Serious Problems with Atheism

[Asmodee]

That's at the core of the debate isn't it, why is "prosocial" better than "antisocial"? Why is human survival better than 

extinction? 

It's better for ME. That should be obvious. Prosocial means I don't have to grow my own food, spin my own yarn, weave my own clothes, build my own house, etc. It means I can focus on just a few things that interest me to make a living and assigned thousands of things I don't to someone else. And bonus, I don't have to empty a chamber pot outside my window after using leaves to wipe because I don't know how to manufacture tissue paper, or don't have the time with the thousands of other chores I would have on my plate. It means that we have gotten together and agreed, as a society, not to take from each other or harm each other. For the minimal price of agreeing not to kill my neighbor (or, in our case, the institute of law telling me I can't) I can be reasonably assured that he isn't going to kill me. This is all pretty basic. It doesn't take a college degree to figure out why I don't want the human race wiped out and any moron who isn't severely socially impaired can easily figure out why being social is "good". You're trying to make a big mystery out of common sense things.

As the 2007 atheist suicide-murderer Pekka-Eric Auvinen from Finland said ‘The faster the human race is wiped out

 from this planet, the better … no one should be left alive. No mercy for the scum of earth.’ ‘I am the law, judge and 

executioner. There is no higher authority than me.’ 

Why are the random electron collisions in his brain forming his "logic" 

"bad" and the random electron collisions in your brain forming your "logic" "better"?

Again, society, as a whole, has decided what is "bad" and what is "good". And again, it takes only a pretty basic understanding and very little thought to come up with this.

And the brain does not work by "random electron collisions". It's actually chemical processes which produce the electrons and if they were random we would all die.

So my point is we innately know that there is Good and Evil in this Universe because we have a Conscience which is simply 

irreducible to random electron collisions in our skulls, and it requires the stubbornness and closed-mindedness of a Dawkins to

 deny the obvious.

And it requires a straw man to support. No two people on the planet can agree 100% of the time what is "good" and what is "evil". I think the members of the Westborough Baptist Church are inherently "evil". They think the same about me. I think the ACLU is inherently "good". Most right-wingers and many Christians would disagree. Our idea of good and evil is anything but innate. It is learned. And again, if the processes in our brains were random we would all die. Nobody is claiming that they are random, it's you who is claiming that we are claiming that they are random, which is a straw man.