Atheism can not account for right and wrong

Thanks for the response. Responses: >>"The resolution clearly states "Atheism can not account for RIGHT AND WRONG." The resolution does NOT say "Atheism can not account for MORALITY."<< What? Morality is what ever is right. Immorality is what ever is wrong. So, when I say "Atheistic morals cannot account for morality, I mean, they can't account for what is right. Plus, I would have thought that through the context I was using, this word, morality, would have been easy to tell the meaning of. ---------- >>"Simply because people have differing opinions of right and wrong does not mean that they are both right. It means they use different methods for determining the concept. If people reasoned with the SAME CONCEPT in the SAME SITUATION, they would arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION."<< I'm not sure how you can say this and at the same time have read my previous argument. Look at all my responses to the Jeff and Bob illustration my opponent set up. But, for the my opponents sake I will lay out another illustration. Now, my opponent says that ANY Atheistic moral system can account for morals (right and wrong), I say this is false. Now since my opponent believes that any Atheistic moral system will work, then I choose Utilitarianism to argue against. My opponent defines Utilitarianism as "whatever causes the most probable benefit." Now I would like my opponent to tell me, HOW does one know what the most probable benefit is. Utilitarianism alone does not tell me what is to be considered "beneficial," it just says do what causes the most probable benefit. Well, that could be anything! All depending to whom the person is. For instance the most beneficial thing to a kid would probably be candy raining form the sky. But, to an adult it may be for the government to get the economy up and rolling again. Thus, one can conclude that "what is most beneficial," DEPENDS entirely on the person to whom the moral method is applied. Which leads me to my point/illustration. Let's look back in History. We have two totally different people, one is Hitler and the other is Gandhi. Now I know that both of these men had two radically different views on what was considered right or wrong. but this does not matter since both men were doing as what they thought would "cause the most probable benefit." Thus, in one sense they were both using Utilitarianism to guide the choices that they made in their life. For instance, Gandhi believed that peace would cause the most benefit, thus what he did was considered "right" under Utilitarianism! But, on the other hand we have Hitler, he thought that exterminating the Jews would cause the most probable benefit, therefore he was doing "right" under Utilitarianism. Now which one is right under this Atheistic moral system which is Utilitarianism?Well, they both are right, since both men were following the moral method of Utilitarianism. But, how can two radically different views be 'right' even though they are BOTH USING Utilitarianism as their moral method. The answer is it's impossible. Peace can't be right, along with Violence being right also. Thus, we can conclude, from this illustration, that under Utilitarianism (an Atheistic moral system), right and wrong can not be accounted for. Because, DEPENDING on who's Viewing the moral system, what ever causes the most benefit could be one thing and but to another person it could be totally different, therefore Utilitarianism is not absolute and can not account for what is truly right, or wrong! -------------------- >>"To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary."<< Yes and this is what I am saying Atheism does not have. My opponent has only said, "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, in other words he has not backed up his statement alt all. Only one round did he give me an illustration (which is what I asked for) but as soon as I argued against the illustration my opponent never cared to rebuttal. I have explained, how if there are two views, that are both radically different, but at the same time considered right, then that moral method can not account for what is right and wrong, (see above paragraph). My opponent has never tried to argue against this either. Again, my opponent just assumes that Atheism can account for right and wrong but has not yet once proven this and has also avoided answering many of my questions, even one from last round such as, "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?!" ------------------- >>" if God did not exist, we could still state that something was wrong. For example... Thou shalt rape thy baby thrice daily," it would not be morally right to do so. Thus, one can see that right and wrong have meaning independent of God."<< Ya sure, but the reason why you think that is wrong is because of the culture you have grown up in. I mean, there are many countries through out the world, in which raping little children is morally acceptable. So what gives you the right to say they are wrong and you are right? Their moral system allows it, so WHY not? My opponent may say that it is wrong because it doesn't "maximize probable benefit." Well, first of all - maybe to them, 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 and why the foreign counties way is not. My opponent has not done this once in his debate. You see my opponent has said that raping little children is wrong, but has not give the reason why it is wrong. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you, Charles15