Atheism can not account for right and wrong

I grow weary of re-explaining the same basic concepts.... *********************************** Because the very terms "right" and "wrong" can only be understood in the context of a moral system, ANY moral system can account for right and wrong. My opponent has not responded to this point yet... and it is growing increasingly obvious that he simply does not understand enough about the resolution he has created to do so. Charles spends most of his space discussing utilitarianism and how Hitler and Ghandi have differing notions of what right and wrong are. Has it occurred to anyone that Hitler and Ghandi were not driven by anything close to the same moral system? My opponent seems to be under the ridiculous impression that whatever moral system I argue for is the one that must apply to everyone. This is obviously nonsense, as there are even differing theistic moral systems within Christianity! For my opponent to expect me to defend the idiotic universal morality he attempts to impose on my via straw man argumentation is simply ludicrous. It becomes immediately obvious that my opponent is simply not thinking with his brain, but rather the bible when one considers this quote: ""then how can morals be accounted for." Well the answer must be God!" He has already admitted that he is not stating that God is required for moral reasoning, but seems to be under the notion that God is required to account for morals. Well, pray tell, how does one morally reason without accounting for right and wrong? Furthermore, my opponent keeps restating that I have not shown how a system can account for morals. Well, we should actually be discussing the resolution, which says "right and wrong," but I assume my addled opponent means these terms interchangeably for some strange reason... In order to account for right and wrong, a system of morality must be able to describe the criteria for judging an action to be right or judging it to be wrong. This is ENTIRELY dependent on the system of morality. Consider the following scenario: Jeff murders Bob in order to save 100 people. Christian morality refers to this action as wrong because of a prohibition on murder. Sadist morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't bring the most harm. Masochistic morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't hurt Jeff. Utilitarianism refers to this action as right because it saves 100 people at the cost of 1. Conventionalist morality refers to the action as whatever the majority of the 102 people involved do. Subjectivist morality refers to the action as whatever the individual reader views it as. Is it really THAT hard to understand how a moral system accounts for right and wrong? The only difference between Appeal to God and other moral systems is the mechanism by which one defines right and wrong. ALL moral systems NECESSARILY contain a mechanism for accounting for right and wrong. Thus, ANY moral system MUST be able to account for right and wrong, thus fulfilling the resolution. ******************************************************* Responses: >> "Also, it's not my job to remember everything you said in a debate I wasn't even in and haven't read in quite some time." It most certainly is if you want to bring it up in a debate... >> "I fear to say that my opponent has not studied theology, I'm not going to debate this point because It is totally irrelevant to the resolution at hand." This is pretty funny, considering my opponent expects me to debate utilitarianism with him... >> "because as far as I know, things like force conquered women to be your wives or murder babies are things that God forbids." You need to re-read Leviticus. >> "[1] Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism. I have already answered this in my argument above." Your argumentation is off-topic and incorrect, as I explained... twice. >> "[2] All moral systems can account for right and wrong. I have already answered this in my argument above." Your argumentation is off-topic and incorrect, as I explained... twice. >> "[3] There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system." You have not answered this, but rather asserted without any sort of logical reasoning that all other moral systems are circular too. >> "There is NOT a circle with God's moral laws because all the morals are derived form him, thus there is a strict wrong or right answer to every human action." This deals with the conceptualization of right and wrong, not why THIS conceptualization is the correct one. >> "I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for" This doesn't even make sense... >> [Moral Relativism] "is incorrect because it can not account for morals." Which you have yet to show... >> "In conclusion my opponent has again, FAILED, to show HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for morality." Simply because you do not understand an explanation does not mean that it is incorrect. >> "those moral systems are not absolute and totally rely on the the way a person applies the moral method to ones life. Thus all Atheistic moral methods can not account for what is right or wrong!" If you wish to use this argument, you must demonstrate that it is only universally applicable moral systems that can account for right and wrong.... which you cannot do. >> "1 Explain why it is wrong for slavery under utilitarianism." Irrelevant to the resolution. >> "3 Explain why these things are wrong... "things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder" Irrelevant to the resolution. >> "2 HOW can Atheism ACCOUNT for morality? EXPLAIN more than just because its derived from the Atheistic moral method!" Already done three times now if you would actually read my arguments. ****************************************** Readers, it is becoming increasingly clear (and frustrating) that my opponent has no idea at all what the implications of his own resolution are. He seems convinced that because he cannot understand my argument, it must be incorrect. I'm sorry, but that's not a valid reason... The debate is clear. Vote CON. My opponent STILL has not clarified his statement of concession: "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God." Furthermore, my opponent carries himself further and further down the path of "My moral system must be correct because it involves God" without argumentation to back up his ridiculous claims. Ladies and gentlemen, we call this begging the question. NEGATED.