Atheism can not account for right and wrong

The refutation of this position is quite simple, so I shall be glad to accept. ***************************************** The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts. For example, if one adopts utilitarianism, "right" becomes that which maximizes probable benefit. If one adopts God's law, "right" becomes that which accords with God's law. Thus, it is very clear that the very conception of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts. Appealing to God's law is simply another moral system, and in order for proponents of this view to state that any other view is incorrect, they open themselves to the exact same criticisms they would use on other systems. Atheism as a whole has no specific moral system. Atheists could be utilitarians, subjectivists, hedonists, or even sadists. Any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong. Thus, it is very clear that atheism as a whole can account for right and wrong, since all the component parts of atheism lead to a conception of right and wrong. ******************************************** It seems that my opponent is confused. He seems to be under the notion that any system that arrives at conceptions of "right" and "wrong" that differ from those found in the Bible is incorrect. To make this position salient, he must provide an account for both why moral relativism is incorrect and why an appeal to God is not simply another form of moral relativism. ******************************************** Specific responses: >> "To begin with God is needed in order for morals to be constant and meaningful." Only to those who appeal to God as their source of morality. All other sources of morality do not need God. >> "without God's rule the morals placed in our society are arbitrary and could very well change from day to day." You must provide an account for why changing morals of society is a bad thing for this to be a salient point. >> "If murder were to be made legal/morally acceptable in the U.S. because everyone agreed that murdering would be a good way to let go of anger and get rid of the people who they considered to be horrible in their life, then should this be considered morally right? I say no, of course not." Only because you are not a conventionalist.... duh... >> "So we can conclude that my opponent must give us the moral method that he will be using in the place of God" Actually, no... I just need to show that atheism on the whole is able to account for right and wrong... which I have done. >> "God is also needed for morals to have any weight or meaning in society." I'm sorry, but this is simply false. God actually commands slavery in Leviticus... but nobody thinks this is moral anymore, which shows that morals can have weight in society BOTH regardless of what God says, AND even contrary to what he says. >> "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God." If MORALS can be RECOGNIZED, then what on earth do you mean by accounting for right and wrong?!?! You've essentially conceded the debate with this sentence!! >> "there is a KEY DIFFERENCE between a believer in God and a nonbeliever in the way that they get to the conclusion for moral reasoning." Of course there is! But that doesn't mean that one of them is unable to account for right and wrong. ************************************ My opponent has a long road to travel to show his argument has a foot to stand on. NEGATED.