What's the Point of Life?
Think about it. What's the point of anything if everything is about pleasure and personal desires. Even the desire to do good. Like Ivan said in The Brothers Karamazov, everything's permissible. What's the point of a moral atheist? Man's Search For Meaning talks about goals as the point, but human reproduction is just as pointless and so is having children. What's your opinion on this?
Having children is certainly not pointless. The male point of view is exactly that. If having children were pointless; your parents, your grandparents, their parents and so on. Did nothing with their lives? Those children who grew up to do great things. Invent airplains, build buildings, cure disease. Even the average person contributes to society. Whether that contribution is good or bad it's still something. Even if all you can do is write a depressing book or blog about why having children or being alive is pointless. There is a reason most people have children and it's not because its pointless.
Most people are driven by creation. Be it life, art, work. One thing those certainly are not, are pointless.
Why we exist? The point of living? Thinking about why we exist is the most human question out there. I very much doubt a snail ponders their existence. There is no clear answer to such a question. It's not about why we are here. It's about what we do while we are here.
Well, as I'm sure you well know, this is a hard question to answer, because there's so much that can be said here, but to start off: there is obviously no simple answer, nor is there really a right or wrong answer. The meaning of life depends on who you ask, which philosophers you study, which schools of philosophical thought resonate with you most.... And then you have the sociological aspects that heavily play into this as well. So! Definitely not an easy question to succinctly answer, that's for sure. I would recommend engaging with different works from various philosophers from different branches of philosophy to see how it may influence, change, or inspire your thoughts on the topic. It sounds like philosophy may really interest you.
Personally, my favorite branch of philosophy is philosophical ethics. I absolutely love it and I love reading material in this field. It might interest you! My advice would be, and seriously, I mean this: if you are interested in philosophy, its usually best to read the texts written by the philosophers themselves rather than having someone else tell you what to think about it. That way you can ensure you have a more accurate understanding or familiarity with the texts and the ideas they present.
But, to actually more specifically get to your question, the sociologist in me has to say that the meaning of life is, essentially, dependent upon what societal roles and expectations exist in the society in which you live, because social institutions and societal attitudes heavily influence us. If you asked someone on the street, "what's the meaning of life? what's the point of life?" they might say it's about being happy, achieving personal success, etc. But what we consider "personal success" to be is heavily influenced by our social institutions that shape our attitudes and day to day lives.
I'd recommend reading some Kierkegaard ("Sickness Unto Death" I personally enjoy), or maybe some Camus... Camus (to crassly summarize some of his ideas) more or less asserts that, in pursuit of ascertaining what life's meaning or purpose is, humans are uniquely absurd because we externally look for values and meaning in the world, which is ultimately indifferent to us. In other words, there are no values or meanings outside of us as humans and how we conceptualize ethics and morality and meaning and purpose.
Also, Hume's is-ought distinction is also probably one of the most important things to start with. I've asked someone before what they consider to be fundamentally moral, to which they said "scientific truth." This is where the importance of Hume's is-ought distinction (also known as Hume's Fork or sometimes Hume's Guillotine) come into play. Science can give us facts about what is, but those facts alone do not provide the ought. For instance, medical science has long demonstrated that smoking cigarettes leads to increased risk for lung cancer. This is a fact based on scientific research, as you well know. But you can't extrapolate anything about what you ought to do based on this fact alone. You need a philosophical framework through which to derive what we ought to do based on our knowledge of this fact. What ought we do with this scientific fact? Ought we ban the production and consumption of cigarettes completely? Ought we allow individuals of a certain age to make the personal choice about whether to smoke? Ought we educate the public about the risks smoking can cause?
Anyway, this comment is far too long and probably is boring and not what you were hoping for in a response, hah, so sorry about that. I encourage you to jump into philosophical ethics! You may find it very enriching. Best of luck to you!