Atheism can not account for moral truth

After reading my opponents post, I am still sticking to what I know the resolution is asking of me. The resolution is asking me to explain the existence of moral truth in our world with an atheistic 'worldview'. Now whether 'real truth' exists, is irrelevant, because atheists can still account for moral truth that has developed in our humanity. My opponent says strongly that I have not proved with my point that atheists can't prove truth, when he doesn't recognize that my argument is showing that atheism can provide a reason for the existence moral truth without gods existence. The resolution is not about if there is moral truth without god, but rather if atheism can explain the existence of what we call 'moral truth'. Let's observe the resolution: Atheism can not account for moral truth. account for: statement of reasons, causes, etc. , explaining some event. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Have I given a reason for the causes of moral truth? Yes I have. This doesn't mean I have to prove that moral truth is reality without god, I just have to give an atheistic reason for the development of moral truth without a god. If my opponent would want me to explain how atheism can prove moral truth is reality he should have made the resolution: Atheism doesn't prove moral truth. Or, simply, without a god there is no moral truth. It may look like I'm overdosing on semantic arguments, but the fact is that I have given a good reason as to the causes of moral truth in humanity from an atheistic view. My point still stands, and I will let voters decide if they agree with me. RebuttalsSince we disagree on my burden of proof, his arguments and rebuttals are obviously formed to push my burden of proof aside, and make it look like I actually didn't refute the resolution. I can start rebutting his arguments, but all his arguments prove is that I was unable to show that moral truth is reality without a god. If that was the debate, sure, his arguments are good. However, I was trying to prove that atheism can explain the existence of moral truth without gods presence. His arguments and resolutions don't refute this, they refute what he thinks I'm supposed to be proving, rather than what I'm actually proving. However, I will try to pick out some of his phrases and refute them anyway. Also, my opponent seems to think that moral truth is absolutely reality. Many people disagree and believe that there doesn't have to be moral truth. He is trying to make me prove that moral truth is reality without a god, when the fact is that it's unrealistic. The reality of moral truth is irrelevant, rather, the reason for moral truth in an atheistic view is relevant. My opponent has played with my words again and changed my argument to look bad, and to make my argument look like what he thinks my argument is supposed to be.1. "In itself, this in nothing more than a theoretical moral code put forth by my opponent. Let us not forget that my opponent - through autonomous reasoning - has decided that good things are actions that promote happiness and survival. But my opponent has failed to prove it is true that good things are actions that promote happiness and survival. "My opponent has agreed that I was able to show why there is a moral code. Then he accused me of autonomous reasoning, without providing evidence that I might be wrong. I can do the same thing, but I rather give reasons for my accusations. Then he says I was unable to prove that it is true that good things are actions that promote happiness and survival, when his religion of Christianity is based on the fact that good things promote happiness and survival. He seems to ignore this objective fact. Alright, so I have been able to prove why there is a moral code, but I haven't proved why there is any truth, according to my opponent. However he doesn't realize that he just conceded, because there would never be a moral code if there weren't moral truths. Why would there be a code based on no truth? Think about it, and you can realize my opponents cleverness with words and his corruption of my argument to make his look good.2. " In short, my opponent has delivered a moral system that accounts for right and wrong. Anyone can do that. But he has failed to prove that his moral code is absolutely true. This is exactly what the resolution calls for; moral truth. "I have been able to prove that a moral system has existed that accounts for right or wrong but apparently I wasn't able to prove why there is moral truth? Right or wrong is based on what is true, because there would be no such thing as wrong if there was no moral truth. In my arguments I proved the existence of moral truth in a world where people base their truths on what promotes survival and happiness. My opponent would say, "How is survival and happiness good? " I would say, maybe it's not, but it's what everyone wants, My opponent argues that there has to be a supreme being, but has he ever though that a supreme being can be humanity and that moral truth can have been created by us?3. "He says we "aren't talking about if there is truth, we are talking about if atheism can explain the development of morality with humans. " Actually, we are talking about moral truth; read the resolution! "First of all, my opponent tells me to read the resolution, well I tell him to read the definition of the words in the resolution. Please refer to the opening round where I explained my legitimate interpretation of the resolution. Also he seems to think there is a difference between morality and moral truth. He agreed earlier that morality proves what is right or wrong, but he thinks that is difference to what is true. 4. " Therefore team work, if you will, exists as a moral thing because it promotes happiness and survival. "Once again my opponent concedes. He agrees that teamwork exists as a 'moral thing' because it promotes happiness and survival. Moral thing, do you mean moral rule? And aren't moral rules based on morality which is based on moral truth? Hopefully voters will realize my opponents clever play with words.5. "If survival and happiness are not good things, then why are the actions that promote survival and happiness considered good? "Interesting, first he was saying that I was saying that survival and happiness are good things, now he is saying that I was saying that they are bad things. This just shows his manipulation of words to make his argument look good. -----------ConclusionI leave it up to the voters to choose who wins this debate, but I will try to explain why I should win this debate, with very logical explanations. I have proven why atheism can account for moral truth. It is as simple as that. MY OPPONENT HAS STILL NOT EXPLAINED HOW ANIMALS CAN HAVE MORALITY WITHOUT A GOD. Also, when I asked him to prove his accusations, he just continued accusing, to make his argument look good. He never answered my questions when I asked him to name a moral law that doesn't promote survival and happiness. How can someone win a debate when they ignore a very important question from their opponent? VotesSources: My opponent hasn't given one source, hence I win this vote, with my animal morality link. He never backed up his accusations with evidence. Conduct: The voter can decide this, I would put this as a tie. However I wouldn't call it good conduct to corrupt your opponents argument. Spelling and Grammar: I had hardly any mistakes, while my opponent had many punctuation and period mistakes. He started many sentences without capitals. I deserve this vote. Arguments: Obviously, we had a disagreement with the burden of proof, so I leave this to the voters to decide. If you think I was supposed to explain truth without the existence of god, my opponent would win this. If you understand that I was supposed to explain how atheism can account for why there is a thing we call 'moral truth' in our world, I win this vote.