Should one lie to one's self to achieve happiness/meaning?

[descendancy0]

I am a very depressed/depressing sixteen year old, with a repellingly pessimistic personality and no meaning in life. I am also an Atheist Vegan, and used to be a devout Christian alter boy, because I found the idea of one's personality and memories rotting away alongside their body too depressing, and I liked the idea of seeing my loved ones when I die. I believe my Atheism is a positive result of critical thinking and a search for truth in my existence, but the more questions I asked the less answers were available, leading me to dead ends such as solipsism and the questioning if morality or rights even exist (Of which I have no conclusive avail). If there is no meaning to life and we are a happy coincidence, a theory I subscribe to, should one lie to themselves to feel better about existence in general in the pursuit of happiness? I disagree with the statement that one has to make their own meaning in life, because it's like saying that although rocks have no meaning, you have to make up your own meaning for rocks, and it leads down to why 3000 year old Jewish tribesmen invented their omniscient god, in an attempt to explain life and give it meaning. So if it makes so many oblivious and blindly trusting Christians happy that they have an invisible, loving, all knowing God with a plan and a happy reward for them when they die, why shouldn't anyone else do so? If it's irrational to cry for every starving child in third world countries, why shouldn't we be irrational anyway and lie to ourselves, and convince ourselves that it rains candy in the congo and starving children do not exist? Why is irrationality so bad if it achieves happiness for an individual? If it leads to immoral things like people killing other people and convincing themselves it's perfectly ok to do so, why should rationality or morality be even taken into consideration? Please do not reply with something along the lines of 'Its life, deal with it' because I really don't think I can anymore. Thank you for reading my ramblings.

[miniboes]

Hi descendancy, I am 16 too and was pretty depressed for a couple of years due to bullying and the resulting lack of confidence. It had nothing to do with atheism, but I think I understand what you're going through. There is no cure-all way to go about depression, but I would recommend seeing a therapist. Do you eat healthy and exercise? Those things could definitely help too.

On the meaning of life, I really don't think the Christian god makes that question any better. If there was an omnipotent god with a plan we'd all just be pawns in his game, we could change nothing as he has a plan and is going to make it happen. Even if we could, our lives would not really matter as we will live eternally afterwards anyway. If you believe in an afterlife, losing that belief makes it feel like something is taken from you, but I think your life gets much more meaning knowing it is finite. In the years you live, you get the opportunity to experience our amazing world and do the best you can to leave it a better place, as you have begun to do by going vegan.

[Jebus]

How I would love to be 16 again with my whole life in front of me. It saddens me to learn about people who are not able to appreciate this time of their lives.

I don't lie to myself in order to stay happy, but I try not to think about all the horrible things that I know are going on every second.

Regarding the meaning of life we will never have a definitive answer. My personal meaning in life is to try to live a long and happy life while also reducing as much suffering as possible among others. I think that I will continue to feel life satisfaction as long as I can reduce a bit of the worldwide suffering.

[descendancy0]

Sure, but from a Christian perspective, it's like a parent having a plan for their child. Ignoring any obvious fallacies of who this God is, why he apparently made us, and why he's invisible and our only evidence for him is a 3000 year old story book, isn't the idea (if not thought about critically nor with any skeptisism) very comforting? And at Jebus's reply, ignoring all the horrible things that you know are going on and trying to stay happy, sounds pretty familiar. Like what fundamentalists say about the Bible or the Quran. If there actually was an all knowing god, who was morally superior than us because as humans we couldn't possibly fathom his intellect, and he loved you and lets just say for argument sake the whole heaven/hell deal isn't fear mongering, would you not feel comforted? Because Christians feel comforted. And rather than challenge their environment, they look for reasons to hold onto that comfort. It's like the idea of Santa Claus or Halloween. We know ghouls won't spare our lives in return for candy, and we know a bearded man who watches us all the time and flies around the sky doesn't exist, but isn't the idea that they do interesting, comforting/ 'good' scary, and oddly brings meaning to those traditions? So why not live a lie with happiness and comfort if the alternative is to know more about the world around you, yet realise you're just a meaningless speck that is adapted poorly to its dangerous surroundings?

[brimstoneSalad]

but the more questions I asked the less answers were available, leading me to dead ends such as solipsism and the questioning if morality or rights even exist (Of which I have no conclusive avail).

Morality exists; it is not a substance, but a concept. Just like selfishness exists. Morality is concern for others. Rights are constructs of society; they don't exist in and of themselves. Morality may suggest that we give others rights, but only where the consequences to that act are more helpful than harmful. Because rights are absolutist, they are not usually a useful way of thinking about morality, but rather a consequence of moral society. We give rights because it's useful, not because it's inherent.

Solipsism is morally false. While there is arguably a universe out there in which you are all alone and suffering delusion of company, there are also universes out there (far outnumbering those in which you are alone) where you have legitimate company. In order to be moral, you must assume that this universe you are experiencing is one in which you have company, since a moral person will not risk harm to others on the grounds that there's an outside chance that they might be delusions.
It's the same reason you don't run over a box that says "kittens" on it with your car. Are there kittens in the box? Maybe not. But you shouldn't run over it unless you're pretty sure there aren't (like, you checked). You can't prove the universe is solipsistic, and reason suggests otherwise (given the astronomically small chance of your consciousness popping into existence in an otherwise empty universe).

If there is no meaning to life and we are a happy coincidence, a theory I subscribe to, should one lie to themselves to feel better about existence in general in the pursuit of happiness?

Lying to yourself is not useful, because you ultimately know it's a lie. It's also not useful to do things with the goal of becoming happy. Happiness is a consequence of pursuing meaning for other reasons.

Spend your life helping others, and before you know it you'll become happy without realizing it. If you only help others to make yourself happy, however, it won't work.

See: The Paradox of Hedonism

I disagree with the statement that one has to make their own meaning in life, because it's like saying that although rocks have no meaning, you have to make up your own meaning for rocks, and it leads down to why 3000 year old Jewish tribesmen invented their omniscient god, in an attempt to explain life and give it meaning.

What? No.

If you want to use a rock, you have to decide what you want to use it for. If you use it to hammer in a nail, that rock becomes a hammer (albeit a very crude one). Your life means whatever use it is put to. Make meaning in your life by doing.

You don't fabricate meaning by making stuff up. That's not meaning, that's delusion.

So if it makes so many oblivious and blindly trusting Christians happy that they have an invisible, loving, all knowing God with a plan and a happy reward for them when they die, why shouldn't anyone else do so?

Because it's immoral. It's also not useful, because you already know it's bullshit. You can't just snap your fingers are legitimately believe in Santa.

Most Christians are not very happy; a large number of them also know their beliefs are bullshit, deep down. They have crises of faith regularly, which are deeply unpleasant experiences, as well as a constant struggle to fight cognitive dissonance between what they know to be nonsense and what they try to believe.

The world is deeply confusing and scary to Christians.

If it's irrational to cry for every starving child in third world countries, why shouldn't we be irrational anyway and lie to ourselves, and convince ourselves that it rains candy in the congo and starving children do not exist? Why is irrationality so bad if it achieves happiness for an individual?

It's selfish. It's bad because an accurate understanding of reality is required to do good in the world. If you think fish are drowning in the ocean, you may spend your life unwittingly doing harm by beaching fish and leaving them to suffocate. That would make you evil. Not knowing you're evil doesn't change that.

If it leads to immoral things like people killing other people and convincing themselves it's perfectly ok to do so, why should rationality or morality be even taken into consideration?

Assuming a person accepts that morality exists, then morality typically dictates "should" by its nature, by the definition of "should".
We should do right, because it's right to do so, and that's what should deals in.

should (sho͝od)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

When we're speaking philosophically or metaphysically, that obligation or duty is toward ethics, morality, or generally right action.

In the past this has been a bigger issue, but is becoming less contentious today.

For more context, you can check out: The Is-Ought Problem