"god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?

[theVOID]

Well that's funny then VOID - we both think the other wants ignorance. Funny also tho' that I can absolutely embrace the truth of nature _in addition to_ the philosophical meanderings of my choice. You don't seem to be able to make any distinction... for you the two have to be combined and seen from a literalist POV.

If God exists and has a purpose for each of us then a purpose derived from naturalism would be false, so no you cannot have both, it would be contradictory. That is not at all to say that you cannot embrace the truth of nature, it seems you misunderstood me there, but that purpose from the higher authority would surpass any materialist subjective purpose.

Also, what specifically am I ignorant of fr0d0?

My POV certainly doesn't 'cheapen' the journey. As is indicated by the continual attempt to belittle it rather than give it serious consideration (why not state what it is rather than use childish jibes like "intergalactic dictator"). Atheism where I live is the mainstream POV. Yet still atheists are so insecure they feel the need to demean the POV of anyone who disagrees.

Based on my current understanding it seems less desirable to have purpose and meaning passed from the top down than to have t build it yourself from the bottom, it's just my opinion and i don't expect you, or any theist for that matter to agree.

Is God not a dictator?

Give me a reason why your belief in God is a valid logical undertaking and i won't have reason to make a mockery of it.

Also, it would be rather foolish to assume that it's because we are insecure and not just that we think your a little wacky and like having a laugh.

---

Very similar actually. But what makes you think any one elses meaning would be different?

Because there are people who don't share the same view that's why, people who exploit for gain and those who believe their purpose is to 'bask in the glory of god' etc are not meanings i have any relationship with.