Religion

rug

(82,333 posts) Wed Sep 28, 2016, 05:57 AM Sep 2016

How decades of divorce helped erode religion [View all]

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/

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How decades of divorce helped erode religion [View all] rug Sep 2016 OP

All children are born atheists. Biggest fact of religion is almost everybody gets infected by parent Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2016 #1

That's not true. rug Sep 2016 #2

Nonsense. Illogical. Atheism means "without gods". Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2016 #3

Unless you believe there are gods, then you have to know what you're without. rug Sep 2016 #4

You think atheism is rejection. It is not. Logically not. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2016 #6

It is nonbelief. Regardless you still have to know what it is you don't believe. rug Sep 2016 #7

I'm gonna guess you are not a Tenrikyo. You are a non-Tenrikyo. You don't Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2016 #8

I would have to if I claimed to be an atenrikyan. rug Sep 2016 #10

Well this is true greymattermom Oct 2016 #57

The point remains: Children are born godless until (most are) infected by their parents. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2016 #9

Restating your opinion does not create a fact. rug Sep 2016 #11

On the contrary, it does... Moostache Sep 2016 #28

You've proven the point. rug Sep 2016 #31

You are one of those word game players that make rational discussion impossible. Moostache Sep 2016 #33

You are one of those word game players that make rational discussion impossible. cleanhippie Sep 2016 #36

I'm happy you've finally found a playmate. rug Sep 2016 #38

Words are not games. They have meanings, specific meanings. rug Sep 2016 #37

Words are not games. AlbertCat Oct 2016 #48

There are words that are used to communicate and words that are used to play games. rug Oct 2016 #49

It's not hard to tell the difference. AlbertCat Oct 2016 #50

No, I'm using grammar, reading, and thought. rug Oct 2016 #51

No, I'm using grammar, reading, and (little) thought. AlbertCat Oct 2016 #53

Go on then. State what "RCC techno nomenclature" is. rug Oct 2016 #56

what "RCC techno nomenclature" is. AlbertCat Oct 2016 #70

Here's a word for you: rug Oct 2016 #71

busted AlbertCat Oct 2016 #72

No, what are you talking about. rug Oct 2016 #73

Give one non-bigoted definition of "RCC techno nomenclature". AlbertCat Oct 2016 #74

The hell you did. rug Oct 2016 #77

That's not true at all. Bradical79 Sep 2016 #39

First of all, monbelief can be the result of nonacceptance as well as rejection. rug Oct 2016 #46

The prefix A- means without. AtheistCrusader Sep 2016 #41

Yes, Webster, and it's a preposition that requires an object. rug Oct 2016 #47

Restating your opinion does not create a fact. AlbertCat Oct 2016 #52

How about the fact that so many atheists left a religion? rug Oct 2016 #55

Atheists (100% of people) often become infected with religion but many RETURN to atheism. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #58

That's the point. You're talking about *becoming* atheist, which is not what they said muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #12

Being an atheist is not the default position.One indeed "becomes" an atheist. rug Sep 2016 #13

Neither 'a-' nor 'non-' mean 'anti-' (nt) muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #14

And "theos" means god, specifically. rug Sep 2016 #15

And? muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #16

And, atheism is a specific nonbelief. rug Sep 2016 #17

Again, neither 'non-' nor 'a-' mean 'anti'-. muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #18

Of course not, but both modify a specific noun. rug Sep 2016 #19

It requires a knowledge in the person using the term, but not in whoever it's applied to muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #20

Atheism has its own name because it is a specific response to a belief. rug Sep 2016 #21

It's not a response muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #22

Of course it is. rug Sep 2016 #23

They do muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #24

Okay, Canada excepted. rug Sep 2016 #25

Theism is belief. Atheism is without belief. AtheistCrusader Sep 2016 #43

Atheism is without belief - in gods. rug Oct 2016 #44

Depends on who you ask -nt Bradical79 Sep 2016 #40

Wrong again. AtheistCrusader Sep 2016 #42

Very persuasive. rug Oct 2016 #45

Yes, it is the default. But what is YOUR word for people who have never known god or gods? Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #59

Agnostic. rug Oct 2016 #60

So, double talk from you on the meaning of "a" Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #61

No. Atheist is without god(s). rug Oct 2016 #63

Point stands: Children born godless until infected. Play your semantics & we'll discuss substance. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #62

Lol. Declare victory and run. rug Oct 2016 #64

Yeah, you don't even have a response on the points written, so you deflect. Run along now. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #65

Speaking of "semantic trolling" . . . . rug Oct 2016 #66

Nah. I like honest challenges. I often learn things. You have nothing to teach. This thread is proof Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #67

People with set opinions usually learn nothing. rug Oct 2016 #68

I grant you the last word. . . . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #69

TOO silly. elleng Sep 2016 #26

That's a damning critique. rug Sep 2016 #27

Sorry, rug, if I'm too polite for you. elleng Sep 2016 #29

Look around the room. rug Sep 2016 #32

god is only a significance. Tikki Sep 2016 #34

If no concept... tonedevil Oct 2016 #78

Agnostic. rug Oct 2016 #79

Babies aren't... tonedevil Oct 2016 #80

They're neither. Which is the point. rug Oct 2016 #81

That's a silly statement that only serves to infantalize atheists and atheism. stone space Oct 2016 #75

No infantalization. All children are also born scientists. Atheism is not congruent with infancy. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #76

Whatever works Cartoonist Sep 2016 #5

Had a conversation sort of along these lines about ten years ago with some friends. tonyt53 Sep 2016 #30

Divorce rates tend to be higher in states that claim greater religious affiliation. Buzz cook Sep 2016 #35

To quote Lonesome Rhodes ("A Face In The Crowd"): no_hypocrisy Oct 2016 #54