Atheistic Big Bang: Illogical?

If you take an Anatomy or Animal Biology class, you'll learn the answer to that question.

No, because your brain has enough capacity to be self-referencing. Your neurons fire, and that is cognition. When someone is engaging in logical thinking there is increased neural activity in the frontal lobe of your Cerebrum, hence thought is physically based.
...So can modern neurology and psychology. Emotions have a physical basis.

"State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression."
Harmon-Jones, Eddie and Sigelman, Johnathan. U Wisconsin, Dept of Psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80(5) May, 2001. pp. 797-803

The concept of a soul is philosophy, it doesn't have a basis in actual science.

But there isn't any evidence of the soul's existence. We have evidence of the atom's existence, however, because we can preform experiments that directly support the hypothesis of atomic theory.

You have empirical data from a scientific study that concludes that human function and cognition cannot be entirely supported by the physical structure of the brain?

No. They aren't lifeforms, they don't have a nervous system. It is absurd to be comparing processed substances like sandwiches, which are nothing more then collections of organic molecules and rocks which are minerals in solid state to Biota.

In summary, your philosophy is quite Platonic, but not scientific.

We, unlike truly inert matter, are characterized by ongoing biochemical processes. You can postulate a soul, but you can't prove a soul exists, since modern science considers the brain to be capable of originating the entirety of our mental activity.

The brain isn't inert. It is characterized by cells that are metabolizing, some dividing, protein synthesis, polarization and action potentials to name a few.

Nope. The principles taught in these classes are self-contradictory if they imagine that inert substance allows for free will. I would be quite happy with these classes - if happened to be a person who didn't believe in free will.

The concept of an atom was devised as a philosphy 2500 years ago. When people finally started pointing out that it best explains observed data, it became a component of science textbooks.

You're just ignoring the evidence I've provided. Kind a like many YECs often do.

Freely willed motility cannot be defined in terms of inert matter. That's a contradiction in terms.

I'm just working from atheistic assumptions. THEY say that a rock is inert. Fine. But the human entity is self-propelling.

That discrepancy needs to be accounted for

and the most cogent explanation is a human soul (defined most simply as a self-propelling tangible substance).

Challenging the ubiquity of inertia based on observed data is indeed a scientific enterprise.

I can't even "prove" that gravity exists. I can only provide you evidence. The words in bold are authoritarian. Apparently, this authority supersedes the law of non-contradiction on which basis I challenged its conclusions.

That which is composed of inert matter is inert matter. If it isn't inert, then the textbooks should take note of the fact that human physiology and motility are not a function of ordinary physical laws. Those laws are based on inert matter.

Most atheists define a miracle as a violation of the laws of ordinary physics. If the brain (derived from the inert sandwich) is no longer inert, you're talking about a miraculous transition for starters and then, to boot, miraculous behavior for the long haul.

...not partly from a non-corporeal supposed thing called a "soul".

There is no direct proof of the soul, so it would be bad logic to suppose it. It is far more logical to assume the brain is the origin of it all rather then inventing additional concepts to explain.