this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
5 points (60.0% liked)

conservative

946 readers
9 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
bloopinator@lemmy.world
shemmy@lemmy.world
baascus@lemmy.world
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world
5
New York City Using Brooklyn Parks as Migrant Housing (pix11.com)
submitted 1 year ago by soviettaters@lemmy.world to c/conservative@lemmy.world
141 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PizzaMan@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 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.