I think it is possible to completely refute a claim someone makes.

For example if someone says:

"All men are Mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is immortal"

You can see the latter doesn't follow. I think the same method may apply when we are analysing peoples meaning claims.

I think that lack of consensus over the meaning of life is problematic.
It faces the same situation as religion where as you could say all religions are false or only one of them is true. they can't all be true due to contradictory claims — Andrew4Handel

Maybe it's a back-door approach, but consider religions. As to that which makes it a religion, which I understand to be the inaccessible aspects, it - they - cannot be true. But does that make them false?

Ans.: no. It does not make them false, it merely makes them inconsistent with being true, as true is understood in a particular, if broad, sense.

What I'm getting at, is that religion is self-supporting. They bootstrap themselves. The way they do it is through belief.

It's pretty much a waste of time to argue the impossibility of the supernatural aspects of religion because it's not really important (although it can sell books), and no thoughtful person really cares. On the other hand, it's impossible to argue against the proposition that so-and-so (even you yourself, perhaps) believes in these things, if in fact they do believe in them. And if this belief is productive, then voila, there's your religion.

Similarly with "the meaning of life." If you find meaning in it, then it's meaningful. Simple, yet difficult.

I suppose one person could be right in his or her view of reality.

There might be right answer but we don't know it.
I don't think any of the mainstream ideologies I have heard of are right.

I think it is not good to compromise and have a meaning fudge or abandon the truth. I don't think it should of a survival of the fittest idea/ideology.

Here is bad example of compromise. Christian and Muslim groups came together in the UK to oppose gay rights including gay marriage. They forgot their differences temporarily to unite in prejudice. There may be positive examples of similar collaborations however the principle is the same.

It a principle of compromise of integrity and coherence.

As to that which makes it a religion, which I understand to be the inaccessible aspects, it - they - cannot be true. — tim wood

The problem is that they can't all simultaneously be true. I suppose any religion or ideology could contain some isolated truths but as a whole belief system they challenge each other.

I am a general agnostic and I think we should acknowledge when we don't know something and look for false beliefs. To me an agnostics stance helps protect against false beliefs and ideologies.

The stronger claims a person makes the more they invite challenge and scrutiny, but not compromise and fudge and appeasement, and political correctness.

I find the idea of pandering to peoples beliefs that you think are false or are even totally opposed to is servile and degrading. (Of course if attacking these beliefs you need you need your own good reasons.)

As to that which makes it a religion, which I understand to be the inaccessible aspects, it - they - cannot be true.
— tim wood

The problem is that they can't all simultaneously be true. — Andrew4Handel

The fact is that none of them can be true. That is, the inaccessible aspects, no matter the religion, cannot be true. If any (such aspect) were true, then the religion would quickly cease to be a religion - it might become a commercial enterprise, a historical curiosity, or it might just disappear entirely. But no religion can withstand being revealed as merely true. That is, true as a matter of fact.As a matter of belief, well, people believe all kinds of things. It's the impenetrable mystery; take away the mystery, and the religion as a religion, dies.