I have had discussions with a number of religious people about things like the meaning of life. I don't remember any of them telling me that I had a bleak outlook on life or that I have nothing to live for. That's not to say that no religious people ever make those claims. But, then, some atheists make similar claims, for instance, Alex Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality, reviewed at skepticink:

So, is Oliver Shore tired of being told this? Or, is he only tired of being told this by the religious? And, if religious people do indeed tell him this, are they actually telling him that his life has no transcendent purpose? And, would he agree that his life has no transcendent purpose?

Camus certainly argued strongly that a life that is doomed to end is an absurd life. And he struggled with finding a meaning for such a life. True, Camus did find meaning, but no one who has read him should argue that finding such meaning is either easy or clear-cut. If Shore has struggled with this question and answered it, he should not be surprised that religious people, who don't accept the absurdity of life and have not had to struggle with this question, don't see a satisfactory answer. Indeed, Shore should enjoy enlightening people about his insights and their lack of understanding.

Camus' thoughts about the meaning of an absurd life, for example, in The Myth of Sisyphus, are inspiring.

What I find unsupportable here though is his statement that the brevity and finality of life is ipso facto an imperative to do . . . . good . . . . or whatever. Frankly, if anything, it strikes me as a push.

If the atheist believes that he only has a few decades of life, then he can be driven to make the most of those decades. I'm not sure, though, exactly how anyone can do that. I'm especially not sure what Shore means when he says: If you believe that this is your one shot at life, then that gives you all the more incentive to squeeze absolutely as much as you can from it as you can while you’re still here.

Squeeze absolutely as much as you can from it? As much sleep and relaxation? Earn as much money as possible? Learn about the universe? Absolutely as much as you can is somewhat of a vague description of purpose. Shore might share some of his ambitions with us and tell us how they convey meaning to him. Yes, live with as much love and friendship as we can. But, how does that compare to the belief that love and friendship extend beyond death? Could a religious person claim that love and friendship that ends, love and friendship that is temporary, does not compare to love and friendship that doesn't end? There is, at the the very least, an argument there.

I believe that finding meaning in a temporary life is more difficult than finding meaning in a permanent life. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that therefore life is permanent. A better response from an atheist might be to concede that eternal life gives us more meaning, but just because the religious believe they have eternity does not mean that they do; and so, from the atheist's point of view, the religious belief in an eternal life only conveys the illusion of meaning. It can be argued that a temporary, but real, meaning trumps the illusion of an eternal meaning.

In the end, I think we all need to struggle to find meaning. Personally, I wouldn't want to attempt to judge the meaning that someone else finds for his own life. I also don't think any realistic person can claim to have won the epistemological battle.

"squeeze absolutely as much as you can from it as you can while you’re still here."

What's wrong with simply living your time, knowing it is short? Stoicism versus epicureanism.

The other problem is that different people want to squeeze different things. Our brief time is spent negotiating.

What he considers is the lesson, that "it just means that we should each create a meaning of our own. A meaning that is in accordance with the respect we have for other human beings who are trying to do exactly the same thing" is, ironically, idealism in the face of material finality.

It is a simple refutation of the assertion that the "atheist worldview" is bleak, empty, pointless or whatever other synonym you can think of. It comes up A LOT in our discussions with theists and it is frankly just as insulting as the assertion that atheists are immoral.

But he doesn't really establish why life with death is better than life with the hope of something beyond death. He bolsters his assertion with the strawman that theists essentially ignore their lives while awaiting paradise.

And he has some preconceptions that he hasn't thought through. For instance, where does "the privilege of being conscious" come from? There is no privilege in nature. The King of the Jungle is just fantasy.

No, his assertion is that we have one life and we'd best live it well. And? It's also a sentiment expressed by countless believers.

straight people.

Some do, some don't and who gives a rat's ass anyway.

Being a believer or non-believer isn't about getting a one up on the other. It's not about being smarter or more sane or more moral or more able to have a "better life".

It's just where one finds themselves based on their own life and their own experiences and possibly even their own biology.

How you live and behave is the money shot, not what you believe.