A muslim, a christian, and a hindu go into a bar...
Each one says, "My god gives meaning to my life."
and "My mother gives me money"

Since at least two of them must be wrong about their first claim and yet, even knowing of the others claims, they each insist they have this meaning even more soundly than they have the money their mom gave them.

Does the meaning exist even though their god doesn't? Obviously in at least two out of three ( I could have made it 9999 out of 10000) cases there is no outside source for it as claimed.

Good question, and hopefully something can come out of this.

Personally, I think that the "God" that each individual is refering to is coming from within. (In my opinion) Anyone who has a belief in God "feels" a connection within, not that there's just some entity unrelated to him/her out there. So in fact, yes, each person is sure of their "God" because they "feel" it and I don't necessarily believe that this "God" inside of each individual doesn't exist.

And here's where the impossible answer comes into play. I'll tell you up and down that Christianity is the right way, but won't be moved from my position from someone else with as much sincerety to their religion, so, I have come up with something that fits me. And it's that I'm ok not knowing the answer to this question. And for one reason in particular:

If an individual is true to themselves then they can't be wrong. (I believe)

I truly don't think that there's more then one Ultimate Being. I think Christ is the same God that every other religion out there feels inside of them, just that somehow religion has separated man rather then joining him. And maybe this is the work of the devil? Because it sure causes a lot of people to question and turn away.

I just look at myself and my own experiences and judge the evidence that I have. And if I get the opportunity I'll preach the Word that I believe to be right, but I certainly respect the ones who feel as strongly as I do but in a different way. And really, I'll never know the answer to this in this lifetime so I'm ok not knowing. Although I'll admit, it is frustrating to think about.

This statement is not correct. All three religions could be equally imprecise desciptions of the same God and provide meaning to each religious person regardless of exact accuracy.

I think meaning exists in the sense that atheists use the term.

I think theists are not always clear about what they mean by "God gives my life meaning", so it's hard to know whether they're correct or not if God doesnt exist.

Yes. The point of the multiple god choices and of the mothers money in the OP was to help focus on the "meaning" itself.

If the guy doesn't have a mother then he won't have the money. His having the money is directly related to the money showing up.

If somebody's god doesn't exist, ( surely there is some person somewhere who's god doesn't exist) yet he knows he has the meaning in the same way that others with actual gods have it then the meaning doesn't require the god to exist in order for the meaning to exist.

I think there is a decent sized movement in that direction within theology, rather like the atheist christian types but not necessarily that well formulated.

The OP isn't about whether god exists, it's whether there is any reason to think it's necessary she does for the meaning to exist.

I think you're right. Then again, I thought life had meaning when I was an atheist - I'm probably not the kind of theist you're interested in hearing from.

I guess that, irrespective of which god exists, there is a (possibly empty) class of people who claim meaning-from-God and whose god actually does exist. I think there's a sense in which these people have an absolute meaning-from-God that the others dont - they are just not able to demonstrate that they're part of the in crowd.

The feeling of meaning, since it can be just as strong when the belief is in a god that isn't there, doesn't require it is delivered from the god even in the class who are correct in their belief she exists. Other human emotions work the same way, you can fall in love just as strongly with a girl that doesn't actually exist, especially with the internet involved. Or be just as depressed over an action you misunderstood ( again the internet provides great examples of that).

Again, I agree. The only question is whether there is any "extra" meaning if the basis of the meaning-you-feel happens to be grounded in fact.

There's clearly a difference between loving a real girl and loving a fake girl (even if it's indistiguishable to you). Whether the difference lies in the former being "more authentic" love is the question.

There is no difference in the experience you are having or the feelings involved whether the girl you've fallen for is as you imagine her or actually a wart laden one legged male dwarf. How could there be?

Works the same with gods. Those whose beliefs are in a false god still have the benefits/costs of god belief. It's actually one of the modern arguments for being religious, not a good one but what can I do about that? Here's a quote from the Giberson book in the Coyne thread -

It's the practical arm of a common theist comment on here. "I can't imagine my life .... " and versions of it.

This "meaning", the subject in this thread, appears to be no different than other 'benefits' of belief ... none of which require the belief to be true. The only time the truth of it matters is if something actual is acted on by the god, he gets you the job by interfering with the free will of the employer, or he cures the cold by stepping in and killing germs. In those cases you need a real god on call but for her to give meaning to you, he can be a false one just as well.

The difference is you can't find out that the god you are believing in is not real (or at least, until you die i guess, some believe), however, you can find out that the girl you are in love with is not real.

No event has innate meaning. All experience is filtered and shaped by individual perspective. All meaning is applied by the observer.

So, all three are correct and all three are wrong.

And one said he was going upstairs and the other said he was going downstairs, so they met there.

The OP is trying to get a handle on how theists conceptualize meaning being "inserted" in them by their god/dess. It appears looking in that the bolded is correct but twenty million Iranians can't be wrong.