How is that contradictory?
Rather you suggest those who are not special shouldn't hold an opinion, as if you seem to be the arbiter of that.
You've missed my point. I didn't suggest that some people are special and entitled to opinions while others are not. That would be dehumanizing.
If you just read what I wrote you will see that I suggested the exact opposite. All human beings are special. The ability of humans to have an opinion is strong evidence for this.
You claimed it is a fact, in the context of existence, that no one is special. But your ability to make this claim actually indicates your specialness. This is what seemed contradictory to me. This was the point I was making.
My belief that all human beings are special should not be surprising to you, as you inferred this is what theists hold to.
Additionally, it seemed a bit contradictory for you to tell Gozpel that you had a problem with his question because, "
it's a question many theists like to ask because they think they know everything, as well as how you should live your life" and then you proceed to tell him, "
it's your life, you decide what to do with it" (which is telling him how to live his life).
I never said there was no point to Gozpel's existence, but there is no point to anyone's existence, including mine, in an objective sense. Everyone is going to have a subjective take on their own existence.
It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want the benefits of being able to dismiss any "point to your existence" when your conscience conflicts with your desires, while at the same time acting in accordance to your own purposes (as informed by your desires) under the guise of having your own subjective take. But if you take "no point to existence" to it's logical conclusion then you shouldn't be acting/doing anything.
Having a subjective take on say your favorite pizza topping makes sense. But denying an objective point to your existence seems equivalent to denying you exist. If the best you can do is create a subjective take on your own existence... then isn't this just an illusion? And then aren't you just an illusion? Certainly not, you know that you exist. But what are you tethered to?
The problem is when someone asks this question, it's going to invite people to suggest to those asking this very question how they should live their lives. For example, I say to Gozpel, you should live a happy, successful (as in wealthy), make friends and find love. Seems like a simple, harmless answer to that question, right? Unfortunately not.
Every positive answer to the question has its own problems. If you believe the meaning of life is to achieve happiness, then you would do anything to achieve happiness. In other words, if you take in a broad and more sinister sense, you could achieve happiness through pure sadism or schadenfreude. If you believe the meaning of life is to be wealthy, then that could suggest by any means necessary. If you believe having friends is important, then you must maintain your social network in such a way as to avoid disappointment from your friends, or worse, exclusion. If you believe the meaning of life is to find love, then, similar to wealth, it would be what sort of love and whether that love is healthy. Further, you would need to work really hard to find a partner and every time you feel rejection, it would make you feel really bad. Some people could use that answer to use love in a more manipulative sense. Suggesting any positive answer, which would often be a broad answer, would result in a variety of interpretations. It might give people focus, but it's a false and unnecessary target or goal and if they fail, it leads to an existential crisis.
If you give people that answer, they believe that their life must be successful in this way, otherwise they're a failure, which may cause more anxiety and, in some extreme circumstances, suicide. We've got so much anxiety in the world. Providing a positive answer might give someone focus but it would also stress them out, especially if they feel they're not achieving that meaning.
I agree that all of those pursuits you mentioned are meaningless vanities, like rings of smoke that can't be grasped. None of them will satisfy, none will ultimately provide any meaning. They might feel good in the moment but will always leaving you wanting. Did you check out Ecclesiastes?
Of course, theists would use these broad answers and detect that the answers are not subject to moral constraint and therefore, the discussion naturally moves to religion, as if to suggest you can achieve that meaning only with a set of moral rules deriving from a religion. You see? This question just a typical trick by theists into lulling mentally vulnerable people into joining their faith.
I'm a theist and I don't believe a person achieves meaning by following a set of moral rules, derived from religion or otherwise.
I add a "disclaimer" because someone would retort my post by saying "ok then, I may as well go kill myself or do something stupid then". My point is that you decide how to live your life and you must take responsibility for it.
Ok, I can see how adding that qualification preempts someone from attacking your position in that way. But wouldn't someone saying "I may as well go kill myself or someone else" be perfectly consistent with them deciding on how to live their life and taking responsibility for it? And how could anyone object to them doing those things (or even have an opinion about them) if you think there is no point to anyone's existence in an objective sense.
if you want a strict biological, emotionless answer to the question "what is the meaning of life", it perhaps be similar to finding love, but more specifically sex for the purpose of reproduction and nothing else, coupled with survival instincts.
Ah, ok. So you do think there might be a point to existence after all.
