whatever is driving the atheist to create a purpose is itself a purpose which the atheist him- or herself did not create.
Bold empty claims.
the intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose in order to account for the intention.
New bold empty claims.
All creative acts (including the act to create a purpose) are purpose driven. If you deny that, then you deny your capacity , not only to create a purpose, but also to create anything.
Same bold empty claims as to assert that "All creative acts (including the act to create a purpose) are purpose driven" by the previous bold empty claims of "higher purpose".
it is not possible to give an intelligent account of the intention to create a purpose without invoking some higher purpose.
Same bold empty claims in new semantic variation.
As I see it. every purpose you believe you have created during the course of your life was subordinated to a higher purpose, namely, the purpose to seek the good. This is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be stated.
This quote connects with next quote.
The desire to seek the good is a desire to seek a transcendental. The ultimate good is God. In every good you seek, you are affirming the existence of God (whether you are consciously or unconsciously aware of this fact).
Many more new bold empty claims.
It is not possible for us to create a purpose without acting on some higher purpose (which we ourselves did not create).
Repeat of the same bold empty claims.
It's not really possible to defy God's will.
New bold empty claims.
I have explained why in my post. Did you not bother to read it?
"The intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose in order to account for the intention."
I presented an argument. If you disagree with it, then you have to present an argument to counter it. Until then, my argument stands. That's how it works.
Repeatedly repeat of the same bold empty claims like it'll finally convince anyone it's not anymore a bold empty claims.
I believe I stated that point clearly in the OP of this thread. However, since you think I did not, then I will rephrase my argument. The atheist's intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose (a purpose which he or she did not create) in order to give an intelligent account of that intention. IOW, whatever purpose you think you create can be subsumed by the higher purpose of seeking the good - a purpose, which you yourself agree, that is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be stated.
A collection of previous bold empty claims.
And neither is it hard to accept that there is a hierarchical relation of lower goods to higher goods, to the highest good - God.
New addition of bold empty claims.
So the op intends to sharing as many of his bold empty claims.
When people ask him to substantiate his bold empty claims, he ignore them or by repeatedly stating his previous bold empty claims like he believes people will finally believes his bold empty claims are not anymore bold empty claims in doing so.
What is there to be debate?
Is the op's goal just to share the op's bold empty claims, occasionally repeat the same bold empty claims, then make new semantics variation of the previous bold empty claims, then making even more new bold empty claims?