Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

[henry quirk]

To desire overtly to live one has avoid death.
To avoid death, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Therefore to overtly desire to live, one has to fear death.

This logic is implanted in all human via evolution.

To be a deist is driven by the overt desire to live
To overtly desire to live, one has to fear death [from C3]
Therefore a deist is driven by the fear of death [subliminal].

Nope.

Here's how it really works...

Death fear: oooh, there's scary monsters outside...we better stay inside this cave, eat grubs, and avoid gettin' eaten

Life desire: oooh, there's scary monsters outside...some of 'em look pretty meaty...bet they'd taste good...I got me a pointy stick...I'm goin' eat me a monster

#

"Crom = God?"

Crom is the name and face I hang on the indifferent ineffable, yes.

#

"Try to denounce [seriously] your "Crom" as false, non-existence, illusory for 10 seconds, one hour, one day or longer."

For most of my life I cared so little about the subject I couldn't be bothered to identify as agnostic or atheist or anything. I moved from indifferent agnostic/atheist/whatever to somewhat less indifferent deist only recently, and I moved cuz of my own self-interrogations about the nature of free will. As I say: my deism is an explanation, a foundation, not a shelter or comfort.

#

"The moment you denounce your "Crom" as false, non-existence, illusory, you will feel a sense of unease, insecurity and the likes."

Nope.

#

"If you don't feel the unease for 10 seconds it will come on either in the next minutes or hour. Such unease are exuded from the subconscious mind to the conscious mind driven by the subliminal fear of death culminating in an existential crisis."

Nope.

#

"If you do the above tests and when you feel the unease, then when you revert to claiming "Crom" as existing and real, then the unease will disappear."

Nope.

#

"Thus it is personally proven, belief in the existence of 'Crom' as real defeats the unease cause by the subliminal fear of death.
QED!"

Nope.

Look, I'm not sayin' your death fear stuff is hooey; I'm sayin' it ain't universal, and I'm sayin' some folks choose to acknowledge Crom for reasons other than fear.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Read my argument again;

I didn't just "read" it again. I cut-and-pasted it directly, and showed why it was wrong.

You are lying in this case.
You did not cut & pasted.
You cut, change a word, then pasted.

You changed the term 'theists' therein to [a]theists, then pasted it.
As I had explained, the term [a]theists do not fit into the whole context of the argument.

I mentioned 'deists' as well in the argument.
It cover all religionists [theistic, deistic, non-theistic, agnostic].

That's of no consequence. It won't fix the pattern of "logic" there, which fails on any terms.

You have not countered why my argument has failed.
You merely changed a word which is out of context.

All you have to do is ask people why they believe, and do the sociological data-gathering. And if they give an explanation such as Flew gave, one based on his reasons not his fears, then you'd have to either say, "Well, he's just lying," or else you'd have to accept that you were wrong. And you could, as I have, talked to a great many more Theists who would tell you similar stories of alternate motives for belief.

Surely you are aware of the Ad populum fallacy.

Do you understand the subliminal effect?

Ah.

So you're going to say that they don't know why they actually believed. That even those who thought something else made them Theists or Deists simply did not understand their own "subliminal" motives.

But you do, because you're so much smarter than them, and know them so much better than they could possibly know their own motives. So even a thoughtful kind of person like Flew was deluded in a way you'll never be...

Is that really your argument? No hubris there, though.

I have explained the above in this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27757

As explained the majority are not aware of the linkage between what they are consciously doing to what is really going on within their subconscious mind.
There are loads of research in Science and Psychology to support that point. You are ignorant of this.

So what I proposed is not smarter than many others [scientist, psychologists, others] who are in the know of the above point.

What I added is there is a correlation between the theist outer conscious actions and what is going on subliminally inside the theists' brain. I have given sound justification to what I had hypothesized [note not a theory].

Sure there is. But some people just don't want to be convinced. And there's nothing anybody can do when that happens.

There is a minimal standard for what is normally termed as 'convincing' i.e. justified true belief or knowledge.

Can schizo accused others of not wanting to be convinced of his belief the gnomes in the garden he had a two-way conversation are real?
It is the same with any other positive claims, the onus is on the claimant to provide justified true beliefs, e.g. like in scientific knowledge.

You'd better explain this phrase. I have no idea what you mean by it. I know what "empirical" means, but how you think it applies, or should apply, to God remains very unclear to me.

An empirical God is a God that is attributed fully with empirical elements.

A theist many claimed his God is a large dog in planet 1 million light years away from Earth.
You will note, all the elements attributed to God in this case are empirical, thus that is an empirical God.
Because such a God is empirically testable and verifiable [as with all scientific things] we cannot reject such a God as non-existence. Like Dawkins, a empirical based person will give a 1/7 possibility such a God exists. To confirm such a God [as above] exists, the requirement is to bring the empirical evidence to be verified and validated that such a God really exists empirically.
Despite being cornered with a 1/7 possibility, the ordinary [a]theist will intuitively knows it is an impossibility.

If that's it, then God exists. But I don't see how the word "empirical" applies.

As I had stated there are two perspective of God for theists, i.e.

• 1. Empirical God
  2. Ontological God

An empirical god may exists with objective reality, but subject to bringing the empirical evidence to verify its truth. But an empirical concept of a God is not a sustainable concept.
The only sustainable idea of God is the ontological God.

"Empirically" means, "detectable by observation or experience," and is not the same as "logic, critical thinking, or rationality," which are non-empirical ways of knowing. As for what "wisdom" has to do with the "empirical," I cannot imagine why you think they're the same at all.

You just need to get a real definition of "empirical," it seems. Try this: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/empiric

You missed my point.

I stated to have objective reality it must satisfy two requirements,

• 1. Justified empirically and
  
  2. Justified philosophically [logically, critical thinking, rationally, wisdom].

This meant the final word is not left to scientific conclusions and which is vulnerable to Scientism.
Whatever is justified empirical must be reviewed philosophically i.e. logically, critical thinking, rationally, wisdom.

This is where we have Philosophy of Science as a meta-reviewer of scientific knowledge.
Example, note Hume's exposition of causality, i.e. cause and effect that ensure causality is not a certainty but rather there psychology is involved.

Thus for whatever the empirical based scientific knowledge, there is a critical need to bring in all the tools of philosophy to ensure overall soundness.

That is true, but it is not the problem with the words "square circle." The real problem is that of self-contradiction. It is this self-contradiction that makes the concept irrational, not merely that no square circles "happen" to exist.

There is no such self-contradiction in the concept "God."

I stated the idea of God is similar [not exactly like] the idea of a square-circle.
The idea of God [a proven illusion] claimed as real by theists is an oxymoron.
Whatever is an illusion, that illusion cannot be real.

How did you "empirically" discover that this is so? Did you do the experiments? Or are you just imagining it yourself, and taking it as given?

In that case, your argument "is merely thoughts and neural activities that is confined to the brain," just as you say.

This is so obvious.
When the theists think of God or experienced what he concluded as God, it is very logical and rational, these are represented by thoughts and neural activities in his brain/mind.
You dispute this?

Heh. Correlational fallacy.

If I hold up an ice cream cone, or a picture of one, your neural circuits will flicker into life, signalling "ice cream cone." That does not mean that the ice cream cone doesn't exist -- it may, or it may not. But you have no idea which it is. All we can say is that you are perceiving "ice cream cone" at that moment.

And it certainly doesn't imply no "ice cream cones" exist in the world.

First there are thoughts and neural activities for whatever is claimed by a claimant.

Where such a claim is an objective reality or not the following can be tested,

if it is a totally empirical based thing then the production of the necessary evidence is need to verify it empirically to confirm it objective reality.
'Ice cream cones' are empirically and there a loads of empirical evidence to prove that they exist as real.

But when a theists thinks and claim he had experienced God and God exists as an objective reality, the theists is unable to bring empirical evidence to support and justify his claims.
Since the emergence of the idea of God into human consciousness, no theists has been able to bring the necessary empirical evidences to justify God exists as real empirically and philosophically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To desire overtly to live one has avoid death.
To avoid death, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Therefore to overtly desire to live, one has to fear death.

This logic is implanted in all human via evolution.

To be a deist is driven by the overt desire to live
To overtly desire to live, one has to fear death [from C3]
Therefore a deist is driven by the fear of death [subliminal].

Nope.

Here's how it really works...
.....

Look, I'm not sayin' your death fear stuff is hooey; I'm sayin' it ain't universal, and I'm sayin' some folks choose to acknowledge Crom for reasons other than fear.

My syllogism above show whatever way a person end up with a belief in God [theist, deist or agnostic] it is reducible to the 'fear of death' at the subliminal level.

The only way the belief in a God is not reducible to the subliminal fear of death is when someone consciously pretend to do so.

You are stuck with the conscious sense the fear of death which can happen momentarily and goes away quickly.
What you missed is the critical subliminal fear of death which is active beyond your conscious mind.

I explained that in detail here;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27757

[Age]

To desire overtly to live one has avoid death.
To avoid death, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Therefore to overtly desire to live, one has to fear death.

This logic is implanted in all human via evolution.

To be a deist is driven by the overt desire to live
To overtly desire to live, one has to fear death [from C3]
Therefore a deist is driven by the fear of death [subliminal].

Nope.

Here's how it really works...
.....

Look, I'm not sayin' your death fear stuff is hooey; I'm sayin' it ain't universal, and I'm sayin' some folks choose to acknowledge Crom for reasons other than fear.

My syllogism above show whatever way a person end up with a belief in God [theist, deist or agnostic] it is reducible to the 'fear of death' at the subliminal level.

Your above syllogism does NOT show any such thing.

Also, To desire overtly to live one has avoid death. is not written clearly, but even if it was it would also obviously be false.
To avoid death, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously]. One also does NOT have to fear death to avoid it. Human beings can very easily avoid things WITHOUT having to fear them.
Therefore to overtly desire to live, one has to fear death. Utterly false AND wrong.

This logic is implanted in all human via evolution. This is just plain illogical.

To be a deist is driven by the overt desire to live
To overtly desire to live, one has to fear death [from C3]
Therefore a deist is driven by the fear of death [subliminal].

lol. You really do say the most hilariously stupid things some times.

The only way the belief in a God is not reducible to the subliminal fear of death is when someone consciously pretend to do so.

You are stuck with the conscious sense the fear of death which can happen momentarily and goes away quickly.
What you missed is the critical subliminal fear of death which is active beyond your conscious mind.

I explained that in detail here;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27757

[Immanuel Can]

You cut, change a word, then pasted.

I already told you, I changed "Theist" to "Atheist," and the explanation to one that fits Atheists. Other than that, it's cut-and-paste.

All you have to do is ask people why they believe, and do the sociological data-gathering. And if they give an explanation such as Flew gave, one based on his reasons not his fears, then you'd have to either say, "Well, he's just lying," or else you'd have to accept that you were wrong. And you could, as I have, talked to a great many more Theists who would tell you similar stories of alternate motives for belief.

Surely you are aware of the Ad populum fallacy.

It's not this. The ad populum fallacy means only that things that are popular are not necessarily either therefore right or wrong. It does not mean that all sociological data-gathering is valueless.

...the majority are not aware of the linkage between what they are consciously doing to what is really going on within their subconscious mind.

This has nothing to do with the subconscious. We're talking about people like Flew, who are very conscious of their motives, and can, in fact, rationally lay out in a book why they think what they think. In order to contradict that, you have to imagine that they are confused or lying, and that you, personally, are wiser about their motives than they are.

I think that both those suppositions are without basis.

Sure there is. But some people just don't want to be convinced. And there's nothing anybody can do when that happens.

There is a minimal standard for what is normally termed as 'convincing' i.e. justified true belief or knowledge.

Yes. And I'm suggesting it's been met.

You'd better explain this phrase. I have no idea what you mean by it. I know what "empirical" means, but how you think it applies, or should apply, to God remains very unclear to me.

An empirical God is a God that is attributed fully with empirical elements.

I still have no idea what you just said. You used the word "empirical" to define what you mean by "empirical," which is circular.

The only sustainable idea of God is the ontological God.

Okay, so it's now clear that at the moment you don't understand either "ontological" or "empirical." Because if you did, you'd know that the empirical is a subset of the ontological, not its opposite.

"Empirically" means, "detectable by observation or experience," and is not the same as "logic, critical thinking, or rationality," which are non-empirical ways of knowing. As for what "wisdom" has to do with the "empirical," I cannot imagine why you think they're the same at all.

You just need to get a real definition of "empirical," it seems. Try this: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/empiric

You missed my point.

No, I'm pretty sure I got it. It just wasn't right.

That is true, but it is not the problem with the words "square circle." The real problem is that of self-contradiction. It is this self-contradiction that makes the concept irrational, not merely that no square circles "happen" to exist.

There is no such self-contradiction in the concept "God."

I stated the idea of God is similar [not exactly like] the idea of a square-circle.

Yeah, I know: you're wrong about that.

How did you "empirically" discover that this is so? Did you do the experiments? Or are you just imagining it yourself, and taking it as given?

In that case, your argument "is merely thoughts and neural activities that is confined to the brain," just as you say.

This is so obvious.

What's obvious is that you still need to tune up your understanding of what "empirical" means.

But when a theists thinks and claim he had experienced God and God exists as an objective reality, the theists is unable to bring empirical evidence to support and justify his claims.

I still have no idea what you're trying to say when you use the word "empirical," because you're not using it in the way anybody else does.

But it seems to me that this is simply an obviously false, and verifiably false claim, if by "empirical" you happen to mean what other people do.

[surreptitious57]

PI To desire overtly to live one has avoid death
P2 To avoid death one has to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]
C3 Therefore to overtly desire to live one has to fear death

P2 is not always true because avoidance and fear are not necessarily connected
Fear is not the only reason to avoid something it is merely one reason
And because P2 is therefore a faulty premise then so is the conclusion

[Immanuel Can]

PI To desire overtly to live one has avoid death
P2 To avoid death one has to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]
C3 Therefore to overtly desire to live one has to fear death

P2 is not always true because avoidance and fear are not necessarily connected
Fear is not the only reason to avoid something it is merely one reason
And because P2 is therefore a faulty premise then so is the conclusion

VA's pattern of logic doesn't work, even when you do your best to save it.

Take P1, for example, "desire overtly" means, "want openly," or perhaps "intend manifestly." One could easily, therefore "desire" anything, and to it "overtly," even if that thing itself were impossible. One could, for example, "desire overtly" a pet unicorn. That doesn't mean that one's going to get one.

As you rightly point out, P2 doesn't work either, and precisely for the reasons you state. One could, for example, desire not to die in order to see one's grandchildren. Or one could desire not to die, in order to satisfy one's curiosity about the maximum human lifespan. Or one could desire not to die because one finds like interesting, or because dying could be painful, or because one likes art and doesn't want to miss any of it, or because one has no idea of what comes after death and to live seems like more fun than that...and "subliminal" does not automatically mean "subconscious," so it's hard to say what that word is supposed to add.

Thus, with two completely implausible premises, there's no way the conclusion can be justified by them...or any conclusion, for that matter.

[henry quirk]

"My syllogism above show whatever way a person end up with a belief in God [theist, deist or agnostic] it is reducible to the 'fear of death' at the subliminal level."

No. Your syllogism is chockablock with error.

Ain't got to go any further than...

To desire overtly to live one has avoid death.

...to see the error.

Not an animal on Crom's Green Earth comes into being fearin' death and lookin' to avoid death, but every living thing (from amoeba clear on up to man) comes into the world with the impulse to live. You're makin' death fear and life impulse/desire synonymous, when, clearly, the two are not the same.

Simply: a man wants to live (it's natural and normal for him to want to live, to do things to promote his continuing).

Simply: a man can come to fear death (can learn to fear death).

The man who risks bein' et by monsters as he tries to eat a monster is bolstered by his life desire.

The male who stays in the cave eatin' grubs to avoid bein' et by monsters is cocooned by his death fear.

I think, mebbe, you got the death fear and can't wrap your head 'round the idea that others don't.

#

The only way the belief in a God is not reducible to the subliminal fear of death is when someone consciously pretend to do so.

Yeah, I already told you my recognizin' Crom has everything to do with free will, not death. I don't take kindly to you repeatedly callin' me a liar (cuz that's what you're doin').

#

I explained that in detail here; viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27757

Yeah, I read all that, you're wrong there too.

[FlashDangerpants]

"My syllogism above show whatever way a person end up with a belief in God [theist, deist or agnostic] it is reducible to the 'fear of death' at the subliminal level."

No. Your syllogism is chockablock with error.

One of those errors being that it is just three statements in a row, and not a syllogism?

[henry quirk]

Flash, just between you and me: I don't have a fuckin' clue what a syllogism even is...sure as shit I don't know what it is VA has foisted up...all I know is : VA is wrong (and why he's wrong)

[FlashDangerpants]

Honestly, I think that makes you one of the very few who is aware that they don't know it, virtually every reference to a syllogism on this forum is actually just three lines of generally very bad argument.

[henry quirk]

what I don't get is why syllogism is necessary....just say what it is you got to say and leave off with the structuring: 'people become believers cuz they're afraid of dyin' and here's my evidence of this: blah, yadda, etc.'...sometimes, it seems to me, folks go syllogismistic cuz they got no evidence, they just got a notion...like if VA had said 'some folks turn to god cuz, through god, they get the promise of an afterlife' I wouldn't fault him...instead, he sez: everyone who believes is in the grip of genetic 'death fear' (but not him cuz he's enlightened) and all he offers in support is sumthin' akin to bad poetry...all in all: syllogism-makin' strikes me as dishonest

[FlashDangerpants]

Indeed, all you need for an argument is a set of premises with a logical relationship between them, there's no need for every argument to be a syllogism at all. Syllogisms are a good way to summarise an argument if you can successfully simplify it enough sometimes, but that's about it. It's weird also that most of the worst mistakes in logic on this forum are from people trying too hard to make a massive argument of grand importance like one of the Olde Timey Great Philosophers, it doesn't help them much when they try to wrap that up in the nursery rhyme of arg structures, and it helps even less when they get that wrong too.

[henry quirk]

mebbe tomorrow

[Veritas Aequitas]

PI To desire overtly to live one has avoid death
P2 To avoid death one has to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]
C3 Therefore to overtly desire to live one has to fear death

P2 is not always true because avoidance and fear are not necessarily connected
Fear is not the only reason to avoid something it is merely one reason
And because P2 is therefore a faulty premise then so is the conclusion

The above are all related to DNA based programmed deep into the brains of human via evolution. They are all instinctual.
It is programmed in human nature, to avoid death, one is programmed to fear death so that one can survive and live to procreate and produce the next generation.

Fear is not the only reason to avoid something it is merely one reason

My point above is not "to avoid something."

My OP is about 'to avoid death' to ensure survive, then to live.
As stated, 'to avoid death' the human being is programmed instinctively to 'fear death' at the subliminal level within the subconscious mind.
Note this is the principle in all animals.
If the programmed of fear is corrupted or not triggered like the Dodo, then, the species will be extinct.

It is critical, the point is not about an conscious fear of death, but the subconscious fear of death.