Life has more meaning without god

Rebuttals 1) How significant is life? Your argument neglects to consider one crucial point which rebuts it: Every action the theist takes in his 0.01% existence (to use your term) impacts on how he will continue to exist for eternity. Therefore to the theist each action he takes has infinite significance. As such I contend that the theists 0.01% of existence is still more purposeful than the atheists 100% of existence. 2) How did we get here?"So what is more meaningful? Life as the creation of a higher being or life as a result of billions of years of natural processes?"Life as the creation of a higher being has instilled within it an ultimate purpose. Natural forming life has only the capacity for our own conception of meaning. I contend that life is more meaningful with actual purpose than conceived purpose, since conceived purpose is ultimately built on an illusionary foundation by virtue of the fact that we can recognize it is our own creation."What do you consider more meaningful or significant: a sculpture that was easily created by a human or a sculpture that formed for no reason as a result of a naturally-occurring process ?"The answer I would give is both are equally insignificant. I believe you are mistaking "complexity" and/or "wondrous" for "significance". I could certainly concede that the sculpture made over millenia by natural process is more complex or more "awe-inspiring" (which is just our psychology recognizing the complexity), but one is most certainly not more purposeful or meaningful over the other. Neither of these sculptures are related to purpose.They are simply byproducts, one being more complex and one less. Nothing more.3) What is the purpose?(Note: I've already contended that essentially the only way there can be meaning is from a theistic view, the atheistic view being an illusion of meaning, however for the sake of this specific argument, we will assume the atheist man made meaning as substantial.)The first problem I'm running into here is saying that goals are the same as purpose. I contend that there is a distinction between the two. For example it is possible to have meaningless goals. Practical examples could be:-If someone decided to dedicate their lives to save an animal that was already extinct, we could quite easily contend that their goal was meaningless.-I've heard of a form of torture where the victim was told to keep turning a heavy lever that extended beyond a wall. They were told it acted as a pump to supply water for the village on the other side. After years, even decades of dedicating their lives to turning this heavy device, they would then be shown the other side of the wall which was not connected to anything. The victim would breakdown at the realization that their years with a sense of purpose were reduced to nothing.The goal is the achievement you aim towards[1]. The meaning or purpose is the result beyond the achievement.If you are arguing that an atheist has more goals to which he can apply, I could concede that point, since yes most religions do have restrictions. However I don't see you as making the case that the atheist has more purpose for these goals.This goes back to the initial argument I made that a goal resultant in infinite purpose is more meaningful than a goal resultant in finite purpose. Since this round is strictly for rebuttals, I will further address my argument in the next round.[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...