Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

[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

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.

I was flowing specifically Henry Quick's argument and notice the shortfall with his use of "desire overtly".

I have edited my argument as follows;

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

P1 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].

[Veritas Aequitas]

"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.

To desire overtly to live one has avoid death.
I had continued with your term 'desire overtly' which is limited and I have edited it to;

• A. DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to survive with a will-to-live at all costs.
  
  P1 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].

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.

Even for the amoeba, the impulse to live do imply avoiding death, albeit not consciously. The amoeba will instinctively move away from dangers to itself to avoid death.

Humans are more complex animals and are programmed with emotions, i.e. one of these is fear.
The purpose of the fear emotion is to trigger the human person to avoid death.
Thus to avoid death so as to survive and live, one is programmed to fear death.
Thus death, fear, life impulses are all linked.

I wrote somewhere,

The purpose of human life as observed is to ensure the preservation of the human species as programmed with the following;

• 1. To survive at all costs
  2. To avoid death by fearing death
  3. To procreate to produce the next generation
  4. To be moral and wise

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

In a way that is only temporary.
But by default a man is programmed not to have a conscious fear of death at all times.
A man who is persistently fear death consciously is mentally ill and should seek a psychiatrist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

I believe in any discussion some sort of structure is necessary.
Otherwise the points presented could be all over the place and difficult for others to follow and counter argue.

To be structured and systematic, one point must flow from one to the other in arriving at one's conclusion. This can be done via syllogism or narrative statements that follows each other, i.e. sequitor.

What is critical is each premise or statements must be supported by justification with evidence, rationality, and logical.

Note in your case, I have problem getting your points in order.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

It pointless to make generalize accusations as if you are a philosophy-God.
The forum is open for you to critique the syllogism if you think the structure or premise is wrong.

If wherever I am wrong in either the syllogism format or premise, there is at least an attempt to discuss structurally and systematically in contrast to those to throw their points all over the place without connections.

[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.

It pointless to make generalize accusations as if you are a philosophy-God.
The forum is open for you to critique the syllogism if you think the structure or premise is wrong.

If wherever I am wrong in either the syllogism format or premise, there is at least an attempt to discuss structurally and systematically in contrast to those to throw their points all over the place without connections.

I've directly critiqued your logical failings many times, others have done so. You never understand. You are shit at philosophy and far too stupid to catch up now.

I've seen you boast at least twice about different subjects you claim to have studied for 8 hours a day for years on end. Perhaps if you do that again but with some year one intro to logic text books you might acheive something of some value this time.

[Immanuel Can]

I have edited my argument as follows;

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

P1 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].

Well, let's check that over, step by step, and see if it turns out to be valid.

A. seems wrong. Sometimes people agree to die -- over a value, a principle or an ideal they have. For example, a martyr, or a warrior who plunges into a hopeless battle, or a fireman who enters a burning building to save a child that's beyond reasonable hope, or a mother sheltering her child from starvation by starving herself, and so on. So the "at all costs" seems wrong. There are "costs" some people are clearly wiling to pay.

In any case, it's not clear how A. is supposed to fit into the syllogism. Is it "P1a," and the next one "P1b?" That's an unusual way to form a syllogism. But okay, on to the syllogism itself.

Hmmm....

P1 Seems to me to say no more than, "To stay alive, people have to stay alive," essentially. In other words, it doesn't add any information, so far as I can tell.

P2 I think, pretty clearly remains untrue. A person may not fear death, and yet may not die. A fearless warrior, for example, may survive a battle -- and may even be MORE likely to do so, in some cases. Or a person may skydive for fun, and do a hundred jumps and not die.

Is P3 your conclusion? Because "P" usually designates a premise, not a conclusion. So should it be "C"? I'm going to guess so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But in any case, it's clear to me that P1 plus P2 will not warrant P3, if that's the revision.

[henry quirk]

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

Humans want to live.

P1 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one has avoid death.

To live, a human must avoid dying.

P2 To avoid death, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].

To avoid dying, a human must want to live.

C3 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].

Therefore to live, a human must want to live.

[surreptitious57]

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

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

Why is it only something that exists within the subconscious mind and not the conscious mind if it is so essential for the survival of the species
You also cannot make any claims at all about the mental states of other animals simply because there is no way to actually demonstrate them
Unless you have actual evidence all of this is is mere assertion and no more and claims that cannot be demonstrated also cannot be accepted

[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.

[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

[Immanuel Can]

"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.

So, let's see, VA.

Henry
IC
Flash
and Surreptitious

...are all agreeing that the "syllogism" in question is badly fallacious.

When you've got agreement between people with such vastly different ideas and values, from such widely different worldview perspectives, and including folks who almost never agree about anything, you might want to ask yourself why they agree about this.

[FlashDangerpants]

That is a pretty fucked up situation to be in. Sort of like the worst possible Marvel movie, with the fattest and baldest set of heroes ever to disgrace the screen, pitted against the most forgetable villain.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have edited my argument as follows;

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

P1 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].

Well, let's check that over, step by step, and see if it turns out to be valid.

A. seems wrong. Sometimes people agree to die -- over a value, a principle or an ideal they have. For example, a martyr, or a warrior who plunges into a hopeless battle, or a fireman who enters a burning building to save a child that's beyond reasonable hope, or a mother sheltering her child from starvation by starving herself, and so on. So the "at all costs" seems wrong. There are "costs" some people are clearly wiling to pay.

In any case, it's not clear how A. is supposed to fit into the syllogism. Is it "P1a," and the next one "P1b?" That's an unusual way to form a syllogism. But okay, on to the syllogism itself.

Hmmm....

P1 Seems to me to say no more than, "To stay alive, people have to stay alive," essentially. In other words, it doesn't add any information, so far as I can tell.

I stated DNA wise, i.e. it is nature's that programmed a survival instinct in all humans.
But nature is never perfect and thus as evidenced, deviations do arise from what is intended in the program. Note synaesthesia and many others defects at birth.

In principle the will-to-live, since it is DNA driven, is an inherent trait of all human beings with a DNA driven algorithm mechanism supporting the will-to-live is in all humans.

Humans are very complex and thus there is a hierarchy of all other algorithms in the brain and external factors that influences the instinctual will-to-live positively or negatively.

In cases of negative effect to the will-to-live:
A person may be born with a potential defect in the will-to-live algorithm and nurturing could worsen this defect or the will-to-live is weaken by various stress factors. In this case, when the will-to-live is weakened the person is vulnerable to commit suicide. In this case the person may 'want' to die. However this only happen to a small percentile of humans.

I missed out the usual qualification to A.
When the will-to-live is not weakened, it will drive the human to survive at all costs, till inevitable mortality or when over weighed by a trade off from other opposing factors.
This trade-off is not subjective but is grounded on some other instincts programmed by nature.

A martyred is willing or deliberately risk his death [e.g. suicide bomber] with a trade off of being rewarded an eternal life with greater rewards than other believers.
Note the martyred was originally driven to avoid by fearing death [physical] and clung to an ideology which unfortunate offer a preferable eternal life.

In the cases of a firemen, mother starving for a child, an other altruistic motives, the person's will-to-live is still intact but they have taken a calculated risk to ensure they do not die.

There will many other exceptions but they are within the margin of normal deviations [very low %] in nature.

But the point is;
DNA wise, all humans are programmed with a will-to-live algorithm to survive at all costs till the inevitable or a trade off.

"To stay alive, people have to stay alive,"
Nope.
The antithesis of 'alive' is 'death'.
Therefore to be alive means not dead.
Thus to stay alive one is programmed [DNA wise] to avoid death.
Thus my P1 is very logical and rational.

P2 I think, pretty clearly remains untrue. A person may not fear death, and yet may not die. A fearless warrior, for example, may survive a battle -- and may even be MORE likely to do so, in some cases. Or a person may skydive for fun, and do a hundred jumps and not die.

From P1 To stay alive one is programmed [DNA wise] to avoid death,
nature will establish various sub-programs to ensure the person avoid death instinctually.
One of this sub-program is 'fear of death' which will motivate one to avoid death.

Is P3 your conclusion? Because "P" usually designates a premise, not a conclusion. So should it be "C"? I'm going to guess so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But in any case, it's clear to me that P1 plus P2 will not warrant P3, if that's the revision.

I labelled the third statement C3 in the above but I am not that pedantic if it is P3, since the statements are self-explanatory.

Therefore my original argument [syllogism] stays with addition of the necessary qualification to A.

• A. 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.
  
  P1 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].

Critically note the above focus is on the DNA driven program, thus instinctual which human cannot get rid off [at least in the present till a long time in the future]. There is no exception to it as a neural algorithm. The only consideration is whether there are defects in the program which is expected to be low in %.

Btw, I like your,
Well, let's check that over, step by step, and see if it turns out to be valid.
which preferably should be done with all counter proposals in this philosophical forums.

If you insist your counter proposition is true, you should provide a syllogism or a narrative that is sequitor so that I too can check your argument step by step.

[Immanuel Can]

Therefore my original argument [syllogism] stays with addition of the necessary qualification to A.

Give it up. It's dead. And now it seems that everybody but you already knows it is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Humans want to live.

P1 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one has avoid death.

To live, a human must avoid dying.

P2 To avoid death, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].

To avoid dying, a human must want to live.

C3 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].

Therefore to live, a human must want to live.

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

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.

My P2 included only 'fear of death' as a supporting premise that it is this fear of death that drive humans to religions [theistic and non-theistic].

Thus my argument [note changes],

• A. 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.
  
  P1 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one has avoid death.
  
  P2 To avoid death, one is programmed to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
  
  C3 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one has to fear death [subliminally or consciously].

I mentioned above;
My P2 included only 'fear of death' as a supporting premise that it is this fear of death that drive humans to religions [theistic and non-theistic].

The above conclusion is a premise to the root cause of all religions [theistic and non-theistic].

• 1. To survive with the will-to-live, one is programmed instinctively to fear death
  2. The instinctive fear of death generate terrible existential pains.
  3. Religions provide instant relief to the existential pains
  4. Therefore the root cause of religions is from the programmed fear of death.