Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

[Veritas Aequitas]

DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to survive with a will to live at all costs

PI To ensure one survive with the will to live one has avoid death
P2 To avoid death one has to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]
C3 Therefore to survive with the will to live one has to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]

Any evidence that humans are programmed for anything at all

Any evidence that humans are specifically programmed to survive with a will to live AT ALL COSTS
What about the obvious - suicides / potential suicides who clearly do not want to live at all costs

PI is a tautology as one obviously cannot survive if one is dead
Evidence for P2 - you make this claim repeatedly but have nothing to back it up with
C3 is dependent on P2 but with no evidence for P2 the conclusion cannot be accepted

Here is a better version :

PI Survival is not motivated by a subconscious fear of death
P2 Evolution over time however allows species to become more adaptable at survival
C3 So death is therefore something that can be delayed but never actually eliminated

How do you justify your P1 to begin with?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Therefore it the DNA RNA in combination that set up the psychological basis of all humans

Right from birth the will to live [ to avoid death ] is active in the baby

The psychology of an individual does not come from DNA but from their exposure to the environment after they are born

The will to live can be negated at any time because of suicide or potential suicide which you have not actually given an answer to
So what is your explanation for what happens to the will of those who wish to kill themselves and why do they have such thoughts

Despite providing with what is Psychology;

• Psychology is the science of behavior and mind. Psychology includes the study of conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
  -wiki

You still do not get it.

The psychology of an individual does not come from DNA but from their exposure to the environment after they are born.

This is very bad understanding of what is psychology.
I suggest you do some research on what is psychology.

The will to live can be negated at any time because of suicide or potential suicide which you have not actually given an answer to
So what is your explanation for what happens to the will of those who wish to kill themselves and why do they have such thoughts

I have already explained this many times.
The will-to-live is manifested from the DNA-RNA combination and it is embedded as an instinct in all humans in the subconscious mind.
But nature as evident is never perfect and thus defective will-to-live will happen in a small % of people [1-5%?].
These are the suicidal people and they are recognized as having a mental illness per DSM-V.

I have already explained why there are various exceptions, risk takers, martyrs, altruistic acts, etc. in a post to Emmanuel Can.

But the point is we cannot deny;
The will-to-live is manifested from the DNA-RNA [gene] combination and it is embedded as an instinct in ALL humans within the subconscious mind.

[surreptitious57]

DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to survive with a will to live at all costs

PI To ensure one survive with the will to live one has avoid death
P2 To avoid death one has to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]
C3 Therefore to survive with the will to live one has to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]

Any evidence that humans are programmed for anything at all

Any evidence that humans are specifically programmed to survive with a will to live AT ALL COSTS
What about the obvious - suicides / potential suicides who clearly do not want to live at all costs

PI is a tautology as one obviously cannot survive if one is dead
Evidence for P2 - you make this claim repeatedly but have nothing to back it up with
C3 is dependent on P2 but with no evidence for P2 the conclusion cannot be accepted

Here is a better version :

PI Survival is not motivated by a subconscious fear of death
P2 Evolution over time however allows species to become more adaptable at survival
C3 So death is therefore something that can be delayed but never actually eliminated

How do you justify your PI to begin with ?

A fear of it would be more conscious than subconscious because death is a universal phenomenon
The subconscious element in humans would be talking about it rather than death as such because humans tend to avoid that as much as possible
I though have no fear of death either conscious or subconscious and this feeling is not unique to me - there are many who think exactly the same
Dying is not the same as death and that may be a fear I will subsequently acquire - but there is categorically no fear of actual death for me at all

[surreptitious57]

The will to live is manifested from the DNA RNA combination and it is embedded as an instinct in all humans in the subconscious mind
But nature as evident is never perfect and thus defective will to live will happen in a small percentage of people [ I - 5 per cent ]
These are the suicidal people and they are recognized as having a mental illness per DSM V

The percentage of the mentally ill among the general population is much greater than I / 5 and is somewhere between 20 / 25
Also one does not have to be mentally ill to be suicidal as it can affect literally anyone

Not everyone who is mentally ill will commit suicide or try to
Not everyone who commits suicide or tries to is mentally ill

Also you can be the most perfectly rational person on the planet and still commit suicide
In those circumstances it can be seen as the most logically possible of all available choices

Sometimes death is preferable to life once all the necessary options have been considered
From a psychological perspective that would be the only true choice to take and some do

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any evidence that humans are programmed for anything at all

Any evidence that humans are specifically programmed to survive with a will to live AT ALL COSTS
What about the obvious - suicides / potential suicides who clearly do not want to live at all costs

PI is a tautology as one obviously cannot survive if one is dead
Evidence for P2 - you make this claim repeatedly but have nothing to back it up with
C3 is dependent on P2 but with no evidence for P2 the conclusion cannot be accepted

Here is a better version :

PI Survival is not motivated by a subconscious fear of death
P2 Evolution over time however allows species to become more adaptable at survival
C3 So death is therefore something that can be delayed but never actually eliminated

How do you justify your PI to begin with ?

A fear of it would be more conscious than subconscious because death is a universal phenomenon
The subconscious element in humans would be talking about it rather than death as such because humans tend to avoid that as much as possible
I though have no fear of death either conscious or subconscious and this feeling is not unique to me - there are many who think exactly the same
Dying is not the same as death and that may be a fear I will subsequently acquire - but there is categorically no fear of actual death for me at all

Your argument is not valid due the following.

You missed out the critical point which I had always highlighted and repeated many times.

ALL humans are programmed by nature NOT to have a conscious fear of death at all times.

Let the above point sink in.
That is why as a normal person, you do not have a conscious fear of death. If you ever, it would only be temporary.

If the above restraining inhibitors are weaken and the person have a persistent conscious fear death, then the person is recognized as mentally ill per DSM-V, i.e. suffering what is term 'THANATOPHOBIA'.

If the conscious fear of death is not suppressed, humans will be paralyzed by this fear of death and not be able to be productive to sustain the preservation of the human species.

While the conscious fear of death is suppressed naturally in all humans [there are exceptions] the algorithm of fear of death is inherent within the subconscious mind. The resultant of the subconscious fear of death is the manifestation of Angst.
The majority of humans turned to religion to relieve the Angst.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The will to live is manifested from the DNA RNA combination and it is embedded as an instinct in all humans in the subconscious mind
But nature as evident is never perfect and thus defective will to live will happen in a small percentage of people [ I - 5 per cent ]
These are the suicidal people and they are recognized as having a mental illness per DSM V

The percentage of the mentally ill among the general population is much greater than I / 5 and is somewhere between 20 / 25
Also one does not have to be mentally ill to be suicidal as it can affect literally anyone

Not everyone who is mentally ill will commit suicide or try to
Not everyone who commits suicide or tries to is mentally ill

Also you can be the most perfectly rational person on the planet and still commit suicide
In those circumstances it can be seen as the most logically possible of all available choices

Sometimes death is preferable to life once all the necessary options have been considered
From a psychological perspective that would be the only true choice to take and some do

You missed my point.

I stated the exception to the will-to-live in all humans are the suicidal which is a mental illness.

You turned my point around.
I did not state all mental ills will commit suicide.

Yes, a person can be the most intelligent, rational, etc. but when the will-to-live is weakened, the will-to-die will dominate the person's mind, thus leading to suicide.
There are many idiot-savants who are genius in various fields and intelligent but they are an idiot in other aspects of their life.
This indicate the intelligence and rational function are quite independent of the will-to-live.

[Sculptor]

A phobia is an irrational fear.

All fear is irrational since fear is always a negative response and never offers clear and reasonable answers to problems.
Overcoming fear is the first response to dealing with any situation.

Since you have more chance of dying from a bizarre accident with a domestic toaster than getting killed by a Muslim terrorist I suggest you take more care in the kitchen and stop quaking like a little pussy over fears that are unfounded.

The purpose of programmed instinctual fear is to avoid premature death.

No way.
There are no valid teleological reasons for evolved traits. That is evolution 101.
Whilst it might be true that the fear trait might have resulted in some selective success which can account for the persistence of the trait, this does not change the fact that fear is a poor response to threats of all kind.

The exposure to ebola and many viruses of the like are highly fatal. [evident].
Thus the fear of coming into open contact with these fatalistic viruses is very rational.

Knowledge of the dangers of pathogens is the result of reason, evidence and scientific advantage. The avoidance of infection is best achieved by the cold reasoned application of techniques designed to avoid it. There is no role for fear in this scenario. Fear often results in bad decision making.

So how can you insist all fears are irrational.
If all fears are irrational, then humans should not be bothered with being exposed to highly dangerous viruses and things that can cause death.

Even at present it is rational [based on past evidence] to fear the reactivation of the ideology of Nazism on a massive scale within a nation or organized group of say 50, 100 million or more.

The same reasoned response is most the appropriate response. Such fears are the subject of much media and political manipulation.

Objectively the ideology of Islam is worst than Nazism.

The best argument against such belief systems is always reason, never fear.

[Sculptor]

A phobia is an irrational fear.

All fear is irrational since fear is always a negative response and never offers clear and reasonable answers to problems.
Overcoming fear is the first response to dealing with any situation.

Since you have more chance of dying from a bizarre accident with a domestic toaster than getting killed by a Muslim terrorist I suggest you take more care in the kitchen and stop quaking like a little pussy over fears that are unfounded.

The purpose of programmed instinctual fear is to avoid premature death.

No way.
There are no valid teleological reasons for evolved traits. That is evolution 101.
Whilst it might be true that the fear trait might have resulted in some selective success which can account for the persistence of the trait, this does not change the fact that fear is a poor response to threats of all kind.

The exposure to ebola and many viruses of the like are highly fatal. [evident].
Thus the fear of coming into open contact with these fatalistic viruses is very rational.

Knowledge of the dangers of pathogens is the result of reason, evidence and scientific advantage. The avoidance of infection is best achieved by the cold reasoned application of techniques designed to avoid it. There is no role for fear in this scenario. Fear often results in bad decision making.

So how can you insist all fears are irrational.
If all fears are irrational, then humans should not be bothered with being exposed to highly dangerous viruses and things that can cause death.

Even at present it is rational [based on past evidence] to fear the reactivation of the ideology of Nazism on a massive scale within a nation or organized group of say 50, 100 million or more.

The same reasoned response is most the appropriate response. Such fears are the subject of much media and political manipulation.

Objectively the ideology of Islam is worst than Nazism.

The best argument against such belief systems is always reason, never fear.

[Immanuel Can]

What arguments do you have for the root of theism other than blind faith?

These have been discussed many times, both here and in print elsewhere. To go over them all would be to waste a ton of time and space, since they all have been outlined so many times before. So let me direct you to the best source for many -- not just one -- such argument. This source isn't quite comprehensive of all of them, but it gets the major ones in. You'll note it's published by Blackwell, not by a local or vanity press, too.

https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Compan ... B003VIWZEM

A quick look at the index will give you a sense of the overview. But to understand the arguments in a sophisticated way, you'd need to read some of the individual essays.

[Immanuel Can]

P1 DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to survive with a will-to-live at all costs till the inevitable or an instinctual trade off.

P2 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one has avoid death.

P3 To avoid death, one is programmed to fear death [subliminally or consciously].

C4 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].

P1 is now completely incoherent and ends with a vague exception clause that weakens any possible claim.

I welcome your above counters.
You did not explain how my P1 is incoherent?

Okay. You asked.

"Are programmed" is passive voice. It fails to specify any doer of the "programming." Programming requires intention and intelligence. Then your premise claims this is "at all costs," then messes that up by adding a "till" clause, and then includes a vague "inevitable or an instinctual tradeoff," which does not tell us anything except that the "at all costs" is then not true, and can be "traded off" against something you haven't identified.

In addition, a basic syllogism has three premises, not four. You've accidentally created a "chain syllogism" in which this first "link" has no clear attachment to the main argument. It doesn't even really belong.

P2-P4 still have the problems I identified above.

P2 is still a tautology. It says "To survive, one has to avoid dying." True, but totally circularly so.

Nah how can that be circular?

Because it repeats a single idea as if it were two.

To "survive" means, by definition, "not to die." "To avoid dying" means, by definition, "to survive." Not only that, but the idea that "dead things are things that don't survive" is trivial. We know that. But what information does it add to the idea of "surviving"? None.

P3 still has the "is programmed" problem of passive voice and "programmed" nonsense.

I believed you are stuck with 'is programmed' need an active programmer, like God.

No: though that is a problem, and thanks for pointing it out. Rather, I was pointing out that you're using a word "program" which implies intention and direction...functions of intelligence, that in your set of assumptions cannot be justified.

"Programming" implies teleology. Because computers don't "program" themselves: they "are programmed by programmers." So you would definitely need a different word than "programming."

But passive voice is a grammatical construct with NO agency specified. That agency can be anything capable of performing the action -- if the action can be done by something that's not God, then that agency should occur in this particular sentence. Sometimes, it adds the word "by," but in this case, there literally is no agency of the "programming" specified at all.

There is nothing when I state it is programmed via nature.

"Nature" is not an agency that "programs." You're anthropomorphizing "Nature." "Nature" just means "randomness," according to evolutionary theory. And "randomness" has never "programmed"

Hey! Principle of Charity!

We're not being "uncharitable" here. Nobody's picking on you. It's about clarity. You need to say exactly what you mean, especially in a syllogism, which is supposed to be a precise sequence of logic. We're pointing that out, so you can fix your argument--- if it can be fixed, which is a bit doubtful, at present.

C is still obviously untrue anyway. So nothing connects. It does not follow correct deductive form. It also has erroneous content. Logicians call the former "invalid" and the latter "untrue." In total, they call your argument "unsound."

My logic is proper the only counter you can give is the argument is unsound i.e. not realistic.

"Unsound" does not merely mean "unrealistic." It means that both in form and in content, the argument is incorrectly structured and articulated, and thus unreliable for any conclusion. See https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

[henry quirk]

"Your P2 To avoid dying, a human must want to live. is circular."

Yep.

#

"To avoid dying humans are programmed with various sub-programs, e.g. the impulse to breathe, the hunger drive, the need for security, etc. Then we have fundamental instinctual fears and emotional fear. There are many other sub-program algorith that drive the human to avoid deaths."

First, I'm not programmed; second, there is a unity to me, that is: I have a single drive (aspected as autonomic and conscious) to live, not multiple drives; third, and I've said it before, you keep rammin' the natural and normal and intrinsic drive to live up against the learned neurotic death fear. This is an error, a wrong-headed error, and anything extending out from that conflation is equally wrong.

#

"Henry's I have given my counter to his post."

Not really. You move the goal posts around by editing your argument, sure, but you stick with this...

Man is primally motivated by a genetic fear of dying.

You more specifically say: Any and all belief in a god is motivated by a fear of dying.

Leaving aside all the other valid counters offered by pretty much everyone posting in-thread, My counter has been...

Man is primally motivated by a wholly natural and normal and intrinsic drive to live.

Death fear is learned and is neurotic.

There are valid reasons why an individual might choose to recognize god that have nothing to do with fear (of death or damnation).

My three assertions I've backed with (only slightly snarky) examples you've only ignored.

Like others in-thread: I got no clue of where to go with you. We've entered the sphere of merry-go-rounds which make me nauseated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The purpose of programmed instinctual fear is to avoid premature death.

No way.
There are no valid teleological reasons for evolved traits. That is evolution 101.
Whilst it might be true that the fear trait might have resulted in some selective success which can account for the persistence of the trait, this does not change the fact that fear is a poor response to threats of all kind.

I say 'fear' is the instinctive reaction to all kinds of threats [learned, instinctive, perceived] to human life, i.e. to avoid premature death [mortality aside].
Fear will not be triggered if the 'threat to life' is not instinctive and is unknown to the person. Example eating poison mushrooms by a person who has no knowledge it is poisonous.

So name me one threat [learned, instinctive, perceived] to human life, that will not trigger fear. Note,

• Fear processing in the brain
  Many experiments have been done to find out how the brain interprets stimuli and how animals develop fear responses. The emotion, fear, has been hard-wired into almost every individual, due to its vital role in the survival of the individual. Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning.
  -wiki

The exposure to ebola and many viruses of the like are highly fatal. [evident].
Thus the fear of coming into open contact with these fatalistic viruses is very rational.

Knowledge of the dangers of pathogens is the result of reason, evidence and scientific advantage. The avoidance of infection is best achieved by the cold reasoned application of techniques designed to avoid it. There is no role for fear in this scenario. Fear often results in bad decision making.

My point above is the fear of pathogens is a rational fear not a perceived apparent fear, i.e. phobia.
Thus the fear of the ideology of Islam [evident with committing evil and violence] is rational and not phobic.

Fundamentally it is the fear of premature death that initiate the drives humans to avoid the infection.
'Fear' is an emotion, i.e. etymologically, 'emote =to move' i.e. in this case to motivate human into taking preventive and other actions.
Generally, those who take preventive actions are not filled with fears, but in exceptional case, it does happen to some people in some circumstances.

So how can you insist all fears are irrational.
If all fears are irrational, then humans should not be bothered with being exposed to highly dangerous viruses and things that can cause death.

Even at present it is rational [based on past evidence] to fear the reactivation of the ideology of Nazism on a massive scale within a nation or organized group of say 50, 100 million or more.

The same reasoned response is most the appropriate response. Such fears are the subject of much media and political manipulation.

It is true some fears are generated from deliberate ideological propaganda based on falsehoods.

To topic, the terrors of evil and violent acts by SOME Muslims generate fears and their acts are sanctioned by the ideology of Islam. I have evidence my point here is objective.
Therefore to fear and criticize the ideology of Islam is rational.

Objectively the ideology of Islam is worst than Nazism.

The best argument against such belief systems is always reason, never fear.

Note my point;

• Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning.
  -wiki

The point here is not whether one reason or not, fear is triggered in the unconscious whenever the related stimuli exists [real or persist].
It is so evident the ideology of Islam has compelled SOME Muslims to commit terrible atrocities, evil and violent acts as commanded by Allah in the Quran.
Since the ideology of Islam and SOME Muslims still exist, it is rational to fear Islam upon the very likelihood of terror, evil and violent acts triggered by Islam.

Thus it is always fear first, then the application of reason to ensure whatever preventive actions is justified, rational and moral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What arguments do you have for the root of theism other than blind faith?

These have been discussed many times, both here and in print elsewhere. To go over them all would be to waste a ton of time and space, since they all have been outlined so many times before. So let me direct you to the best source for many -- not just one -- such argument. This source isn't quite comprehensive of all of them, but it gets the major ones in. You'll note it's published by Blackwell, not by a local or vanity press, too.

https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Compan ... B003VIWZEM

A quick look at the index will give you a sense of the overview. But to understand the arguments in a sophisticated way, you'd need to read some of the individual essays.

Here is a review of the book in opposition to the arguments presented;
https://infidels.org/library/modern/aro ... ology.html

What the book is about:

The volume contains chapters on the kalam cosmological argument, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from consciousness, the argument from reason, the argument from religious experience, the ontological argument, the argument from miracles, and a defensive chapter on the problem of evil.

The Opposing Conclusion of the Reviewer are;

If God really did exist, it is inconceivable that He would make his existence so hard to prove that it could not be done until the 21st century, and only by a select handful of people who have reached a level of educational achievement that surpasses nearly everyone who ever lived. And it certainly seems inconceivable that God would punish people with eternal torment because they misunderstood the implications of the most recent cosmological speculations, or because they failed to properly apply Bayesian reasoning to little known historical data. The very fact that this book needs to dig so deep in order to make its case is, in a way, evidence against the existence of God.

Where the authors rely on complicated logic models or other theories, then whatever conclusion they arrive on 'God exists' is conditioned upon the framework of those models. Thus it follows their God is a conditional-God and not the unconditional God as defined and expected.

If the whole book is about the argument for the existence of God, then my view is;

• 1. As argued by Kant, it is impossible to argue and prove the existence of a real God.
  
  2. I have argued, God is an impossibility to be real.
  God is an Impossibility to be Real [Empirically and Philosophically].
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

One point which is not taken into account by the authors is;
Even, assuming God does exists, why do theists believe, revere and put their whole lifeline on such a God, to the extent some will die and kill for God?

The above answers to why believe in a God will support why theists MUST rely on faith to insist God [illusory] exists as real

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 is now completely incoherent and ends with a vague exception clause that weakens any possible claim.

I welcome your above counters.
You did not explain how my P1 is incoherent?

Okay. You asked.

Thanks, I like the way you want to tear my argument piece by piece and step by step as compared to other who used ad hominen condemnation and vulgarities.
Here are my counter arguments.

"Are programmed" is passive voice. It fails to specify any doer of the "programming." Programming requires intention and intelligence. Then your premise claims this is "at all costs," then messes that up by adding a "till" clause, and then includes a vague "inevitable or an instinctual tradeoff," which does not tell us anything except that the "at all costs" is then not true, and can be "traded off" against something you haven't identified.

This is the same way I had used 'contract' in the case of 'Who is a Christian'.

My point with the use of the term 'programmed' is find a suitable term to represent what is observed in reality on a empirical basis.

It is evident in nature, all living things strive to survive against all odds - the evident of living things in the harsher conditions on Earth.

"Till the inevitable" is obvious because mortality in inevitable, thus humans cannot strive to survive against inevitable mortality.

"Instinctual trade off" this is a provision whenever the issue is brought as an exception, e.g. suicide and other exception.
I can exclude 'instinctual trade off' until someone bring it up.

I am flexible, if the above terms create ambiguity and confusions, then I can always change my premise to another that still capture the reality of it, e.g.

• P1 All humans has an inherent instinct to strive and to survive against all odds till the inevitable [i.e. mortality].

Do you have any issue in the above?

In addition, a basic syllogism has three premises, not four. You've accidentally created a "chain syllogism" in which this first "link" has no clear attachment to the main argument. It doesn't even really belong.
P2-P4 still have the problems I identified above.

Nah, you are too pedantic.
The standard syllogism has 2 premises and a conclusion for ease of communication but it is not compulsory for one to conclude with a syllogism.
If need to I can try to break up the above into two sets of a 3-Statements syllogism.

The alternative to a conclusion can be the use of a narrative form where one premise follow from one another to the conclusion.

P2 is still a tautology. It says "To survive, one has to avoid dying." True, but totally circularly so.

Nah how can that be circular?

Because it repeats a single idea as if it were two.

To "survive" means, by definition, "not to die." "To avoid dying" means, by definition, "to survive." Not only that, but the idea that "dead things are things that don't survive" is trivial. We know that. But what information does it add to the idea of "surviving"? None.

I still don't get how can that be an issue?
E.g. to be true, it cannot be false, then one can explain why it is false.

If "To survive, one has to avoid dying" is a truism, it is only a truism, but a truism do not deviate away from the flow of the argument at all.

To survive, one has to breathe,
To survive, one has to eat
To survive, one must not take deadly poison.
The above are also truism but the above is necessary to explain to get into the more details activities to support survival.

Therefore even if my P2, is a truism, there is no issue because it is still true.

P3 still has the "is programmed" problem of passive voice and "programmed" nonsense.

I believed you are stuck with 'is programmed' need an active programmer, like God.

No: though that is a problem, and thanks for pointing it out. Rather, I was pointing out that you're using a word "program" which implies intention and direction...functions of intelligence, that in your set of assumptions cannot be justified.

"Programming" implies teleology. Because computers don't "program" themselves: they "are programmed by programmers." So you would definitely need a different word than "programming."

But passive voice is a grammatical construct with NO agency specified. That agency can be anything capable of performing the action -- if the action can be done by something that's not God, then that agency should occur in this particular sentence. Sometimes, it adds the word "by," but in this case, there literally is no agency of the "programming" specified at all.

There is nothing when I state it is programmed via nature.

"Nature" is not an agency that "programs." You're anthropomorphizing "Nature." "Nature" just means "randomness," according to evolutionary theory. And "randomness" has never "programmed"

Ok, noted.
I will omit the term programme in this case.

Hey! Principle of Charity!

We're not being "uncharitable" here. Nobody's picking on you. It's about clarity. You need to say exactly what you mean, especially in a syllogism, which is supposed to be a precise sequence of logic. We're pointing that out, so you can fix your argument--- if it can be fixed, which is a bit doubtful, at present.

Principle of Charity means understanding my original intentions even when there are some slight errors or slips.

C is still obviously untrue anyway. So nothing connects. It does not follow correct deductive form. It also has erroneous content. Logicians call the former "invalid" and the latter "untrue." In total, they call your argument "unsound."

My logic is proper the only counter you can give is the argument is unsound i.e. not realistic.

"Unsound" does not merely mean "unrealistic." It means that both in form and in content, the argument is incorrectly structured and articulated, and thus unreliable for any conclusion. See https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

I don't believe the above.

An argument can be very logical, i.e. if it satisfy the structure of logic, i.e. all the premises followed to the conclusion, but the conclusion is not sound if it is not realistic, because all or one of the premises is not true.

A Valid Argument;
An argument form is valid if and only if whenever the premises are all true, then conclusion is true. An argument is valid if its argument form is valid.

For a sound argument,
An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true.
Link

My revised argument would be;

• P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
  
  P2 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one is instinctually driven to avoid death.
  
  P3 To avoid death, it is instinctual to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
  
  C4 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one will instinctually fear death [subliminally or consciously].

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Your P2 To avoid dying, a human must want to live. is circular."

Yep.

#

"To avoid dying humans are programmed with various sub-programs, e.g. the impulse to breathe, the hunger drive, the need for security, etc. Then we have fundamental instinctual fears and emotional fear. There are many other sub-program algorith that drive the human to avoid deaths."

First, I'm not programmed; second, there is a unity to me, that is: I have a single drive (aspected as autonomic and conscious) to live, not multiple drives; third, and I've said it before, you keep rammin' the natural and normal and intrinsic drive to live up against the learned neurotic death fear. This is an error, a wrong-headed error, and anything extending out from that conflation is equally wrong.

#

"Henry's I have given my counter to his post."

Not really. You move the goal posts around by editing your argument, sure, but you stick with this...

Man is primally motivated by a genetic fear of dying.

You more specifically say: Any and all belief in a god is motivated by a fear of dying.

Leaving aside all the other valid counters offered by pretty much everyone posting in-thread, My counter has been...

Man is primally motivated by a wholly natural and normal and intrinsic drive to live.

Death fear is learned and is neurotic.

There are valid reasons why an individual might choose to recognize god that have nothing to do with fear (of death or damnation).

My three assertions I've backed with (only slightly snarky) examples you've only ignored.

Like others in-thread: I got no clue of where to go with you. We've entered the sphere of merry-go-rounds which make me nauseated.

Merry go round??
This is why a syllogism or follow-tru narrative is critical.
I may have tweaked my individual premises but the structure is still there.

If you have problem with 'programme' as with Emmanuel, I can do away with that.

henry quirk: Death fear is learned and is neurotic.

Note the fundamental of what is 'fear.'

• Fear processing in the brain
  Many experiments have been done to find out how the brain interprets stimuli and how animals develop fear responses. The emotion, fear, has been hard-wired into almost every individual, due to its vital role in the survival of the individual. Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning.
  -wiki

Fundamentally 'fear' is established "unconsciously" an instinct established from the evidence and experiences of death in contrast to the instinct to survive. Thus the instinct of the fear of death is established as an "unconscious" function.
In another perspective 'fear' can be learned [nurture], that is secondary to this issue.

You are creating your own merry go round because you are unable to argue straight from premise 1 to the conclusion as I have done below.

My revised argument would be;

• P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
  
  P2 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one is instinctually driven to avoid death.
  
  P3 To avoid death, it is instinctual to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
  
  C4 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one will instinctually fear death [subliminally or consciously].

Show any one of the above premise if false, then the conclusion is false.

Note my conclusion do not imply the fear of death is the ONLY instinct that is necessary to survive.
My conclusion show instinctual 'the fear of death' is one necessary instinct to avoid death [P2], thus to survive [P1].