I was thinking you were saying something like: "Nothing has meaning without a god. How do we know this? Because a god is required in order for things to have meaning. Therefore atheists must believe things have no meaning."

Anyway, you said "atheists follow THEIR philosophy to its ultimate conclusion."

So your argument would be (if we are using atheists' own philosophy and not inserting Christian philosophy):

Premise: Atheism denies the existence of God

Premise: Atheists believe that a god is necessary for anything to have meaning.

Conclusion: Therefore atheists must come to the conclusion that nothing has meaning, per their own philosophy.

..but the second premise is not necessarily true (some may believe that, some don't).

I happen to believe [the existence of god is necessary for anything to have meaning] is true, and provable

You'd be the first person in the history of Earth to prove it. You should do so and become famous.

But I'm not gonna write an 8,000 word essay defending it in a comment no one will read or care about.

It shouldn't take 8,000 words to explain why a god is necessary for anything to have meaning. I can explain in like 5 sentences why a god isn't necessary for things to have meaning. Why can't you do it?

Side note: Note that nowhere in this thread or anywhere else am I saying there is no god, I'm just saying that a god is not necessary for something to have meaning. Just wanted to be clear I'm not arguing against God's existence.