From the Atheists view; can life have meaning ?

[jonathan180iq]

@shmogie I can't quote you directly until you fix the formatting of your reply to me...

Either way,
Please show me the difference between your belief that life is eternal, and the apparently misguided belief by myself that my finite life has meaning.

Good luck.

 

[shmogie]

@shmogie I can't quote you directly until you fix the formatting of your reply to me...

Either way,
Please show me the difference between your belief that life is eternal, and the apparently misguided belief by myself that my finite life has meaning.

Good luck.

First, I do not believe life is eternal. Your life may have great meaning, to you in your lifetime,, perhaps in the lifetimes of people for century's, but in the end, when nothing exists nothing had or has meaning. For you, all meaning ceases to exist when you do. For you, when you die, all the meaning you thought you had exists no longer.

If there is nobody to hear a tree fall, does it make any noise,? Nope, and it doesn't make a bit of difference, for when all doesn't exist, the tree and all the rest are if they never existed. Nothing cannot have any meaning to nothing

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are you contending that from the atheists viewpoint that meaning is spiritual ? When I was an atheist, though I can speak for no one but myself, nothing was spiritual.

Doesn´t meaning have to mean something to somebody ? Without God or gods who does this spiritual meaning have meaning ?

I was not commenting upon the atheist point of view but criticizing the quotation which seems bad theology to me. No, I think there is more than one kind of meaning as shown in the usage of the word 'meaning' in English. Sometimes meaning refers to transmission of information, but sometimes it refers to an intrinsic quality and is not related to transmission. The intrinsic quality is an assumption or belief that people make about things, just as God is something people believe in despite being invisible and intangible. An early recognition of meaning beyond information appears in Plato's forms where there is a physical object and then there is its real invisible self which the physical forms merely approximate. 'Meaning' is used multiple ways including to refer to the non physical representation even without any communication or transmission of ideas.

 

[tempogain]

I don't think your complaints apply if we're talking about significance in the way I defined it.

Are you going by some other definition?

I'm reposting your definition

From my understanding of Craig's presentation of this argument, I think the bottom criteria for significance (in the context of this thread) would be to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. For there to ultimately be a different end results depending on whether you existed or not when all is said and done. On atheism, things will end all the same. Sure, the path to the end will be different, but since our lives amount to but a moment in the grand scheme the end will be the same. Eternal darkness and void.

On theism, as I said, what we do does matter in the grand scheme for the universe will not just collapse and erase all that we've ever done. Instead, our actions have been very important in the divine plan (it doesn't really get any more grand than that) and as such have everlasting consequences. Given how the thread has been rather limited in it's context this isn't exactly how Craig argument goes (more on it below) but it does capture it in broad strokes.

What I'm doing is asking questions about the foundations of such significance, and if it really deserves the title of "ultimate" significance.

I'm not saying it doesn't represent "any" significance, any more than you are saying the significance atheists find in their lives does not represent any significance.

 

[Apologes]

What I'm doing is asking questions about the foundations of such significance, and if it really deserves the title of "ultimate" significance.

I'm not saying it doesn't represent "any" significance, any more than you are saying the significance atheists find in their lives does not represent any significance.

I don't see how it can get any more significant than that. If you doubt it, then offer something that would be more significant than that and more worthy of the title "ultimate".

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

"

THOUGHTS ?

I am interested in your take. As a theist, what meaning do you find in life? And how would it be different if you were an atheist?

 

[Altfish]

If there is nobody to hear a tree fall, does it make any noise,? Nope, and it doesn't make a bit of difference, for when all doesn't exist, the tree and all the rest are if they never existed. Nothing cannot have any meaning to nothing

Yes it does.. Of course it does.
If I play a CD then put it in a room that no one can hear it is still making a noise.

 

[jonathan180iq]

First, I do not believe life is eternal.

Then what's the point of quoting Craig's comments? If life is not eternal, then the God point is completely moot, isn't it?

Your life may have great meaning, to you in your lifetime,, perhaps in the lifetimes of people for century's, but in the end, when nothing exists nothing had or has meaning. For you, all meaning ceases to exist when you do. For you, when you die, all the meaning you thought you had exists no longer.

I never claimed that my life's meaning was Objective. It's merely a subjective experience of value that I attribute to myself and those around me (Just like everybody else). I know that I will die and everything I've ever cared about will eventually be nothing at all. But that doesn't detract from the value of my life, does it? Again, it's no different from Theists endowing their deity of choice with certain values or attributes or claims to give their lives and their faiths meaning... That's my whole point.

Saying that life doesn't have meaning without God is a completely useless argument without substantiating God, meaning, or an objective afterlife. Requiring immortality for a meaningful life is a crap circular argument.

If there is nobody to hear a tree fall, does it make any noise,? Nope, and it doesn't make a bit of difference, for when all doesn't exist, the tree and all the rest are if they never existed. Nothing cannot have any meaning to nothing

There is no objective meaning to anything, as our destiny is to become a forgotten piece of history, just like the tree - you're 100% correct.

But the point of meaning is not for the external - it's for the internal.

If a lonely stranger falls down a ravine and dies, does anyone know about it or care? Nope.
But guaranteed that man's life had meaning to him, even if it was only fleeting. It's not objective, grandiose, Universal meaning - but it's meaning nonetheless.

And where does your God argument come into play in all of this?

If there is no carried meaning, life isn't everlasting through a belief system, and no one will remember you - then, by your own quoted William Lane Craig arguments, God doesn't exist.

 

[tempogain]

I don't see how it can get any more significant than that. If you doubt it, then offer something that would be more significant than that and more worthy of the title "ultimate".

Why, does something have to be? I mean, it could be that nothing is worthy of it.

I'll kind of summarize my views. I see two problems with the idea of "significance" here.

First, we don't know if God even exists. It's a belief. As far as I'm concerned, this means you have a belief that God affords some significance to human existence. Great! I'm fine with belief. I don't know everything there is to know. But I must note that any claim about this significance is conditional for this reason. You may say that you're assuming God exists for the purpose of this argument, but I really don't see where that assumption is supposed to take us.

Second, I understand that if God does exist, that existence can afford significance to human life in several ways. But is it "ultimate?" Before I can answer this, I would like to know what the significance of God is. I don't believe that that question can so easily be answered. It seems to me to be a large unclosable hole in the idea of "ultimate significance".

The Summary of the WLC paper you linked reads, "Why on atheism life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, and why this view is unlivable." Well, I wouldn't get that happy about it. It's nice that Craig thinks his pet belief is the one that happens to provide ultimate meaning, value and purpose to everything. I would tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about that notion. I also do seem, objectively speaking, to be living an alternate view, and it's working out well enough. If Craig just came out and said "you know, I believe in God, and I believe he affords my life significance" I don't think we'd be having this conversation. "More power to you" would likely be my response. The way he puts things seems rather more confrontational, arrogant, and ultimately off-putting to me.

 

[syo]

his life leads no further than the grave."

atheists really believe that, and they want us theists to believe that too. they think the ''no afterlife'' is more intelligent and the actual truth. they want to spread the ''no afterlife'' to be the norm.

 

[shmogie]

Then what's the point of quoting Craig's comments? If life is not eternal, then the God point is completely moot, isn't it?



I never claimed that my life's meaning was Objective. It's merely a subjective experience of value that I attribute to myself and those around me (Just like everybody else). I know that I will die and everything I've ever cared about will eventually be nothing at all. But that doesn't detract from the value of my life, does it? Again, it's no different from Theists endowing their deity of choice with certain values or attributes or claims to give their lives and their faiths meaning... That's my whole point.

Saying that life doesn't have meaning without God is a completely useless argument without substantiating God, meaning, or an objective afterlife. Requiring immortality for a meaningful life is a crap circular argument.


There is no objective meaning to anything, as our destiny is to become a forgotten piece of history, just like the tree - you're 100% correct.

But the point of meaning is not for the external - it's for the internal.

If a lonely stranger falls down a ravine and dies, does anyone know about it or care? Nope.
But guaranteed that man's life had meaning to him, even if it was only fleeting. It's not objective, grandiose, Universal meaning - but it's meaning nonetheless.

And where does your God argument come into play in all of this?

If there is no carried meaning, life isn't everlasting through a belief system, and no one will remember you - then, by your own quoted William Lane Craig arguments, God doesn't exist.

I agree with most of your post. While we are alive our lives have meaning to ourselves and others, no doubt. The point is, I think, is that meaning is relative to something else, someone to recognize it, be it yourself or someone else.

If it cannot be recognized then it never existed. Just like being on a perfectly balanced space ship traveling at 10,000 MPH in the absolute void of space with no star or planet visible, if you look out the window, are you traveling.?

My God, and yours, which someday you will acknowledge, plays into it in this way.

We know eternity exists. We know any amount of finite time in eternity is infinitely small, and anything that existed in that time is infinitely smaller.

We were created by God to live in infinite time, thus everything for us, including meaning was to be infinite.

We now live in finite time, nothing of us is infinite, contrary to the belief of many, we are not immortal.

For our lives to really have any meaning, we must be alive.

That possibility is available to us, so that we can return to the state originally meant for us, living in infinite time, with every potential of developing infinite meaning.

Achieving the possibility, given to us freely by our creator, requires a particular mindset and has conditions that can be met., neither are beyond the reach of anyone. Those who chose to do so will demonstrate meaning to their life and in their life to come. Those who do not will never have existed.,

 

[Woberts]

atheists really believe that, and they want us theists to believe that too. they think the ''no afterlife'' is more intelligent and the actual truth. they want to spread the ''no afterlife'' to be the norm.

That's some grade A ignorance right there, if I do say so myself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't understand. Why does life have to be eternal in order to have some kind of meaning?

 

[shmogie]

I don't understand. Why does life have to be eternal in order to have some kind of meaning?

It doesn't. The meaning ceases to exist with everything else. It is relative to time.

 

[Segev Moran]

" If God does not exist, life can be considered absurd. If there is no God, man is inevitably doomed to death. like all biological organisms, he must die, and with no hope of immortality, his life leads no further than the grave."

Exactly!
Sorry to break your bubble... but you are going to die! (don't know about future generations but as of now, every human i have ever met was mortal!!! imagine that

" It might be said that his life held importance because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But this gives only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to other people or certain events, but those people and events are insignificant, since they too are headed foe non existence. All of history and it's events and persons are meaningless, so what ultimate significance is there in influencing any of them ? :"

What ultimate significance is there to having a god that rules every aspect of your existence?

The universe will die

Probably...

as will all humanity and no matter how long they exist, they can inhabit only a tiny flash of time in eternity.

Depends of what you define as humanity.
will a digital human brain be considered human or not in your pov?
will an imortal human still be considered human?

The problem of man; because he and everything end in nothing, he and everything are nothing, and can have no value, no importance, no ultimate significance. Man and everything are absurdities

Now imagine saying something like that to a kid !!!!!!! so wrong and even abusive!!!!!

I find Craig's statements to be offensive to humanity. the mere fact he claims humans can't have a meaning without a god reveals how low he must think of humanity.

i teach my kids they are the best. i teach them to appreciate other humans more than anything. i teach them that humans are amazing but have got a lot to learn.
i teach them the meaning of historical events and how they influenced our advancement as a specie, i teach our amazing discovers of the universe we live in, i teach them to appreciate every moment they exist and i teach them how to find meaning in anything that they experience.

If my kid would ever tell me humans are nothing and worthless, it will be the day i know i have failed as a father.

Let me ask some rebound questions:

What is the meaning of god?
What is the meaning of worshiping a god?
What is the meaning of living in eternity in a divine heaven (or whatever other weird idea one believes)?
What is the meaning of trying to make the world better if it is a god that decides what will happen?

 

[Apologes]

Why, does something have to be? I mean, it could be that nothing is worthy of it.

I'll kind of summarize my views. I see two problems with the idea of "significance" here.

First, we don't know if God even exists. It's a belief. As far as I'm concerned, this means you have a belief that God affords some significance to human existence. Great! I'm fine with belief. I don't know everything there is to know. But I must note that any claim about this significance is conditional for this reason. You may say that you're assuming God exists for the purpose of this argument, but I really don't see where that assumption is supposed to take us.

I think that's clearly false. In order to establish that a proposition P implies a proposition Q, you don't have to show that P is true. Instead, all you need to do is point out how Q follows from P. It's not true, therefore, that you have to assume that God exists in order to say that if God were to exist we would have ultimate significance. The existence of God is then utterly irrelevant to the question at hand as I have been pointing out in my previous posts and the argument is merely concerned with pointing out that, on atheism, man's life would be ultimately absurd. As far as I can tell, we've already agreed on that fact.

Second, I understand that if God does exist, that existence can afford significance to human life in several ways. But is it "ultimate?" Before I can answer this, I would like to know what the significance of God is. I don't believe that that question can so easily be answered. It seems to me to be a large unclosable hole in the idea of "ultimate significance".

Even if it were granted that God lacked the significance it would in no way follow that this would be some kind of a hole in actual concept of ultimate significance. How does that follow?

Regardless, I've explained already what I take ultimate significance to mean and how God's existence perfectly fits the description. In this post you've implied that you don't think the word necessarily has any meaning, but this is just confused since you're focusing on the word as if it carries a strict meaning you could find in a dictionary rather than just being a term used to describe a certain notion. If you don't like the term "ultimate", feel free to replace it with something else like "great" or "cosmic" and the argument would be exactly the same.

The Summary of the WLC paper you linked reads, "Why on atheism life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, and why this view is unlivable." Well, I wouldn't get that happy about it. It's nice that Craig thinks his pet belief is the one that happens to provide ultimate meaning, value and purpose to everything. I would tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about that notion. I also do seem, objectively speaking, to be living an alternate view, and it's working out well enough. If Craig just came out and said "you know, I believe in God, and I believe he affords my life significance" I don't think we'd be having this conversation. "More power to you" would likely be my response. The way he puts things seems rather more confrontational, arrogant, and ultimately off-putting to me.

To be honest, I don't see how Craig coming out and saying that everything written in the article is merely a belief he holds would make things any different. One ought to have reasons for believing as they do and if Craig were to say that he simply believes without any real reason for it (other than wanting to believe) he'd simply end up irrational and unjustified in holding on to said belief.

I do want to take a moment, though, and reflect on your description of Craig's view (bolded). It is rather amusing to me to see an atheist describe an argument that touches on the more intimate implications of their world view to be arrogant and off-putting considering the amount of rather brutal criticism that has been leveled against theism (even more against it's religious forms which are far more personal) for centuries. People like Nietzsche, Freud, Marx or modern pop-atheism proponents like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris haven't pulled any punches when it came to dismantling religion all the way to it's most intimate aspects. (Including, but not limited to calling theists deluded, cowardly or generally less intellectually apt.)

Compared to that, Craig's attempt to show atheism as an unlivable philosophy which reduces man to absurdity seems rather tame in comparison. From a scholarly perspective, if one believes that a worldview is flawed they have it in their right to voice their concern and point out the perceived flaws. Is it confrontational? Certainly, all criticism is. Is it arrogant or perhaps morally abhorrent in some other way? No.

 

[tempogain]

I think that's clearly false. In order to establish that a proposition P implies a proposition Q, you don't have to show that P is true. Instead, all you need to do is point out how Q follows from P. It's not true, therefore, that you have to assume that God exists in order to say that if God were to exist we would have ultimate significance. The existence of God is then utterly irrelevant to the question at hand as I have been pointing out in my previous posts and the argument is merely concerned with pointing out that, on atheism, man's life would be ultimately absurd. As far as I can tell, we've already agreed on that fact.

I guess that's what I said you "may" say. I don't know man, I guess we just differ here. All I'm saying is if you base your conclusions on a belief, they must ultimately be subordinate to that belief, and that that's something I don't have a problem with.

Did we agree "man's life would be ultimately absurd"? I don't think so. I thought I'd made it clear that I think that phrasing is inappropriate. I agree that under atheism man's life doesn't seem to have any external meaning. But, we don't know anything external to our physical existence as far as I can see, so, who knows. That sums it up pretty well in my view.

Even if it were granted that God lacked the significance it would in no way follow that this would be some kind of a hole in actual concept of ultimate significance. How does that follow?

Would it be "ultimate" then? If I derive various kinds of significance from my relationship with God, but it's ultimately true that God does not have his own significance, is my significance "ultimate"?

Regardless, I've explained already what I take ultimate significance to mean and how God's existence perfectly fits the description. In this post you've implied that you don't think the word necessarily has any meaning, but this is just confused since you're focusing on the word as if it carries a strict meaning you could find in a dictionary rather than just being a term used to describe a certain notion. If you don't like the term "ultimate", feel free to replace it with something else like "great" or "cosmic" and the argument would be exactly the same.

I've also explained what I see to be two major problems with the idea, whatever you call it. I don't know what else I can say here, or if makes any sense to continue going over it ad finitum. I understand what you're saying. It just doesn't seem to me to be convincing. If everything you think about God is true, then I guess you'll be right that that significance actually exists. It just isn't apparent to me that that's the case.

To be honest, I don't see how Craig coming out and saying that everything written in the article is merely a belief he holds would make things any different. One ought to have reasons for believing as they do and if Craig were to say that he simply believes without any real reason for it (other than wanting to believe) he'd simply end up irrational and unjustified in holding on to said belief.

I didn't say he doesn't have to have any real reason.

I do want to take a moment, though, and reflect on your description of Craig's view (bolded). It is rather amusing to me to see an atheist describe an argument that touches on the more intimate implications of their world view to be arrogant and off-putting considering the amount of rather brutal criticism that has been leveled against theism (even more against it's religious forms which are far more personal) for centuries. People like Nietzsche, Freud, Marx or modern pop-atheism proponents like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris haven't pulled any punches when it came to dismantling religion all the way to it's most intimate aspects. (Including, but not limited to calling theists deluded, cowardly or generally less intellectually apt.)

This isn't relevant to me. You're talking to me now, not every atheist who has offended you for centuries.

Compared to that, Craig's attempt to show atheism as an unlivable philosophy which reduces man to absurdity seems rather tame in comparison. From a scholarly perspective, if one believes that a worldview is flawed they have it in their right to voice their concern and point out the perceived flaws. Is it confrontational? Certainly, all criticism is. Is it arrogant or perhaps morally abhorrent in some other way? No.

I'm criticizing his approach to this question on its own merits. If he feels this is the way he wants to consider his own beliefs and treat those of others, that's obviously his prerogative. He seems to think he knows more than he demonstrably does as far as I can see.

 

[shmogie]

Exactly!
Sorry to break your bubble... but you are going to die! (don't know about future generations but as of now, every human i have ever met was mortal!!! imagine that

What ultimate significance is there to having a god that rules every aspect of your existence?

Probably...

Depends of what you define as humanity.
will a digital human brain be considered human or not in your pov?
will an imortal human still be considered human?

Now imagine saying something like that to a kid !!!!!!! so wrong and even abusive!!!!!

I find Craig's statements to be offensive to humanity. the mere fact he claims humans can't have a meaning without a god reveals how low he must think of humanity.

i teach my kids they are the best. i teach them to appreciate other humans more than anything. i teach them that humans are amazing but have got a lot to learn.
i teach them the meaning of historical events and how they influenced our advancement as a specie, i teach our amazing discovers of the universe we live in, i teach them to appreciate every moment they exist and i teach them how to find meaning in anything that they experience.

If my kid would ever tell me humans are nothing and worthless, it will be the day i know i have failed as a father.

Let me ask some rebound questions:

What is the meaning of god?
What is the meaning of worshiping a god?
What is the meaning of living in eternity in a divine heaven (or whatever other weird idea one believes)?
What is the meaning of trying to make the world better if it is a god that decides what will happen?

Craig is a pre eminent philosopher, Nietzsche had many of the same observations. They are both studied in Universities, with respect, where are your opinions studied?

He doesn't belittle humanity, stating a natural fact is just that.

I am sure your kids are the absolute best, next to mine. That doesn't change the fact that when all is gone it will be as if they never existed. No meaning there.

If one has the opportunity to have an infinite life, then meaning can be potentially infinite as well.

As to your other questions, they are for a different time, I will say I think you have some misconceptions though.

 

[Segev Moran]

Craig is a pre eminent philosopher, Nietzsche had many of the same observations. They are both studied in Universities, with respect, where are your opinions studied?

None that i know of
I Have nothing but respect for him btw.
It doesn't change the fact the things he claim are either wrong or unverified. He is a great philosopher (religious), No doubt about it.
He is, I am sure a man with a knowledge far superior than mine in regards to the christian religion at that goes without saying.
On the other hand, NO PERSON in the world knows what happens after death better than me, and I, have no idea. not a shred of a clue. i imagine many possibilities though
He is a very charismatic and great speaker no doubt.

He doesn't belittle humanity, stating a natural fact is just that.

So the NATURAL state of things is that humans have no morals without a god?
so the the suffering of millions of people that on their backs humans slowly slowly becoming a specie that values human life much more than before? (not all unfortunately)

Wouldn't you say a person can find great meaning in helping animals, other can find meaning in painting, others in religion, others in pain.
there is no one meaning, we decide what it means to be humans, we decide that by learning from the past, and trying and think of the future and of ways to become even better.
surprisingly, the better technology advances, the better we can be...
isn't it enough of a meaning?
why would you think that the natural way is meaningless?

I am sure your kids are the absolute best

Thanks for indeed they are.

, next to mine.

Obviously

That doesn't change the fact that when all is gone it will be as if they never existed. No meaning there.

I don't think the meaning is relevant to the dead the meaning is relevant to the ones left behind...
There is actually, as far as we know, no meaning there after death.
each is free to choose his own

If one has the opportunity to have an infinite life, then meaning can be potentially infinite as well.

I would assume that one who exists for eternity (what ever it means) wouldn't have much meaning unless it had us to wonder what we mean, huh?

As to your other questions, they are for a different time, I will say I think you have some misconceptions though.

Would appreciate your feedback

 

[Apologes]

I guess that's what I said you "may" say. I don't know man, I guess we just differ here. All I'm saying is if you base your conclusions on a belief, they must ultimately be subordinate to that belief, and that that's something I don't have a problem with.

That's the thing, though. The conclusions here aren't based on the truths of atheism and theism. They are based on the observations of what would be the case if said views were true.

They are conditionals: if P, then Q. What you seemed to be saying there was: if P is true then it would be true that "if P, then Q" which I take to be clearly false. The truth or falsehood of the belief are in no way related to the implications that belief has.

I don't know why your opinion differs on this and am yet to hear an account of that.

Did we agree "man's life would be ultimately absurd"? I don't think so. I thought I'd made it clear that I think that phrasing is inappropriate. I agree that under atheism man's life doesn't seem to have any external meaning. But, we don't know anything external to our physical existence as far as I can see, so, who knows. That sums it up pretty well in my view.

I took your previous post in which you described Craig as winning the prize as you agreeing with the basic premise that on atheism we have no ultimate significance.

"All it seems to me that he's said is that if there is no God who can imbue ultimate significance to us then we won't have ultimate significance. If that's all there is, then he wins the prize and the conversation is over. "

Then you went on to question if there really is such a being as God which is what I am trying to show an independent question. Post #41.

Would it be "ultimate" then? If I derive various kinds of significance from my relationship with God, but it's ultimately true that God does not have his own significance, is my significance "ultimate"?

I'm not sure if that's what you're saying here, but I'm not arguing that we get significance from mere association with God in just any sense. After all, being created by him would be an association but clearly this doesn't grant us ultimate significance if our existence here is of no ultimate consequence (again the story of being erased by the universe etc).

Regardless, I've yet to see a demonstration of how it follows that because God doesn't enjoy ultimate significance, the concept of ultimate significance somehow becomes incoherent given how it is not a fundamentally theistic notion but is merely refered to as something that theism allegedly provides.

I've also explained what I see to be two major problems with the idea, whatever you call it. I don't know what else I can say here, or if makes any sense to continue going over it ad finitum. I understand what you're saying. It just doesn't seem to me to be convincing. If everything you think about God is true, then I guess you'll be right that that significance actually exists. It just isn't apparent to me that that's the case.

Yes and those are the problems I'm trying to address. You framed your second objection in such a way that it focused on the description of ultimate significance I provided being somehow unfitting of the term "ultimate", thereby appealing to a standard which the description doesn't meet but is supposed to if it is to be labeled with that term. (At least I took you as saying that and you didn't object to me doing so.)

By presenting the problem as such, you've pointed at an alleged semantic error which I aimed to fix by applying a term that doesn't imply a sense of supremacy but retains the sense of scale such as "cosmic".

In doing so, your second objection no longer seems to apply as the significance as I've described it would clearly transcend the cosmos and therefore be worhy of the name. Likewise, God is significant in this sense as His existence has consequences on a cosmic scale.

The only other way I can see you run this objection would be if you were to question the value of being significant in this sense, but this would bring us to what I said in my first post and that is: you are free to dismiss it as unimportant as it seems to boil down to personal taste. This, however, is a matter of not being concerned with the implications of atheism rather than showing that atheism doesn't have these implications.

I didn't say he doesn't have to have any real reason.

Well if he is to provide a reason it will result in an article like that.

This isn't relevant to me. You're talking to me now, not every atheist who has offended you for centuries.

It may not be relevant to you, but it is relevant to the field which Craig is working in. My point was to show that Craig didn't do anything unheard of that isn't a norm, that there is no reason to find it off-putting beyond merely not liking the conclusions he reaches.

I'm criticizing his approach to this question on its own merits. If he feels this is the way he wants to consider his own beliefs and treat those of others, that's obviously his prerogative. He seems to think he knows more than he demonstrably does as far as I can see.

I'm not sure what knowledge you take him to be lacking aside from the fact that his conclusions will not pressure everyone who understands them. (In which case, as I said myself, I agree.)