An atheist must agree that our organs exist for no reason

Thank you for your timely response! I will first list through your positive and normative statements in the following format: 1. "Quotation as a reference to a question at issue, may be paraphrased" 1.a. Refutation 1.b. refutation or argument 1.c. etc. The body of my response begins here: 1. "Anything that is random cannot be a means towards any end" 1.a. This seems to be an assertion that without a creator, there is no INHERENT purpose to existence. It however doesn't preclude the assertion of a self-validated purpose ascribed by an intelligent mind held by a human. The key here is the usage of the word inherent, meaning that human beings were brought into existence for a purpose. This is an assumption and the burden to validate this statement would require the evidence that a Deity exists. I would state that this premise is flawed in this regard. 2. " whether our organs exist for any reason on a factual level" 2.a. We can demonstrate that our organs indeed exist within the scope of our perception of reality. This makes the existence factual. 2.b. The reason of their existence would be to sustain the organism that claims ownership to these organs. This seems to be evident regardless of the existence of an INHERENT purpose of life. 3. "We cannot consider our own self-prescribed reasons..." 3.a. Why not? If we require a divine purpose in the explanation of why our organs exists then we would see debates over the purpose of organs based on a persons religious affiliation. We do not see this, what we see is a scientific consensus over the purpose of a specific organ's. 4. "Did these pressure or changes occur in order to promote the survival of the organism?" 4.a. Yes, with reservation. If we agree that evolution produced the human species through a process of natural selection over millions of years, we can suggest that the 'initial' life forms would have developed these not as a means of survival but as a means of enhanced adaptation. Basically as a means of increasing the capabilities and fitness to continue to reproduce. 5. "If atheism is true" 5.a. Atheism cannot be true because atheism is a lack of a claim to religion. This illustrates that the Pro has a misconception about the nature of what they are debating. It could be conceptually falsified through the presentation of factual evidence that a deity exists, until then atheism is just a lack of belief. 6. "Evolution is a natural and unembodied process..." 6.a. the term unembodied is being used here to mean that there is no organization to the function of evolution. While there is no physical or metaphysical orchestrator behind the path that evolution has followed. It is a process that follows 'rules' such as Darwinian Fitness and Natural selection, therefor we cannot say that evolution is "Random". All we can really posit is that evolution is not constructed. 7."Evolution cannot be the means towards an end." 7.a. This is misuse of terminology with intent to mislead. Sophistry. 8. "Evolution is just a process with a result... a process devoid of goals or objectives" 8. The statement means, evolution just happens. We can suppose this however, we then must also posit that goals, logic, knowledge, and reason are all human constructs from sentient intelligence. The reason that you are looking for cannot exist outside of humanity, only within. You are trying to define terms in a universal way, when universe does not in fact maintain the capabilities of cognition to recognize what reason is. This means that your statements, premises, and arguments are non sequitur fallacies. 9. "misuse of the words 'reason and why'" 9.a. Words are a human construct used to further individual human intelligence, their utility only makes sense within the context of human existence. Your premise is flawed because you are asking for an explanation of human existence from human perception devoid of human perception. This is impossible. 10. "How is the sky blue?" 10.a. How and why are both just phrasings of inquiry from the human perspective. 11. "everything that occurs in nature is inherently a means without a end." 11.a. End is being misused, you are using end to mean "final goal" instead of "purpose". The purpose of our organs is to fulfill the essential life giving functionality that enables our species to continue. 11.b. another key flaw in your premise is that with your usage of the term "end" you are requiring an Inherent meaning for the existence of organs to accomplish a goal in the future, time having a conclusive endpoint is also a human construct of perception. Your argument is just completely structurally flawed. Remember this: Reason, goals, existence, and inherent are all philosophical terms created by humanity. You cannot define them outside of humanity, ergo our argument must take place within humanity. While we can say that evolution just occurs, if you insinuate that there is no reason, you are removing the conceptual understanding of what evolution even is and even denying its existence because it is a theory of reason. 12."Everything that occurs in nature is undefined" 12.a. I can debunk this assertion in three lines: Nature is everything that physically exists. I physically exist as a part of nature. I just defined something in nature. I assert that the original premise of this argument was inclusive of the term Atheist/atheism for no reason. I must also assert that the Pro's argumentation is completely conjecture and assertion. We know that organs exist to support the life of a life form to produce that life forms capability to reproduce. Just in this factual, positive statement we have the subject, Organs, fulfilling a functionality, support life form, for a reason, to ensure reproduction. The only course of argument that the Pro has is to remove the standard usage of the terms and attempt to apply a spectrum of meaning outside of human usage. This is impossible to do because we cannot assume that the Pro has the capability to produce a perspective outside of human existence because we can posit that he/she has only ever been human.