Half of Atheist Kids Wind Up Believing

[cbayer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/half-of-atheist-kids-wind-up-believing.html



DON’T START BELIEVIN

’05.13.155:40 PM ET

Katie Zavadski

According to Pew, more than half of those raised in non-religious households will eventually identify as a believer in something. Why? Because they got married, most likely.

Margaret Fox was “embarrassed” about her need for God.

Although she’s now a hospital chaplain in Kentucky and well on her way to being ordained in the Presbyterian Church, Fox was raised in a non-religious family. She didn’t begin to discover her love for scripture until college, when she was abroad studying the decriminalization of homosexuality during the French Revolution.

“I ended up head over heels in love with 13th century stained glass windows,” she told The Daily Beast.

And she’s not alone. A tucked-away gem of Tuesday’s Pew Forum survey on religion is not about the falling numbers of Christians.

more at link

[bvf]

1. Absent a link to the actual Pew poll in the OP,

plus this from the OP proper:

"Life-changing events, like serious health scares, have some influence, Zuckerman admits. But most secular Americans are unaffected. He points to previous Pew studies, which show that the vast majority of unaffiliated Americans say they are not seeking religion."

I call this completely anecdotal bullshit. Let's see a real link, not just a secondary christianitytoday cite that suspiciously fails to provide one.

Meh.

[trotsky]

2. I'm not too surprised even if it's true though.

Religious kids tend to be indoctrinated. It's hard for them to leave religion.

Kids of atheists are generally taught about religion. They tend to be more open-minded, especially if it comes to a person needing to adopt a religion when wedding a partner. cbayer has spoken of her own children doing this.

And it is true that humans are hard-wired for elements of belief. Dawkins has done a lot of great writing on that and why it would be an evolutionary advantage. Doesn't serve as any kind of justification for the actual existence of what's believed in, of course, but believers love to lap it up as if it were.

[bvf]

3. True.

Her mother and I raised our daughter as an atheist, but always tried to be forthcoming about her questions about religion. She's going to be married this year (to another atheist) in a catholic church, because they both find the setting beautiful. (I had a small problem with having to pony up for the pre-Cana class, as did they, but what of it?)

Weirdly or not, I'm OK with that.

[rug]

14. That can't happen unless one of them is a Catholic, nominal or not.

And the one who isn't must sign a document to raise as a Catholic any child born to them.

[bvf]

16. Her fiancé is nominally catholic,

but rejects the whole thing as complete horseshit.

Do you have a problem with that?

[rug]

17. Hypocrisy aside, no.

Make sure you follow where your pre-Cana donation goes.

[bvf]

18. Yeah, I'll get right on that.

[rug]

20. All snark aside, I hope they have a memorable wedding and a happy life together.

[bvf]

21. I never imagined I'd be saying this,

but thank you, rug, sincerely.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. My fiancee and I were both raised Catholic, and thought about doing this as well...

now we are thinking of having a secular wedding, possibly in a park setting, we aren't sure yet.

She likes the church atmosphere, and I'm fine with it, I did tell her there are other churches that are more liberal we could try. My sister had a beautiful wedding in another, non-denominational, more liberal church. They weren't members, and as far as I know, neither is Christian, and haven't set foot in that church since.

ON EDIT: What was kinda funny is a woman officiated my sister's wedding, something that much of the family commented on, being most of them were raised Catholic, so not too familiar with other denominations and their clergy. But they agreed she did a really good job.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. It wouldn't surprise me, either.

According to what I've read, the most reliable predictors for religion are 1) parents' religion, 2) friends' religion and 3) spouse's religion.

If you are young and atheist, it might take considerable resolve to hang to your non-belief when odds are your parents, your friends, and your spouse are all religious.

[trotsky]

23. Considerable resolve indeed.

And for most of us atheists, for where we are at in our lives, there's really not much to gain in standing up to our friends and family for non-belief, and quite a bit to lose.

[guillaumeb]

36. If humans are hard wired for belief,

it could represent an evolutionary advantage. Do you have specific links on this?

[trotsky]

65. Here you go:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=humans+hardwired+for+belief

[guillaumeb]

105. Thank you.

[edhopper]

4. Looking at the actual report

the author confuses non-religious, with non-believing.
They are not the same thing.

[cbayer]

7. Agree. This is the same complaint I had with an article posted yesterday.

i think many people become "affiliated" for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe.

[Promethean]

25. You are correct.

However those who bring this up leave out the extreme need religion has to be taught and have its dogma followed. A non-religious/nominal "believer" who doesn't follow or teach the dogma is a dead end for a religion. They don't provide support for the overarching structure and aren't going to teach their kids to follow the dogma. Some people say the internet is where religion goes to die. In truth indifference is.

[cbayer]

26. Actually, I think the article points out exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

It notes that children raised without the dogma have a 50% chance of becoming religiously affiliated.

[Promethean]

42. You know the best part about skeptics?

They don't take anything at face value. You recently questioned one of my posts asking to basically verify a source. I support skepticism as a matter of principle so I provided you the information. Why is this OP suddenly free from your scrutiny? Because everywhere it can be commented on it has been brought up that the data the article used for its premise is faulty.

[cbayer]

45. You know the very best thing about believers?

They take everything at face value. They believe you are good until proven otherwise. They support you until you give them cause not to.

This OP is very much subject to my scrutiny. You so totally misjudge me, but I guess as I skeptic, you find everyone guilty until proven otherwise.

I'm a skeptic too, but as a human, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your way may work for you, but mine works for me.


Capiche?

[Promethean]

48. Really?

If you had subjected this OP to your scrutiny you wouldn't be using it as a point of refutation unless you had found its premise backed up. If you had found its premise had merit you would have demonstrated it in some way instead of getting upset that I pointed out it is faulty.

Also your analogy of skeptic vs believer fails on the examples because believers are not defined by those parameters and opposite examples can easily be found. For instance believers choose not to support people all the time over trivial matters, they assume people are bad or evil over trivial matters and mistreat them. Skeptics are defined by requiring evidence for claims. In some ways this is opposite to religious believers but you didn't focus on that aspect. You don't get to shoehorn in extra parameters as the positive effects of an opposite position and have them be outright false.

Additionally skeptics aren't even close to as distrusting as you proclaim. I trust everybody until they do something dishonest. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not dishonest. I even give people lots of chances to regain their standing in my opinion as an honest person. It is too bad you've thrown them all away. It is to the point I no longer care about you reclaiming the basic necessity to function in human society of honesty. When interacting with you I now simply attempt to show your dishonesty so it can be clearly seen.

Finally if you want to be seen as an honest person. The Strawman fallacy you employed against me in the post I am responding to here telegraphs to everybody the opposite. I don't find everybody guilty until proven innocent, just people with a history of demonstrated dishonesty, like you.

[F4lconF16]

55. Dang, nice post. +1 nt

[cbayer]

64. Dang, he was able to get all those ad homs in and you didn't have to!

[trotsky]

68. I guess someone hit a nerve, eh cbayer?

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. "Ah, the calling someone's point a fallacy fallacy."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=197268

[trotsky]

70. The jokes write themselves, folks!

[cbayer]

72. Not remotely comparable.

Calling you on using logical fallacies as a defense tool is not an attack on your character, but an attack on your argument.

OTOH:

I even give people lots of chances to regain their standing in my opinion as an honest person. It is too bad you've thrown them all away. It is to the point I no longer care about you reclaiming the basic necessity to function in human society of honesty. When interacting with you I now simply attempt to show your dishonesty so it can be clearly seen.

Finally if you want to be seen as an honest person. The Strawman fallacy you employed against me in the post I am responding to here telegraphs to everybody the opposite. I don't find everybody guilty until proven innocent, just people with a history of demonstrated dishonesty, like you.

This is an attack on character. Big words, complicated sentences, attack on others as being dishonest and the use of juvenile images does not a valid argument make.

I have accepted your surrender and will be moving on now.

See you next time.

[cleanhippie]

74. Your responses remind me of a common meme...

[trotsky]

75. LOL

Once again, OK for you to do it, but not for anyone else. Way to go, cb.

[Act_of_Reparation]

79. Yes, it is different.

This time, people are using fallacies against you, instead of the other way around.

We get it. Totally different.

[trotsky]

82. Bingo. n/t

[Promethean]

92. Oh noes!

Big words! Complicated sentences! This person is showing signs of intelligence! Shun! Shun! Shun!

And here I thought only right wingers did that...oh wait...

[beam me up scottie]

93. Careful, pointing out her hypocrisy will get you ignored...

Even though calling her out on it is much more civil than trying to shut the discussion down by calling people who rec'd an op stupid like she did here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=194979

cbayer (144,618 posts)
47. Message to all those who have recommended this:

There is not one scintilla of data presented by this author to substantiate the claim that "christians are leaving the faith in droves". Not one.

The inability of the average web reader to actually get past headlines and be able to analyze information is probably one of the most dangerous trends in the world right now. People will believe anything they are told if it suits their agenda.

One of the reasons she's so upset this week is because christians are indeed leaving the faith in droves.

[trotsky]

94. That post is just so CBAYER.

This line always makes me laugh:

"People will believe anything they are told if it suits their agenda."

OH NOES! ANOTHER IRONY METER!

[beam me up scottie]

95. Hey she helps keep thousands of irony meter manufacturing employees employed.

This was another beauty from that thread:

"You posted a bad article with a headline that was attractive but completely unsubstantiated by it's content.

If you can't defend it, it's perfectly fine for you to back away from it. In fact, it's the honorable thing to do and I give you credit for doing just that."

[trotsky]

97. That thread was a gift that kept on giving!

This one has shaped up quite nicely, too.

[beam me up scottie]

99. Ikr?

Did she really think this was going to end well?

[Act_of_Reparation]

98. "Agenda".

Because I've got "DESTROY RELIGION" penciled in between "Cook dinner" and "Take out the garbage".

[cbayer]

96. Are you calling me a RWer?

Because that wouldn't be cool at all.

What kind of person equates big words and complicated sentences with intelligence?

In fact they can be used to cover up a dearth of intelligence, or at least a dearth of substantial argument as is the case here.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Not cool? Like accusing 1st Amendment supporters of "cheering" for Geller?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196166



Claiming people who are critical of the RCC's takeover of hospitals are advocating genocide?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=101947



Twisting AlbertCat's words to make it look like he wanted to "rid" the world of religious people?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196418


Seriously cbayer?

You could make a fortune teaching right wingers how to smear their opponents.

[beam me up scottie]

56. +1,000,000

Damn, that was good.

[cbayer]

62. Oh dear, full of ad homs.

I accept your surrender!

[trotsky]

67. Beautiful.

You obviously hit a nerve.

[xfundy]

57. Like atheists and agnostics don't?

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until they try to screw me.

as I skeptic, you find everyone guilty until proven otherwise.

Broad brush, also not based in reality.

Catfish?

[cbayer]

63. Of course atheists and agnostics do. That was the point of the post.

I'm a skeptic and pretty much find everyone innocent until proven otherwise, though I will often question them if I feel they may not be who they say they are.

I just watched a documentary series about online dating called Catfish. Is that what this reference refers to.

[hunter]

5. I see religion largely as a language.

The common "language" in my own family and community is Catholic, even among those who are "non-believers" or practicing other faiths.

How people use the language of religion is up to them. It can be for good or evil, just as the English language can be used for good or evil, just as Science can be used for good and evil. Religion can be used to justify Authoritarian abuse, or it can be a foundation for further spiritual and ethical investigation and exploration.

Spiritual and ethical explorations need not be based in any historical religions. So many ills of society are a consequence of the Authoritarians, the Literallists, and their blind uninquisitive followers; it doesn't matter if we are talking about religion, language, some sort of national or tribal identity, or even science.

I know some people see language and logic and science as some higher standard of belief, but anyone who is practiced in these fields knows it's as messy a pursuit as any other human art and cooperative adventure.

Even in the Sciences, there are explorers like Carl Sagan full of infectious wonder and delight, and there are authoritarian, dogmatic, scientists resisting innovative ways of thinking about the universe and our place in it.

[trotsky]

6. The biggest difference though, is that...

Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html

[hunter]

10. That's another flavor of literalism.

The universe is very big, we are very small.

So long as we are human we will never have more than an Infinitesimal understanding of the universe.

Religion is a language of the unknown. If we attribute some sort of "free will" to ourselves, we can create, adopt, or apply any language we like to our own unknowns.

From a scientific perspective I think the odds that "invisible beings" exist are very high. The odds that humans and all the wonderful beings of this planet earth are alone in this universe are negligible.

The odds that fairies dance among the mushrooms is negligible too, but if you eat the right sort of mushroom you may see them.

Metaphor.

I think people who have been brought up to blindly respect authority, people who are literalists, or people who have seen the damage done by this blind acceptance of religious authority, as those most likely to be dogmatic about their own rejection of religion. I generalize this damage to authoritarians of any sort and the people who blindly follow them.

It's not a problem of religion, it's a problem of Authoritarianism.

My own religious "indoctrination" as a child was crazy. I f my mom hears God saying one thing, and the priest is saying another, she goes with the voices in her head, and those voices have frequently lead her to better places than she'd have ended up in if she'd respected any authority. When I was a kid she got our family kicked out of several churches, and in one glorious confrontation with authority, Franco's Spain.

I suppose I could have responded by clamming up in fear and becoming one of those right-wing "fundamentalist" Catholics, or worse, some kind of Bible-Thumping-Speaking-in-Tongues-Evangelical, protecting myself from the chaos in my mom's head (and in my own head by inheritance, which I take meds for), but instead I chose to embrace uncertainty. I see my frequently heretical faith as a language of that uncertainty, rich with useful metaphors I share in common with a very large community.

A "Just the fact's Ma'am" approach to life and all its mysteries is dead fish to me.

I enjoy listening to all the stories, and I'm fascinated by religion, almost as much as I am fascinated by evolutionary biology, which is the path I took in college.

[trotsky]

11. I think the temptation to simply dismiss wrong-headed religion as "literalism"...

is something to guard against. You have your interpretation, but when it comes to religion, it is just that - YOUR interpretation. Yours is no more or less valid than anyone else's. Why, you can't even get agreement on your statement that "Religion is a language of the unknown."

[Yorktown]

43. I like your ""Just the fact's Ma'am" approach to life" image.

I'll start my ""Just the fact's Ma'am" approach to life" ™ School of Spirituality.

Can you grant me intellectual rights to the ""Just the fact's Ma'am" approach to life" ™ brand?

That would fit neatly in my ""Just the fact's Ma'am" approach to life" ™ business plan.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. size has no relationship to understanding.

The universe is very big, we are very small.
So long as we are human we will never have more than an Infinitesimal understanding of the universe.

That is just blather. Our understanding of the universe is not dependent on our size, the size of the universe, or the ratio between our size and the size of the universe.

[rug]

73. But it is limited to the size, and functional limits, of the brain.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Yes. So what?

Oh and are you claiming that consciousness is entirely a brain function?

[rug]

77. The so what is we live within many limits.

Speaking of consciousness, it means neither you in particular nor humanity in general will ever be fully conscious of all that exists.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. what does that have to do with our understanding of the universe?

But you haven't answered the other question: do you think consciousness is entirely a brain function?

[rug]

87. I'm glad you don't disagree with my statement.

However the topic is not simply "our understanding of the universe" but the point, made by hunter, that you challenged.

The universe is very big, we are very small.

So long as we are human we will never have more than an Infinitesimal understanding of the universe.

Religion is a language of the unknown. If we attribute some sort of "free will" to ourselves, we can create, adopt, or apply any language we like to our own unknowns.

The topic is larger than how you're trying to reduce it.

Your other question is irrelevant to the subject at hand, but here is your answer, no.

If you want to pursue that start a thread on it.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. The "point" made by hunter

"will never have more than an Infinitesimal understanding of the universe. "
is not about "our understanding of the universe"?

Really Rug?

Series?

[rug]

89. Really, Warren. Read his post without omitting words.

Much more honest that way.

Series.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. you got nothing.

[rug]

103. "you got nothing."

Followed by n/t.

[guillaumeb]

28. Radiation is invisible, as is gravity.

They were also undetectable for most of human history. So did they only become real when science had advanced to the point of being able to measure them?

If there is a creator, one who preceded the Big Bang, one who created the elements that make up the universe, what makes you think that your human intellect would be able to perceive the creator? What makes you think that a human intellect could ever devise an instrument capable of detecting such a force?

Reality is what we perceive, what we are able to perceive, and may also encompass what we can only conceive of.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. As usual, if you want to claim a "god" that does not interact with the universe other

than to have somehow started the whole thing going, yes indeed whatever that is, it is undetectable. It is also irrelevant, answers nothing about the nature of reality, and is not at all what people mean when they use the word "god".

If on the other hand you are attempting to claim the existence of an entity that interacts with this universe then just produce the evidence of that interaction.

[trotsky]

66. So are leprechauns and unicorns.

Completely undetectable. Should we reserve the same special spot for them as you are pleading we do for your god?

Let me ask you - what makes YOU think that we couldn't be able to perceive your creator? Has it not appeared to people throughout history?

[guillaumeb]

106. Unicorns cannot be undetectable.

The unicorn is the national animal of Scotland.
http://www.scottish-at-heart.com/unicorn-of-scotland.html

If you wish to see unicorns, and leprechauns, I might add, you have only to drink a certain type of single malt beverage until you DO see them.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Wrong.

Gravity could be perceived before we had a name for it. Radiation too, in fact. Both your examples could, also, be conceived of long before the nature of either was discovered.

Let's say we can't directly perceive a god. Too big, too complex, too alien, too unfathomable, whatever. What then, would prevent us from discovering the tool marks by which it made the universe? What's to stop us from finding 'you can't get here from there without X'?

We don't have to see, smell, or taste something to prove, even by inference, that something exists. Nor do we invest MORE benefit of the doubt in your God hypothesis just because YOU have deemed it difficult to test. AND none of this precludes us tearing down and invalidating HUMAN claims about supposed gods.

[skepticscott]

80. If radiation were invisible

how did people manage to see things for all of human history?

[Fumesucker]

90. Radiation is not always invisible

Visible light for instance is electromagnetic radiation, just like radio, microwaves, x rays and gamma rays.

[trotsky]

91. Shhh, you're going to totally ruin his "Checkmate, atheists!" moment of triumph.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Why do creationists believe the existence of other invisible things = a creator?

Makes no sense.

[cbayer]

8. I'm seeing a lot more about "cultural" christians, particularly cultural catholics.

I see this a lot in Mexico. Many are very involved in the traditions and rituals and find them important.

But they don't really believe.

So I agree with you, for many it comes down to the common language and being a part of the community. I also agree that if can be used for good and evil and that it is imperative to be able to distinguish the two.

[trotsky]

9. Oh I don't think anyone has a problem distinguishing between "good" and "evil" uses of religion.

The problem comes from who defines what is "good" and what is "evil." Since that itself is tied up in the religious beliefs you're trying to judge, it becomes rather problematic and exposes the fatal flaws in your simplistic analysis.

[rug]

15. If you can't define good and evil, you'll have a hard time distinguishing between them.

[Mariana]

84. One of the uses of religion

has been to convince followers that some evil acts are good, and that some good or morally neutral acts are evil.

[rug]

86. It's also one of the functions of civil law.

[bvf]

12. Flying two hijacked airliners into buildings

in order to kill 3,000 people was obviously seen as a good thing by some. But then, religion had absolutely nothing to do with that, eh?

[trotsky]

19. Exactly.

In the eyes of some religious people, that was an overwhelmingly GOOD act. They had no problem identifying it as good.

[guillaumeb]

27. "Dropping two nuclear devoces on Japanese cities on order to kill hundreds

of thousands of people was obviously seen as a good thing by some. But then, the state religion called patriotism had..."

"Religion" did not pilot the planes in New York. Some people claiming to be acting from religious motives did.

Now, shall we jointly condemn all US citizens and the concept of patriotism because two bomber crews dropped nuclear weapons in the name of the US empire?

[beam me up scottie]

29. "Some people claiming to be acting from religious motives did"

So we shouldn't believe religious people when they say they're motivated by religion?

[guillaumeb]

31. We should believe that they are possibly being truthful as to motivation,

but they do not represent any religion. They simply represent themselves. They may, in the case of the people piloting the planes, truly believe that their interpretation of Islam is correct, but they can only speak as individuals.

[beam me up scottie]

33. All religious people believe that "their interpretation" of their religion is correct.

Now, shall we jointly condemn all US citizens and the concept of patriotism because two bomber crews dropped nuclear weapons in the name of the US empire?

Who is condemning all muslims?

[guillaumeb]

35. People generally believe that their perceptions are correct.

Many people feel that their beliefs are correct. Many people have a belief in the history of the US. Many people also have little actual knowledge of historical events.


People like to think that they are intelligent and well informed about things. Most are, unfortunately, not correct in their beliefs.

Except for me, of course.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Iow, no one actually condemned all muslims.

If you're going to accuse atheists of bigotry towards religious people on DU you might want to provide proof of your assertion.

Otherwise it just looks like anti-atheist bigotry.

[guillaumeb]

39. No one specifically condemned "ALL Muslims"

But the following is part of a previous post:
"in order to kill 3,000 people was obviously seen as a good thing by some. But then, religion had absolutely nothing to do with that, eh? "

I will make an assumption here that, based on the number 3000, and based on the previous statement about flying airplanes into buildings, that the poster was talking about the Muslims who flew the planes into the World Trade Center.

Add in the part about religion and some few people might just conclude that the poster IS broad brushing an entire religion.

Is this anti-theist propaganda?

[beam me up scottie]

40. bvf was referencing a common apologist meme.

This one:

But then, religion had absolutely nothing to do with that, eh?

We've been told repeatedly that religion is never to blame when religious people do bad things.

Even though the religious people involved did in fact cite religion as their motivation.

You did the same thing here:

"Religion" did not pilot the planes in New York. Some people claiming to be acting from religious motives did.

And now you're claiming that bvf is "broad brushing" religion:

I will make an assumption here that, based on the number 3000, and based on the previous statement about flying airplanes into buildings, that the poster was talking about the Muslims who flew the planes into the World Trade Center.

Add in the part about religion and some few people might just conclude that the poster IS broad brushing an entire religion.

Your "assumption" always seems to be that atheists are intolerant of all religious people, even when they go out of their way to qualify their statements.

Why is that?

[guillaumeb]

46. So you broad brush me as an attempt to rebut the evidence I produced

to answer your previous post.

Interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

47. What evidence?

You made an incorrect assumption about an atheist and I asked why that seems to be the norm for you.

[guillaumeb]

49. you asked about atheists who broad brush, I provided a link,

and you tried to parse the words from the link as not really saying what was said.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Where was the broad brush?

You admitted it was an assumption on the part of "some people".

Add in the part about religion and some few people might just conclude that the poster IS broad brushing an entire religion.

I simply reposted bvf's words and identified the meme they were referencing.

[guillaumeb]

51. Where was the broad brush?

In your hand. But you wore a glove so as not to leave prints.

[beam me up scottie]

52. You said you had evidence of broad brush bigotry and have yet to produce it.

Someone here wants to make a group of people look bad, and it ain't bvf.

[guillaumeb]

53. Already produced. Can actually be read in this conversation. eom

[beam me up scottie]

54. Where?

No one specifically condemned "ALL Muslims"

But the following is part of a previous post:
"in order to kill 3,000 people was obviously seen as a good thing by some. But then, religion had absolutely nothing to do with that, eh? "

I will make an assumption here that, based on the number 3000, and based on the previous statement about flying airplanes into buildings, that the poster was talking about the Muslims who flew the planes into the World Trade Center.

Add in the part about religion and some few people might just conclude that the poster IS broad brushing an entire religion.

Looks like creative speculation.

[bvf]

30. Do you doubt for a fucking moment

that millions of Americans cheered at the news of Japanese casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki owing to their "heathenism"??

Yeesh.

[guillaumeb]

32. define heathenism in this context.

Millions might have cheered because the Japanese were represented in the US press as subhuman.

[bvf]

34. And how, exactly?

[guillaumeb]

38. heathen meaning non-western?

[bvf]

41. No, "heathen" being non-christian.

Don't pretend otherwise.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Wow. That was one tortured analogy.

[guillaumeb]

104. Torture is also a war crime. eom

[No Vested Interest]

13. Very insightful comment, Hunter. Thanks for sharing. nt

[gcomeau]

24. The headline is, unsurprisingly, wrong.

First of all, "Raised in a non-religious household" does not equal "atheist".

Second, this...

Most often, someone will go through the motions of practicing a religion to appease a spouse’s family.

...is not "believing". It's faking for social reasons. Of course since I strongly suspect most people who call themselves Christian are doing that maybe that's all you think is needed to call someone a "believer"?

[Yorktown]

44. True: the title of the article is false. Plain wrong.

The title writes about 'atheists' (3% of the US pop.) when the facts are about the non-religious, a much larger group (22%)

And, as you highlighted, even these children growing up into a religious fold just go through the motions.
Just for argument's sake, let's say half just go through the motions, and the other half believes.

That's 50%x50% = 25% of the children of the unaffiliated end up believing.
In a country where 80% of the people have religious beliefs.

25% vs 80%, if th etrend continues, religions are on the way out.

As they should.

[shenmue]

78. No.

[gcomeau]

81. What? -eom

[MellowDem]

107. Nones..

Aren't nearly as likely to indoctrinate their children as the religious, religion has that down pat. And these children are being raised in a culture and society seeped in religion, where there are powerful privileges and advantages for labeling yourself a believer, so these numbers aren't surprising.

What's surprising is when it comes to people switching from religion to none. The numbers are staggering in the number who are leaving religion vs going in.

I think it said something like over 6 Catholics stopped identifying as such for each non-Catholic that joined. That's huge.

This isn't really a tucked away gem, more an indictment on how much of society sees indoctrinating children as moral and right.