• 10A@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    None of that controls for community engagement/health/connections, which is what I argue is the true problem. I would need better evidence than this.

    Not only that, but it seems that this study at best only establishes correlation, not causation, nor the direction of causation.

    The study you cited only lists a 33% change in drug use:

    “In their study, Chen and VanderWeele (2018) found that people who attended religious services at least weekly in childhood and adolescence were 33% less likely to use illegal drugs.”

    Once again, we seem to be talking past each other. That 33% does not apply to what I meant.

    I’ll try to explain more clearly.

    • A drug abuser is someone who does not understand that their body is meant to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.
    • The attendance of religious services is not a condition of salvation.
    • To be saved, one must accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, and repent.
    • Once saved, and born again, one’s behavior exhibits noticeable changes.
    • One such change resulting from salvation is usually a desire to attend religious services.
    • Another such change resulting from salvation is the view of one’s body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, not to be polluted with drugs.
    • Another such change resulting from salvation is the ability to pray to Jesus that we may be shielded from temptation, so if one is tempted to sin with drug abuse, that temptation may be overcome through prayer.

    So if you’re right, that it is a 100% rate, if your deduction is correct, then why don’t we see trends that support that?

    Thank you for your charts and your deductions. I appreciate your effort to communicate those ideas.

    The point that I was trying to make, though, when I claimed 100% efficacy, is that self-reported religious affiliation is not important, but rather what is important is salvation. 100% of those saved are able to successfully pray to be shielded from temptation to sin, and are thereby able to overcome their drug addictions. Anyone who claims a religious affiliation but is unable to kick their nasty drug habit has clearly not yet been saved. This is how we can deduce 100% as a priori knowledge.

    I definitely have an anti-christian bias, and I will readily admit that.

    Thank you for admitting bias! I wish that was commonplace. I might just go update my profile with a list of self-admitted biases, if I can manage to produce a list of them all.

    However it isn’t a lie, nor is it based on my bias. If I recall there was a leaked report from AA floating around somewhere online from AA, they did a study to see how effective their program was, and discovered it was no better than chance.

    I’ll read it if you find it, but I don’t think it could convince me that legitimate salvation has anything less than 100% efficacy. Their methodology must have been testing for something else.

    • PizzaMan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point that I was trying to make, though, when I claimed 100% efficacy, is that self-reported religious affiliation is not important, but rather what is important is salvation.

      And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates. A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?

      If so you can understand that these charts should still show the effect.

      I might just go update my profile with a list of self-admitted biases, if I can manage to produce a list of them all.

      I could help you with that if you like lol.

      I’ll read it if you find it, but I don’t think it could convince me that legitimate salvation has anything less than 100% efficacy. Their methodology must have been testing for something else.

      If I recall, it was simply looking at recidivism rates for members of AA.

      • 10A@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates.

        Not necessarily. Churches have struggled to retain members for various reasons. A Christian may feel disaffected of his local denominational institution, while maintaining absolute loyalty to God. The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it’s a Venn diagram.

        A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?

        I suppose it depends on how you define “Christian”, but the standard definition is equivalent to “one who has been saved”, so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.

        • PizzaMan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it’s a Venn diagram.

          I’m not stating that they should be directly tied to one another, but surely it would be related enough to see an effect on drug rates, but we do not.

          I suppose it depends on how you define “Christian”, but the standard definition is equivalent to “one who has been saved”, so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.

          Even with your definition of “Christian” the same math should apply.

          (0) = (0)

          (n) “christians” = (n * x) true christians

          I’m sure X would vary from country to country, but you simply cannot have many “true christians”, whatever they may be that fit your definition, without lots of other “superficial” christians.


          I would reply to the other two messages you sent to my lemmy.world account, but that instance is down at the moment due to the ddos attacks, so I’ll respond to those at another time.

          • 10A@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe, but I’m not sure why that matters. The essence of our dispute here is over whether salvation works reliably for kicking a drug addiction.

            • PizzaMan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It matters because if “true christian” population is correlated with self reported christian population, which it should be, then self reported christian population should also be inversely correlated with drug addicition.

              To break it down a little further:

              1. (n) “christians” = (n * x) true christians

              2. (n) “christians” = inverse (drug addicition)

              Therefore:

              1. “true christians” = inverse (drug addicition)

              Does that make sense?

              • 10A@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, that does make sense. If the two are really uncorrelated, then it would appear some people are lying about their faith.