Atheism can not account for moral truth

It seems that my opponent is either misunderstanding my argument or spinning it into a way to make his argument look good. Let me examine his rebuttals and show his cleverness of words. I wish I had more space to rebuttal, because there is too much to say. Rebuttals "First of all my opponent has over generalized human nature in a sloppy way. Throughout history civilization after civilization has shown the opposite of utilitarianism (i. e. the Aztecs, Vikings, Barbarians, Satanists, and many people who have committed suicide). "I never said that utilitarianism is human nature. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Our human nature such as happiness and survival, result into morality, which results into utilitarianism. If you notice, I only talked about utilitarianism when I was talking about Christianity, but for some reason my opponent decided to exaggerate it for an unnecessary rebuttal. Also, I'm quite sure that the Aztecs, barbarians etc, did have some kind of moral code. So what is my opponents point? I hope voters realize this spinning of words by pro. "Secondly it is arbitrary for my opponent to claim that morality is anything that promotes survival and happiness. "Instead of saying it's arbitrary, why can't my opponent prove it? I challenge my opponent to name one moral law that we have today that isn't there to promote survival or happiness. "an atheistic worldview where only matter and motion exist who can absolutely say that happiness and survival are absolutely good things to attain. "I never said happiness and survival are absolutely good things, I just said that human nature is inclined to survive and be happy. .. "Why should anyone be obligated to promote survival or happiness. "What does this have to do with the resolution? "My opponent has done nothing more than insert what he believes are good things (survival and happiness) and constructed an entire moral code around them. "I'm not saying they're good things, in fact I'm saying they're fundamentally everyones instinctive goals. These goals create human connections that result in 'laws', which revolve around the goals which are not debatable. Again you can see my opponents clever spinning of my words. " But my opponent has failed to prove, given atheistic premises, that survival and happiness are moral things. Why should anyone succumb to anyone else's autonomous morality. "I think my opponent is forgetting or ignoring the resolution. "Atheism can not account for moral truth. " This doesn't mean that atheism has to prove that morality is reality, all this asks for is that atheism give an explanation for the forming of morality in humanity. I don't need to say that survival and happiness are moral things. I just have to say that they're basic human needs and that moral laws are created to protect them. "Just because it is true that everyone wants to survive and be happy doesn't mean one ought to act in a way that promotes these things. "I agree. However how does this refute the fact that atheism provides a reasonable reason for the formation of morality in humanity? I'm not saying atheism proves morality is absolutely the right thing, I'm saying that atheism 'can account for' the existence of morality. "What ultimate standard, in a world of matter and motion, demands that one act in a way that promotes happiness and survival? "Once again my opponent is straying away from the resolution. In a world of matter and motion, there doesn't need to be an ultimate standard that demands one to act in away that promotes survival and happiness. The resolution says : "atheism can not account for moral truth. " So I am supposed to explain how atheism can account for the existence of moral truth, without "the ultimate standard". Whether there is an ultimate standard is irrelevant, simply because atheists can STILL account for the existence of moral truth. Talking about an ultimate standard is off topic because, we aren't talking about if morality is true, we're talking about if atheists can explain why there is moral truth, which we humans follow. "SO WHAT? Why is it objectively true that extinction is a bad thing? "Extinction doesn't have to be objectively a bad thing. This is because humans by nature DO NOT want to be extinct. This will cause them to try as hard as they can to survive and be happy. This will create the morality in which humans follow. My opponent still has not addressed the resolution that: "Atheism can not account for moral truth. " It seems like he thinks the resolution is: There is no morality if there is no god. "Why is it immoral live against ones nature? What ultimate moral standard can provide an answer for that? Why must humans be empathetic to one another? Why must humans treat others as they would want to be treated? Trust me, I am aware that human survival would flourish and people would be happier if everyone were show empathy. But just because empathy would promote happiness and survival doesn't necessarily make it a moral truth. "Once again, my opponent seems to misunderstands the phrase: "can not account for". Even if atheism doesn't provide a reason why morality is absolutely true, it can still account for a reason why there is moral truth, which we follow. I know voters will recognize this. "These presuppositions by my opponent are clearly arbitrary. "Instead of saying they're arbitrary, I would like my opponent to prove it. Tell me one human act that doesn't involve survival or happiness. Once again, I never said they were good things and I don't have to. They're things that all people desire, and that is enough to prove the existence of morality from an atheistic perspective, which is what I'm supposed to do! Opponents Questions. 1. They don't have to be good. My opponent misunderstands the resolution.2. It's "bad" because we all don't want to go extinct, which is enough for us to work together to stop this from happening. Working together requires rules, which creates morality.3. Yes the circle is complete. "The atheistic worldview cannot account for this because such ultimate moral standards do not exist in a world without God. "My opponent is tossing around the word 'ultimate' as if it was relevant to the resolution. I would ask my opponent to read his resolution carefully and realize that all I have to prove is that atheism can explain the existence of a moral truth in which we all follow. Conclusion My opponent has ignored the truth I brought upfront about animals and how they have morality without a god, and how it can be the exact same thing with humans. My opponent thinks that this debate is: "Without a god there is no morality. " When the debate is actually: "Atheism can not account for moral truth" With this resolution I have to provide from an atheistic view the reason for the formation of morality. Unfortunately, my opponent wasted his whole round without paying attention to the resolution. I want to address the problem with this debate. My opponent thinks that I am supposed to prove that without a god there is morality, when I'm actually supposed to prove that atheism can account for the existence of a thing we call 'moral truth'. To better explain, I'm going to say that without a god there is no real truth. Now here my opponent would think I'm conceding. I'm not conceding because we aren't talking about if there is truth, we are talking about if atheism can explain the development of morality with humans. I was able to prove that from the perspective of atheism, it can account for the existence of this thing we call 'morality'. My opponent thinks that there has to be moral truth, when the fact is that is absolutely not the case! Basically, my opponent thinks that this debate is about the reality of moral truth, when this debate is actually about the existence of moral truth. So far, my argument still stands, as it proves why atheism can account for what we humans consider moral truth. Thank You.