Atheism can not account for moral truth

Quote: "Basically an atheist will say this; anything that helps human happiness and the need for survival, becomes a moral law in our brain." The majority of my opponents previous post revolved around the premise that all humans want to survive and all humans seek happiness, therefore whatever promotes survival and happiness is considered moral. There are many problems with this line of reasoning. First of all my opponent has over generalized human nature in a sloppy way. Throughout history civilization after civilization has shown the opposite of utilitarianism (i.e. the Aztecs, Vikings, Barbarians, Satanists, and many people who have committed suicide). But I believe we should save any further rhetoric on this premise for another debate.Secondly it is arbitrary for my opponent to claim that morality is anything that promotes survival and happiness. Given an atheistic worldview where only matter and motion exist who can absolutely say that happiness and survival are absolutely good things to attain. Why should anyone be obligated to promote survival or happiness. My opponent has done nothing more than insert what he believes are good things (survival and happiness) and constructed an entire moral code around them. But my opponent has failed to prove, given atheistic premises, that survival and happiness are moral things. Why should anyone succumb to anyone else's autonomous morality. My opponent argues that happiness and survival are common things that everyone wants. My opponent even conveys the notion that it is part of human nature to want to survive and be happy. Now for the sake of argument let us assume that my opponent is right. Everyone wants to survive and everyone wants to be happy. My opponent is going from the is to the ought without proof. Allow me to expand. Just because it is true that everyone wants to survive and be happy doesn't mean one ought to act in a way that promotes these things. What ultimate standard, in a world of matter and motion, demands that one act in a way that promotes happiness and survival?My opponent may say that if people begin to murder each other and deprive each other of happiness than our species may become extinct. I would ask: SO WHAT? Why is it objectively true that extinction is a bad thing? My opponent may respond by claiming that the fundamental goal of a species is to survive. But then this response begs the question. What ultimate standard deems it immoral to disrupt the goal of a species? The atheistic worldview can not answer these fundamental questions regarding morality. Overall my opponent told us what human nature is but failed to show why one ought live by it. Why is it immoral live against ones nature? What ultimate moral standard can provide an answer for that? Why must humans be empathetic to one another? Why must humans treat others as they would want to be treated? Trust me, I am aware that human survival would flourish and people would be happier if everyone were show empathy. But just because empathy would promote happiness and survival doesn't necessarily make it a moral truth. See, my opponent must first presuppose that survival and happiness are good things to attain. Not only that, he must also presuppose that it is bad for a specious to go extinct. These presuppositions by my opponent are clearly arbitrary. From the beginning of the debate my opponent has arbitrarily assumed that happiness and survival are good things. He has failed to prove why! The entire notion that happiness and survival are good forces one to engage in circular reasoning. 1) Happiness and survival are good. (I would ask why?)2) Happiness and survival are good because we may go extinct if the opposite was true. (This response begs the question. Why is it bad if our species goes extinct?)3) It would be bad to go extinct because happiness and survival are good. (Hence, the circle is complete)My opponent may argue that it has been the goal of every species since the beginning of time to survive. But there are two problems with this. First of all it commits the logical fallacy of "appealing to common practice." Secondly, my opponent must answer what ultimate standard obligates every organism not to disrupt a species from their goal. The atheistic worldview cannot account for this because such ultimate moral standards do not exist in a world without God.In response to what my opponent has said about nature. First of all he has dramatically over generalized. Let me use just one example to prove my point. The female Black Widow, after having intercourse with its mate, will devour the male. If my opponent expects nature to be an objective example of how humans are to live moral lives than I have little hope. The point is that humans recognize moral laws and then apply them to animals. I'm sure lions have a way to hunt and live that is beneficial to the whole pack. But I would contend that my opponent believes lion hunting is good because he first presupposes that working together for the community is a moral thing.The question still remains. Can my opponent prove that happiness and survival are good without engaging in circular reasoning and ultimately being arbitrary? Good luck to my opponent. I look forward to your response. This will be a great debate.