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

[theVOID]

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?

I don't embrace your naturalistic purpose of course ...sentient human development strives in the opposite direction to naturalism so it's your stance that is contradictory.

More assumptions with no attempt to show why it's valid reasoning It's no surprise from you.`

You are ignorant of Christianity if you believe what you spout.

No examples?

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.

I see. So when it suits you you assume religion is top down, then when it doesn't you assume it's all man made. Convenient huh.

I am assuming that God is real for that statement, not religion. God being the designer is commonly described as a top-down process.

Anything else?

Like I said, morals fly against naturalistic development. Everyone has progressed from 'the bottom up', no one was born knowing everything. And theists who say they never considered anything are worthless as theists.. again it's yet another of your strawmen. You have no argument so you need to continually construct this ridiculous smoke screen.

If you are just going to assert that as fact and not even attempt to show your reasoning then don't bother, im not interested in what you can assert, only what you can prove. Now if you have proof that Morals are contradictory to the concept of naturalistic development, specifically in the structures of social animals where they are relevant then please do so for once.

Belief in God is a valid logical undertaking because it perfectly reflects the desire of human nature. It's what you seek yet deny.

1) What humans desire of nature, or anything else, does not at all necessitate that it is true.

2) Anthropomorphising is more commonly regarded as a literary technique, not a logical argument for the existence of God

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.

Here we go with the bad examples again - people exploit people and have a weakness where power and greed are concerned. This isn't religion... this is people gone bad. Is this another joke or are you being deliberately foolish?

FFS can you read? Ib.me.ub asked me why i should think that my meaning of life is different from anyone else's and i gave two unrelated examples, one of the exploiter and one of the religious, both demonstrate that life for some has a different meaning. I never once said that religious people are exploitative or anything else along those lines. I despise the argument that religion is evil and agree fully when you said it's people gone bad, it's correlation not causation, and it applies in all world views.