Atheism can not account for right and wrong

Thank you for your response. Finally, my opponent has given me what I was looking for (it took him a couple rounds but were here), he has given something to actually debate against by giving me an illustration, and then the way in which Atheistic moral systems ACCOUNT for theses morals- Finally my opponent has answered the 'HOW'! Responses --- >>"Jeff murders Bob in order to save 100 people."<< [Situation we are using] >>"Sadist morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't bring the most harm."<< Sadist morality isn't about bringing the most harm, Sadist morality is making one-self feel good or satisfied by causing pain and suffering to another person. It says nothing about the "most" harm. I think my opponent is mistaken in his definition. None the less, I will use my opponents definition for the sake of debate. My opponent claims that the 'right' thing for Jeff to do would be to let Bob go, thus this would result in 100 people dying and cause what my opponent says is the "most harm," under Sadism. But rather, let's say, Jeff thinks the most harm will come by murdering Bob, thus letting the 100 go free. No one can define what the 'most harm' is, it only can be defined by the person who is making the choice. For instance, my opponent clearly thinks that the most harm will be done by letting Bob go thus resulting in the deaths of 100 people. But this view, of my opponent, may or may not be the view for everyone who is faced with this decision. Thus we can conclude that there are different VIEWS in which someone could have on this issue, which could both be 'CLASSIFIED' as morally RIGHT! Because both people's views are doing what they believe is causing the most harm. Since this is true there is not a right or wrong way in the choice one makes under these circumstances. Therefore it is apparent that morality can not be ACCOUNTED for under Sadism. Also, 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?! -------- >>"Masochistic morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't hurt Jeff."<< Masochistic morality is finding satisfaction when one is causing them-self pain and suffering. So me and my opponent agree on what Masochistic morality is. Not only would this be a horrible moral system to live under, but it also is the same as Sadism in which it can not account for morality. For instance, what if Jeff found that the most suffering in life was 'life' itself. Well, then the moral thing for Jeff to do would be to do nothing to himself in any way that would cause himself to die or come closer to death. In other words Jeff would not want to 'hurt' himself at all, so he would end up murdering Bob and letting the 100 people go [A] or he would do nothing to Bob and let the 100 people live [B]. So, since Jeff decides to 'not' hurt him-self, and instead execute either option [A] or [B], then has Jeff done something immoral under Masochism. No! he has done what will hurt him the most! Which is 'live' and in result since Jeff has chosen to live, he must either conduct option [A] or [B] under the situation my opponent has set up. Thus, Masochism 'can not' say which view, by Jeff, is wrong or right, just like Sadism. Therefore morals can't be ACCOUNTED for. -------- >>"Utilitarianism refers to this action as right because it saves 100 people at the cost of 1."<< Again the same argument applies. If Jeff decided to let Bob live thus resulting in 100 people dying, then this would also be considered the right thing to do, thus, 'negating' my opponents argument. Because, there can not be two rights to one moral method 'IF' the MORALS are to be ACCOUNTED for. Also, "HOW does one decide what is MOST BENEFICIAL?" To one person, the most beneficial way to deal with this situation, would be to let Bob go and thus let 100 people die. But, to another person the most beneficial way to deal with this situation, would be by murdering Bob and letting the 100 people go free. Since this is true, every one who views this situation, in a certain way, would always be doing the 'RIGHT' thing. You see, it all depends on how one looks at the situation, thus, anything could be 'morally right.' Therefore, this moral system can not account for what is either right or wrong, it all depends on the person. -------- Do to the amount of letters I have left to type I wont respond to Conventionalism, besides I would have just used the same argument since it applies to all Atheistic moral methods. -------- >>"Subjectivist morality refers to the action as whatever the individual reader views it as."<< Subjectivists believe that morality doesn't come from anything transcendent. First of all, if the morals are all determined by oneself then anything could be 'right' just like in every other Atheistic moral system. For instance, Gandhi believed that peace was good, Hitler believed that genocide was good. But how can two totally different views be considered good? The answer is, it's impossible. Since this is true morality must be absolute. Other wise morals become arbitrary and meaningless, because what may be right to one may be wrong to another, which results in 'right' and 'wrong' becoming UNACCOUNTABLE for! --------- Now why is it different with God? Well, Sadism commands that people do the most harm or be cruel in order to make oneself feel pleasure. Utilitarianism commands that people do what causes the most probable benefit. Now, unlike these moral systems God doesn't just tell us - "do what causes the most benefit." If that was true, then God's moral system would be no different from any other Atheistic moral system. But here is the 'key' difference, God TELLS us what IS MOST BENEFICIAL or WHAT IS CRUEL! Thus, no one can have two views to any situation (unlike in an Atheistic moral system), in God's moral system there is ONE right way to look at a situation. Example... Under Sadism one could say that homosexuality brings the most harm to a society, thus, a Sadist would say that homosexuality is right. But, under Sadism one could also say that homosexuality is not harmful in anyway, thus they would be against homosexuality. You see, there are two sides to this view, therefore, either view can not be accounted as moral or immoral! But, under God's morals, homosexuality is wrong because God has deemed it as sinful. Well, what if someone sees homosexuality as beneficial and Ok? The answer is - it doesn't matter, Because thats not how God sees it, since this is true, that person, who is pro-homosexuality, is wrong because it goes against God's moral laws. There is not two different views that any person or persons can have under God's law. Thus, this is the only moral system which can account for morals. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>"I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for"<< Let me explain for Tarzan. Anyone can take an Atheistic moral system such as Utilitarianism, Sadism, Masochism, Subjectivism ect. And be faced with the situation that my opponent set up (Jeff and Bob). One will observe the situation and REASON in their mind... "should I murder Bob or not." This is moral reasoning. But, since there is more than ONE right way for the choices one makes after reasoning in their heads over the situation, then the morals can not be accounted for. Yes, people can have moral reasoning, but the final choice they make can not be deemed as wrong! As long as they are doing what they think fits the moral system in the best way. With God, its different, because there is only ONE 'right way' for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are 'absolute' and can be "accounted" for! charles15