Atheism is an Illogical Worldview

He assumed the burden of proof in this debate, and must show that Atheism is indeed an illogical worldview. My job is to sufficiently undermine his claims. The Four QuestionsPro asserts that a worldview must be able to answer questions pertaining to origins, meaning, morals, and destiny. However, Pro presented no argument to support his claims that a worldview must have to account for all four. Regardless, it seems reasonable enough to assume that a worldview should be able to account for these things. Thus, I will not quarrel with Pro about whether or not a worldview should have to be able to account for them or not. What I do have a problem with, is the comment that if you take these four questions and apply it to Atheism; Atheism fails. He did not support this position. OriginsEvolution accounts for the origin of humans[1], and Abiogenes accounts for the origin of life itself[2] under an Atheistic framework. Atheism answers the questions of origins just fine. Pro hasn't really shown any logical problems with this view; he just asserts that this means humans are an accident. Accidents happen all the time, so the idea of something being illogical because it is an accident is a non-sequitur (which, ironically, is illogical). Pro needs more argumentation here to really establish his conclusion. MeaningPro claims evolution posits that we are here to self-replicate and pass on our genes to the next generation, but that there is no goal. However, this simply begs the question. The word "goal" implies intention, which implies a sentient being who intended for evolution (a God). However, no argument was given as to why there has to be a "goal" pertaining to evolution. Evolution being illogical does not follow from the notion that there is no overall goal with regards to evolution. Thus, this argument for Atheism being illogical is based on a non-sequitur just like the origins argument. MoralsThis section is based on a bare-assertion fallacy. Pro asserts that there is no real way of right and wrong under Atheism, because atheism has no moral objective source outside of itself to explain good and evil objectively. However, he has not proven that morality cannot have an objective source; he just presumes it. There are plenty of objective moral theories that do not take any God into account (contractarianism for example[3]). Pro hasn't actually shown that Atheism cannot account for objective morality. Not only that, morality could be subjective. He hasn't even shown that morality is objective in the first place. DestinyPro claims that if Atheism is true, then we have no destiny. But Pro debunked his own claim himself. He claims that our destiny under Atheism is to have our consciousness cease to exist at death, with mankind eventually dying and decaying. Well, if that's our destiny under Atheism, then obviously Atheism accounts for our destiny. He mentions his point about there being no ultimate goal again, but hasn't shown why there has to be a goal in the first place. What about "no goal" = "illogical"? Unfortunately, there are too many holes in Pro's arguments for them to go through. In ConclusionIn conclusion, Pro states"So when you take Atheism and apply to these four questions, you end up with no hope, no meaning, no morality, and no destiny. " - ProNot only has Pro not shown them true, he hasn't even shown that if they were true, Atheism being illogical would follow. He then talked about how Theism can account for four things he mentioned. That has no relevance to the debate, because even if Theism can account for those things, that wouldn't make Atheism illogical. Additionally, my opponent states;"Only in the Judeo-Christian Worldview, are all four of these questions answered with corresponding answers coherently, and objectively. " - ProThe above is false. Islam accounts for all of those things as well. .. Either way, I have already explained the problems with the steps needed to reach the conclusion above earlier in the round. Pro has not established the resolution. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[3] . http://plato.stanford.edu...