Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

The only valid currency in this philosophical forum is justified sound arguments.

Show me your argument my above argument is dead, preferably step by step.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

The human species [ancestors] has survived for 6 million years,

• While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago. Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old, and industrialization started in the earnest only in the 1800s.
  https://www.universetoday.com/38125/how ... -on-earth/

The human species has evolved from DNA programs adapted from the first one-cell living things since 3 billion years ago.

Thus whatever programs are within the subconscious mind, there are critical and essential for the survival of the species up to this point in time.

This DNA programs of instincts operate within the subconscious mind and not the conscious mind which is driven by our self-consciousness.

As far as non-humans [except for certain higher animals with some level of self-awareness] operate on instincts which is equivalent to our human subconscious mind.
I may not know 100% of what is going on in the animal brain, but in principle they operate instinctively, thus near equivalent to our subconscious mind.

[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.

The only valid currency in this philosophical forum is justified sound arguments.

Yeah, we did those. But apparently, you didn't recognize them when we gave them.

Henry pointed out your whole argument was a mere tautology. That's true. But I went line by line, showing that your premises were all false and gave the reasons. And the other two chimed in with additional reasons. However, none of all of this seemed to have made a dent in your belief in your original argument.

So there's no next step. After all the logic has been ignored, what is one to say?

[surreptitious57]

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

The primary function of DNA is to store and pass on genetic information
It has nothing at all to do with programming humans to survive with a will to live at all costs
Were that so then everyone would have this will but they do not so it cannot possibly be true

You are conflating two entirely separate branches of science here - biology and psychology
It is psychology that determines someones will to survive - or not to survive - not biology

I have already asked you if you can provide any evidence to justify your claim but as of yet there is none
Any microbiologists for example you can reference who can confirm that what you are saying here is true

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.
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.
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.
Objectively the ideology of Islam is worst than Nazism.
It is also very evident the ideology of Islam has influenced a large quantum of Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims.
As such it is rational to fear Islam.
Therefore it is not a phobia to fear Islam and to critique Islam as a dangerous ideology on an objective basis.

Your whataboutism [domestic toaster, airplane, mosquitoes] is a fallacy.
How many people had been killed by accident domestic toasters?
Compare this the estimated 200 million + of non-Muslims and even Muslims killed via the ideology of Islam since it first emerged.
You are very selfish and have no concern for the next millions of people who will be killed by inspirations from the ideology of Islam.

In any case, humanity must show concern for all kind of death and take preventive actions to avoid them, i.e. including critique of the relevant issue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

The only valid currency in this philosophical forum is justified sound arguments.

Yeah, we did those. But apparently, you didn't recognize them when we gave them.

Henry pointed out your whole argument was a mere tautology. That's true. But I went line by line, showing that your premises were all false and gave the reasons. And the other two chimed in with additional reasons. However, none of all of this seemed to have made a dent in your belief in your original argument.

So there's no next step. After all the logic has been ignored, what is one to say?

You did counter earlier on, but I have re-countered all of them as not effective.
Where are your newer counter arguments?
Point is you have run out of arguments.

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

[Immanuel Can]

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].

Where are your newer counter arguments?

We don't need "new" ones: we need you to understand the old ones, because they still apply. You didn't manage to fix anything in your revised version.

"A" is stil not worked into the syllogism, but floats loose of it and is gratuitous still.

P1 is still false, but now has incoherent grammar too. P2 has now added the idea "is programmed," which helps the argument not at all, merely hiding behind the passive voice, but not creating a better argument. C is still obviously alse too, and the examples I gave still stand as counter cases -- the brave warrior and the skydiver don't "fear death." but don't end up dead because of it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

The primary function of DNA is to store and pass on genetic information
It has nothing at all to do with programming humans to survive with a will to live at all costs
Were that so then everyone would have this will but they do not so it cannot possibly be true.

As I had explained ALL humans are programmed with a will-to-live but this will-to-live can be compromised by defects which is a natural % with all activities of nature.

I have proposed the following to test out this hypothesis;

• 1. Ask yourself, do you want to be killed?
  The answer is likely to be no, because you want to live driven by the impulse to live.
  
  2. Ask every human on earth whether they want to be killed or to die?
  Intuitively, it is very likely 95% will answer no.
  Those yes [estimated 5%] are the one whose will-to-live is weakened by various reason and they are labelled as mentally ill per DSM-V.

You are conflating two entirely separate branches of science here - biology and psychology
It is psychology that determines someones will to survive - or not to survive - not biology

Nah!
We can infer the will-to-live must be activated by a neural algorithm comprised on neurons and that is biology, i.e. neuro-biology.

I have already asked you if you can provide any evidence to justify your claim but as of yet there is none
Any microbiologists for example you can reference who can confirm that what you are saying here is true

Neurobiologists and neuroscientists may not be able to identify the specific neurons involved but all neurobiologists will confirm [by inference] all human mental activities, e.g. the will-to-live is activated by fundamentally, a cluster of neurons in the brain.
If a person brain is damaged in the relevant part [evident], he will not be showing the [conscious] will-to-live, yet, the body will strive to live even in a coma.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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].

Where are your newer counter arguments?

We don't need "new" ones: we need you to understand the old ones, because they still apply. You didn't manage to fix anything in your revised version.

"A" is stil not worked into the syllogism, but floats loose of it and is gratuitous still.

P1 is still false, but now has incoherent grammar too. P2 has now added the idea "is programmed," which helps the argument not at all, merely hiding behind the passive voice, but not creating a better argument. C is still obviously alse too, and the examples I gave still stand as counter cases -- the brave warrior and the skydiver don't "fear death." but don't end up dead because of it.

• 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 can incorporate A into the argument easily.
The critical point is to ensure they follow from one premise to another, i.e.

• 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].

'A' can be justified by the following tests;
I have discussed this in detail in the other thread re morality;

• 1. Ask yourself, do you want to be killed?
  The answer is likely to be no, because you want to live driven by the impulse to live.
  
  2. Ask every human on earth whether they want to be killed or to die?
  Intuitively, it is very likely 95% will answer no.
  Those yes [estimated 5%] are the one whose will-to-live is weakened by various reason and they are labelled as mentally ill per DSM-V.

Re P3 above, the term 'programmed' followed from P1 and is therefore applicable to all premises and the conclusion.
I mentioned in P3 merely to emphasize the point.

My C4 is logical and sound since the fear of death is so obvious.

The brave warrior and the skydiver don't "fear death."
I have argued all humans are inhibited from the conscious fear of death. This is why the brave warrior and skydiver don't fear death, plus they have taken a calculated risk upon evidence people has died from skydiving.
But the subconscious fear of death is active within their subconscious mind.
The saying 'there are no atheists in foxhole' implied the subconscious fear of death in this extreme situation has overwhelmed the inhibitors and those theists would immediately and spontaneously convert to theist to rid of the mental pains.

Btw, whilst nature has programmed all human to fear death subconsciously and consciously not fearing death, nature has also programmed a percentile of humans to be risk takers which is essential to ensure the preservation of the species. These risk taker are the ones who venture to explore new grounds and resources to expand the human population to increase the chances of the survival of the species.

Note I have had re-countered all your counters.
You can dig as deep as you can, I will have a re-counter waiting for you.

Your problem is your knowledge base is shallow, narrow and limited plus you rely on blind faith to cling to your ultimate premise -God exists as real.

Note my argument above is to support my thesis,
The Subconscious Fear of Death - the Root of Theism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27757&start=15

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

[surreptitious57]

The human species has evolved from DNA programs adapted from the first one cell living things since 3 billion years ago

Thus whatever programs are within the subconscious mind there are critical and essential for the survival of the species up to this point in time

This DNA programs of instincts operate within the subconscious mind and not the conscious mind which is driven by our self consciousness

DNA has got nothing at all to do with the subconscious mind because that is not where any of the genetic information is stored
And also the most primitive organisms of 3 billion years ago would have had RNA not DNA - DNA is more complex by comparison
And non self replicating bacteria from which all life is evolved from was far too primitive to actually possess a subconscious mind
In organisms that simple there is no higher order functioning for all they do is divide and replicate automatically and nothing else

Traits that help survival of the species are fundamentally physical in nature rather than psychological
They can be physically detected because that genetic information will have been passed on from previous generations through DNA
Psychological traits are not passed on through DNA but instead are acquired from exposure to the environment that one grows up in

And because such traits are only acquired AFTER exposure to the environment one cannot be born with them
This is why it is just not possible for anyone to actually have a will to survive at all costs at birth as you claim

The genetic information contained within your DNA at that point is zero indication of your psychology because that is not at all developed at birth
So DNA is only biological not psychological and psychology is also more varied and diverse in relation to human beings than their biology actually is

[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.

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

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

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."

[Veritas Aequitas]

The human species has evolved from DNA programs adapted from the first one cell living things since 3 billion years ago

Thus whatever programs are within the subconscious mind there are critical and essential for the survival of the species up to this point in time

This DNA programs of instincts operate within the subconscious mind and not the conscious mind which is driven by our self consciousness

DNA has got nothing at all to do with the subconscious mind because that is not where any of the genetic information is stored
And also the most primitive organisms of 3 billion years ago would have had RNA not DNA - DNA is more complex by comparison
And non self replicating bacteria from which all life is evolved from was far too primitive to actually possess a subconscious mind
In organisms that simple there is no higher order functioning for all they do is divide and replicate automatically and nothing else

Traits that help survival of the species are fundamentally physical in nature rather than psychological
They can be physically detected because that genetic information will have been passed on from previous generations through DNA
Psychological traits are not passed on through DNA but instead are acquired from exposure to the environment that one grows up in

And because such traits are only acquired AFTER exposure to the environment one cannot be born with them
This is why it is just not possible for anyone to actually have a will to survive at all costs at birth as you claim

The genetic information contained within your DNA at that point is zero indication of your psychology because that is not at all developed at birth
So DNA is only biological not psychological and psychology is also more varied and diverse in relation to human beings than their biology actually is

OK I agree my use of DNA is insufficient.
I will use DNA-RNA.

It is the DNA-RNA that construct-express the biological brain with the subconscious mind initially and the conscious mind later after birth.

Are you well verse 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

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, i.e. cry when hungry, instinctively suckle, etc.

[surreptitious57]

As I had explained ALL humans are programmed with a will to live live but this will to live can be compromised by defects which is a natural percentage with all activities of nature

I have proposed the following to test out this hypothesis

I Ask yourself do you want to be killed ?
The answer is likely to be no because you want to live driven by the impulse to live

2 Ask every human on earth whether they want to be killed or to die ?
Intuitively it is very likely 95 per cent will answer no
Those yes [ estimated 5 per cent ] are the one whose will to live is weakened by various reason and they are labelled as mentally ill per DSM V

These are binary questions but mental states actually exist on a spectrum
Just because someone does not want to be killed at some specific point in time does not automatically mean they have an absolute desire to live
They may on the balance of probabilities prefer to live than not to live so sometimes it is more shades of grey rather than simple black and white

Not everyone who wants to live is therefore unconditionally happy and even if they were that state of mind would eventually pass
Your questions are posed in a simplistic way and as a consequence fail to fully acknowledge the complexity of human psychology

95 per cent of people saying they that do not want to die tells you next to nothing about the actual mental states of all of those individuals
Also there is no evidence that percentage would be so high in this thought experiment of yours and some may not even be telling the truth

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?
Re the exceptions, how can the certainty of mortality be vague??
What other exceptions I can provide justifications for them.
E.g. Isn't suicide a rare exception and is due to a mental illness?

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?
What is not true is false is not circular.
Thus to live is not to die is not circular.

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.
There is nothing when I state it is programmed via nature.
The whole process from DNA-codes and RNA executions to a series of result is representative of being "programmed".
If you don't like 'programmed] I use terms like unfold, emerge, manifest and the likes.
Hey! Principle of Charity!

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.

But my premises above are supported by empirical evidences or inferred from empirical evidences, that qualify as realistically possible.
My argument do not include non-empirical element like "God [illusory] did it"

The next question is whether my argument leads to real empirical activities that can be verified empirically.

When I dare to raise that next question, I will have answer to it.

[surreptitious57]

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