Atheism can not account for moral truth

I can assure my opponent and anyone else that I do in fact understand my own resolution. The resolution is atheism (as a worldview) cannot account for moral truth. My opponent contends that my previous post was overall irrelevant to the resolution. This is completely false. I believe it is not I, but my opponent who is confused. However I do appreciate my opponents response; this has been quite an interesting debate thanks to both parties. My opponent and I have agreed it is human nature to seek survival and happiness. But my opponent contends that the actions produced from affirming survival and happiness are moral. 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. Sure my opponent has provided us with a moral code, but not true morality. The moral code that my opponent articulates is intertwined with arbitrariness and therefore it is invalid. In short the moral code that my opponent posits can not account for true morality. It can account for morality; but it can not definitively account for moral truth (see my previous post).I could make a moral code right now: everyone seeks satisfying food, therefore moral actions are derived from attaining good food. This moral code can account for morality. But it does not imply that the morals derived are true and obligatory for everyone. In a world without God, it is merely one moral code against another. Neither is necessarily true. This is the somewhat to crux of my argument. Moreover, I have been consistent to my resolution throughout these posts. 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 am happy to see my opponent affirms the notion that there is no moral truth without God. This is the crux of my argument. Never the less my opponent continues to debate. I can only presume he continues to debate because he is confused. My opponent contends he has negated my resolution. 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! I am claiming that without God moral truth cant be accounted for. Secondly, I am not contending that atheists cannot create a moral code. I myself, just created one in the last paragraph. However, I am contending that atheistic moral codes can not account for absolute, true morality that everyone must abide by in order to be moral. This is because they are arbitrary and therefore invalid. Despite what my opponent says. He does in fact have to prove that survival and happiness are truly good things. Otherwise it would make no sense that the actions derived from happiness and survival have any moral association at all. To expand, my opponent argued that people learned to work together on farms in order to promote survival and happiness. Therefore team work, if you will, exists as a moral thing because it promotes happiness and survival. My opponent even says, "Basically an atheist will say this; anything that helps human happiness and the need for survival, becomes a moral law in our brain." But in order for this claim to be true my opponent must arbitrarily assume that happiness and survival are moral things to attain. In my opponents latest post he argues he does not need to prove that happiness and survival are good things. Actually, yes he does! Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that any of the moral notions derived from happiness and survival are actually moral things. If my opponent refuses to reconsider his line of reasoning, then his moral system will be utterly baseless. In short, if my opponent can not prove that happiness and survival are truly and absolutely good, then the morals derived from them have no moral association what so ever. His moral code simply begs the question. If survival and happiness are not good things, then why are the actions that promote survival and happiness considered good? In order for my opponents argument to be sound, he must debate his way out of this dilemma. However he has failed to do so thus far. In order for my opponent to win this debate he must offer a moral system that accounts for true morality derived from atheistic premises. His argument must be rational and it can not engage in circualr reasoning like before (see my last post).-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quotes/Rebuttle"Working together requires rules, which creates morality" I will be relatively brief. Again, any moral code requires rules. But this does not necessarily make the "rules," morally true. I could claim that eating peanut butter is moral (I wish it was) but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Just because working together creates rules that one may view as moral, does not prove that those rules are absolutely and truly moral. Therefore this argument does not negate my resolution."My opponent is tossing around the word 'ultimate' as if it was relevant to the resolution."Of course the word ultimate is relevant to the debate. Without an ultimate standard (God) true morality could not be intelligible. In order for absolute, true morality to exist, there must also be an ultimate standard on which true morality is derived. If there is no ultimate standard, like atheism posits, then there would be nothing more than autonomous views competing against one another and therefore no absolute, true morality. Therefore this is relevant to the resolution. " Instead of saying it's arbitrary, why can't my opponent prove it? I challenge my opponent to name one moral law that we have today that isn't there to promote survival or happiness."I will happily address this point. It seems as if my opponent has been asleep while reading my previous post. the crux of my argument was not that the morals derived from survival and happiness are arbitrary, but rather that it is arbitrary to claim that survival and happiness are moral. If happiness and survival were truly good things, then the morals derived from them would be as well. But my opponent presupposes that happiness and survival are good things, and this is in fact arbitrary, and engages in circular reasoning. Therefore all moral laws derived from happiness and survival are arbitrary as well."I'm not saying atheism proves morality is absolutely the right thing, I'm saying that atheism 'can account for' the existence of morality."Once again, to illustrate this very important argument. Anyone can claim something is moral, based on a moral code they created. But this does not affirm that the morals derived from that moral code are true and absolute. The resolution calls for my opponent to account for moral truth based off atheistic premises. My opponent has failed to do this thus far. I am looking forward to my opponents response. This has been a great experience and I have truly learned a lot about my beliefs and the potential beliefs of any future opponents. Good luck to my opponent and thank I thank him for taking the time to engage in this debate.