*trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?

[Amarok]

It give the universe greater meaning because if it were to exist it would mean the following: We may one day be reunited with our family members and friends who have passed on;

And that would make the universe meningful because ? I don't need some afterlife to appreiate the people i love i can do that now . And if i did not appreiate them in life what makes me think i would after death . 

 There will be justice and judgments for both the good and bad

;

Already a moral realist so this already exists . But why should their be judgement? To what ends? And why judgement X rather then Y ? None of this is answered 

we are each of value, indispensable, and worthy of love;

Valued by whom ? And by what? Why are we indispensable ? Why should a god love us?Worthy by what and why should we care?

and the world was created with some greater purpose in mind rather than just from a sheer cold happenstance

Why should one care if some other being has decided the purpose of the universe ? 

atheistic work view: we're all just animals who have no real significance in this world, we are all going to die and never return, nothing we ever do will ever really have any lasting meaning, and the world is built on nothing more than cold, random forces.

Funny how most atheists disagree with this view . But lets break this down a little .Yup we all die . Why should that bother anyone? Why focus on death rather then life ? Why should one wish to return ? for what ends? Next your an animal by definition no matter if their is a god . I see nothing wrong with this would it be better if you were a rock ? This notion of demeaning being an animal also seems strange . Why should i care for eternity if i'll never exprience this? Does this mean i can't try and change things ? The answer is no . Can it have a positive impact ? Yes does that impact have to be eternal ? i don't see why? Why should my actions have eternity in mind ?. And no the universe is built on consistently observed natural consistencies thus they are not random .The opposite of unintended is not random  . Why agency behind them should make them any more or less interesting or have impact ? This line of thinking seems off.

---

However I do agree with you that some atheist people do seem to be a bit too preoccupied and even upset about other people believing. People like that do indeed remind me of the more extreme religious folks That try to force their beliefs down your throat through name calling and mockery. Two sides of the same coin with these type of people, so I agree with you there.

Beliefs have impacts . And some idea's are worth mocking . Lastly false equivalency

 Ha, so there are levels of goodness and properness for an atheist and how they conduct themselves? Sounds suspiciously like other world views that you seem to disagree with.

No but you can be an ignorant atheist . It's not a question of conduct but knowledge . Having seen your writing thus far i'm less then impressed. As for the idea that goodness and properness are excluded by not believing in god . This is simply a assertion . 

As for the good and bad concept existing: Because we still live in a society which has religious concepts entrenched in our culture, we don't see that good and bad are concepts which at a fundamental level were heavily influenced by religion. Things like helping those who are needy and putting others before ourselves. And even though religion is starting to die, these parts of it have still survived even though we now often mistakenly think they are nothing do with religion. Imagine no religion at all and just a cold Darwinian style society which never had religion - how do you define good and bad?

Nope these concepts were idea's religion adopted not idea's religion invented. And it's maintenance has nothing to do with religion . I'm not sure what you mean by a Darwinian society ? or how you imagine it relates to a notion of prescriptive secular meta ethics . But as i have said  i'm not counting on a quality definition . Nor is an appeal to reductionist Darwinism(if your saying what i think your saying ) relevant to the existence of moral prescriptions.