Atheism can not account for right and wrong

It is for the fifth time, and thankfully the last, that I must re-explain the same very simple concept. Perhaps if I quote the children in the study that Charles15 obviously did not read, it will be made clear to him... If it can be shown that one can account for right and wrong without appealing to God, then the resolution is fulfilled. This study (http://tigger.uic.edu...) proves this exact point. Here's a quote from one of the subjects in the study, which concluded that "even for deeply religious children from fundamentalist or orthodox backgrounds, morality stems from criteria independent of God's word:" I: Suppose god had written in the Torah that Jews should steal, would it then be right for Jews to steal? M: No. Thus, the resolution is immediately fulfilled, as it has been shown that one can account for right and wrong completely absent, and EVEN IN THE FACE OF God's law. However, since my opponent will no doubt lack understanding of this point as well, I suppose I'll address the rest of his flawed argument. ************************************* Responses: >> "I'm not sure how you can say this and at the same time have read my previous argument." Very easily - your previous argument is wrong. >> "Now, my opponent says that ANY Atheistic moral system can account for morals (right and wrong), I say this is false." Again - you are simply wrong, as I have now shown FIVE times. >> [A criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong] "is what I am saying Atheism does not have. Yet AGAIN - wrong. ALL MORAL SYSTEMS have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. >> ""The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts." He has said this or something like this almost every round but has not told me HOW this works" Perhaps you did not read when I said: "Right and wrong are labels we use to describe an action in moral terms and signify that the content of the action carries moral import. The criteria for assigning an action a label as right or wrong is dependent on the system of morality one adopts. For example, in some moral systems, that which violates God's law is categorically "wrong." In other systems, the same action may be described as "right" given the circumstances or carry no moral import at all. However, the action itself is the same." >> "I have explained, how if there are two views, that are both radically different, but at the same time considered right" In your rebuttal, you held that Bob and Jeff could arrive at different moral conclusions USING DIFFERENT REASONING, which necessitates a DIFFERENT MORAL SYSTEM. Thus, your entire rebuttal is irrelevant. >> ""HOW can my opponent define what the MOST HARM is in this situation? To my opponent it might be killing Bob, to another person it might be letting the 100 people die! So, tell me, HOW do you define what the most harm is?!"" Did you happen to miss where I answered this?? Here it is again: "What you seem to miss is that "maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges." >> "there are many countries through out the world, in which raping little children is morally acceptable." Yet again, my opponents radical misunderstanding of the topic has caused him to concede the debate. If there are other moral systems that can account for this action as "right," then the resolution is fulfilled. Oh... and he gives no example. >> "they view raping little children as beneficial. My opponent may say it's not. But he can't just say that, he must explain what is most beneficial" Perhaps "empirically" was too big of a word for you. It means by an appeal to the natural world. Thus, that which is not beneficial would be that which does not provide for the benefit of humans as a natural organism. And with an empirical understanding, it's quite obvious that raping babies harms them... ************************************************************************* Readers, throughout this debate my opponent has displayed a dogmatic, radical misunderstanding of the concept of morality. He has refused to consider my argumentation (or is simply unable to), forcing me to repeat myself five times. He has yet to give a solid rebuttal to my position in the first round. Furthermore, through several statements which I have pointed out through the debate, he has conceded the debate by stating that conceptualizations of morality are available absent God and that other moral systems that do not rely on God exist. For the last time, the refutation of this position is as follows: To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary. Moral systems exist. Therefore, all moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. If there is a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong, one can account for the concepts. All moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. Therefore, all moral systems can account for right and wrong. Furthermore, here is a counterargument showing the fallacious nature of the resolution: [Atheistic moral systems] can not account for right and wrong. To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary. Atheistic moral systems exist (ADMITTED BY MY OPPONENT). Therefore, atheistic moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. ******************************************************************* Readers, this debate is crystal clear. Vote CON. NEGATED.