What They're Looking For in You | Kylen Perry 

It's hilarious they're telling us this without mentioning the fact that out of divorced people 70% are Christian while only 20% are agnostic/atheist. 2014 stats, 4500 person sample size pew research if you're wondering

@@existentialTreat6 this is true, but the numbers are skewed due about half of Christians today not being considered “devout” Christians (defined as attending church 2 or more times a month). The likelihood of marriage increases and divorce rates are decreased among those who are considered devout Christians. This is based on a study from the Institute for Family Studies

@@tyranisaurus4288 tldr You and I both know quantifying how devout you are by how often you attend church is silly & and you giving me studies on family and religion from the IFS is like me giving you studies of the health effects of tobacco & vaping from Phillip Morris. IFS defined what being devout was by church attendence over a range of time, but we both know people we wouldn't consider devout who attend service every week. A very subjective idea of what being devout needs to be grounded metaphysically more concisely than just meeting an attendance quota. If a Christian can attend service, bible study, the porch weekly for years, they would meet the IFS criteria of being devout. If the same Christian chooses to stop going to church entirely, is their previous devoutiness then retconned cause they never had true belief in the first place? I'm just saying that quantifier for devoutness is pretty weak if you start needling into it at all Also the IFS is self admittingly very partisan, actively push for policy changes, and is backed by partisan financiers who also finance other lobbiers and think tanks to push their agendas. Their studies typically have smaller sample sizes than a equivalent pew research study and don't even choose to weight their own studies. I'll give them the benefit and say this is from laziness though. They are incentivised to skew whatever studies they do if it helps push their policy agenda. I don't think their board members would like them publishing data that goes against their mission statement lmao. Pew and similar non partisan orgs of the like do not endorse or condemn any policy, and ergo have zero incentive to skew data to fit an agenda. They are not backed by billionaires who spend ungodly amounts of money lobbying government every year. I feel like it is wise to take data from a group that has a mission like ifs does with a giant portion of salt.