Atheism is an Illogical Worldview

"Evolution 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." Abiogenesis is impossible. The consensus on how the earth's atmosphere has changed since the 1950's Urey-Miller experiment. Scientists now believe the initial atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. This gas mixture does not readily produce organic compounds in prebiotic simulation experiments. The only way Abiogensis can work is, if there is an Inteligent Designer who knows the right mixture. Science does not explain what caused the big bang theory to happen. They assume life created itself. If something began to exist, then it must have a cause. Otherwise your left with the question: Why did the Universe began to exist?Meaning"Pro 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."Con is correct. If evolution is true, then there is no ultimate meaning to your existence. What is evolution supposed to accomplish? Death is the end of all things, so what meaning do you have for your existence. The only meaning you can give to your existence is self-meaning, which is subjective. Atheism fails to give you meaning as a human being because you have no meaning as a human being if evolution is true. This then leads to the question: Why do we exist? Morals"This 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. "That is correct if Atheism is true there is no objective source of Morality. What moral value do you as a human being have without God? None. You can only give yourself moral value and again that would be subjective. Why do morals matter in evolution? You don't need morality to survive in evolution, because it is survival of the fittest. Contractariansm can only come from one's perspective of how a moral agreement should be (pragmatic), but it doesn't tell you why you should do these things, or where they come from. Who are you accountable to if there is no God? Who cares if you live life as a Mother Thereasa, or a Joesph Stalin? Why does it even matter what you do if there is no accountability?What motivates you to do Good? If there is no God, then what motivates you to do something good?What motivates you to do something bad? If Satan does not exist, then what motivates you to do something bad.Who are you obligated to if there is no God?Who gives you the right to make a claim "this is good or this is evil" and on what grounds?Philosphy and Science can only argue morality subjectively or at best pragmaticly. Here is why God must exist for moral objective valeus to exist. Take the problem of evil for example. Whenever the problem of evil is raised it is either raised by a person, or about person(s). If there is a such a thing as evil, then you're assuming there's a such a thing as good. If there is a such thing as good and evil, then there must be a moral law to differientate beteween good and evil. If there is a Moral law, then there must be a Moral law Giver, who gives us the right to differ between good and evil. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove, because if there is no Moral law giver there's no moral law. If there's no moral law then there's no such thing as good. If there is no such thing as good then there's no such thing as evil. If there is no such thing as evil, then what's your question?Only if there is a moral law giver who transcends you and I can you make the claim "This is good, or this is evil." Anything other than that is subjective and has no basis.Destiny"Pro 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."Con misunderstood me again. I did not debunk myself. I was showing him that Atheism debunks itself particulary on destiny. When I say there is no destiny in Atheism, I mean objectively there is no life after death. Eventually the universe will grow old, dark, dead, and diluted. Everything will caese to exist. If that is the case then there is no ultimate hope for humanity. So then what is there to live for?Only in the Judeo-Christian Worldview, are all four of these questions answered with corresponding answers coherently, and objectively." - Pro"The 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."No, Islam does not account for any of this. In Islam Allah has no moral character. Also allah does not gurantee you a destiny when you die. Islam and every other religion , your good deeds must outweigh your bad, and there is no assurance of salvation in Islam because you could stand before Allah and he'll turn you away even if you have been doing good deeds, he could say that your good deeds were not good enough to outweigh you bad. Only in the Judeo-Christian worldview show the real problem, and that is the heart. The heart is deceitful. That is why when you look at our world today, it is fallen because of man's sin. God says we can't earn salvation through our deeds.But he loved us so much that he gave us his son Jesus to die for our sins John 3:16, so that if we believe in him as our Lord and saviour we will have eternal life. That is a gift of god and not by man's deeds or actions.I can not think of anything more loving than God himself sending his son to die for all mankind's sin, and was buried and raised to life, he conquered the judgment that we desrve. It has always been through faith in trust in the OT and NT, not through our works. That is why the Judeo-Christian worldview is the right view.Only in Christ are all four of these answered correctly, because Christ claimed to be way the truth and the life, and proved it through his death and resurrection. That means everyone else is false.So in Conclusion Atheism can not account for our existence, our meaning as humans, our source of morality, and a destiny or after life, as to where we are going. www.rzim.orgwww.reasons.orgwww.cbn.com