https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Anxiety

If I may, I'd like to ask you what your understanding of atheism is?

A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

And so my existential argument is, you have to define the nature of belief.

It's certainly possible that had he written that today it might be a different analysis.

However, the existential thing about anxiety is a great topic that I agree with... . "Kierkegaard mentions that anxiety is a way for humanity to be saved as well. Anxiety informs us of our choices, our self-awareness and personal responsibility, and brings us from a state of un-self-conscious immediacy to self-conscious reflection."

So in that context, I think we agree.

And atheism is about a lack of belief in God, absolutely nothing else. — Isaac

We're talking past one another.

My concern is that you haven't provided what your 'system of belief' consists of...for example what is the nature of your believe system?

I've told you mine.

It concerns taking one's existence as an individual seriously enough to make choices and perceive events through the responsibility it confers upon one. — Valentinus

Sure , I have no quarrel with that.

The point I'm making is relative to volition. In this context, at some level, one must make a choice.

For example, human's are trapped in a series of life's choices. The belief in God is a choice.

In my case, I choose to believe in God through logical inference from the science's (cognitive and physical). The gap is the leap of Faith.

At the time of Kierkegaard's writings, there wasn't as many discoveries as there are now in physical Science/physics and cognitive Psychology.

Make any sense?

Why does he say that he cannot use the term intuition if they are to become knowledge?



Another interpretation would be the cosmological computer brain. Intuition would be like the hardware of the computer/brain itself ( representing things-in-themselves). Experience would be the software programming.

Intuition then can be thought of as an innate, a priori thing in itself. A fixed property of conscious existence.

Consider this example of a propositional statement/judgement:

1. Every event must have a cause.

That's called a synthetic a priori judgment. It's a synthesis of two concepts: experience and innate/fixed or what psychologists would call, intrinsic intuition.

So we know the statement is partially true but we're not exactly certain because we have not experienced every event.

Therefore, we have something else that exists that causes us to make that judgment or ask that question (every event must have a cause). Thus Kant's " Intuition".

The irony is, physical science almost always uses synthetic propositions to carry forward thought about something that they feel needs to be discovered. So Kant was on to something... .

Beyond that, I think Kant talked about transcendental inquiries and things like noumena, and so on.

No. This is such a basic and simple thing to understand. Atheism isn't anything like an ideology, a body of theory, a school of thought. It's only a term for one simple thing: the absence of a belief in gods.

Forgive me again but this is how I see your logic:

Theist: Why do believe in the absence of a God or gods?

Atheist: Because my belief system say's it's incoherent.

Theist: But what does incoherent really mean here?

Atheist: Well, even though I can't explain my own consciousness or conscious existence, It doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Theist: Oh I see, you're just saying it's incoherent because you arbitrarily think so. Gotcha.

LOL

I'm skeptical about unconscious mental content. That doesn't imply that I believe that everything is mental and thus conscious mental content. Accidents do not stem from mental content. — Terrapin Station

So, does the atheist's skepticism essentially mean that your theory is true?

Don't take that the wrong way but it sounds like:

Atheist: I don't believe in God because I'm skeptical about how the subconscious mind works [you said you don't think there even is a subconscious mind].

Theist: Really, how does such skepticism produce an alternate truth about conscious existence?

Atheist: It doesn't, I just think God doesn't exist and that's that.

LOL

It was already corrected for you many times, by many different people, that atheism has nothing to do with beliefs about whether there is any "mystery in the world." — Terrapin Station

Are you sure?

If there was no mystery, why do the majority of people believe in God?

Lack of g/G belief isn't an alternative faith commitment to g/G belief any more than being celibate is an alternative sex act to sodomy. — 180 Proof

I believe you've got the analogy a$$backwards, no pun intended LOL

Atheism is the opposite of Theism like heterosexual and homosexual is to sexuality.

Yes, so does everyone, I think. The fact is that they reach different conclusions thereby because they have different dispositional starting points, different experiences and different capabilities. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with a concern you may have with my reasoning. — Isaac

Now there, you've got that right. It's really simple is it not?

I've reached my conclusion (leap of Faith) based on 'existential phenomena'. All you've said is 'God is incoherent' but could not explain why, let alone speak to any existential phenomena...

Make sense?

He may be beginning to realise that his conclusions do not follow from his premises; his argument is no where near as strong as he thought

Really?

Guys, it's just the opposite!

Know one has come close to elucidating the nature of existing things, for which topics I provided a discussion point.

Tick tock tick tock

I'm ready when ever you all are?

Let me help, any one care to take on 'daydream while driving a car' phenomenon?

You can all just pat yourselves on the back and pretend you understand the basic questions of existence, but it only supports the majority view that Atheism is an untenable position. Again , that's what extreme Fundamentalist's do... LOL

It seems clear that you do believe there is a god of some sort, but that you arrive at that after some more general philosophizing, so I don't see why you think the second option doesn't fit you. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I went ahead and voted for 'theist'.

With respect to the other question about why no 'theist' were perhaps voting, I can only speculate. To this end, I think it might be because many think of 'Theism' as more of a vocational role in their so-called professional lives. And since we have much more of a social structure relative to religion or religious beliefs more than not, maybe many, including myself, would not want to claim they are something they are not. In other words, what would you call someone who isn't a Priest or Monk?

Otherwise, many Christians or deeply spiritual individuals think of thier 'theism' as a personal relationship, and perhaps are not really interested in being an evangelist, priest, monk, or Evangelical Christian as it were.

I don't know, maybe consider a category that says: Spiritual.

I think that would capture more of a 21st Century movement anyway...

Just reform your questions and then there might be something to discuss. — Isaac

I'm not following that Isaac why would I need to reform the questions?

The Apophatic theologist would consider those existential questions as additional clues for a Deity or Creator or a First Cause.

On the other hand, the perplexing difficulty that you have is that apparently Atheism ignores any such clues from our existence ( not to mention our conscious experiences).

I even see complete denials... . For example, cognitive science says we have a subconscious. Some Atheist's believe we have no subconscious at all...go figure. I've even used the pragmatic example of daydreaming while driving a car and having a resulting accident... . But hey , just another reason why Atheism is just the opposite of fundamentalism: it's called hard headed-ness. God doesn't exist just cause I say so...LOL.

So I'm equal opportunity: I'm just as hard on fundamentalism as I am atheism LOL

Not sure why this would be a concern with my reasoning though either way. — Isaac

Any belief system requires logic to support one's belief. I use clues from the natural world including my conscious experiences; then chose to make a leap of faith.

Does mathematical abstract ability confer any survival advantage?

Does music theory have any biological significance at all?

Do all events must have a cause?

True, false or something else?

Is love a phenomenon or is it all logical?

Explain the ineffable feelings of love.

Explain the feeling of the color red.

Do any of those suggest life might be a little mysterious?

Or are you saying , as an Atheist, you have life all figured out?

You've simply made a mistake here. Atheism is absolutely not "an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers", and I don't think a single atheist would see it that way. — Isaac

Two concerns with your reasoning:

1. The opposite of Theism is Atheism. Unless you're trying to posit Nilhilism, then your argument works.

2. Terrapin Station, although certainly not an expert in atheism, said that his atheism is, and I quote " belief".

For your information, in puting my faith into words, that approach is essentially Apophatic or negative theology.

Maybe the question is why does Deity rear it's ugly head in virtually every intellectual/ abstract philosophical discussion.

The reason why I asked that question is different from the answer that you gave ' insert God ' here.

As I alluded to, that old paradigm is part of traditional fundamentalism. Personally I just don't insert God.

In short, I look at physical and nonphysical phenomena, objective and subjective criteria, among other things to arrive at my leap of Faith.

(Otherwise Apophatic or negative theism would be the criteria I would use to put my faith into words.)

How is that not just an obvious vote for one of the theist options? I think I would expect the second, if you’re the usual Kierkegaardian “confronting the absurd first, leap of faith in response to that” type. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for asking. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. The traditional theist is typically going to default to fundamentalism. Just like the atheist wiil default to positive Atheism in justifying their belief system.

Essentially since I view God as an ineffable experience and a genderless metaphysical being (spiritual), it would not fit within your/that criterion/paradigm.

Just a minor item: you will find an irony in philosophy, like I did when studying all the domains ( Ethics, epistemology, metaphysics contemporary philosophy, ontology, etc.) where at some point a deity or God is mentioned in practically each and every one of those domains.

Maybe the question is why does Deity rear it's ugly head in virtually every intellectual/ abstract philosophical discussion (?).

That's not a rhetorical question. ( I didn't vote because I'm a Christian Existentialist.)

So yes, I think that's a good question in your OP

Hahaha ( Christian Existentialist)

Yeah I don't believe in hell. There was a gentleman in the old forum that did extensive study on the subject/ problem of evil but can't remember what he uncovered.

I'm not a theist, but I need to be better versed on that subject. Otherwise, it's just a gut feeling or an intuition of sorts that everyone will feel love per the NDE phenomenon.

Not to mention William James & Maslow's study on the religious experience...

Oh and I forgot to mention and give some love to the wisdom books in the OT.

In paraphrase there is scripture that talks about 'always remember the end of your life' ...

Basic introspection obviously has its virtues.

I appreciate that analysis

So is it really the case that your belief in god relies absolutely on the notion that each even has a cause? I doubt that. What is happening, I think, is that in trying to articulate your belief, you came to some conclusions about mathematics and other things that seemed to make sense. You've now exposed those to critique, and find them wanting. — Banno

I'm sorry but I'm losing you on that one...?

My faith is based on many things. But the seven concepts I mentioned in the OP provides more persuasive evidence that all events must have a cause...

I'm saying your position is a nihilism. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Really? I'm afraid of dying, aren't you?

I don't know about you but I'm living a pretty happy life and I'm sure you are too...

After all sitting around talking about philosophy confers biological advantages LOL

Okay you're wrong and I'm right. Now what?

How?


Further, doesn't that oblige you to believe in a god who chooses to keep some things hidden from you?

Why should he do that? — Banno

Good questions. I will answer all of them in this succinct judgement:

All events must have a cause.

Sorry for the redundancy but it's real simple

You seem to not know who we are. You keep insisting we are God or some mystery, rather than our own existence. We can do a lot better than such confusion of ourselves with an infinite entity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not following you on that one...

Humans sometimes know why they are here, be that in an ethical sense of knowing what you ought to do in your life or a descriptive sense of know how you are a distinct entity of the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Do all humans know why they die,?

I agree with you. For example quantum physics is a mystery to me.

Yet another mystery...

Why not? — Banno

Because you said you picked atheism over theism and theism accounts for mystery / faith. Yet you conceded that there is mystery in the world and in life no?

I would suggest you become an Agnostic. It would be more consistent with your logic.

We have needs or goals because it is a feature of our existence. The counterfactual of a person without needs or a goal shows this to be the case. What would it take, for example, for a human without a need for food? The existence of someone who didn't need to eat food.

Our own existence is the reason here. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Are you saying that you know why we are here?

notion of a theistic god is not credible. Hence, atheism. — Banno

But your atheism is not tenable is it? You're like Donald Trump just attacking with no real plan LOL

guess I would have liked to see some sort of Bayesian analysis, wherein the probability of god being a believable theory becomes higher after one considers, say, mathematics. — Banno

Sure, put those seven items together in Bayesian analysis and see what you come up with LOL

Tick tock tick tock

Why not just say that we have needs, and that there need be no reason for that? — Banno

Because that doesn't explain why we have them.

I thought Atheism was an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers no?

I've no clear idea of what this might be. — Banno

Choice

I've already agreed that there are mysteries. And pointed out that there is no need to conclude from that the Christian god is real.

So, where next? — Banno

"No need". Don't take this the wrong way, but explain to me what needs are, and why do they exist?

For example, human needs would be something different than animal instinct correct?

And to answer your question, I've already stated it earlier that volitional existence is important to humans. We choose based on our goals. Why do humans have goals?

Highlight the text you wish to quote, and a pop-up will appear saying "quote". Click it to have the highlighted text appear, correctly formatted, in your post as a quot — Banno

Thank you kindly

OK, suppose that it doesn't. What next?

I asked you this earlier when you used the example of mathematics. I didn't note an answer.

That's a good answer. That would suggest a mystery no?