[infowarrior1]

(04-02-2019 05:22 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

[url=https://twitter.com/_Curcan/status/901954730636795905][/url]

Favorite Atheist Meme.

The butthurt twitter handle or that initial tweet by Onison?

[EndsExpect]

(04-01-2019 01:56 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

According to Plato's Apology, the charge of atheism was an important part of the indictment:
"Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach others to acknowledge some gods, and therefore do believe in gods and am not an entire atheist - this you do not lay to my charge; but only that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes - the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean to say that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?
I mean the latter - that you are a complete atheist."
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
Keep in mind that when we read ancient texts, we doing so with a modern mind, and so tend to project our own presuppositions (which they didn't share) into their texts.
The First Apology of Justin Martyr is actually quite interesting because it gives insight into how ancient people actually thought.
He was defending himself and responding to the Roman authorities charge of atheism against Christians. In his defense, he claims a similar charge against Socrates.
"....And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that "he was introducing new divinities;" and in our case they display a similar activity."

I think you have hit upon somewhat of a stumbling point we have when discussing history. While we have the same emotions and feelings as those ancient generations, the cultural context is missing. I believe that Socrates would reject what we call atheism today and would have been more interested in agnosticism like most of the US founding fathers. However, I cannot back that up, so your idea that he was a full blown Dick Dawkins atheist is just as likely to be valid.

I will say this... if you look at a lot of what is taught in school regarding Scientists that had issues with the Catholic church... it's mostly bullshit. Galileo is the perfect example. Many other scientists said the same thing as him. The reason the church went after him was because he made personal insults to the Pope written not in Latin, but in the common language of the people. Our school system likes to use this as anti-Christian propaganda. To make it seem like Christians have always been against science.

The truth is that without Christian influence we would have developed along the same path as the rest of the world... which is to say we would not have developed at all. Christians have from the very beginning been very interested in science and have pushed science forward to where it sits today.

(04-01-2019 03:34 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

I think the notion that the West is going to return to a Middle Ages Christian universe in wishful thinking. It's not going to happen. And Islam only offers a frozen dogma backed up by violence, which in the long run doesn't work. When Nietzsche said "God is Dead", he didn't literally mean that. He was referring to his feeling that Christian doctrine had been killed by the enlightenment. Keep in mind that Nietzsche, living in the 1800s, already had a clear understanding of what we are going through now.
My personal opinion is that the way out is to develop psychological disciplines that go way back to ancient times. Buddha recognized that speculation about metaphysical entities is not relevant to the human predicament. There is a strong tradition for this in the West and the East. The Stoics focused on one's mental psychology and the use of reason to obtain happiness. The East has developed techniques of meditation and yoga that are more advanced than anything in the West. Both the West and the East have developed copious literature on how to live an ethical life, control negative emotions, and confront powerful desires. We can't change death but it is technically feasible to be happy.

A couple interesting ideas. I think if people understood how the middle ages actually where theologically people would be shocked. I mean it wasn't uncommon for the Catholic Church to also run the local whorehouse. How many Popes had people murdered, fought wars, did political intrigue, and had families on the side.

Here is the thing... when you force everyone to be Christian then all the people who don't really believe begin to corrupt the church itself. This was the fundamental goal of the Reformation... to remove corrupting influences from the church.

Islam has the same issue today, but there is no reform movement and will likely never be one.

Regarding this idea of Logic vs. Meditation... neither brings happiness or makes a difference. In both instances you wind up dead. Eastern meditation is essentially the same as Christian prayer and mysticism. The incorporation of repetitive sounds is also similar.

[questor70]

(04-02-2019 02:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Many evil men have climbed to the top on a pile of bodies like Genghis Khan.

Read some Shakespeare. Most of the elites were consumed with trying to hold on power and usually falling in the end to usurpers, uprisings, or rival states. That has a way of tempering your overall quality of life. Also, doesn't take much reading of thet tabloids to see how modern day royalty (celebrities) don't have it as good as we might think they do. Elon Musk's life, outside of wealth and having whatever piece of ass next to his arm at a time, is a shitshow. All we see is the trappings of the status, the pussy and the bling, but it comes at a high cost.

Also, maybe reread the 100 bang thread here for what successful PUAs feel about hitting that milestone vs. how they thought they'd feel on the way up. All that glitters is not gold, as they say.

(04-02-2019 02:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Its quite an erroneous assumption that Christianity is all about doing good deeds to pass the muster of the last judgment.

I was merely reacting to the attempt made to scare atheists into believing.

(04-02-2019 02:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

If Christ did not rise from the dead. All Christianity is a lie.

I think going down the road of trying to empirically prove/disprove the supernatural misses the point of faith.

IMHO, the value in religion is in the underlying philosophies and how they can work in our day to day life while we're on this planet. The least valuable aspects of religion are dogma based on a specific ritual or formula we're supposed to perform in order to secure a spot in the afterlife. For instance, the terrorists who think by blowing themselves up they get 72 virgins.

So much of religion fixates on the afterlife because life has been nasty, brutish, and short for most of history. It was necessary for people to clutch at something that would help them feel better for all of that premature death and suffering.

Life in the first world is now concerned with the upper echelons of maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[EndsExpect]

(04-02-2019 03:52 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  

I have very little religious knowledge (13 years of state education failed me terribly) so I'm sure the wise folk on this forum can answer me this one;
I've always wondered why God (or Gods) don't unambiguously reveal themselves so that their followers would no longer have any doubts? I am not a God, but if I were I would want people to know about my presence. It's only fair. What about all those people who were alive before Jesus? are they unfairly damned? And all those on pacific islands who had no chance of hearing 'the good news'. Expecting people to just 'have faith' without evidence is a bit harsh and risks God losing a lot of otherwise very good people.
I've prayed (and will do again) but I confess it's normally because I find myself in a position where I'll take all the help I can get and want to cover all my bases. I'm sure the Creator who made me will understand this.

I would tell you that this line of reasoning would apply to Zeus or Odin. It implies human thought and reasoning behind God. The abrahamic faiths do not believe that God is just a human in the sky. Therefore human motives cannot be easily applied.

The Abrahamic faiths all tend to believe that God wants people to worship from their heart, not from fear. If God openly revealed himself then all people would acknowledge him immediately out of shear fear and the worship would be different. Essentially God will reveal himself to everyone upon death... which is something that God created for all living things. Evolutionarily speaking aging and death makes no sense... we are actually designed by our DNA to age and die. We could live much longer if we figured out how to turn senescence off.

Anyway... according to the Bible, God did reveal himself many times and people found reasons to do what they wanted anyway.

[heavy]

(04-02-2019 03:52 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  

I have very little religious knowledge (13 years of state education failed me terribly) so I'm sure the wise folk on this forum can answer me this one;

I've always wondered why God (or Gods) don't unambiguously reveal themselves so that their followers would no longer have any doubts? I am not a God, but if I were I would want people to know about my presence. It's only fair. What about all those people who were alive before Jesus? are they unfairly damned? And all those on pacific islands who had no chance of hearing 'the good news'. Expecting people to just 'have faith' without evidence is a bit harsh and risks God losing a lot of otherwise very good people.

I've prayed (and will do again) but I confess it's normally because I find myself in a position where I'll take all the help I can get and want to cover all my bases. I'm sure the Creator who made me will understand this.

Seems to me even people close to use don't unambiguously reveal themselves to us. Sure, we can use our 5 senses to know that the human being, in the physical sense, is in our presence. But what of the non-physical nature of someone...their mind for instances. We can hear their words which reflect their thoughts. We can see their actions which reflect their beliefs. But the revelation of the person, their mind, is rather ambiguous. Even our own minds are fairly ambiguous most of the time.

[infowarrior1]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 03:52 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  

I have very little religious knowledge (13 years of state education failed me terribly) so I'm sure the wise folk on this forum can answer me this one;
I've always wondered why God (or Gods) don't unambiguously reveal themselves so that their followers would no longer have any doubts? I am not a God, but if I were I would want people to know about my presence. It's only fair. What about all those people who were alive before Jesus? are they unfairly damned? And all those on pacific islands who had no chance of hearing 'the good news'. Expecting people to just 'have faith' without evidence is a bit harsh and risks God losing a lot of otherwise very good people.
I've prayed (and will do again) but I confess it's normally because I find myself in a position where I'll take all the help I can get and want to cover all my bases. I'm sure the Creator who made me will understand this.

I would tell you that this line of reasoning would apply to Zeus or Odin. It implies human thought and reasoning behind God. The abrahamic faiths do not believe that God is just a human in the sky. Therefore human motives cannot be easily applied.

The Abrahamic faiths all tend to believe that God wants people to worship from their heart, not from fear. If God openly revealed himself then all people would acknowledge him immediately out of shear fear and the worship would be different. Essentially God will reveal himself to everyone upon death... which is something that God created for all living things. Evolutionarily speaking aging and death makes no sense... we are actually designed by our DNA to age and die. We could live much longer if we figured out how to turn senescence off.

Anyway... according to the Bible, God did reveal himself many times and people found reasons to do what they wanted anyway.

True. Also presupposing the existence of God. Then "eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". Would have changed the fundamental DNA of man to make death and aging inevitable.

[infowarrior1]

(04-02-2019 10:27 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 02:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Many evil men have climbed to the top on a pile of bodies like Genghis Khan.

Read some Shakespeare. Most of the elites were consumed with trying to hold on power and usually falling in the end to usurpers, uprisings, or rival states. That has a way of tempering your overall quality of life. Also, doesn't take much reading of thet tabloids to see how modern day royalty (celebrities) don't have it as good as we might think they do. Elon Musk's life, outside of wealth and having whatever piece of ass next to his arm at a time, is a shitshow. All we see is the trappings of the status, the pussy and the bling, but it comes at a high cost.

Also, maybe reread the 100 bang thread here for what successful PUAs feel about hitting that milestone vs. how they thought they'd feel on the way up. All that glitters is not gold, as they say.

(04-02-2019 02:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Its quite an erroneous assumption that Christianity is all about doing good deeds to pass the muster of the last judgment.

I was merely reacting to the attempt made to scare atheists into believing.

(04-02-2019 02:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

If Christ did not rise from the dead. All Christianity is a lie.

I think going down the road of trying to empirically prove/disprove the supernatural misses the point of faith.

IMHO, the value in religion is in the underlying philosophies and how they can work in our day to day life while we're on this planet. The least valuable aspects of religion are dogma based on a specific ritual or formula we're supposed to perform in order to secure a spot in the afterlife. For instance, the terrorists who think by blowing themselves up they get 72 virgins.

So much of religion fixates on the afterlife because life has been nasty, brutish, and short for most of history. It was necessary for people to clutch at something that would help them feel better for all of that premature death and suffering.

Life in the first world is now concerned with the upper echelons of maslow's hierarchy of needs.

The man I referenced in my comment specifically suffered none of the maladies as far as I know in his adult life. Perhaps its true that modern day "royalty" suffer from what you describe due to the vices you have listed. But then again perhaps also its the unique conditions of today.

But also I think in particular Genghis Khan is a good leader of men and ran his empire well. His competency and wisdom in governing his people as well as his other virtues that made him successful in the 1st place to seize power:
http://www.returnofkings.com/67425/10-le...nghis-khan


One of the most meritocratic rulers in the history of the world.

Shakespeare plays highlight evil without sufficient virtue that would mitigate it.



Its therefore true that one man can be very successfully evil.



If he is competent and mixes his great evil with a lot of good. Especially if the evil is done to an outgroup.


All those celebrities you point out has a lot of vices but not a lot of virtue that would help make their lives successful.


As for Empiricism missing the point of faith. Christianity is one of the only religions that has a chief pillar of falsifiability. That is the resurrection. Noted by St Paul himself as a Chief Apostle:

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm


Empiricism in this case is absolutely required. Because Christianity itself bases its legitimacy on this.

[_Different_T]

Quote:

Expecting people to just 'have faith' without evidence is a bit harsh and risks God losing a lot of otherwise very good people.

This whole idea that it is all about "just have faith" (which seems to come from religious people as much or more than the deniers) appears very modern.

Quote:

I've always wondered why God (or Gods) don't unambiguously reveal themselves so that their followers would no longer have any doubts?

There's a pretty famous atheist named Matt Dillahunty who has lots of his work on youtube. He blatantly states that he has no idea what it would take to convince him and he probably wouldn't be convinced by anything he can think of.

[saner]

Wow. I find the arrogance and straw-manning displayed by one here to be quite vile.

I'll leave this for anyone who cares to read it.

http://godisimaginary.com/

I've been down this road with many before and the most telling thing to me is what the 'believers' have to say about what the site contains.

Edit: especially this one,
http://godisimaginary.com/i28.htm

[loremipsum]

Quote:

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your "soul" is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

Wow, such good arguments. Because a fat man says there is no soul, there mustn't be one.
Quote from site above.

[_Different_T]

Quote:

The whole notion of your "soul" is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

Are you willing to replace "soul" with "self" since you say its all a bunch of chemical reactions producing effects? To that end, would you willingly create a website called selfisimaginary.com?

If not, isn't that a bit odd?

[saner]

(04-02-2019 12:31 PM)loremipsum Wrote:  

Quote:

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your "soul" is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

Wow, such good arguments. Because a fat man says there is no soul, there mustn't be one.

Who were you quoting?

Also, are you saying there is a soul?

edit: spelling

[_Different_T]

(04-02-2019 12:38 PM)saner Wrote:  

Who were you quoting?

http://godisimaginary.com/i27.htm

[questor70]

(04-02-2019 11:06 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

The man I referenced in my comment specifically suffered none of the maladies as far as I know in his adult life.

Maybe you should start worshiping Gengis Khan then since you seem to keep attempting to hold him up as a shining pillar of might-makes-right success.

(04-02-2019 11:06 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Christianity is one of the only religions that has a chief pillar of falsifiability.

Maybe that's more of a liability than an asset. If you think 911 troother threads go in endless circles try debating whether there's actual proof of the resurrection or creationism. What religion holds up as proof and what's actual proof are two different things. It's ultimately a waste of brain-cycles. None of this filters back to give us any sort of instruction on how to live a good life.

[EndsExpect]

(04-02-2019 10:27 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

IMHO, the value in religion is in the underlying philosophies and how they can work in our day to day life while we're on this planet. The least valuable aspects of religion are dogma based on a specific ritual or formula we're supposed to perform in order to secure a spot in the afterlife. For instance, the terrorists who think by blowing themselves up they get 72 virgins.
So much of religion fixates on the afterlife because life has been nasty, brutish, and short for most of history. It was necessary for people to clutch at something that would help them feel better for all of that premature death and suffering.

This is my opinion the exact thinking that defines the Material Pill... which I believe is actually the Black Pill because the end result is always nihilism.

Nothing you do truly matters. All the happiness you capture in life is ephemeral, and soon you will be nothing but dust. Everything you are will cease to be and you will spend the rest of eternity as... nothing.

Here is the thing... you can be an atheist and believe that your life matters to other people and the environment around you and a lot of other pointless bullshittery. At the end of the day these thoughts are imaginary and pointless. As if nature as a whole gives a shit about how you live? Or other people will care when you are dead and buried. They burn your box and move the fuck on. When you are dead nobody gives a piss... because you are dead and no longer matter. A rare few impact culture and society to a point of being remembered, they have a legacy. However, they are still dead and cannot enjoy it or even know it is even happening.

So, we come to the end. Atheism is Nihilism. Atheism is the Black pill, Religion is the White Pill.

[questor70]

(04-02-2019 01:20 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Nothing you do truly matters.

Wrong. The truth is that what matters is subjective.

If you're empty inside you won't be able to look inward and find anything that matters. THAT is the black pill. And that's the sort of place people go to when they don't know who they are and what they were put on this earth to do.

The purpose of life is for everyone to figure out what they were put on this earth to do, to find their bliss, as it were. Go watch Dead Poet's Society.

(04-02-2019 01:20 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

All the happiness you capture in life is ephemeral, and soon you will be nothing but dust.

Which only makes it more precious.

Eternity is overrated. Think of Wings of Desire or the bored elves that sail to west in Middle-Earth or the treatise on mortaltiy/regret in The Last Unicorn. Some of the most precious things are things that don't last.

(04-02-2019 01:20 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

these thoughts are imaginary and pointless.

Why should I care if you or anyone else thinks they're pointless? If they matter to me, then that's all that counts. I don't need to externally validate the things I find sacred.

(04-02-2019 01:20 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Atheism is Nihilism.

For those who have a complete lack of imagination.

[_Different_T]

Quote:

Wrong. The truth is that what matters is subjective.

If you're empty inside you won't be able to look inward and find anything that matters. THAT is the black pill. And that's the sort of place people go to when they don't know who they are and what they were put on this earth to do.

The purpose of life is for everyone to figure out what they were put on this earth to do, to find their bliss, as it were. Go watch Dead Poet's Society.

Do you find it odd that you believe you subjectively decided on all of this, yet you're using words like "truth" and "put here?" Is it odd that you claim "If they matter to me, then that's all that counts" and to not "need to externally validate the things I find sacred," yet you're involved in discourse wherein the presumption is to find errors and correct them and/or persuade others?

[EndsExpect]

(04-02-2019 01:33 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Wrong. The truth is that what matters is subjective.

The purpose of life is for everyone to figure out what they were put on this earth to do, to find their bliss, as it were. Go watch Dead Poet's Society.

Eternity is overrated. Think of Wings of Desire or the bored elves that sail to west in Middle-Earth or the treatise on mortaltiy/regret in The Last Unicorn. Some of the most precious things are things that don't last.

Why should I care if you or anyone else thinks they're pointless? If they matter to me, then that's all that counts. I don't need to externally validate the things I find sacred.

Death is Objective not Subjective and it renders your "calling" in life pointless.

You were not "put on this earth" for any particular reason. There is no greater meaning behind your existence. You are the product of random probability and nothing you do will ever matter... because there is NO POINT TO ANY OF IT.

You may do as Dead Poet Society suggests and momentarily distract yourself from the objective truth. It's a great movie... and escapism is truly the only way to deal with the reality and finality of death.

You also don't need to admit to yourself the truth of what I'm putting down here. You can chase whatever makes you feel good until the time comes and you fuck off into the great unknown. Or you can realize the endless futility of it all and hang yourself in the closet like Anthony Bourdain. The both reach the same endpoint and both experiences of life are equally pointless.

Do I lack imagination? ... Perhaps. But I'm not so stupid as to think Lord of The Rings is truth.

[BortimusPrime]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Evolutionarily speaking aging and death makes no sense... we are actually designed by our DNA to age and die. We could live much longer if we figured out how to turn senescence off.

Aging is a necessary component to evolution. Think about it, if a species is immortal and any one member of that species just gets bigger and stronger as it gets older, then it will dominate over the younger members and that species will eventually be out-competed by rival species that does age and replaces its population each generation with a better-adapted version.

Some discussions in futurism I've read pointed out that a potential social problem in the far future will be if people can stop aging then the oldest generations will have huge advantages over the younger people in terms of accumulated wealth and experience. Think boomers driving up housing prices for their own benefit and screwing all the younger generations out of home ownership, but cranked up to eleven.

[_Different_T]

(04-02-2019 02:13 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Aging is a necessary component to evolution...

Some discussions in futurism I've read pointed out that a potential social problem in the far future...

Far future? Man, you sound exactly like a technocratic globalist except for the time frame. And you even provide a "scientific" justification for "intervention!"

That's odd, no?

[Valentine]

(04-02-2019 02:13 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Evolutionarily speaking aging and death makes no sense... we are actually designed by our DNA to age and die. We could live much longer if we figured out how to turn senescence off.

Aging is a necessary component to evolution. Think about it, if a species is immortal and any one member of that species just gets bigger and stronger as it gets older, then it will dominate over the younger members and that species will eventually be out-competed by rival species that does age and replaces its population each generation with a better-adapted version.

There are a number of immortal species so what you're saying doesn't make sense.

[Pride male]

Charlemagne that god once said : no one cares about the truth if the lie is more entertaining. Unfortunately a belief in god is more entertaining than atheism.

[_Different_T]

(04-02-2019 02:55 PM)Pride male Wrote:  

Charlemagne that god once said : no one cares about the truth if the lie is more entertaining. Unfortunately a belief in god is more entertaining than atheism.

This thread is kinda like a philosophical circus freak show.

[debeguiled]

(04-02-2019 03:52 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  

I've always wondered why God (or Gods) don't unambiguously reveal themselves so that their followers would no longer have any doubts? I am not a God, but if I were I would want people to know about my presence. It's only fair. What about all those people who were alive before Jesus? are they unfairly damned? And all those on pacific islands who had no chance of hearing 'the good news'. Expecting people to just 'have faith' without evidence is a bit harsh and risks God losing a lot of otherwise very good people.

God doesn't reveal himself in that way because faith and free will are a lot more important to him than they are to us.

Also, faith isn't believing any old thing without evidence.

Faith is: Getting just enough evidence to make God probable, and then filling in the rest of your belief with faith.

In the Christian tradition, God is seen as a father, and if you have ever had kids, it is easier to understand why things are set up the way they are.

With my step kids, I went out of my way to be loving and kind and fair. I would explain why I did things a lot. But after a while, I didn't want my kids asking 'why?' every time I did something they didn't understand.

My reasoning was: I have proved to you that I am older and wiser than you are and have always acted in your best interests and explained why I do what I do many many times.

At some point, you should just have faith in me because you know me and not be constantly questioning my judgement.

You have all the evidence you need that I am a good parent, so if I do something that you don't understand, give me the benefit of the doubt that I know what I am doing and that it is in your best interest.

Faith in God has a similar dynamic, and is not just naive wishful thinking.

As for the second point, people who don't know about God don't go to hell from the Christian perspective, and Paul even says so in the Bible, Romans 2:14.

He says that if someone hasn't been exposed to the Gospel, then they will be judged by their own consciences.

This verse is seldom quoted by Christians, but there it is in black and white.

People should want to follow that faith because it is a better way to live and it is the truth, not just to avoid hell.

There is a promise made in the Old Testament that if you seek God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, you will find him.

This doesn't mean you will invest so much into the quest that you will become a rat's nest of confirmation bias.

It means that you will literally find him if you make it at least somewhat of a priority in your life.

Hope this is at least a partial answer to your questions.

[Sherman]

The Stoic philosophy is that you divide things into those you can control and those you can't control and only desire the things you can control. You can't control immortality, so if you want immortality than you are wanting something you can never have. This is an error in logic. Nihilism is a consequence of an error in logic. You do have control over your own happiness. This is something that is possible. So, it is better to spend your effort on your own state of mind, because this is something you at least, with effort, have some control over. The ancient Stoic schools taught Physics, Logic, and Ethics, and they would combine the three to form a proper philosophical perspective on life.

"What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgments about the things. For example, 'death is nothing dreadful (or else it would have appeared dreadful to Socrates) . . . ' "

"To make the best out of what is in our power and take the rest as it occurs."

-- Epictetus

https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/