You say:
No, he argues that without God there is no meaning, value, or purpose and arrives at an opinion.
No. You are entirely wrong. Please read the article. Craig cites the leading atheist (i.e. those with whom he is ostensibly arguing as a theist) to show that THEY are saying the same thing. The leading atheist thinkers acknowledge that there is no meaning, value, or purpose apart from a God.
Therefore it is NOT Craig’s “opinion,” but the opinion of leading thinkers of BOTH sides of the debate. So if you are expressing yourself as an atheist, kindly inform me of precisely what qualifications you have to correct famous atheists such as Frederick Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sarte, Jacques Monot, Samuel Beckett, Albert Camus, Stephen Jay Gould, and the host of other leading atheist thinkers Craig cites in his article. I would very much like to know why you believe you understand the subject matter better than these men.
Gould, for example, has argued that bacteria have as much “meaning” as human beings, and that since evolution didn’t intentionally “evolve” human intelligence it has no ultimate “value.”
It is simply an objective fact - which both sides’ intellectuals accept - that there is no ultimate purpose, value, or meaning apart from God and eternity.
Craig’s purpose was specifically NOT to “arrive at an opinion,” but rather to point out a stark fact: that apart from God there IS no meaning, value, or purpose to human existence, and to allow the listener/reader to deal with the implications of that reality.
Atheism simply means not believing in the existence of god, although some people who call themselves atheists behave as if it is a religion and act as if their is an atheist Church.
Thre are no "leading atheists"
I believe in God, but it is based on faith. There is no rational proof of the existence of God. I am a Christian, but it is based on faith that the Bible is true, not on any objective proof that Christianity is any more valid than Buddhism.
I believe that faith is an individual thing. I believe that you cannot convert a true atheist or devout believer in another belief system by insulting them or by falsely stating their position. Conversion comes through leading by example.
Mr. Craig ignores the fact that the majority of people on Earth are not Christians and most would argue that their lives are neither meaningless nor lack value or purpose.
The largest problem I have with the essay, however, is that the author summarizes by using the "better choice" argument. This reduces everything else he said to nonsense. It's like tossing salt over your left shoulder and saying, "I really don't believe it, but better safe than sorry!
How can anyone really be famous when discussing the unknown? Everyone’s theory is as valid as anyone elses. The only difference between famous people that talk about the unknow and other people, is that they are well-known, not that they know anything about the unknown.