Atheism can not account for right and wrong

Thank you for your response. My opponent has now laid forth a moral system for me to debate against. He uses utilitarianism and defines it as... "right" becomes that which maximizes probable benefit." I also know that this is the moral method he uses because of a previous debate that I had with him and also from reading his other debates relative to the issue at hand. So what is wrong with utilitarianism? And how can it not account for morals? I will explain this shortly, but first let me clear some things up. First of all, my opponent did not give any source, what so ever, for the definition of utilitarianism, for all I know my opponent could have just made the definition of utilitarianism up off the top of his head. I say this because I have a definition of utilitarianism backed up by source... Utilitarianism: "Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, generally operating on the principle... British philosopher Jeremy Bentham described it as "the greatest good for the greatest number." [go to this link for the full definition - http://economics.about.com...] Now since not only do I have a website backing up my definition but I have a British philosopher as well, then it is fair for me to say, that from this point on, we will be using the definition of utilitarianism given above. Now obviously there is a difference between the true meaning of utilitarianism and my opponents. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>"the greatest good for the greatest number."<<< The first question I have for my opponent is how can we determine what is to be considered "good?" Let me explain... Now I'm sure the voters want to know how this moral method can not account for morals. I will explain. First of all, we must look carefully utilitarianism. First of all, 'how can anyone know what the greatest good is for the greatest number.' How do we define what is good or wrong. For instance, Hitler thought the greatest good for the greatest number of people was ethnic cleansing of the Jews. On the other hand Gandhi thought the greatest good for the greatest number of people was peace. Now, there are a lot of people who agreed with Hitler's use of utilitarianism and there were also many who agreed with Gandhi's use of utilitarianism. Whether this is the moral method they lived by or not it is obvious that these two people executed what they thought was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, so regardless of their moral beliefs they used the principals if utilitarianism. So, lets summarize. Gandhi's view= PEACE was good Hitler's view= Ethnic cleansing was good Now, since both Hitler and Gandhi were executing as what they saw was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people then both of these people are following laws of utilitarianism. Since this is true one can say that utilitarianism can not account for what should be truly right or truly wrong, all it can do is give out its basic idea which is "the greatest good for the greatest number," and then have the person receive it either like Hitler or Gandhi. Again, this cannot account for morals because obviously its just Gandhi's view against Hitler's view, and one must choose the view that they believe is right, but no matter which one is chosen by someone, utilitarianism can not ACCOUNT for which view is right or wrong. So in actuality utilitarianism is totally baseless! _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Now my opponent may come back and say, well I define good as "that which maximizes probable benefit." Well lets look at this method. First of al,l this moral method is extremely broad, it has no guidelines or examples to back it up. My opponent simply puts down a phrase and that can be twisted in any which way, (I will Explain later). On the other hand the Bible is backed up with actual laws given to us by God such as Jesus' teachings and of course, the 10 commandments. Secondly, when I say someone could twist my opponents definition of what is to be considered good this is what I mean. Slavery, is obviously something that my opponent is against, but what did it do for the America? It was great for the economy, production on farms was sky rocketing, and "best of all" the majority of the people were benefiting off the backs of slaves. The same goes for Egypt, Rome and any other country that had slaves. Now for America, slaves made up a small minority of the actual population, and by doing the work the majority of the people were benefitting. Plus, most everyone agreed that it was right, until major reforms hit America. So the question here is, since slaves are "that which maximizes probable benefit," should it then be morally acceptable? Now the point is, is that my opponent says that slavery is wrong, but his moral system is so vague that he ends up contradicting himself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the Voters: (1)Expect this from my opponent, he mite tweak his definition of how one is to define good (which is "that which maximizes probable benefit.") in order for his rebuttal to make sense. (2)He mite say something along the lines of "slavery is wrong because it doesn't maximize probable benefits by infringing on human rights." But to say that, my opponent must tell me why freedom is a human right under utilitarianism? And how do human rights fit in with "maximizing probable benefit?" (3) He may claim that the Bible says slavery is not sinful. First off, my opponent has never given a scripture verse to back this up so how do we even know if what he says is true. Secondly, if my opponent claims that then it is completely irrelevant, because we are not debating whether God's morals are right or wrong; I already know my opponent disagrees with with God's morals. But what we are debating, is whether or not morals can be accounted for without a God REGARDLESS of what the morals actually are! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One can see that my opponent has not even begun to scratch the surface of why something is considered right or wrong. His moral system has many loop wholes in it and it can not account for what is right or wrong. In his moral system one must choose either Hitler's view or Gandhi's view (based off my analogy), but matter which one is chosen, either one could be considered right or wrong, thus Atheistic morals can not account for morality at all, since every moral under Atheism has no weight to it in society. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Responses... >>>"Atheism as a whole has no specific moral system... Any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong."<<< Hold on, you cant just say this. You must prove that "any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong." I say they can't and I have shown WHY in my above text. You must first refute my argument completely and then explain to the voters HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong. Again you can't just say things like this and with out even explaining the "how." >>>"...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."<<< God's morals are not just another form of moral relativism because he made the laws, thus they are derived from him and automatically perfect, universal, and unquestionable. On the other hand Atheistic morals are baseless, and can not account for morality. But since my morals come from God, they do have a base, thus they