The Existential Crisis

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

It's quantitatively true. But I am attempting to walk a very thin line between quantities and qualities, so there's a meta-question here.

( I should have kept the same attribute, quantification by centimetres instead of switching to quantification by number of characters. )

Anyway, that meta -question is intriguing. What about 'If it can be measured it is quantity' ? Better, 'as soon as it's measured its quantity and its quality coalesce.' It would not even be an 'it' until was measured. That probably sums up our existential crisis.

[Skepdick]

What about 'If it can be measured it is quantity' ? Better, 'as soon as it's measured its quantity and its quality coalesce.' It would not even be an 'it' until was measured. That probably sums up our existential crisis.

Exactly I am just not sure why the sad face. Our existential "crisis" is no crisis at all. The language games (pursuit of truth) is simply about learning how to communicate with each other - learning each other's emotional/mental languages. Or as Age says "openly and honestly".

This basically the idea behind It from bit.
The Bit is a unit of measurement which represents one yes/no question.

Which is precisely why I ask whether you mean THIS RED or THIS RED.
When you answer me - you've allowed me to take a measurement of your mind. Quantitatively - I have measured one bit of information. Qualitatively I've coalesced what "red" means to you.

Whether uwot realises it or not, he is being an obscurantist - he is hindering communication by refusing to commit/answer what (he thinks) is a "stupid question with an obvious answer".

It doesn't matter whether THIS IS RED to me if I know that THIS IS RED to you.
If I know what the word "red" means to you there's really no room for an argument/disagreement here - we understand each other.

But for the purpose of Philosophy... you must accuse me of using the word "incorrectly".

This is NOT how you use the word "red"..
This is how you use the word "red"..

It's all part of the social programming

There's basically some "cranks" (alas physicists, mathematicians and the lot) who are beginning to say things like "Information IS consciousness".
You will probably find this video illuminating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekfG-PCk25g

[Belinda]

The sad face is because I'd like there to be something that is the thing in itself (wouldn't we all?) instead of a social consensus the thing for us.

[Skepdick]

The sad face is because I'd like there to be something that is the thing in itself (wouldn't we all?) instead of a social consensus the thing for us.

There is! Experience is it - you are it. The thing in itself.

We are all in this cosmic mess together... Science/scientists are just our "role models" (or so it's being sold anyway) as the "ideal society".

Where logic, reason, camaraderie, solidarity and cooperation towards social consensus rules the roost. And it is, in a way - all the drama is just egos clashing.

[Age]

Your discussion, Skepdick, considers the form of my examples, not the meanings.

On the contrary.

If you were to say to me "X is not a lion" then as far as I am concerned X could mean everything and anything in the entire universe.

If X is not a lion, then how could X mean everything and anything in the entire Universe?

Is a lion not in the entire Universe, to you?

To me if X is not a lion, then as far as I am concerned X could mean everything and anything in the entire Universe, except obviously a lion.

And if you were to say to me " X is not-not a lion" then I'd have to wonder whether you are a classical or an intuitionistic logician.

Same goes for your coloured texts , they are useful for illustrating form not meaning. It's unfair to ask how someone knows what red means, based on your coloured texts which refer to the form of the texts themselves , not the meaning of the texts.

Not at all! I am well familiar with the form/meaning distinction

That is up for questioning.

- I am a formalist (in the mathematical/logical sense) after all.

Well you are not a very good one at all, as has just been pointed out to you.

The purpose of the experiment is to demonstrate that "red" doesn't mean anything. Whatever meaning is - it's not in the word (form?) "red"

'red' may not mean anything to you, but you are NOT everyone.

You do not even know what 'meaning' means. So, for your to propose that the word 'red' does not mean anything is just pure illogical. If you want to continue to insist that there is NO meaning in the word 'red', then you would first have to convince us that you KNOW what the word 'meaning' means.

Are you capable of doing that?

If yes, then do it.

But if no, then STOP telling us that meaning is not in the word 'red'.

I will tell you this ONCE. Human beings, individually AND collectively, give meaning, or do not give meaning, to absolutely ANY thing of their choosing.

So, if you have decided to not give meaning to the word 'red', then that is solely up to you. But 'you' doing that in NO WAY 'means' that 'red' does not mean anything at all. If a human being chooses to make 'red' mean something, then that is entirely up to 'them'. And, you have absolutely NO SAY in it whatsoever.

Now, you may like to inform us that, to YOU, there is NO meaning in 'red', which I will be the first one to agree, and say, Okay, from YOUR perspective, there is NO meaning in 'red'. But just remind you that you are NOT everyone and as such do NOT have the ability to speak for everyone.

'you' are just one individual human being of other countless human beings who has shared and is sharing the thoughts and views from within a head. To SOME human beings there IS meaning in 'red' and/or in the word 'red'. So, your claim that there is absolutely NO meaning in 'red' or in the word 'red' is obviously WRONG.

Understood?

THIS COLOR MEANS WHATEVER IT MEANS - I CALL IT RED
THIS COLOR MEANS WHATEVER IT MEANS - I CALL IT RED

The very purpose of the experiment is to draw a sharp line between meaning and linguistic expressions.

How could a person who admits that they do not even know what 'meaning' means successfully make up some experiment that draws a supposed "sharp line" between meaning and linguistic expressions?

Obviously one would have to KNOW what the word 'meaning' means BEFORE they could draw a "sharp line" or distinction between 'meaning' and absolutely ANY thing else, including 'linguistic' expressions.

You could even see it as me asking the question "Why have you assigned THIS MEANING to the word "red' instead of THIS MEANING?"

But you have NOT even provided absolutely ANY actual meaning at all in the question you asked. You are asking a question posing, "Why are 'you' assigning 'meaning' to something", which obviously has NO actual meaning in it, in the way it is being presented.

Why are you even assuming that anyone would assign meaning to such a nonsensical, ridiculous, and absurd sentence anyway?

All you are doing is writing a sentence with absolutely NO meaning it, and suggesting others are assigning meaning to it. But, because NO human being could actually assign meaning to your illogical sentence, then you are thinking that proves your already held assumption and belief true, right, and correct.

You are 'trying to' say, propose, show, and prove that " There is NO meaning in the word or color 'red' ", by writing a nonsensical and illogical sentence in different colors, as though that would, or even could, back up and support your own distorted beliefs and assumptions.

I suggest that if you want to show and prove that your beliefs are correct, then you will have create logically formed sound and valid arguments, for those beliefs of yours. After you do that, then you will have provided an unambiguous and irrefutable fact.

Until then, just remember that if some one wants to assign 'meaning' to absolutely ANY, then they can, and will. No matter what you say and believe is true.

In my usual Postmodern understanding of language I am basically taking a stand against Logocentrism.

"Logocentrism" refers to the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality.

And, you are FREE to take a stand against absolutely ANY thing you like.

I would correct the above statement as follows: Words and language are a fundamental expression of an internal reality.

You are FREE to "correct" the above however way you like. But if you want to provide this new 'meaning' for that word, then surely you would have to already have gained the understanding that YOUR internal reality will obviously HAVE TO BE different from EVERY one else's internal reality.

You may not yet learned and thus be aware of just HOW and WHY EVERY human being has different internal realities, but surely by now you ALREADY KNOW that EVERY one, internally, has a different reality from you, correct?

If you were not yet aware of this FACT, then now you ARE.

So, IF 'words' and 'language' are a fundamental expression of an internal reality, then so to are 'definitions' AND 'meanings'. Therefore, your assumption and/or belief that 'red' does not mean anything is ONLY your OWN internal "reality", which does not necessarily have any accurate correspondence with thee One and only external REALITY.

Further to this, you 'trying to' formulate some experiment to demonstrate that 'red' does not mean anything is just you 'trying to' find some way to prove your OWN internal "reality" is absolutely True, Right, and Correct. The FACT that it is NOT would be obviously CLEAR and well understood, well by most people by now.

The point of me asking is THIS RED; or is THIS RED? is precisely so that you can communicate your meaning of the term "red" to me.

But there is NO human being, in the history of human beings, who could possibly communicate their meaning of the term 'red' to you BECAUSE in your OWN 'little internal reality' there is absolutely NO possibility that the term 'red' has absolutely ANY meaning at all.

Thee actual True REALITY of this is so absolutely OBVIOUS.

A human being's own internal BELIEFS do not allow them to SEE anything contrary to their own BELIEF. 'Confirmation bias' makes sure of this.

[gaffo]

There are various meanings of what is an existential crisis.
Here is an argument to justify the substance of the existential crisis pulsating from an algorithm with the brain/mind of a person;

• 1. All humans are "programmed" [no God involved] to survive at all costs.
  
  2. To ensure survival, any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death.
  
  3. All humans are "programmed" with self-awareness.
  
  4. Mortality [death] is a "certainty" [99.999999..999%].
  
  5. Self-awareness [3] make one aware of mortality [death] [4].
  
  6. Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions [2].
  
  7. No possibility of a direct solution [6] pose a dilemma - a cognitive dissonance - which cannot be resolved, thus the existential crisis exuding subliminally.

The above cognitive dissonance from the inherent existential crisis drives the majority into the theism and religions which provide instant relief to numb the terrible existential pains [Angst, anxieties, despair, hopelessness, etc.] of the sufferer.

The above existential crisis also drives many other psychological problems for humans, but that is another topic.

Views?

yep. what you say is true. fear of death is why we have relgions.

i fear death, but am an Atheist.

I only speak for myself, what i beleive or not beleive (god- no god) - I will die either way.

and afterward? no clue, outside of me.

i leave it up to the Gods/God/ your God.................not my concern.

i do not think he exists, and so i will just end my existance upon my death, and if i wrong (I hope i am - would love for there to be a Just God (a Just God - not just a god/s) - he/she/if will grant me an afterlife - outside of Hell.

but maybe the gods/god is a dick (if so outside of me making them moral) - i sit in hell forever.

or is no Gods/god i just end existance upon my death.

.................

since my death is certain - later moreso than sooner - I do not fixate upon the morality of the Gods nor if they exist.

I just live my life in the here and now to the best of my ability, and leave my fate after my death to the Gods.

[Age]

Well, that's the thing about being an empiricist; while in day to day language it appears I'm making an assertion, really I'm just predicting that if you and I were to play guess which red is red, any criterion you apply for inaccuracy will give you no advantage.

And you still missed the point!

Are you aware that one reason why they are still missing the point could be because you are NOT yet open to learning how to change the way you form and write your explanations and questions?

One reason why I see that that person is still missing the point that you are 'trying to' make, (which is still wrong and absurd anyway) is because of the way you use the words you do and because of the way you add color to the words that you are using.

Who would arbitrate the "accuracy" or "inaccuracy" or our selections? Who would keep score in our little game?

I am not sure how many times I have told you already. So, why do you still ask "others" this same question, when you have already been given thee answer?

Who would determine and how whether me OR you guessed "correctly" or "incorrectly?"

Who is EVERY one, as One. Or, Everyone.

How is through agreement.

How many more times will you have to ask, and be told?

Obviously, individually, 'we' could NEVER accurately determine if an assumption or guess is correct or incorrect. But just as obvious, collectively, 'we' can and do KNOW what IS Correct, and Incorrect, as well as KNOWING what IS True and Right, False and Wrong.

I say that THIS IS RED. By what criterion would an arbiter determine my "wrongness"?

Once again, AGREEMENT.

If an individual arbiter agrees that 'this' (whatever) is wrong, or right, then that is what 'it' IS, to them.

I am not sure if I could explain this in much more simpler and easy terms than this.

[Age]

I say, 'Because it's blue.'

I know what you said. I am not interested in your conclusion. I am interested in your thought process.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Through, AGREEMENT.

THIS IS BLUE OR RED
THIS IS BLUE OR RED

Once upon a time there was a sad little troll called Skepdick. He lived in his mummy's basement, where he sat all day in his underpants eating ice cream and making up stories about how he used to be very important and rich. The End. Now, do I actually believe this story? Funnily enough I do, but not so much that that some evidence to the contrary wouldn't persuade me otherwise.

That is PRECISELY how confirmation bias works!

Q.E.D Idiot philosopher.

Some might notice and remark how easy and simple it is to correlate the words "idiot philosopher" and 'confirmation bias' together here.

People do have a very strong tendency to only see what they already BELIEVE is true.

That evidence wouldn't be some shit-for-brains 'arbiter', it would be some empirical evidence. I genuinely don't give a fuck what your arbiter says, and you know perfectly well that you cannot give me a reason why I should.

I know this!

The arbiter would be "some empirical evidence" - BUT YOU CAN'T TELL US!!! You keep mystically referring to "the evidence" but you continue NOT telling us what "the evidence" is!

You can't tell us what "empirical evidence" YOU EXAMINED to confirm the hypothesis THIS IS RED!!!
You can't tell us what "empirical evidence" YOU EXAMINED to dismiss the hypothesis THIS IS RED!!!

All you are doing is re-affirming that you suffer from confirmation bias and you have NO CLUE how to escape it.

Do you also suffer from confirmation bias or is it only "others" who do?

[Age]

This top line
is shorter than this lower line which has more characters.

Is this true for me, true for you, or true to the form of the text?

It's true for me and you because we have learned a) it's useful to compare lengths and b) because we have been presented with things of different sizes.

And, because you wrote a sensible, logical, and a true sentence, from which meaning and understanding could be obtained from it. Unlike some other sentences which have been written and presented in this thread.

It's true to the form of the text because we can compare each of these lines to the same criterion e.g. a ruler marked in centimetres.But we have to specify the linear perspective before we measure the lengths.

Colours seem mysterious compared with lengths and breadths however colours are attributes like spatial dimensions are attributes. We learn colours from our experiences, and we know that the form of such and such is red because we can if necessary compare it with a spectrum.

I conclude you and I know which is red or redder , and which is long or shorter, because we learn from experience. We also learn linear perspectives from experience. Formal measurements are arbitrary however that's not to say formal measurements reflect eternal truths.

It would be odd if Skepdick and uwot did not share very much the same learning opportunities as each other and everyone else. It's reasonable conclude nearly everybody shares much the same neuronal patterns concerned with learned experiences.

[Age]

This top line
is shorter than this lower line which has more characters.

Is this true for me, true for you, or true to the form of the text?

So I can confidently answer "yes, it's true" because I have inferred that what you mean by "length" is "number of characters".
And so by counting the number of letters in the top (13) is less than the number of letters at the bottom (57).

It's quantitatively true. But I am attempting to walk a very thin line between quantities and qualities, so there's a meta-question here.

"This sentence." has exactly the same grammatical and semantic structure as "This sentence".
How about "This sentence."?

So the question for me is do they have the "same structure" for you? By answering this question you are allowing me to infer whether you consider font color and font size as "part of the structure".

A reductionist (as I understand that word) would answer affirmatively "Yes. They have the same structure."
A holist (as I understand that word) would answer affirmatively "No. They don't have the same structure."

And, if I were to say;
A 'reductionist' (as I understand that word) would answer affirmatively, "No. They do not have the same structure".
A 'holist' (as I understand that word) would answer affirmatively, "Yes. The have the same structure".

Now, who is right and correct?

What will be found is; If we hold onto our own individual 'understandings', then what is actually Truly Right and Correct can not, and will not, be found.

But, as long as we have explained that these are just our OWN individual or 'personal understandings', then it does NOT matter who is actually true and right. This is just how we see and view things, individually, from our own personal internal realities.

Now, if we NEVER come to an 'agreement', in order to discover and learn what is actually True and Right, then it does NOT matter, because this is just a sign that 'this' is an issue that has NO True importance in Life anyway. It is therefore just an issue of NO importance.

If, from how you understand some thing, you 'agree' with it, then that is what 'it' is, to you. But, if we do happen to discover that there are some things, which we ALL do AGREE with, then that is what IS True, Right, and Correct.

It's true to the form of the text because we can compare each of these lines to the same criterion e.g. a ruler marked in centimetres.But we have to specify the linear perspective before we measure the lengths.

So this comment is raising some confusion in my mind.

Your comment about "in my mind" is raising some wonder; What does "in my mind" actually mean? How do you define the word 'mind' here?

The length of the sentence when measured in centimetres is different to the length of the sentence in "number of characters it contains".

Obviously.

So as far as I can tell you are equivocating the notion of "length". To demonstrate.

This is a sentence.
This is a sentence.

By your first notion of length (number of letters) both of the above are "the same length", but by the latter notion of "length" (centimetres) they are not the same length.

But, to me, that person NEVER had a "first notion of length" (in regards to the number of letters). If I recall correctly that is YOUR notion ONLY, and NOT theirs, at all.

Nothing new here really. It's good ol' Protagoras: Man is the measure of all things.

Colours seem mysterious compared with lengths and breadths however colours are attributes like spatial dimensions are attributes. We learn colours from our experiences, and we know that the form of such and such is red because we can if necessary compare it with a spectrum.

So this is perhaps the crux of my point. We learn how to use language empirically, but that's very very limiting.

The human mind works much better with richer forms of communication.

If you want people to accept this statement, proposition, and/or claim of yours here, then you will first have to successfully describe and explain what this 'human mind' thing is.

If you can communicate that in logical, sound, and valid form, THEN, we will see if this 'mind' thing works much better with so called "richer forms" of communication.

Text, imagery, video, sound (as you point out in your previous post).
All of these things help makes inter-personal communication more effective/rapid.

This would obviously depend on what it is that is wanted to be communicated.

For example, let us say it is thee 'Mind', Itself, which is wanted to be communicated more effective/rapid. Obviously, imagery, video, and sound is of absolutely NO use at all. So, there is only text. I now await your explanation of what this 'human mind' thing is, in text.

They contain extra information - they contain more of the colour of our emotions/memories/experiences.

I conclude you and I know which is red or redder , and which is long or shorter, because we learn from experience. We also learn linear perspectives from experience. Formal measurements are arbitrary however that's not to say formal measurements reflect eternal truths.

Formal measurements are indeed arbitrary, but that's hardly a problem. If I can communicate my measurement method in a way that you can perform it for yourself - I have effectively allowed you to experience what I am experiencing. We are (as we say) on "the same page".

In computer science we call this "synchronization", but that's more technical jargon that is really not necessary. It's what comes intuitive to most women, but men are completely stupid at it - it's emotional bonding.

Is this an absolute fact, or just your own personal extremely generalized internal "reality"?

Am I to take this username "skepdick" as being used for 'you', which is either completely stupid at 'emotional bonding' or 'that' what comes intuitive, to you? Your very generalized comment infers one or the other.

To me, NOT ALL men NOR ALL women are the exact same as you are proposing and claiming here.

Also, how do these two sentences of yours follow logically? How does what is called in computer science, "synchronization" relate to "emotional bonding" in any way, shape, or form?

From my perspective any sort of 'emotion' would be completely removed from any sort of science, computer or not.

It would be odd if Skepdick and uwot did not share very much the same learning opportunities as each other and everyone else. It's reasonable conclude nearly everybody shares much the same neuronal patterns concerned with learned experiences.

I wouldn't be so hasty to draw such conclusions. As humans we probably share much of the same experiences. Is just that for very strongly pragmatic purposes my social/professional circle has developed mandatory skills (and language) to be able to collectively do the kind of work that we do.

You appear to come across as though your 'job' is of some sort of real importance in Life, Itself.

How many social or professional circles have not developed so called "mandatory" skills and language for that particular society or profession, to be able to collectively do the kind of work or behavior that they do?

In fact can you name just one particular social or professional circle, which has not developed its own set of skills and language (jargon)?

So called "very strongly pragmatic" purposes is NOT the reason ALL social and professional circles develop their own set of skills and language. This is what just happens, naturally.

Like I said: we went and systemised what comes to comes to women naturally. Cooperation and communication.

LOL

You have NOT "systematize" what supposedly "comes to women naturally" at all.

You work in a field, just like EVERY other worker does, and within that field have formed a 'systemized' way of doing things, just like the workers in EVERY other field has.

Once you get over your arrogant BELIEF that working with computers is somehow more important, harder, or more intelligence is needed than other fields of work, then maybe you will start getting closer to SEEING things as they REALLY ARE.

We turned it into a science.

You turned 'what' supposedly into a 'science'?

What does the word 'science' even actually mean, to you?

[Age]

Skepdick me old china, I understand that you have given yourself license to cobble together any old string of words and insist that it means whatever you happen to be thinking at that moment, and that could be abso-fucking-lutely any shade of shit. Do yourself a favour and take at least one step up from your mum's basement and drop this silly nonsense about red being an hypothesis.

OK! Let it not be a hypothesis. Let it be a theory - supported by evidence and everything (or so you claim). You aren't claiming that it's something more than a theory, are you? If it's not a theory what sort of beast is it?

According to your evidence-based theory the English word "red" means THIS COLOR.

So show me the fucking evidence already!

Do you AGREE that that color is 'red'?

If you AGREE, then that color is 'red'.

Also, the english word 'red' does NOT mean the color, which you used for the words "THIS COLOR", which you capitalized.

P.S My "mum's house" doesn't have a basement. I should know - I bought it for her. My house does have a basement, but my mom doesn't live here. So...go fuck yourself ?

[Age]

What about 'If it can be measured it is quantity' ? Better, 'as soon as it's measured its quantity and its quality coalesce.' It would not even be an 'it' until was measured. That probably sums up our existential crisis.

Exactly I am just not sure why the sad face. Our existential "crisis" is no crisis at all.

I AGREE.

I do not even know where nor what this supposed " existential "crisis" " is even meant to be.

There is NO crisis about existing, or not existing anymore.

The language games (pursuit of truth) is simply about learning how to communicate with each other - learning each other's emotional/mental languages. Or as Age says "openly and honestly".

I AGREE wholeheartedly, that learning each "other's" emotional/mental languages (that is; learning and understanding how they define the words they use, and, learning and understanding the meaning that they have for those definitions, then, unintentionally and accidentally, the pursuit of Truth is actually happening. And, when done Truly and FULLY Truth is actually stumbled upon, and thus obtained.

Or, as "skepdick" so rightly points out, and in a language that is most simplest and easiest understood;
When human beings are being Truly OPEN and FULLY Honest, with each other, then what thee actual Truth IS is found, and SEEN.

As "skepdick" so eloquently noted here; Simply through just learning how to communicate with each other, then that is actually the pursuit of Truth.

Thus, the very reason WHY I am here, in this forum, that is; To learn how to communicate with human beings better.

This basically the idea behind It from bit.
The Bit is a unit of measurement which represents one yes/no question.

Which is precisely why I ask whether you mean THIS RED or THIS RED.
When you answer me - you've allowed me to take a measurement of your mind. Quantitatively - I have measured one bit of information. Qualitatively I've coalesced what "red" means to you.

Whether uwot realises it or not, he is being an obscurantist - he is hindering communication by refusing to commit/answer what (he thinks) is a "stupid question with an obvious answer".

It doesn't matter whether THIS IS RED to me if I know that THIS IS RED to you.
If I know what the word "red" means to you there's really no room for an argument/disagreement here - we understand each other.

But for the purpose of Philosophy... you must accuse me of using the word "incorrectly".

This is NOT how you use the word "red"..
This is how you use the word "red"..

It's all part of the social programming

There's basically some "cranks" (alas physicists, mathematicians and the lot) who are beginning to say things like "Information IS consciousness".
You will probably find this video illuminating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekfG-PCk25g

[Age]

The sad face is because I'd like there to be something that is the thing in itself (wouldn't we all?) instead of a social consensus the thing for us.

But, there is something that is a 'thing in itself'. 'Everything', and EVERY 'thing'.

But, to maybe only sadden you further, KNOWING what A thing IS, in itself, is only KNOWN through social learning, understanding, AND consensus.

[Age]

The sad face is because I'd like there to be something that is the thing in itself (wouldn't we all?) instead of a social consensus the thing for us.

There is! Experience is it - you are it. The thing in itself.

We are all in this cosmic mess together... Science/scientists are just our "role models" (or so it's being sold anyway) as the "ideal society".

Where logic, reason, camaraderie, solidarity and cooperation towards social consensus rules the roost. And it is, in a way - all the drama is just egos clashing.

I AGREE.

[Age]

There are various meanings of what is an existential crisis.
Here is an argument to justify the substance of the existential crisis pulsating from an algorithm with the brain/mind of a person;

• 1. All humans are "programmed" [no God involved] to survive at all costs.
  
  2. To ensure survival, any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death.
  
  3. All humans are "programmed" with self-awareness.
  
  4. Mortality [death] is a "certainty" [99.999999..999%].
  
  5. Self-awareness [3] make one aware of mortality [death] [4].
  
  6. Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions [2].
  
  7. No possibility of a direct solution [6] pose a dilemma - a cognitive dissonance - which cannot be resolved, thus the existential crisis exuding subliminally.

The above cognitive dissonance from the inherent existential crisis drives the majority into the theism and religions which provide instant relief to numb the terrible existential pains [Angst, anxieties, despair, hopelessness, etc.] of the sufferer.

The above existential crisis also drives many other psychological problems for humans, but that is another topic.

Views?

yep. what you say is true. fear of death is why we have relgions.

Is that the ONLY reason?

Is there a possibility that some so called "religions" could have came about just due to the wondering, questioning, and answering of where did we came from?

i fear death, but am an Atheist.

What, exactly, is it that you fear?

Death, itself, is not something that one could logically fear.

I only speak for myself, what i beleive or not beleive (god- no god) - I will die either way.

and afterward? no clue, outside of me.

The answer to what happens after one "dies" is very easy and very simple to understand.

i leave it up to the Gods/God/ your God.................not my concern.

i do not think he exists, and so i will just end my existance upon my death, and if i wrong (I hope i am - would love for there to be a Just God (a Just God - not just a god/s) - he/she/if will grant me an afterlife - outside of Hell.

but maybe the gods/god is a dick (if so outside of me making them moral) - i sit in hell forever.

or is no Gods/god i just end existance upon my death.

.................

since my death is certain - later moreso than sooner - I do not fixate upon the morality of the Gods nor if they exist.

Until 'you' can answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly, correctly, and accurately, then I would NOT be so sure that " My death is 'certain' ".

I just live my life in the here and now to the best of my ability, and leave my fate after my death to the Gods.