Matt, I'd like to echo Paul's request for a bit more specificity in your argument.
It actually appears to be at least two different arguments (one about "transcendent values" and one about "meaning and purpose"), and perhaps it would be worth focusing on one of the two. (I don't mind which.)
What I'd ideally like to see is an argument made more explicit along the following lines: "By 'transcendent values' I mean X. Atheists typically do Y. [If it's not uncontroversial that atheists typically do Y, insert justification of that claim here.] Doing Y really only makes sense if there are X, because Z. But atheism really entails the nonexistence of X, for reasons W [that atheists could reasonably be expected to agree with]." (Or, of course, the same with "meaning and purpose in their lives" or something, instead of "transcendent values".)
For the avoidance of doubt: of course I'm not under the impression that you're in any way obliged to provide what I'd ideally like to see :-). It's just that I *frequently* see claims like the one you've made above, and *never* see them fleshed out in a way that would make it feasible to tell how compelling they are without a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.
no subject
It actually appears to be at least two different arguments (one about "transcendent values" and one about "meaning and purpose"), and perhaps it would be worth focusing on one of the two. (I don't mind which.)
What I'd ideally like to see is an argument made more explicit along the following lines: "By 'transcendent values' I mean X. Atheists typically do Y. [If it's not uncontroversial that atheists typically do Y, insert justification of that claim here.] Doing Y really only makes sense if there are X, because Z. But atheism really entails the nonexistence of X, for reasons W [that atheists could reasonably be expected to agree with]." (Or, of course, the same with "meaning and purpose in their lives" or something, instead of "transcendent values".)
For the avoidance of doubt: of course I'm not under the impression that you're in any way obliged to provide what I'd ideally like to see :-). It's just that I *frequently* see claims like the one you've made above, and *never* see them fleshed out in a way that would make it feasible to tell how compelling they are without a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.