Here's how prayer works, in my opinion:

When someone has a "moment" with prayer, this is an affirmation of one own existence that resonates internally. A passionate "yes" to their own needs. If you believe God gave you such an ability for a reason, then who needs to waste time even arguing in the first place? Faith goes where fact dare not, bridging many a void.

I do not wish to read through the whole discussion, so my apologies if this has already been addressed:

1. A belief is a (cognitive) stance taken on the trueness or falseness of a proposition; and
2. Beliefs make moral propositions true or false. — Bob Ross

1 is your bias of the word belief, and certainly not mine, nor does it account for the history of the word, merely your own understanding of it.

Autobiographies are somewhat of a rarity in general. Thankfully for us all, Nietzsche was merciful enough and left us a very significant one, Ecce Homo. Ecce Homo is a gateway into Nietzsche's own insights on his books, and the Dionysian dithyrambs. The dithyrambs are Nietzsche's greatest invention and by far the least understood; a simple search of these forums indicates no one has ever brought this up:

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, p. 26

Directly following this Nietzsche indicates, in my opinion, what is the greatest significance of his work:

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing?

The book Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a dithyramb concerning deliverance from one's own loathing. Hopefully, by the end of this post I will have detailed why this is the ultimate significance of his work...

The following two quotes are additional context Nietzsche provides from Ecce Homo:

The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music. At all events, the essential condition of its production was a second birth within me of the art of hearing. — p. 97

What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb. — p. 109

So what exactly is a dithyramb? Well, first, we can ruminate upon what Nietzsche said about TSZ to begin with.... It is a book, and it is music, thus it follows that a dithyramb is music in literary form. To understand, more fully, what a dithyramb is we can consult Nietzsche's first book The Birth of Tragedy. In the second aphorism of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche suggests an intense visceral reaction occurs: "in the Dionysian dithyramb man is incited to the highest exaltation of all his symbolic faculties; something never before experienced struggles for utterance—the annihilation of the veil of Mâyâ, Oneness as genius of the race, ay, of nature." To put it plainly, the dithyramb is literary music that incites one into a certain state of heightened intelligence and creativity.

So now that we know what a dithyramb is, I will point out how dithyrambs work. In aphorism 16 of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche details how the art of music distinguishes itself from all other art, based off the influence of Schopenhauer, such that music is the direct copy of the will of the artist. Such that Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a copy of the will of Zarathustra, or as Jung might suggest, a copy of the will of the archetype of the "wise old man."

TLDR: Go learn something you're super passionate about, and then go back and read the right dithyrambs, and be incited into the state of heightened intelligence and creativity, what kind of thoughts will flood you then? This, in my opinion, is Nietzsche's ultimate secret of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Nihilism can cause ennui which can eventually lead to dissatisfaction with life ...

How about I decide what opportunities I miss out on? Rather than someone else telling me what I can and cannot do?

Sure, sounds like Wittgenstein's approach is more of a style of marriage between science and philosophy, where as Russell and the others were more in the line of trying to make a baby out of science and philosophy?

not sure how to delete a post but it posted a few times

As an atheist, I don't mind declaring: God gives purpose, which is generally something to live for...

I'll accept that defense, thank you for the insight. I decided to pick up the text and got an audiobook of it also. Would you say Wittgenstein was attempting to bridge the gap between the disciplines of science and philosophy?

Not quite, I'm here to learn, not debate. Zen's insight was enough of a glimmer to find a path I could get behind. A simple deflection isn't going to convince someone who has a healthy skepticism now will it? Thanks for the SEP post by the way. The replies to it were actually more interesting but without it, you and zen wouldn't have had that little exchange.

Enter Greek Mythology cause this is how many of them thought? Time is a Circle that repeats all things have happened all things will happen. Giving you the ultimate freedom to act as all possibilities have and will play out. It's quite a comforting thought in my opinion, should one allow the emotions of such an idea take hold. The trick is not being a spirit of gravity to the point you're like a Bill Burr joke character "DATS NOT HOW REALITY WORKS!" like a positivist would. To actually experience the effect just put a little faith into the words themselves and suspend your disbelief.

Nietzsche seems to have a few things to say upon this IIRC. I remember having to look up "atavism" from a song I really liked a long time ago, and I believe the first time I've ever seen it used was by Nietzsche. His book Twilight of the Idols, although I've only skimmed through it, seems as if it may be apt to this discussion. I'll crack open some dusty old books to try and find more for the discussion. It's weird, your name Isomorph makes me want to open Godel Escher Bach because that's the first time I encountered the word isomorphism, that I can remember. It makes me wonder if I came to this post because of knowing about Nietzsche's book Twilight of the Idols, and the titled of the post reminded me of said book. Like why do I click on any of these things? Desire, to do so sure, but it's like a desire for what? I wonder if we can learn to understand the types of desires that seemingly catalyze within us, as they occur. Maybe that's kinda what stoicism is all about?

See how facts change? The fact: Tractatus is positivism simply by the first few lines. And according to sources it was only ever hailed as a masterpiece of philosophy by Positivists. Saying it's not positivism, at least to me, is like suggesting you're not a Christian for following the doctrine of Christ. They may not be a "church going Christian" but they're still a "Christian." A pig is a pig regardless of its make up. If it's not positivism, defend how it's not with something other than a deflection? Show us how it's not.

A fact, is what is the case. — 013zen

What is the case is often subject to perspective.

The idea that Witt had a distinct early and late period wherein he outrightly dismissed his previous work developed when there was still good reason to wonder if the work was "pro-positivistic"....which the PI clearly is not. — 013zen

If PI was clearly not pro-positivistic, but Tractatus is, then doesn't that espouse more than a marginal shift in stance?

And of course, doesn't all of this rely upon Wittgenstein's presupposition of what a "fact" is? Doesn't Wittgenstein himself later overturn the logic of the Tractatus once he realizes the inherent bias in his presupposition? Melanie Klein, for example, her discovery of partial objects shows that objects don't always have a fixed static form.

The infinite staircase appears to only allow one to traverse it in one direction. It simultaneously exists and doesn't exist? Does this make sense? If we allow Hilbert's Hotel to exist in the abstract and possible realm, are we forced to accept the infinite staircase into the abstract and possible realm? Is this actually a paradox? What are your thoughts? — keystone

Icarus was a Greek. To the Greek, and especially the Stoics, time is an infinite circle, and they (many of the Stoics) thought that everything repeats after a full cosmic cycle. Such that all paths hitherto, and all paths henceforth have and will be a reality. Even if reality doesn't work that way, the emotional effect of believing in such a thing allows one to overcome hardships by accepting them as part of the necessary path they are currently on, and that anyway of overcoming that obstacle is correct as all paths henceforth will eventually play out. It's quite similar to several quantum theories.

It would be like trying to cut you with air, and without any force behind the air.