Life does not have a satisfactory "meaning" under an atheist perspective.

My opponent states that the purpose of the NRA is not to stay alive, which is true. It is intended to represent the views of gun owners and keep them in the public view. It can be argued though, that since the gun owner's voice is what keeps the NRA alive and provides it purpose, life does the same for humans; it literally keeps us alive, and out of life we create our purpose. My opponent's example therefore does not make sense. My opponent contends that due to language and time, our legacies eventually become crumbled and never remembered, therefore negating my argument that no matter what we have an impact, and that that provides us a purpose to life. This is simply not true; the fact that he cites Egyptian epitaphs is proof enough that their legacies are leaving an impact upon us. We spend tireless hours searching for their meaning, learning of the mysteries and secrets they hold; that is clearly an impact, a legacy, that they have left for us. As well, he asks me which philosophers are remembered from 4000 BC. Well, quite frankly, if you believe in the Bible, there is many important people that have left their impact on our society today. As well, who is to say that there is no philosophies or ideas that came from such a time period? Does it need to be attributed to a name? No, it only must have an impact on us. It is clear that our morality and our ideals are traded down generation from generation; that is an impact, and creating that impact is a purpose for living. "What we do now has no purpose. What we do to live has no purpose. And accidents cannot have purpose. " Clearly my opponent does not understand my contention. Accidents of course have no purpose, but they can create a purpose where there was none. For example, if a bucket of water spills over, there is clearly no purpose to this, it is an accident. But it creates a purpose, because I need to clean the water up. This was my contention; accidents do not have a purpose, but they can clearly create purpose. Life is accidental, but it has given us purpose to continue on, for the exact reasons I have stated in my arguments. "In response to my logic that accidents cannot have a purpose, my opponent claims that atheism allows one to live as one pleases, and therefore one has purpose. However, in the long run of things, all pursuits of man are meaningless. " My opponent here contends that all pursuits of man are meaningless, but how does this not apply to the religious ideals as well? At the very least, atheism allows you to choose how to live your life. Yes, snowmen will eventually melt away, making the entire act of building the snowman pointless. But will you not remember how happy you felt building that snowman? Will your children not remember how happy you seemed when you built the snowman, and how happy they felt as well? Will this happiness not follow on to their children, and their children's children? Your point is moot, because to give purpose does not necessarily mean that it must last; it simply means, by your own dictionary definition, "the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. ." All of my arguments have fit this definition. We all have reasons to live and to exist. I have also demonstrated that atheists, including myself, believe the arguments I have put forward. Therefore, it is clear that life does have satisfactory 'meaning' under an atheist perspective.