Daily reminder that atheism breeds nihilism and nihilism breeds depression

Daily reminder that atheism breeds nihilism and nihilism breeds depression.

Attached: smug blonde anime girl.png (640x360, 161K)

but what if I'm an agnostic deist and a nihilist?

Why are Christian's so anxious all the time?

What a load of horseshit.
1.) Atheism and nihilism are unrelated as one can derive or create many reasons to live even without a God. So godlessness doesn't inherently indicate a lack of meaning or purpose, but rather a difference in where that meaning comes from.
2.) Nihilism is a totally ambiguous philosophy. It can be positive or negative. You can be either an optimistic or a pessimistic nihilist. So nihilism doesn't inherently breed depression.
3.) Depression is more than just sadness. It's a chemical imbalance, one that can be seen with the right equipment. Becoming religious will not suddenly 'cure' your depression. Therapy and/or medication will.

>nihilism + being a faggot breeds depression
ftfy. you're just a fucking pussy.

Because there's a lot to be worried about.
>Worried about going to Hell.
>Worried about the degeneration of society.
>Worried about Satan's influence.
>Worried about your friends.
>Worried about your family.
>Worried about interpreting the Bible correctly.
>etc

Not necessarily. Are you a Jordan Peterson fan? Sounds like one of his arguments.

I can personally tell you that that is a bullshit lie spread in mostly christian youth circles. I have been both. I am far happier and have far more energy and effort to spare helping others and havng a more positive outlook without worrying about your fictional ideas of hell and appeasing a wrathful god. Lacking one particular religion does not automatically equal lack of moral scope. That is a complete misconception. It comes from a lack of trust in ones own ability to know right from wrong and lack of trust in ones own ability to develop their own view of the world. I am sorry you don't know how to trust yourself in doing so.

>Worried about interpreting the Bible correctly.
man that would suck. imagine going to hell for all eternity because you couldn't figure out what the fuck some schizo sandnigger was rambling about

ITT: Hoes mad because OP told the truth for once in his life.

But atheism really does breed nihilism, and if nothing matters, how can you help but be anything BUT depressed?
There is literally nothing wrong about this statement

>Bu... But, how can I be happy and moral without a magical kike

This, but unironically.
You can't be happy without God. That's literally the definition of Hell. The absence of God's love.

do you even realize how gay you sound

>no argument

Neither of you can see your own logical inconsistencies.

"Atheism really does breed nihilsm." This is wholly and completely untrue. If you can't accept my anecdote as a reason to even consider that this may not be true then you are too far gone.

"nothing matters" again this is wholly untrue. This is a manipulation given to you from pastors and the bible. It is fully possible to have a moral scope, a purpose, and meaning without your god and your holy book. People found meaning and purpose both with other religions and without religions both in history before your religion, during it, and after and will continue to do so. Its just not the truth I am sorry.

And the second post.
"You can't be happy without God." Completely wrong. People in other religions and without religion regularly report happyness, joy, and comfort.

You believe in hell being the abscense of Gods love. Ask yourself why a loving god chose to create such a paradigm if not for control. Good day.

This with the addition of a fuck ton of sports/exercise.

>Neither of you can see your own logical inconsistencies.
Because there are none.
>"Atheism really does breed nihilsm." This is wholly and completely untrue. If you can't accept my anecdote as a reason to even consider that this may not be true then you are too far gone.
unironically presenting anecdotal "evidence"
>"nothing matters" again this is wholly untrue. This is a manipulation given to you from pastors and the bible. It is fully possible to have a moral scope, a purpose, and meaning without your god and your holy book. People found meaning and purpose both with other religions and without religions both in history before your religion, during it, and after and will continue to do so. Its just not the truth I am sorry.
No, without religion there's no moral structure.
>And the second post.
>"You can't be happy without God." Completely wrong. People in other religions and without religion regularly report happyness, joy, and comfort.
Do you have sources for this claim? No? Hm.
>You believe in hell being the abscense of Gods love. Ask yourself why a loving god chose to create such a paradigm if not for control. Good day.
An attempt to defy God's control is an unwise and futile one.

this was written by OP
I like hell then
>"REEEE GOD"
>"no argument"
I'd like to chime in on you and tell you that I have no moral structure but choose to treat people in argueably good ways because I wish to, and not because god will kill me with thunder and rocks if I don't. I am not theistic, and am happy, I testify for user, and thus am a source for his claim.

I don't need to believe in a falsehood in order for my life to have meaning.

>I like hell then
You think you do, but you don't.
Hell is absolute misery.
>I'd like to chime in on you and tell you that I have no moral structure but choose to treat people in argueably good ways because I wish to, and not because god will kill me with thunder and rocks if I don't.
Without moral structure, there's no "good" or "bad." So this is a blatant lie.

>atheism
>not a falsehood
Mkay.

>I'd like to chime in on you and tell you that I have no moral structure
This was a mistake to say.
You do have a moral structure, it just isn't derived from religion. Saying you have no moral structure is a huge misstep that will cost you the entire debate.

*tips*

>this is a blatant lie
this is a blatant lie
I put "argueably" in there because, as I said, I have no impressive moral structure, but others do, and they can judge my behavior, and I deem my behavior worthy of a positive judgement from other people, based on my past experiences.
Even if I was lying, by you judging me for a lie, you have given my actions moral value, for example.
Also
>You don't enjoy hell
If you define my current state of life as hell with the reason that it is bad, and I say "your reason is invalid, as my life is not bad", you cannot continue with "logically, since your life is hell, it is bad", because this is logical chain where A->B->A that has no start, and you are merely making a claim without using information to support it.
Possible, I am willing to take the risk. The point of a debate to me is to achieve more knowledge in cooperation with my opponent, if this was not their intention from the start, then anything I propose has very little meaning, if they however wish to learn with me, then making mistakes is allowed.
Also, I am using their logic to argument, since it will be more native for them. If they say atheists cannot have moral structure, then I, as an atheist, may have a hard time convincing them otherwise. Instead, I will just assume they are right on this first, and then see where I can get.

Science and is our best understanding of the natural world.

>I put "argueably" in there because, as I said, I have no impressive moral structure, but others do, and they can judge my behavior, and I deem my behavior worthy of a positive judgement from other people, based on my past experiences.
The problem is that since there's no distinct definition of, "good," on your end, literally any action at all could be "arguably" 'good,' because you're treating 'good' as a subjective and not an objective.
Murdering kittens could qualify as "good" as far as your lack of moral structure goes. This is why we need religion.
So it's a lie not because I deem your actions 'bad,' but because you're qualifying your actions as being "good" with no actual rubric as to what "good" even is.
>If you define my current state of life as hell with the reason that it is bad
That's not how I define your current state.
Living and hell are different states. You currently live in a world full of God's love, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it. Hell is a place in the afterlife wherein there is an absence of God's love.
The absence of God's love is misery. Misery is Hell. Hell is miserable.
You don't like Hell as much as you think you do.

Good. Science and atheism are unrelated, though.
Christian Science is the most logical understanding of the planet and the afterlife that we can develop.

You're right about that first half, but by the same logic, art could not exist, as we lack a unified, objective definition of beauty as well. Argueably, all things defined are defined loosely, since the only way we can define words in language is with yet more words. It is obvious from the context that I didn't try to inform you that I murder kittens, but rather that I give it my best to help other people, even strangers in certain cases, achieve their personal life goals.
Yes, you could argue that these life goals are immoral as well, making my actions immoral yet again, but if the general public is immoral, then the concept of moral in itself becomes crooked.
So, as evident, I have not lied, since I can argue that my actions are good (see above), whether or not that is successful is a matter of your juristriction.
>You don't like Hell as much as you think you do
I probably won't, but the interior logical chain was what caused me to claim that "I like hell", it was to express that I enjoy my current state of living immensely despite entertaining an atheists philosophy, and if that is labeled hellish, then hellish is preferable to me, if not, then it isn't, we agree, and there is no real argument here.

In science we tend to only believe in something if there is some pretty strong evidence to support the premise.

>we lack a unified, objective definition of beauty as well.
We lack a unified, objective definition of beauty because beauty is, in itself, subjective. Goodness isn't. Goodness is defined by a clear moral structure, something that can only be defined religiously.
Without religion, there's only chaos, and goodness is something that can't exist in a purely chaotic environment.
You are a proponent of Satan and, ostensibly, a liar. I won't entertain your delusions further.

Christian Science bears the same objective.

>You're right about that first half, but by the same logic, art could not exist, as we lack a unified, objective definition of beauty as well.
Jesus kid, just stop. Art doesn't have to be beautiful and that analogy isn't even good.
Forfeit the debate already. Go away, form your points more clearly instead of ad-libbing, and come back stronger for the next guy who makes similar points.
But this shit, whatever it is, is poor form.

>goodness is defined by a clear religious structure
If you define goodness by the will of a creator, then it is irrelevant, since the creator forged the environment. All desireable qualities are a plot device on their own accord, and logically, this then has the same value as "fitness" from the theory of evolution.
Also, if you define goodness by how religious someone is, then yes, atheist people cannot live good. That is the same as saying "1+2=3 is true", as it's only true because you decided it is, because you defined it that way.
Obviously, satanic is anything not god, and thus, is everything, because otherwise, good would exist without god, and you have forbidden that. In that case, I am rightfully indifferent to being a proponent of Satan.
I put more thought into art and beauty than I can express in fucking Sup Forums textwalls in a foreign language, give me a break. I'm not here to use flawless logic in a context that isn't even based on the same world view I have, I'm here to gain insight.

>I'm not here to use flawless logic in a context that isn't even based on the same world view I have,
Then you really shouldn't have started posting in this thread with a posture that suggests debate.
>I'm here to gain insight.
See previous. If that were true, you'd just read the opinions of others and, maybe, ask questions. But that's not at all reflective of your behaviors, which leads me to believe your actual intentions were debate.
But...you're bad at debate, so...?

I am particularily bad at debate if the quality of the debate becomes object of the debate.

I...OK.

Attached: disbelief over how fucking stupid that is.jpg (700x520, 84K)