If all the facts presented are true, this is a case of unexpected outcome. Namely, if a religion is prevalent in an area, then its principles should be equally prevalent in that area. However, this connection assumes that people who claim themselves as Christians in that area follow Christian principles. That often is not true. Many cases in history attest to that.

The presented facts are also an example of its falsity. Therefore, the presented facts point to not a logical contradiction but a feature of people. Specifically, the feature that they point to is that people often don't do what they say outwardly or inwardly about themselves.

The literal way to understand that statement doesn't imply a value judgment. Specifically, saying that you have a certain amount of points doesn't imply that it's good or amazing to have that amount of points. The implication that the amount of points is good or amazing can be the intention of the teller or imbedded in the tone of how the teller says it. However, the sentence itself "I have 23,600 points" includes neither of those elements. The statement is merely a claim on a fact about the world.

I think tax payers aren't hurting their interests by supporting public schools. This is true even if none of their children attend public schools. Public schools train children from families that are unable to educate them privately. This training renders at least two important effects: the students become more productive workers and they become more responsible citizens. More productive workers contribute to greater outputs of all industries. In turn, all people become richer in this manner. In addition, responsible citizens ensure that the community will enjoy greater safety. This is primarily because students of public schools are able to earn jobs after they graduate them. If they have more jobs, then their crimes will decrease. Therefore, we don't need to treat the funding for public schools as a charity case. Rather, we can treat it as an investment for those who pay taxes aiming to reap worthwhile returns.

The contention that "all fruits are cherries" is incorrect is true. This is because there are other types of fruits besides cherries. Oranges and kiwi are examples. The claim that "all fruits are cherries" is false. As a result, the proposed example involving apples, fruits, and cherries is not a valid one to illustrate the truthfulness of the quote in the physical world.

I think the following is a valid example that shows the truthfulness of the quote in the physical world:

Mario Brothers is a game.

Tetris is a game.

Pokemon is a game.

Therefore, Mario Brothers is the same as Tetris and Tetris is the same as Pokemon insofar as they are all games. In other words, these objects are the same thing when we only consider their identity as games or not-games (excluding all of their other characteristics).

I agree that we should put dependent stray animals to sleep, because they and their children are likely to suffer if they live. The stray animals are better dead than alive to suffer. This is because the primary purpose that stray animals live is for physical well being. Most stray animals probably can't obtain adequate physical well being without attention of people. Therefore, life would be purposeless to them. In addition, allowing stray animals to live also leads to the multiplication of their population. The identical situation of inability to obtain adequate physical well being faces their children. We should put stray animals to sleep to prevent them and their children from such suffering.

I have one small contention. Few bible scholars studied the time that the world begun according to the Bible. A couple renowned scholars came up with dates such as close to five or six thousands of years. Geological evidences tell us that earth is nearly 3.5 billion years old. The abundant fossils and scientific estimation of their origins also contend against the reported biblical starting date of the world. I think the scientific predictions are more believable than predictions based on biblical events because they are more found on empirical data.

This argument supposes that all sins merit equal amounts of fault to the doers. It supposes that God upholds this principle. However, the way that God punishes perpetrators for the identical crime is different in the Old Testament. For example, the Old Testament allows the community to stone a woman to death for committing adultery. In contrast, it only punishes men who commit adultery by banning them from public for some time and subjecting them to public mockery. This example illustrates that God believes that a woman committing adultery is a greater sin than a man committing adultery, because the punishment for the woman is harsher than the punishment for the man. Ultimately, this example shows that God doesn't treat all sins equally. Therefore, an argument can be made by similar reasoning to show that a "liar" is not equally sinful as a "serial rapist child murderer".