The meaning of "meaning"

This topic couldn't have been started by a better poster, good to chat with you again, Mr. Jay. I agree if you intend to say "I don't think Theists are strictly wrong when they say that Atheism is meaningless to Theists..." Now, I'll go through your posts step-by-step to show all the little subtleties I'm attempting to describe. Hopefully we'll come to an understanding. I agree. However... do you agree that one can use the same premise (the two "meaning"'s are fundamentally different) to come to the opposite conclusion that "Theism has meaning" is also "really just a semantic point"?If not... why not? If they really are 'fundamentally different'... from what basis can you claim either one to be 'superior'? Agreed. Now, which one is "correct". Which one is "the definition" as in 'science' or 'sport'? Who gets to decide which one gets the (useless) badges? I agree. However... do you agree that "For the Atheist, an actual meaning causes one to have a sense of significance." as well? Because it's true for me...
I admit that the Theist's intentions of "meaning" and "significance" are different from the Atheist's intentions of the same words... but how does that help in determining which is better or superior? Again, who gives out the badges? I agree. No equivalent concept for what the Theist is looking for, only the superior concept of purely self-initiated "meaning" The emotional value from (as I attempted to play turn-a-bout just above) the arrogance required to assume that "objective meaning" is somehow superior to "subjective meaning" (and visa versa).I contend that any attempts to claim either meaning as "superior" is useless because "superior" has it's own meaning which will be inherently connected to the original term and therefore it becomes a circular arguement.Or, perhaps, we can compare objective-things vs. subjective-things?
(But, if we cannot know whether or not the Theists "meaning" is actually objective... is this worthwhile?)Objective Things
-lead us to the truth about reality
-very fundamental in a "the way things are" sense
Therefore, an objective meaning would have more "signifigance" in a reality-based system of thoughtSubjective Things
-unlimited growth potential (love, kindness, courage...)
-extremely personal
Therefore, a subjective meaning would have more "signifigance" in a romantic/poetic-based system of thoughtHuh... strange, I would think that a Theist would be more inclined towards romantic/poetic/boundry-less ideas and an Atheist more towards reality/foundational-truth sort of ideas...Anyway, what do you think?

You were clear. I just tried to lean more the other way to see if something interesting could develop. But, alas, we simply agree Hmmm... again, agreed. Seems like nothing but boring agreement today.The way I see it, in a rambling sort of way:Theists are awe-inspired by the Greatness of the Lord.
To have someone so revered, someone understood to be the best of everything there is and the creator of everything there is... bestow any sort of gift or knowledge, let alone a great acknowledgement such as a "purpose for life" seems to be the highest honour possible.
Hence... an amazing, be-all-and-end-all sense of significance from such a blessing.Atheists are awe-inspired by their own ignorance.
To know that we don't know everything, coupled with the fact that we are (somehow) capable of knowing some things... inspires a certain level of "awe".
To understand that we are able to discover/create "knoweldge" and build upon such a fantastic feature seems to be the highest honour possible.
Hence... an amazing, be-all-and-end-all sense of signficance from the ability to create knowledge (even if only in the form of "purpose") for ourselves.For the Theist looking at the Atheist...
It seems rude and arrogant to the level of abusive to even politely decline such a gift as Purpose from such a being as God.
To come up with something from your own brain (regardless of what it is), and attempt to compare it to something from God's "brain" (regardless of what it is) is on the level of mutiny... or "blasphemy".For the Atheist looking at the Theist...
It seems wasteful and lazy to refuse to use our own brains to produce something such as Purpose for our own lives.
To simply accept another's label (regardless of who it comes from) is on the level of robotic existance where one may as well lose their humanity as they slip into "autopilot".Personally, I think it's just "different strokes for different folks".Is it possible to have an objective, external meaning?
-Sure it is, a hammer's objective, external meaning is to drive nails.Is it possible to have an alternative, subjective meaning?
-Sure it is, a hammer also makes a nice ice-pick.Is it possible for the hammer's objective meaning to be "the superior" meaning?
-Sure it is, if you have lots of nails to drive.Is it possible for the alternative, subjective meaning to be "the superior" meaning?
-Sure it is, if you slip on some ice and would like to stop yourselfIs either of these "greater" on some Purpose-scale?
-Who knows?
-How can you possibly measure such a thing?
Is driving nails "important"? Is saving yourself from slipping on ice?
How may driven nails equals being safe on ice? 100? 1/8?
-It doesn't really seem to be quantifiable or comparable

I understand you're no longer participating on this thread, so no pressure to respond. My reply to you here is more a reply to anyone else who's reading and (perhaps) is looking for a response to what you said. There's not enough room to make my point horizontally, so I need to change your statement into vertical form, this should be equivalent: Theistic view:
1. Intrinsic (created) meaning
V
2. Sense of Meaning
V
3. Roles/Duties Atheistic view:
2. Sense of Meaning
^
3. Roles/Duties..and you're saying the Atheistic view has no "1." I understand what you're getting at (I think). Here is what the others are trying to show you (I think): Theistic view:
2. God's Sense of Meaning
^ (or maybe V)
3. God's Roles/Duties
V
4. God deciding to create humans
V
5. Intrinsic (created) meaning
V
6. Man's Sense of Meaning
V
7. Man's Roles/Duties Atheistic view:
2. Man's Sense of Meaning
^
3. Man's Roles/DutiesSo... how is it different that in the Atheistic view Man doesn't have a "1.", but in the Theistic view it's God who doesn't have a "1."?
We can see how it's different to man, specifically... but if the point is to find the "ultimate meaning of it all"... isn't it strange to stop without considering God if we're including God's existence within "all"?Also, another side point:
Having a "created-meaning" can be a negative thing, too... depending on the creator.
If God was an evil God, and created humans in order to laugh at their strife... that would mean that our created-meaning is to live in strife so that God can laugh.
...why would anyone want to respect such a created-meaning in this sort of situation? Therefore, it would be "superior" for the Atheist View to have-no-equivalent to this created-meaning.If we are able to show the subjectivity of created-meaning vs. sense-of-meaning for such situations (evil God vs. good God)... does it not follow that the "superiority" of created-meaning vs. sense-of-meaning is therefore subjective as well? That is, even if there is an external meaning that some creator-being has created us for... it is our own subjective feelings that gives this created-meaning any respect or not... which means it's our own Sense of Meaning that is either accepting or rejecting this external-meaning anyway.Just like if an absolute morality actually did exist... we would all still use our own personal sense of morality and judge if we wanted to accept or reject the external absolute morality.