Life has more meaning without god

2) "If god exists, the life of a single individual is a part of god's infinite creation and it isn't significant at all, because a life is nothing compare to the entire universe, created by the same god ... It still doesn't mean anything compare to the universe." This assertion doesn't take into account a fundamental point of theism. Since an all loving God created the universe as a means to paradise (in one way or another), the universe therefore was created entirely for humans (creatures with free will). As such human life being the means to this sole purpose is therefore the ultimate/only significance in the universe. As a result your next statement... Life is a byproduct, either a byproduct of god's creation, or a byproduct of the universe. From an objective perspective, life is insignificant both ways..." ... that life is objectively insignificant in theism is simply incorrect. With God, the universe was created with a purpose in mind. Therefore by definition it has objective meaning from a theistic perspective. 1 & 3) I'll be addressing both of these points you made jointly since they are closely related. Key points:1) "It's true every action impacts his eternal existence. So, any theist has to be very careful and respect certain rules his entire life. Doesn't that in a way affect the meaning of his life?.." 3) "A theist has a single purpose for his life. An atheist is not limited by that. He can live his life however he wants and can decide the purpose of his life on his own..."What point 3 does not mention is the human need for fulfillment being the catalyst for the purposes he chooses. I will elaborate on this point later. To atheists life has no objective purpose. With the human need for a sense of fulfillment, the atheist then surrogates an objective purpose with his own subjective purposes. Theists on the other hand have an objective purpose. Subjective goals are more limited in quantity. The problem with this argument is since it's based on the individuals fulfillment from those purposes, then it depends on the psychology of that individual. The question from this argument is not really "Is life more meaningful without God?" Rather it is: "Which individual has more fulfillment? The atheist without his objective reality but with his subjective goals. Or the theist with his fewer subjective goals but with his objective reality?" Since each individual is subjective, then it demands a subjective answer. Any subjective answer is obviously objectively inconclusive. In other words the only subjective answer one can arrive at is: Some people may find viewing life with objective purpose as more fulfilling, others may find viewing life with subjective purposes as more fulfilling. The debate topic however being asked for a conclusion should not include an argument that is absolutely subjective. However it's still potentially a fair question for each individual. So let's examine the full implications of it, to make an informed decision. Here are a few practical examples of fulfillment and sacrifice: -Marriage. A man may choose to get married forfeiting the option to have multiple sexual partners. In this case he is choosing the benefits associated with marriage with one woman, over the benefits without marriage and having multiple women. In a similar way to theism he is more limited here, but those sacrifices are worth less to him than the marriage. -Deciding to become a doctor. One spends 7 years studying under grueling conditions, then will have to intern under worse conditions for another 3 years. Tuition costs are high, intern pay is low. He must restrict himself to very little social activity and work long hours for his ultimate goal. Whilst he makes tremendous sacrifices in many areas of his life, his loftier goal makes up for it and makes these sacrifices worth it. In this way the fulfillment of believing he will save lives at a later date, gives him the fulfillment he needs while making those sacrifices. Similarly, the theist gets his fulfillment from knowing he is fulfilling an objective purpose in spite of the hardships and restrictions. Of course since it's subjective, one might feel more fulfilled having multiple women over a marriage. Another person may feel more fulfillment being a pornographic actor over being a doctor. And one person might feel more fulfilled being a celibate, poor, priest than a rich, promiscuous, rock star. And the rock star would gawk at the idea. But the crux of the decision is when we take a step back to look at meaning in a bigger picture regarding our own psychology which brings us back to "significance" as opposed to "fulfillment": We can recognize that all the purposes we are pusuing is simply as a result of an inner need to be fullfilled. This need to an atheist is simply a physical byproduct of his evolution. While wondrous It has no significance and he can recognize it as not having significance. It's just a beast that needs to be fed. The theists need however is a means to an objective ends. Therefore this need has significance to the theist. When taking this into account, the theists reality has significance over the atheists insignificant reality.* *Whilst this understanding of significance doesn't answer the question of which individual has more fulfillment (feeds his beast more) which is subjective, it does answer the question as to which life has more significance which is objective.