Just because you're born into a religion, or take on a religion's philosophies and your life improves, does not mean that this is the word of god, nor does it mean the religious text can be considered entirely the truth. Your life might improve having taken on e.g hindu philosophies, yet this does not mean you're guaranteed to get into heaven. Choosing your faith is important. Pascal's wager states that in the case of having 2 people, an atheist and a believer in God: the atheist will either just disappear at death, or will burn in hell. The believer will either just disappear at death, or will inherit the gift of heaven. The atheist will have a neutral outcome or a horrible one, meanwhile the believer will have a neutral outcome or a great one. The point of this concept is not to force you to believe in God, it's purpose is providing you one logical reason on why you should consider that there might be a god. If you believe that you were made in god's image with his conscience you should be able to apply skepticism to each religion and decide which one you think has the strongest case. This means looking for and fleshing out clear historical and moral contradictions, you don't need to study the philosophies inside and out for each one, you can get to that once you have good reason to believe a given religion does hold the truth of the universe.

Hello today I practiced law 1 (never outshine the master) and what I have noticed is people show their true colours when you make them feel higher maybe they will just keep using you or maybe you might achieve higher let's see and find out. What do you guys think? And did this law ever work out for you?

Everyone is suffering from a problem you don't see everyday, you and I are suffering from somthing we don't know. Let's keep the peace.

I came in expecting people who actually care about what Mr Ramboh talks about, people trying to build something, get better, move with intention. Instead, it’s like I walked into a daycare for grown adults. Half the people here can’t put together a coherent sentence, but somehow have the confidence to ask the most retarded questions like they just discovered thinking yesterday. And the rest? Elite squad of loser nerds hosting philosophy TED Talks, debating the meaning of life like it’s a full-time job, instead of, you know, actually doing anything meaningful with theirs. No direction, no standards, no urgency. Just a whole lot of fucking static noise dressed up as “deep thinking.” Yeah… I think I’ve seen enough. Time to upgrade my tier, because this ain’t it. Thank you for understanding :)

I am gonna be completely honest i am not really "knowledgeable" in this subject but i tried to search about it online, online it read that philosophy is a "systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, knowledge, mind, reason, language, and value." At least that is what wikipedia said. So that means that if someone questions knowledge ,mind ,reason ,language or value is a philosopher? I am kind of lost here. it just feels like "Philosopher" is a big title and giving this title to someone just because he asked "what is the reason of life?" seems a bit ridiculous to me, and i am not saying it out of ignorance or just trying to hate. I am genuinely trying to learn and kind of understand this subject. I learned from the introduction video that a philosopher isn't someone that just doesn't do anything all day and "thinks", so i feel like i am missing something, even now when checking online the meaning of a philosopher it gives that a "philosopher is a thinker who systematically studies profound questions regarding existence, knowledge, ethics, reason, and mind". but what exact studies can you do on questions that don't even have an exact answer to them? It sounds goofy because that is kind of how math and physics work if i am not wrong. But how more can you expand about questions like "Do we have free will?" or "is there a universal basis for morality?" because those questions are kind of opinion based at least in my personal opinion. (Just saying i took those questions from google and didn't think of em). I feel like the title philosopher gets thrown around too freely to be honest. So i am just trying to understand what is the difference between someone like Socrates and the average joe when they think about the exact same question? I guess that Socrates will probably have more "profound" or "better" answers, but why that makes Socrates a philosopher but that random dude not? or am i just missing something?