“all the consequences of this”

[Philosophy Now]

Kile Jones argues that atheistic existentialism is more compelling than religious existentialism.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/al ... es_of_this

[Dalek Prime]

There are no consequences to a life not begun.

Camus believed that the greatest philosophical question was whether to continue living in an absurd world. He was wrong. The greatest question is, whether to create another being to perpetuate an absurd world.

[spike]

Kile Jones argues that atheistic existentialism is more compelling than religious existentialism.

I am sure that is truth, that "atheistic existentialism is more compelling than religious existentialism". But at the moment, with all the religious existentialism that is flexing its muscle in the Middle East, religious existentialism seems pretty compelling and more tragic.

Existentialism, as I understand it, is primarily a philosophy of tragedy. It often speaks of tragedy as bound up with existence – that you cannot have one without the other.

Both camps of existentialism use their centrepiece, the absurdity and tragedy of life, in opposing ways. Atheistic existentialists are bound by a secular world and constrained by the laws of Man. They are pragmatic. Religious existentialism, particularly that in the Middle East, is fixated with God's law as paramount, which makes it more volatile, divisive and dangerous. That existentialism gave rise to ISSI and the turmoil that is upending civil life in that part of the world.

I would rather use the term secular existentialism. It's more inclusive.