is concerned, a true atheist accepts that morality is not absolute--that might make right. A true atheist is amoral. Therefore, an atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist.