>I would offer that such faux-crises are the result of a lack of scarcity, not intellectual capacity. No one who has to hunt for lunch has time to ponder the inevitable death of the sun.

Some of the oldest (and greatest) literature we have, composed in a time of extreme poverty, brutality, and hardship (not to mention 100% illiteracy), deals exactly with that. The Iliad is fundamentally about mortality, its implications, how to deal with it, questioning your culture's morality, searching for meaning in the face of impeding death, etc.

There is a quote by Tolkien, I believe, to the extent that the fundamental topic of The Lord of the Rings is about mortality, by which he means that it was written by a human being.

> but anyone rational, especially "gifted", compartmentalizes it and moves on

I'm mildly shocked at your inability to realize not everyone 'gifted' is rational, nor do they necessarily compartmentalize. Some of the greatest minds ever recorded in history had emotional problems, and issues working with others. Many were not rational, or socially normal.

> everyone 'gifted' is rational

this was not implied in OP

If you are going to quote me please sample the entire logical phrase.

> not everyone 'gifted' is rational, nor do they necessarily compartmentalize.

This was directly implied by the OP.

> but anyone rational, especially "gifted", compartmentalizes it and moves on.

OP's statement implicitly states 'rational' beings are a group and 'gifted' are a subgroup of 'rational' beings.

OP directly implies 'gifted' is rational.

You're the kind of blathering know-it-all loudmouth that enhances existential depression.

I agree with you but I think you might make the same mistake as the author -- to say truly gifted people act as you do, which is to compartmentalize and move on. IMO there needs to be some more substance to support that association.

To a degree, i wonder if we need a new breed of atheist idols. The old guard is too gloomy and frail. Atheism can be a rosy cheeked child. This perceived unhealthiness attached to existentialism should go away.

There is a trend sometimes called New Atheism that you may find satisfying. Its main tenets seem to be that all claims can be subjected to scientific inquiry (including religous claims), and that atheism needn't be depressing.

Prolific authors in the trend include Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris, and others.

"...that atheism needn't be depressing.

"...Richard Dawkins..."

Whelp, I'm already depressed.

Why?

As a small-a atheist, I find all of the capital-A Athiests so irritating that I have considered Catholicism.

That's the great thing about atheism, there's no governing body so it's whatever you want it to be.

I don't think David Graeber believes in gods. Let's try him.

We do but they are awful and flawed...Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk etc...we revere the rich as if they were gods. I would not be surprised if John Gruber has prayed to Steve at least once.

>but anyone rational, especially "gifted", compartmentalizes it and moves on.

Everyone point and laugh at the idiot who thinks life is objectively meaningless!

Apparently not everyone concludes that morality is unfixed, etc., because not every adult has concluded that God is fictional.

> has its own faith propositions, but you can't challenge them...

I wonder if people even try to change other's faith nowadays. Personally i like having my beliefs challenged, but it doesnt happen often enough.

It's hard to challenge with the 'downvote' button available ;)

Dogmatism is dogmatism whether or not there's a man in the sky behind it.

Certainly true. There's a larger gap between the atheism of Feynman et al and the "atheism" of Stalin, than between the latter and the major world religions.