Religion
Related: About this forumHow decades of divorce helped erode religion
By Julie Zauzmer
September 27 at 1:05 PM
Two widely recognized trends in American society might have something to do with each other.
Divorce rates climbed to the highest levels ever in the 1980s, when about half of all marriages ended in divorce.
And in the present day, Americans are rapidly becoming less religious. Since 1972, the share of Americans who say they do not adhere to any particular religion has increased from 5 percent of the population to 25 percent.
Could those two trends be related? A new study from the Public Religion Research Institute says yes. The children of divorced parents have grown up to be adults of no religion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/27/how-decades-of-divorce-helped-erode-religion/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)Children of divorced parents may develop stronger immune systems by being exposed to wider environments; perhaps seeing more religions, having wider circles of acquaintances / schoolmates, greater likelihood that one parent reverts to original religion, greater likelihood that parent gives up religion (perhaps more so for catholics whose church forbids divorce), greater likelihood that they see that religion doesn't make people much more likely to stay together, perhaps having seen vicious arguments / divorces / custody battles between two erstwhile religious parents.
rug
(82,333 posts)In order to become an atheist one must first have a concept of god which is then rejected.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)Your statement is like saying to be clean you first have to be dirty. Or to be intelligent you must first be stupid. Or to be blind you must first see. Or to have no car you must first get one.
rug
(82,333 posts)Because dirt exists, intelligence (and stupidity) exists, vision exists, and cars exist.
In order to reject something that does not exist, you need to know exactly what it is.
Try your poor logic on the notion of fairies.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)You make the preposterous assumption that "a god" or "gods" is the natural normal state of affairs. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Children are born without gods. They get religion imposed on them by the surrounding society or their parents. A vanishingly small number adopt a religion as adults.
Atheism means "without god(s)". It does not mean "rejection of god(s)".
The prefix "a" is affixed to words to mean "without, not having".
"amoral" means "without morals", not rejecting morals. A mentally incompetent person can be amoral without knowing what morals are.
"asexual" (as in asexual reproduction) means "without sex, not involving sex"; it doesn't mean that the plant tried sex and rejected it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Atheism is not general or generic nonbelief; it is a specific nonbelief, nonbelief in the existence of gods. Necessarily, one must have a concept of gods to assert nonbelief in that concept.
You're committing the etymological fallacy.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)You don't have to know about it to be non-Tenrikyo.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now that I do, thanks to you, I proudly declare myself an atenrikyan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenrikyo
Fifteen minutes ago that would have been an absurd statement.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)To be good at something you must first be bad at it.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Children are born with innate abilities and genes that govern their appearance, their physical appearance and dimensions (to a degree) and their instincts (like rooting for a breast, sucking reflex to feed, breathing, etc.).
They are born with the capability to pronounce every phonetic syllable that comprise spoken language, they can do many things, but one thing they cannot do is communicate complex ideas or associations until they are learned (or prevented from learning).
Babies do not love or hate.
Babies do not practice religion or not practice it.
Babies do not speak "English" or "Chinese" or "French" or "Swahili".
Babies simply are empty vessels, filled with experiences and shaped by nature AND nurture in a complex matrix of cause and effect intertwined with exposure and protection.
A child, no matter if they are born Atlanta, Aleppo, Athens or Angora does not have ANY innate religion or conception of "god". That is a 100% ingrained and learned concept along with all of the restrictions and hateful conflict religion causes.
There is no instinct to the supernatural, only a natural wonder, curiosity and a brain making neural connections at a rate that boggles the mature mind decades later.
Religion is a virus. Society is the host and the victim. Reason is the cure.
rug
(82,333 posts)Only once they have that concept can the not believe it.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Atheism is not a belief system, it is the absence of one. I have seen you ignore multiple attempts to convey this point to you so I will waste no further time trying. Have at it your way Hoss...just know that I see you, I recognize the game you are playing and I believe that you do everyone - believer, non-believer, skeptic - a disservice by muddying the waters rather than seeking understanding.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Bingo.
And now you know, too.
rug
(82,333 posts)Enjoy yourself.
rug
(82,333 posts)Beyond that, I really don't give a shit what you think you see.
If your idea of discussion is leaving in a huff ("I will waste no further time"
, follow your own advice.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Scrabble anyone?
"They have meanings, specific meanings."
Yes! Like Bradical79 says: "Someone lacking belief in something is not the same as active rejection."
And they have MULTIPLE meanings..... and homophones and all sorts of "game" materials. Y'know...rhetoric...
There's this thing called poetry that even uses these things artistically!
rug
(82,333 posts)It's not hard to tell the difference.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh, so you're using RCC techno nomenclature. Got it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Not reflexive anti-Catholicism.
And a smiley.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)and reflexive pro-Catholicism..... and that "get the last word in" GAME you always play.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm all ears.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You are the one separating "words to communicate" and "words to play games". I though all words were for communication.
But every profession has its own technical nomenclature. Religion and theology are no exceptions. I'm sure the RCC have specific definitions of words they like to use...like "transubstantiation" and its RCC definition...which makes no sense in the real world. I'm sure there are others like "see"...which has a completely different meaning from the common verb "see".
Here's a word (used often) for you...
"disingenuous."
rug
(82,333 posts)adj
informal caught out doing something wrong and therefore in trouble: you are so busted.
What ARE you talking about?
This makes no sense.
Does anyone have a clue what Ruggles is blathering on about now?
Oh never mind... just his word games.
rug
(82,333 posts)Give one non-bigoted definition of "RCC techno nomenclature".
Owning your own words is a lot more dignified that looking around saying "Who, me?"
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I gave you 2.
Are you blind?
rug
(82,333 posts)You are the one separating "words to communicate" and "words to play games". I though all words were for communication.
But every profession has its own technical nomenclature. Religion and theology are no exceptions. I'm sure the RCC have specific definitions of words they like to use...like "transubstantiation" and its RCC definition...which makes no sense in the real world. I'm sure there are others like "see"...which has a completely different meaning from the common verb "see".
Here's a word (used often) for you...
"disingenuous."
At least you knew what disingenuous meant before you demonstrated it.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Someone lacking belief in something is not the same as active rejection.
rug
(82,333 posts)Figure out the difference.
Either way, one has to know what they fail to accept or actively reject.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And you know it. And that poster has you dead to rights. Nice to see others can see through your nonsense at first blush.
Nice to see you fold too, when you get called on it.
rug
(82,333 posts)In this case that object is theos.
If you think that's a fold, I don't want to see where you put your shirts.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How about the fact that like 90% of religious people are the religion of their parents?
"Do most people believe the religion of their parents?"
The short answer to this is "yes". This is a widely accepted fact, especially among people with a broad knowledge of the world.
https://www.quora.com/Do-most-people-believe-the-religion-of-their-parents
rug
(82,333 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)Many religious people get cured.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)They said people *start* as atheists. Yes, someone who becomes atheist must have been something else first. But that's something different you've introduced into the sub-thread.
One does not, however, need to know one is an atheist to be an atheist. We can be non-racist without knowing what 'non-racist' (or 'racist') means.
rug
(82,333 posts)While it's true some people in this process may not know what atheism is, it is certainly true they must first know what a god is, because knowledge precedes belief and nonbelief.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)rug
(82,333 posts) muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)As stated ad nauseam.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)Someone who is 'non-racist' does not have to have been racist, nor to understand what racism or non-racism is. Something that is 'abiotic' is not dead; it does not have to relate to something that was once alive. It just means a process that is not involved with life.
rug
(82,333 posts)Atheism is neither a generic nor default state of nonbelief. It is a specific nonbelief which first requires a knowledge of that belief. The prefix is meaningless without knowing the concept it modifies.
Just as abiotic means without . . . . what?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)Nonbelief is a default state. We don't believe in seven legged purple plants from Venus, by default. That nonbelief is so universal that we haven't bothered giving it a name. The nonbelief in gods has been called 'atheism', because it's worth having its own name for discussion purposes. That doesn't mean that an atheist has to have believed in gods to be an atheist. They don't need to know about the concept of gods either, for it to be an appropriate term for them. You don't need to understand the concept of ghosts to have no belief in them.
rug
(82,333 posts)there can be no response to something that's not there.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Otherwise people would be walking around saying "a".
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm an atheist about every single religion and supernatural concept whether I have heard of it already or not.
Quit fucking around.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's a specific nonbelief.
Quit being obtuse.
This statement is from Yogi Berra:
"I'm an atheist about every single religion and supernatural concept whether I have heard of it already or not."
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Without knowledge.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)In agnostic, you say it means "without" knowledge.
But suddenly, in atheist, you say it means "rejecting" god(s).
If you were logical and somewhat consistent, you'd say (since you started with "atheist" that babies had to have knowledge so they could reject knowledge. But (at least in this area) it is doubtful you are logical and you certainly are not consistent.
What a load of hooey you push.
rug
(82,333 posts)I told you it's without a speciific belief.
I also told you that you cannot have nonbelief with the knowldege of that belief, which perforce is rejected if you don't accept it.
I understand this challenges some core value of yours. "Atheism as the default position" is qite popular on the internet.
Nevertheless, that is the hooey.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)The point stands: Children are born godless until infected by the parents. Many recover and return to a godless state. Whether you want to call the initial state agnostic and the latter atheist is a difference without a distinction as far as the reality of the situation and the reality of what occurs.
Now you can play your semantic trolling and games while the rest of us discuss the substance of the OP.
Run along now.
rug
(82,333 posts)Reminds me of the 1973 peace talks.
Say hello to "us". I'm sure they'll soothe your wounds.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)You must see trolls everywhere your view is challenged.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I see you're quite wedded to the debunked circa 2006 meme of default atheist babies.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)rug
(82,333 posts) 
elleng
(130,861 posts)I could say a lot more about religion, athiesm and agnosticism, but I thought I'd spare this group, in which I rarely participate.
rug
(82,333 posts)There's lots of posts here that are more bias than fact.
Tikki
(14,556 posts)Tikki
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)of God exists what is someone who doesn't believe in God called? Do new born babies subscribe to a belief in God? I think new borns don't have a concept of God and therefore can't believe in God. My thought based on that is that belief in God is learned behavior.
What do you call someone from the 17th century who doesn't believe in television?
Newborn babies are not atheists any more than they're republicans.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)atheists any more than they are Catholic seems more fitting in this conversation. If you didn't believe in television in the 17th century you were correct in your belief there wasn't any.
rug
(82,333 posts)The difference is no one is saying the default position of babies is Catholic.
stone space
(6,498 posts)We're not infants.
I'll be 60 in a few months.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)All children are born scientists. Observe two year olds doing things like touching everything with a wooden spoon. Or dropping lots of different things and carefully watching what happens and examining the results.
Under pressure from society and parents, not all retain that curiosity and inquisitiveness and inclination to concentrate.
Science is not congruent with infancy. Recognizing and remarking on the behavior of infants is not infantalizing science.
The point about atheism is that children do not create a religion with one god that has three manifestations or a religion around a meteorite or a religion that worships 8 armed blue elephants or a religion with a god that sends bears to eat children who mock a bald-headed man.
They only get that from their parents, in such huge proportions that it is far and away the most note-worthy fact about religion(s).
All children are born without knowledge of god or gods or the various myths and traditions coursing through the beliefs in god(s).
I am 60. You won't magically become an infant.
Cartoonist
(7,314 posts)Divorce may be painful, but that's a beautiful silver lining.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Our consensus was that women got married, had kids, stayed home and took care of the home. We all agreed that was a pretty tough job. After Reagan too office, people were sort of shamed into needing to keep up with the Joneses. On top of that, one income was getting to where it could not support the needs of a family. Women left their homes and went to work. Lots of women. Women realized that they could do pretty well for themselves and didn't need some asshole husband, and yes, I'll admit it, there are lots of asshole husbands. Divorces started happening, and nobody gave a shit about what their church had to say about it, so they left the church and took their kids away from it too. The trend of no religion in a life has continued.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)If divorce eroded religious belief wouldn't we expect to see higher divorce rates in state with few religious adherents?
no_hypocrisy
(46,076 posts)A family that prays together, stays together.
Famous last words in more ways than one.
At 1:55 and 2:46
