Reasons for believing?

[OldTrees]

Well, first, can you please do me a favor and separate your terms for me? Example: I am not sure if your conclusion is all one thing or if you intended it to be the connection of both of your premises.

Basically: All=All, None at all=No, anything in between, such as 'most' = some.

P1 & P2 => C

P1) Once people have a belief they tend to stick with it until they consider another belief to be better.

P2) There is rarely reason to move from one non harmful non useful but self consistent belief to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.

C=P1+P2) People rarely change from one non harmful non useful but self consistent belief to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.

[Furby]

Let me make sure you are fine with this: ( I think this is what North was trying to do, but messed up)

Can we change:
P1: Some people are people that once they have a belief...another belief to be better?
P2: Some reasons are reasons to move...consistent belief/some reasons are not reasons...consistent belief? (using the word 'rarely' implies some since 'some' implies 'at least one.'

C: Some people are people are people who change from one harmful...self consistent belief?

Is this fine to re word it like I did?

[OldTrees]

Let me make sure you are fine with this: ( I think this is what North was trying to do, but messed up)

Can we change:
P1: Some people are people that once they have a belief...another belief to be better?
P2: Some reasons are reasons to move...consistent belief/some reasons are not reasons...consistent belief? (using the word 'rarely' implies some since 'some' implies 'at least one.'

C: Some people are people are people who change from one harmful...self consistent belief?

Is this fine to re word it like I did?

It probably would be good to change the wording of "consider another belief to be better" to "have reason to consider another belief to be better". I used different words to mean the same thing in the argument.
I believe the magnitudes (most and rarely) are important to the logic of the argument. Without those magnitudes the conclusion doesn't reach as far and I think becomes fallacious (Some A are B, Some B are C, Thus Some A are C?).
However yes that is the flow.

[Furby]

P1) Once people have a belief they tend to stick with it until they consider another belief to be better.
P2) There is rarely reason to move from one non harmful non useful but self consistent belief to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.
3=1+2) People rarely change from one non harmful non useful but self consistent belief to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.
C=3 Reworded) Most of the time people with a non harmful non useful but self consistent belief will be resistant to change to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.

People=P

People that have a belief they tend to stick with it until they consider another belief to be better.=B

People that have rarely reason to move from one non harmful non useful but self consistent belief to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief=R

People with a non harmful non useful but self consistent belief will be resistant to change to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief=PB

Some P are B
Some P are R
Some P are B and R correct? (is this what you are saying in P1+P2?)

I need to confirm this before I make any assumptions.

(Please not I have not included your conclusion (noted as PB) in the above diagram, it is P1 and P2, then my take on #3 or P1+P2 as you put it)

[OldTrees]

@Furby
Yes that is correct (for some meaning most rather than meaning one).

[Furby]

All P are B (Use 'all' since it is still a true statement and stops you from breaking rule #1)
Some P are R
Some B are R (reword #3 to match this so it is not fallicious)

I am still confused on your conclusion since it is saying some p are pb

If we take your first conclusion, it says=

Some B are R
Some P are PB...Already this is fallicious since you have 2 particular statements and if you notice, were are left with 4 different terms, so a) we need to one of these to start with No/All or both, and b) either take out a term/add another premise in between to make it flow even more.

[OldTrees]

@Furby
I do not see a difference between
Some P are B and R
Some P are PB
I consider one to be a rewording of the other so you may take either to be my conclusion.
Surely if you tend to not change belief until you find reason and reason rarely comes, you are resistant to changing.

[Furby]

If I take either one, then you cannot draw the conclusion unless you do:

All P are B
Some P are R
Some B are R

You cannot say All/some P are B--->some P are R, therefore some P are B and R or PB.

Example:

All dogs are animals
Some dogs are cats (you have to lie here to make the conclusion follow)
Therefore, some cats are animals.

Another example:

Some animals are dogs (some P are B)
some animals are cats (some P are R)
You cannot say some P are B and R cause then you imply that there are animals that are both a cat and dog. And to say there are some animals that are cats and some animals are dogs is simply repeating your premises and drawing no conclusion.

I feel you may just be repeating your premises in your conclusion which doesn't really solve anything.

[OldTrees]

Maybe I am misreading your posts but isn't this valid?

All P are B (people don't change belief without reason)
Some P are R (people rarely find reason)
Some P are B and R (people don't change belief without reason and rarely find reason)

So yes, like all short arguments, my conclusion is just a rephrasing of the premises.

[TheAccuso]

I won't challenge OT in a comparison with abbreviations and formulas

[Mr Atomic Bomb]

you all crazy formula boys know that half of the people you are talking about think that math is from the devil, huh?

[Furby]

you all crazy formula boys know that half of the people you are talking about think that math is from the devil, huh?

LOL?

Maybe I am misreading your posts but isn't this valid?

All P are B (people don't change belief without reason)
Some P are R (people rarely find reason)
Some P are B and R (people don't change belief without reason and rarely find reason)

So yes, like all short arguments, my conclusion is just a rephrasing of the premises.

Yes, it is valid, but you are only repeating your premises.

You are deeming basically P1 and P2 to be true...which is true for why people stick with beliefs...but as to why they believed in the first place...

Example: It is pretty much agreeable budhism is a non-hurtful, consistent, calm, safe, etc. religion. Now, does a person simply pick to believe a religion simply because that is how things are? No.

I am more interested in why people pick a religion in the first place. Sure, people tend to stick with a religion they have been en cultured in @trees, but why choose one?

Another point: why do some people move from one religion to another? Example: Mormonism is growing...but I believe so for this reason:

P1) All religions that are acknowledged and promote money/deity status will grow fast.
P2) Mormonism is a religion that is acknowledged and promotes money/deity status.
C) Therefore, Mormonism will grow fast.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Note: Mormons teach that you get to be the God of your own world one day.