//I'm not going to debate with you that I am a good witness of my own life.//

I haven't said that you aren't. What I said was this:

//The veracity of your observations is not what is in issue, NNS.//

But it bears repeating: your observations are fine. I don't think they are falsehoods or the product of a deranged mind.

The reasoning you apply to those observations is unsound. You like to beg the question, and don't seem to understand why that is problematic. Here's everybody's favourite logician to explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_fOyxk7DdU

The more you know...

Your conclusions are questionable. Any conclusion based on petitio principii is questionable - not false, just questionable. We can't use circular reasoning to establish any reliable conclusion. As Spock points out, his crewman's conclusion - that Kirk is the best captain - may well be true (and yeah, it is, of course Kirk was the best captain). But if it is true (which it is), it's true in spite of the dodgy reasoning, not because of it - and its veracity doesn't render the dodgy reasoning sound, that's still dodgy.

//Not everyone is a good debater, but their views, observations, and reasoning might be worth considering if they stand by their position in spite of someone else arguing well against their position.//

That's not how logic works, NNS. If somebody employs some dodgy reasoning and comes to the conclusion that, say, you can square the circle, then clings steadfastly to their reasoning and conclusion even after the errors in their 'proof' have been pointed out, it doesn't make them less erroneous.

//The aspect worth considering is, "why didn't they change? is there a chance they are stubborn and too proud to admit to being wrong. Or is it because they are right, even if they don't debate it any more?"//

Again, not how logic works. It's not about how stubborn, or proud, or convicted, or honest, or whatever somebody is. In fact, character has no bearing whatsoever on the logical validity of an argument because the identity of somebody making an argument has no bearing on it's validity. The logic is either right or wrong. That's it.

If our circle-squarer from before cannot be convinced that their 'proof' is wrong, we don't go 'Oh, well, maybe he was right and we'll have to toss out two thousand years of established mathematics and go back to the drawing board'.... we go 'That guy doesn't really understand maths properly'.

//However, it's not worth my time to try and debate about my life's observations, to someone (or someones) who don't acknowledge where their own perspectives are weak//

Sorry, may I ask where you think I've employed unsound reasoning?

To Toni.

There are some things that require giving them a chance and the benefit of doubt in order to actually see if they are correct. This requires a degree of begging the question just by giving it a chance to prove it's own value on it's own terms. Religion as a whole fits this dynamic, but so also does culture and societal norms. You have to believe it will work (or at the very least restrain your doubts) in order to see if it actually does work or not.

As for character assessment, that makes a huge difference in whether their logic is trustworthy. This comes to play on observable behavior. You can look at a person's logic and ask, are they using this logic because it holds merit, or because the logic benefits them. For example, I don't trust a person's logic as much if they are asking me to buy their product, as I would trust someone who has nothing to gain by saying what they say.

Being stubborn fits in with the same kind of considerations. Are they using ________ logic because it holds merit, or because they can't admit to being wrong. Do they refuse to change their position because they are correct, or because they can't admit they are wrong (regardless of their ability to debate the subject matter). A character assessment helps with answering whether a person and their logic is trustworthy, or if they need to support their position stronger due to what they have to gain, in order to be trustworthy.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for you using unsound reasoning. Here is an example:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9171#304693

<<OK, I've prayed to Thor - since he's the God of atmospheric precipitation when he's not appearing in Marvel movies - for a bit of rain for the parts of Australia that remain drought affected. If they get some rain at some point in the future, I can take that as more confirmatory evidence for the existence of Thor, right?>>

If you want to defend your case and how well reasoned you are, you may, but it won't go far. I'm not going to debate my observations in life, or the conclusions based on multiple observations, with you when these are the positions used and then defended.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

If I understand you correctly, you live in the US. So the social and religious environment may be quite different from that of Australia.
.

You will recall that I mentioned that because inheritance is the principal motor of religion, Islam will inevitably dethrone Christianity as the world’s leading religion. Here are the results of a Pew Research Center study carried out in 2015 on this question :

« Between 2015 and 2060, the world’s population is expected to increase by 32%, to 9.6 billion. Over that same period, the number of Muslims – the major religious group with the youngest population and the highest fertility – is projected to increase by 70%. The number of Christians is projected to rise by 34%, slightly faster than the global population overall yet far more slowly than Muslims.

« As a result, according to Pew Research Center projections, by 2060, the count of Muslims (3.0 billion, or 31% of the population) will near the Christian count (3.1 billion, or 32%)

« Why is the global Muslim population growing ?

« There are two major factors behind the rapid projected growth of Islam, and both involve simple demographics. For one, Muslims have more children than members of other religious groups. Around the world, each Muslim woman has an average of 2.9 children, compared with 2.2 for all other groups combined.

« Muslims are also the youngest (median age of 24 years old in 2015) of all major religious groups, seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims. As a result, a larger share of Muslims already are, or will soon be, at the point in their lives when they begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will fuel Muslim population growth. »

You may read the study here :

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/#global-population-projections-2015-to-2060

There are many reasons why people believe in a god or gods and adopt a particular religion, but the principal reason is simply that they inherited it from their parents. It’s passed on to them quite naturally as part of their culture and education.

.