Atheism can not account for right and wrong

Laughably, my opponent has wasted most of his second round discussing utilitarianism. I do not have to show a system to compete with God's moral system, I simply have to negate the resolution: "Atheism can not account for right and wrong." My opponent denies that all moral systems provide an account for right and wrong, but does not give any sort of reasoning for why this is so. His "reason" for why it may be this way is that they do not accord with God's law. This may be compelling if God's law was the only system of morality, but it clearly is not. In fact, this debate (http://www.debate.org...) and this study (http://tigger.uic.edu...) clearly show that God is not a necessary part of moral reasoning. My opponent has set the burden of proof at: "You must first refute my argument completely and then explain to the voters HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong." This is only somewhat correct - I have to refute only the RELEVANT parts of your argument, and show how atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong. ************************************************ What charles15 doesn't seem to understand, and what I attempted to explain to him last round (The very notions of right and wrong...) is that "right" and "wrong" are simply words we use to describe how an action conforms to whatever moral system we employ. The ONLY moral system that cannot account for "right" and "wrong" is moral nihilism, or the view that there simply is no such thing as morality. Now, moral nihilism is ONE atheistic system of morality, but it is not THE system of morality of atheism. However, even moral nihilism accounts for right and wrong by stating that they are false notions and improper descriptors. As I stated before, atheism does not have its own moral system any more than Christianity does. Consider that the Christianity's existence is dependent on there being Christians, just as Atheism's existence is dependent on there being Atheists. Thus, the moral system of each can be considered to be an amalgamation of the moral systems of its members. Christians simply use the same moral system, whereas Atheists use a variety. That said, ANY MORAL SYSTEM, except moral nihilism can account for right and wrong. My opponent has yet to show why other systems besides God's law cannot account for right and wrong, when right and wrong are derived directly from the moral systems themselves. ******************************************** Responses: >> "God's morals are not just another form of moral relativism" As soon as you began entertaining notions and arguing about utilitarianism - in short, admitted it exists as a moral system - you conceded this point. If other moral systems exist (which you admit), then appeal to God is just one choice among many, and thus a form of moral relativism. >> "First of all, my opponent did not give any source, what so ever, for the definition of utilitarianism" I assume if you talk intelligibly about utilitarianism (which is questionable in your case), you've read Smart & Bernard's "Utilitarianism, For and Against." >> "Now since not only do I have a website backing up my definition but I have a British philosopher as well" Lol - oh, all bets are off now that he's got a British Philosopher on his side. German would have been much better... >> "both Hitler and Gandhi were executing as what they saw was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people" What you seem to miss is that :maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges. I thought you said you read my other debates... did they confuse you?? >> "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." You forgot things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder babies, don't eat rabbits, and, of course, burn things each day as a sweet savour to the Lord... >> "So the question here is, since slaves are "that which maximizes probable benefit," should it then be morally acceptable?" Again, I thought you read my other debates... empirical rights-based act utilitarianism completely eliminates this notion... *********************************************** My opponent has not provided adequate response to: 1) Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism. 2) All moral systems can account for right and wrong. 3) There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system. 4) God is not even required for moral reasoning. 5) He must show that moral relativism is an incorrect framework. In order to give his argument a leg to stand on, he must answer these objections, as well as clarify his statement of apparent concession: "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God." NEGATED.