If the true number is not "a lot" then your point does not have the significance you think it does and Chuck could turn that around and use the argument against you.
No, it doesn't matter. Even if we did have the number of converts, lacking the reasons for people converting removes the implication that its because one is more truthful.
Not at all but when you use terms like "a lot" I want to see the data. It isn't my problem if you do not want to provide anything to back up you statements. I just feel it is bad form to make a statement that has nothing factual to back it up. Your use of the term "a lot" was a poor choice considering the data you seem to have had.
Not at all... its an irrelevant aside.
Lets look at your original comment
Too, I was reading on one site I ran across that a lot of people were converting to Islam in Packistan (IIRC) out of fear and persecution rather than because they thought it was true.
Yeah, I "ran across" something -- so that part's not really the point.
And IIRC means "if I remember correctly", so I was admitting that I wasn't even looking at any data when I was writing that.
There's no good reason to ask for my "data".
If the data does not show that there is "a lot" converting out of fear but instead because they felt Islam was true than your point is pointless.
No, the number of converts wouldn't imply more veracity without the reason for converting, regardless of the actual number of people that converted out of fear/persecution.
But seriously, I was making a minor point to Rahvin and you want my source for an irrelevancy so you can criticize the source. No thanks.
™ Version 4.2
(1)