It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People raised Athiest tend to fall into religion when they grow up.

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
But, how can one say, ten atheist families have two-point-five children that become religious, and then come to the conclusion that most atheist families are the same?


Well, for starters, it wasn't ten families -- the survey included 35,000 individuals, with additional over-surveying of Hindus, Buddhists and Eastern Orthodox, indicating that the sample size of those raised atheist, 432, was sufficient for an accurate sampling. So, yes, 432 respondents were used to represent all those raised atheist in the United States, but that's how random sampling works. No matter how counter intuitive it might seem, if you have a sufficiently large sample, the results will have very little variation from the results that one would have if they included every person in it.

You know the saying that there are "lies, damn lies and statistics"? That speaks to the ability of people to twist statistics to misrepresent the data, which is why it is so important that the raw data be available, as it is in this case.

As an example, we often hear about how young people in America are giving up on religion, and I can cite a study that says they are, in fact. Here, we can see that 26% of persons in the "Millennial" generation do not belong to a religion, double what it is for my generation, the Baby Boomers. Well, that doesn't sound so good, does it?

But scroll down the page, and you'll see a chart showing "Daily Prayer" frequency among persons aged 18-29 in three decades, the 80s, 90s and 2000s. Oddly, the numbers are almost identical, in fact, MORE Millennials pray daily than did those who were that age in the 1980s or 1990s. Keep going and you'll see that church attendance is the lowest of any generation, but then you'll see that belief in God is on a par with everyone else, and belief in the supernatural (afterlife, heaven/hell, angels) is actually HIGHER than other generations.

Now, there are a lot of things at play there, but what we can see is that there is a lot more to the story of this generation than to say "statistically, Millennials are rejecting religion and embracing atheism," which is what Dawkins and crew would have you believe.

Always check your math

edit on 9-7-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
reply to post by adjensen
 


The funny part is those who say they are critical thinkers believe in something as ridiculous as everything came from nothing. And they call themselves intelligent just because they think that nothing else can exist outside of our time and space.?????

That's not intelligence... it's ignorance and expresses a closed mind



Well, I don't think it really means a closed mind. It's more of conclusion that I call "If not this, then that". The religious belief isn't based on proof, but rather lack of proof to the otherwise. If science can't come up with a solid reason on how something came from nothing, then this proves god. If science can't create life from inert elements, then this proves god.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
But, how can one say, ten atheist families have two-point-five children that become religious, and then come to the conclusion that most atheist families are the same?


Well, for starters, it wasn't ten families -- the survey included 35,000 individuals, with additional over-surveying of Hindus, Buddhists and Eastern Orthodox, indicating that the sample size of those raised atheist, 432, was sufficient for an accurate sampling. So, yes, 432 respondents were used to represent all those raised atheist in the United States, but that's how random sampling works. No matter how counter intuitive it might seem, if you have a sufficiently large sample, the results will have very little variation from the results that one would have if they included every person in it.

You know the saying that there are "lies, damn lies and statistics"? That speaks to the ability of people to twist statistics to misrepresent the data, which is why it is so important that the raw data be available, as it is in this case.

As an example, we often hear about how young people in America are giving up on religion, and I can cite a study that says they are, in fact. Here, we can see that 26% of persons in the "Millennial" generation do not belong to a religion, double what it is for my generation, the Baby Boomers. Well, that doesn't sound so good, does it?

But scroll down the page, and you'll see a chart showing "Daily Prayer" frequency among persons aged 18-29 in three decades, the 80s, 90s and 2000s. Oddly, the numbers are almost identical, in fact, MORE Millennials pray daily than did those who were that age in the 1980s or 1990s. Keep going and you'll see that church attendance is the lowest of any generation, but then you'll see that belief in God is on a par with everyone else, and belief in the supernatural (afterlife, heaven/hell, angels) is actually HIGHER than other generations.

Now, there are a lot of things at play there, but what we can see is that there is a lot more to the story of this generation than to say "statistically, Millennials are rejecting religion and embracing atheism," which is what Dawkins and crew would have you believe.

Always check your math

edit on 9-7-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies


Another question I would have is: Does this really have to do with religious beliefs, or does it have to do with parenting skills? And, I can see how religious parents would teach religious beliefs to their children, but would atheist parents actually teach atheism to their kids, or would the subject of a god not even come up in such families?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
The religious belief isn't based on proof, but rather lack of proof to the otherwise. If science can't come up with a solid reason on how something came from nothing, then this proves god. If science can't create life from inert elements, then this proves god.



Scientistic thought runs along the same lines; their is no scientific way to prove ghosts exist so science says there is no such thing as ghosts, despite the fact that many people throughout the ages report encounters with ghosts. Same goes for the soul or spiritual beings such as angels or demons; because their is no scientific way to detect or measure such beings, science assumes they do not exist.

Like Christians blaming everything that cannot be explained to God, scientists simply deny the existence of anything they cannot quantify.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Another question I would have is: Does this really have to do with religious beliefs, or does it have to do with parenting skills? And, I can see how religious parents would teach religious beliefs to their children, but would atheist parents actually teach atheism to their kids, or would the subject of a god not even come up in such families?


That's a good question, but it's out of the scope of the study, which was looking at retention rates of all viewpoints, not atheism specifically. One can speculate about it, I did in another thread with a different angle on this study, though in a somewhat reverse manner -- looking at another phenomenon and wondering whether this study weighs in on it.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
What does "grow up" mean? As opposed to what it is not grown-up, and what does that mean (not grown-up)? I think if you take on such a huge question you might as well be able to define the boundaries of the terms you are using to frame answers.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by alumnathe
What does "grow up" mean? As opposed to what it is not grown-up, and what does that mean (not grown-up)? I think if you take on such a huge question you might as well be able to define the boundaries of the terms you are using to frame answers.


Logic would dictate that the survey involved persons over the age of 18, and the question of "what were you raised as" referred to the period when they were under 18, and the question of "what are you now" referred to the current state of the person.

Pretty easy to frame those answers if one understands the concept of a scientific survey.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I was raised JW n I hate organized rel.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Okay, that tells me age ranges in a certain cultural context. Are you then framing this on behalf of Western cultural boundaries of what "grown-up" means? Because then you could only take it back to about 1934 in the US, when US 18-years-olds became the boundary line of official "grown-up" in some ways (not yet in voting) but that's still not so in every part of the world. In New Guinea, for instance, a "grown-up" happens when a young girl starts menstruating and a boy gets his first erection (they can even vote after that too). It's useful to provide context to an argument you are making on behalf of all mankind.


edit on 10-7-2012 by alumnathe because: of bad eyesight and insomnia



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by alumnathe
reply to post by adjensen
 

Okay, that tells me age ranges in a certain cultural context. Are you then framing this on behalf of Western cultural boundaries of what "grown-up" means?


I'm not framing anything, I'm just stating what the terms of the study were. As it was taken in the United States, in 2007, it is irrational to believe that the results are identical to what would be found in other countries or 20 years ago or in the future.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join