NoGodBlog.com

Beautifully said and yet the general public and the media will never hear how all of this data has been injected into their thoughts by these religious groups. Hey, at least as an Atheist I have better stats of remaining married.

It is likely that religious people have trouble staying married because, deep down, each suspects that the other is completely nuts!

We atheists don't suffer from this particular problem. While certain individuals among us might actually be nuts, it's clear that our disbelief in deities is not a contributing factor to the condition. After seeing holy rollers, snake handlers, and rabid posters on this blog, I've found that I cannot extend the same expectation of sanity by default to the religious.

Many or some religious people get married by emotional bursts, arrangements, obligations, same faith unions, divine wills, and not by feelings and responsibility, I think.

My partner and I are trying to conceive and we have no intention of getting married. We have secure jobs, never used welfare or unemployment insurance and are in a happy, loving relationship. We just don't see any reason to get married (don't like the woman-as-property motif, don't like the religious aspects, don't like the consumerism, don't like the idea that ceremonial promises count for more than our genuine commitment). Anyone want to tell me how we're costing anyone anything?

I think the key point in the article was:

Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes.

This has nothing to do with marriage. If Scafidi was interested in solving the problem rather than pushing his ideology, then he would advocate for better family planning and access to abortions for a start.

I personally think this has to do with premarital sex, or lack thereof. I know of several people who waited to have sex, and may have gotten married earlier than they should have in order to have sex.

I am PRO-premarital sex for this reason. Adults should have lots of safe sex before marriage, so they feel no, ummm... "pressure" to get married.

Isn't it interesting that Massachusettes, known as the most liberal of states and the only state with gay marrriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation while the conservative and pious states of Arkansas and Oklahoma have the second and third highest? (Nevada was number one but that's really no surprise). So much for the theory that gay marriage destroys hetero marriages.

so if one looks at divorce rates and prison population, it is obvious that atheists on the whole set and maintain higher moral and ethical standards for ourselves than xtians.

remember these are FACTS so our xtian friends will not accept them since their core beliefs deal in fantasies. sad....

Wouldn't the simplest solution be to end entitlement programs?

advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

The government has no business being involved in marriages, other than to offer a paper saying you are married, or another one saying you are no longer married. The government is not a counseling service. If Christians can't stay married with the services already in place, maybe they should give more thought to getting married in the first place.

mxracer652 is right up there with Clinton and Bush. Clinton ended entitlement to welfare and Bush cut food stamps to families with more than two children, letting the rest die of starvation.

Oh yea, food costs are soaring worldwide.

Let's do lunch sometime.

Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates,

as opposed to poor families having high divorce rates?

it seems to me that this study is based on a fundemental logical fallacy, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or "with this therefore because of this".

do we have any studies that suggest that divorce causes people to be poor? it seems more intuitive to beleive that being poor increases the chance of divorce, and of course both could be the effect of some other factor that we havn't even considered.

this study is nothing but propaganda for the "traditional" family.

I don't really see as much government support of marriage as I see government barriers being erected so that the wrong kind of people don't have the opporunity to get married.

I did notice that this study was sponsored by american theofascists, and, much like every other study done by a corporation, it amazingly (cough) shows that the corporate position being studied is completely correct...

it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce

Alarming? These people who believe they have "the truth" and all others are damned? These people who condemn others who live or believe differently than them? These people who believe that faith is a virtue (as long as it their faith), but science is suspect? These people who spend a great deal of time trying to undermine the Constitution in order to promote their religion, and lying about the history of our constitution or what it protects?

Somehow these people can't seem to get along in a marriage?

Who'd a thunk?

Here is a list of state by state divorce rates. Notice that the ten lowest divorce rates are all found in Northeastern or Midwestern/Western states and most of the highest divorce rates are all in Southeastern or Southwestern States.
http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html

LOLOL Peter!

Children dying of starvation in the US!?!?! That's right up there with virgin births.

How about this: If you can't afford to care for children, including purchasing all the needed insurances, don't have them.

Local story about a single mother who has 3 kids, all different fathers, who depends on entitlements. She was semi-on track to be an RN, got knocked up again, and had to quit. Why the fuck didn't this retard learn from the first two kids she had but couldn't support?

Duh, here's the article:
http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/04/13/news/top_stories/doc4802c701bbc9b663365678.txt

Although I love picking at xtians as much as the next guy, I dislike seeing statistics used in a misleading manner. When you are right, you don't have to mislead! Although a higher percentage of xtians are divorced, it is because xtians are more likely to get married in the first place.

"ARIS also showed that 78 percent of Baptists and Pentecostals were, or had been, married, compared to only 34 percent of atheists. This means that 16.7 percent of Baptist and Pentecostal marriages ended in divorce compared to 26.5 percent of the irreligious marriages.If one takes the varying populations of the different Christian denominations properly into account, the result is that only one in eight of all Christian marriages, 12.5 percent, end in divorce."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56685

Whether or not xians are more likley to marry than non xians still doesn't change the fact that a higher percent of religious people divorce than do non religious people. This is all the more important when you consider that religious folks tend to be the ones pointing their fingers at everyone else for their sexual sins while at the same time being the most likley to divorce which is considered a form of adultery. The hyopcrisy is what makes this fact so interesting.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. I would guess that both the odds of being born-again and the odds of being divorced are tied to a common trait not mentioned in the data: intelligence. Stupid people are more likely to be born-again. Stupid people are also more likely to marry too young and get divorced.

The fact that xians are more likely to marry does not change that fact that more of them are divorced, but it does change the overall picture. A higher percentage of xians stay married than freethinkers, too.

Of course, if you think that you are going to hell for getting divorced, you are much more likely to stay in a miserable marriage.

The "born again" types mostly believe that you have to be married to get laid. They also believe that their god wants them to be fruity and multiply (or something like that.) I think these factors lead to the higher percentage of marriages among them.

I'm not sure that intelligence has as much to do with it as critical-thinking skills. That is more of a learned skill than an innate attribute. Of course, unintelligent people can't be expected to have critical-thinking skills and half the population has a double-digit IQ....

I would love to see a statistically sound survey that included intelligence, academic achievement, financial achievement, marital status, religiosity, and political affiliation.

GT,
WND is double dipping the stats. Dave's figures only count married people, because single people can't get divorced.

The absolute numbers are normalized out by the percentages!

Oh, and what wing nut daily publishes is 90% incorrect/wrong, while vox day is batting damn near .000, so it would do you good to not bother using either of them for resources.

Marriage is a hangover from primitive cultures. Modern society needs to develop better ways to care for children.

mxracer652

You don't believe anyone is starving to death in the US. I have seen it with my own eyes. Disparate poverty in the USA. I now live in DC where the infant mortality rate is up there with third world countries. Sorry, but the good old US is not so damn good. Got to get out of your hubble and learn what's going on.

As for personal responsibility, I couldn't agree more. That is why I conscientiously decided against having any children.

The problem is we have people who suffer from a deficit of critical thinking skills and have children like the case you mention. Unfortunately, we are talking about life human beings and we are all still on the line for feeding the children of these fools.

Remember the admonishment of Charles Dickens in A Christmas Carol:

They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

"Spirit, are they yours?" Scrooge could say no more.

"They are Man's," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!" cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. "Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end."

What actually needs to happen is the separation of church and state. Marriage is BOTH a civil and a religious institution (these days), and that's why religion gets in our face when we try to marry/divorce.

We need marriage to be religious ONLY. That way, the church can marry who they wish to marry. Catholics can marry only straight people, and never grant a divorce if they choose. Unitarians can marry gays. This makes weddings on par with Bar Mitzvahs and confirmations.

But any two adults who wish an official union must do so with a separate action -- a civil union -- without the consent or interference of any church. That solves all problems.

Born again Christians have a higher divorce rate then secularists - but I doubt the relationship is causal. A higher proportion of Christians are found in the south where education and income levels are lower. Unless you have put together an econometric study, making the (half-joking) implication that marriage counseling should include an anti-Christian is as guilty of data manipulation as the original study you are critical of.

We're # 1!

Texas had the highest rate at 4.1 per 1,000. They found that the highest divorce rates are found in the "Bible Belt."

Oh, that's not something for Texas Christians to brag about? Oops :)

Surprise...surprise. You might find some different numbers if you actually researched your article...


First of all...

Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes.

An assumption? Wow...that kind of throws the study off...

From the actual Barna Group study...

The study showed that the percentage of adults who have been married and divorced varies from segment to segment. For instance, the groups with the most prolific experience of marriage ending in divorce are downscale adults (39%), Baby Boomers (38%), those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38%), African-Americans (36%), and people who consider themselves to be liberal on social and political matters (37%).

Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28%), evangelicals (26%), upscale adults (22%), Asians (20%) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and political matters (28%).

Thirty percent of atheists and agnostics had been married and subsequently divorced. However, the three-point difference from the national average was within the range of sampling error, suggesting that their likelihood of experiencing a dissolved marriage is the same as that of the population at-large. A representative from Barna also pointed out the atheists and agnostics have lower rates of marriage and a higher likelihood of cohabitation, a combination of behaviors that distort comparisons with other segments.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=295

I love these types of threads...

They show the depths to which the well educated non-believers will travel to find the truth...

But then again..."What is Truth"?

All of those resources poured into churches and spreading their "message" yet they have nothing to show for it. The world can not afford religion!

I would like to see a study that looks at the religious classification of parents with children in assistance programs (including private ones).

Marriage is BOTH a civil and a religious institution (these days), and that's why religion gets in our face when we try to marry/divorce.

Actually this isn't accurate. Marriage is a civil institution which can be officiated in a religious ceremony if desired but this is in no way required. My parents were married in a secular civil ceremony in the town hall and the same is possible here in the USA. A religiously officiated wedding uses the words "By the power vested in me by the state of (insert state) I now prounouce you married" and not the other way round. The legal power of marriage rests solely with the government of the USA.

We need marriage to be religious ONLY. That way, the church can marry who they wish to marry. Catholics can marry only straight people, and never grant a divorce if they choose. Unitarians can marry gays.

No church or other religious institution is forced to marry anyone that they think is unworthy of marriage. Gays in MA are not suing the catholic church to perform their weddings but instead are seeking out churches who are gay friendly or are having secular civil ceremonies.
Marriage is and should remain a civil arrangement but should be extended to all people regardless of sexual orientation.

i smell a rat somewhere. the barna study referenced in the religioustolerance.org study was conducted in 1999. this study has been pulled from their website. the one referenced in phreedm's post was just completed.

the barna group is xtian group dedicated to "facilitating spiritual transformation" [quote from their vision statement]

so is it possible they took a bunch of flack for the findings in the first study and did the second to tidy things up.

i don't know which to believe, but either way it does not show or indicate a lot of difference statistically in divorce rates except if you factor education and income. that would be politically incorrect so i'm calling it a wash.

still stand by my statement that "atheists on the whole set and maintain higher moral and ethical standards for ourselves than xtians."

yeah spending taxpayers money is the answer,i think not.no one is forcing these people to have sex outside of marriage or to break their marital vows we the taxpayers should not have to pay for their lack of judgement,self control.

off topic i wish ellen a safe an pleasant walk thru alabama and miss.that was a good story on mr.moore he was brave but wearing that billboard was not smart.also good story on the couple in missouri they sound like good loving parents with great kids.

Comment from: sayonara

i smell a rat somewhere. the barna study referenced in the religioustolerance.org study was conducted in 1999. this study has been pulled from their website. the one referenced in phreedm's post was just completed.

the barna group is xtian group dedicated to "facilitating spiritual transformation" [quote from their vision statement]

so is it possible they took a bunch of flack for the findings in the first study and did the second to tidy things up.

So let me get this straight...instead of actually doing some research yourself, you'd rather make an assumption that would allow you to stand by your "unproven" point of view...?

That speaks volumes of exactly how interested you are in discovering truth in this world...

So much for the scientific method...

I would hazard a guess (a hypothesis, if you) that divorce rates could be influenced by whether or not the couples have lived together per-marriage. It seems to me that in southern states this might be kind of a no-no, and once the couple lives together they run into all sorts of problems. Its probably always been a problem, but back when the wife was expected to be subservient and divorce wasn't even conceivable, living together before marriage didn't matter.
To me the worst thing you could do is marry before you know you can actually live with the person. It would be intriguing to see some statistics for that, I'll have to scrounge around for them.

damnit, that should read (a hypothesis, if you will)

you'd rather make an assumption that would allow you to stand by your "unproven" point of view

I love it when people who believe in an invisible magical superbeing say stuff like that. Irony rules.

justinw said:
"I love it when people who believe in an invisible magical superbeing say stuff like that. Irony rules."

my sentiments exactly.

to that i would add in reponse to phreedm:

first;since when does a telephone poll qualify as a "scientific method" of study?

second; i did do some research and discovered that there was a discrepancy in the data. did you?

third, i don't have the time or interest to research everything fanatically the way you apparently do. the prison data is well published and accepted. that says more about morals and ethics than divorce data anytime.

Dave, thank you for the find. As a Christian, it pains and angers me to see such statistics among Christians, or people who claim to be Christian or born-again. I do think there are a lot of atheists like tyro:

My partner and I are trying to conceive and we have no intention of getting married. We have secure jobs, never used welfare or unemployment insurance and are in a happy, loving relationship. We just don't see any reason to get married

Obviously, if you don't get married, you can't get divorced. But my guess (maybe someone has a link to some statistics) is that there are a large percentage of atheists who are (or have been) married. There can be tax and insurance benefits.

While I don't advocate pre-marital sex, I do think Dave Silverman had some insight in the following quote:

I personally think this has to do with premarital sex, or lack thereof. I know of several people who waited to have sex, and may have gotten married earlier than they should have in order to have sex.

I am PRO-premarital sex for this reason. Adults should have lots of safe sex before marriage, so they feel no, ummm... "pressure" to get married.

Christians, especially young ones, probably feel more pressure to get married than atheists. My guess is it could be because they want to be married before they have sex (a terrible reason to get married), they lost their virginity to a person and therefore felt the need to marry them, or they just *pursue* marriage, rather than waiting until they're positive they've found someone they can happily spend their life with like an atheist might tend to do. Arguably, it is easier for an atheist to wait as you do not have any obligation to save your virginity.

The second article Dave posted, the one about the Barna study, pointed some things that were insightful to the issue, as well. Until recently, I was a Catholic (I am now a "non-denominational Christian"). The Catholic church has a marriage process that makes other Christian churches' processes seem like a drive-thru wedding chapel. Most require you to be a member, you have many interviews, counceling, etc. At least that was how it was at the churches I attended. So many Christian churches out there have the theory of, "Oh, you'd like to get married? When are you free?"

Not to mention, there are thousands of Christian churches in this country that are only Christian in name. They're ignorant of and/or completely lacking the gospel. Ever watched Joel Olsteen on TV? His idea of Christianity is "your path to greatness and accomplishment", and the Bible is the equivalent of a Jim Cramer "Mad Money" book. Then there are the countless churches who select and skew scripture to fit their personal agendas, like Jeremiah Wright. Not to mention the scam artists on late-night infomercials selling two-for-one deals on miracle spring water and making old ladies jump out of wheelchairs.

I believe the church I'm involved with now is ideal in its structure, size and sense of community, and it has proved its effectiveness in helping struggling marriages. Without using names or anything, there is a young couple in our church who came very close to divorce. It was a classic case of a young girl getting married to the first guy she seriously dated out of high school, because she just wanted to be married. Well, when it became known to the church community (which is about 150 people, so everyone knows each other) that they were struggling, nearly everyone rallied around them, spent time with them, mentored them (long-lived couples), or some other type of help. I firmly believe they would have been divorced had they not been in this church. I also believe that Christians are called to not just be followers and believers individually, but in communities, for reasons just like that.

Anyway, thanks again Dave for articles. My dog is staring at me to go outside

Oh enough of the anecdotal nonsense! It proves nothing. The fact is that people sink a lot of resources into religion and achieve no positive and statistically significant outcomes. This thread highlights this fact once again.

All of the Vatican's prayer and money wasn't able to change the prevalence of pedophilia under their gold encrusted roofs.

... roofs as compared to the general population.

What i have to disagree somewhat with you i think that folks like uoflcard,spanders even phreedm get a full return on their money because they are not seeking wealth,power,sex.if religion gives them hope,comfort,joy no problem as long as our rights are respected.

i meant to say not using religion to seek wealth,power,sex.i could be wrong but they do not come across as that type.

uof...wrote:

there are thousands of Christian churches in this country that are only Christian in name.

Ahh yes, the good old "No True Scotsman" fallacy once again!

What i have to disagree somewhat with you i think that folks like uoflcard,spanders even phreedm get a full return on their money because they are not seeking wealth,power,sex.if religion gives them hope,comfort,joy no problem as long as our rights are respected.

I can't speak for phreedm, but I can tell you're right about me not seeking wealth, power or sex out of religion. Also, I will always respect the rights of others to believe anything they choose or feel compelled to believe (outside of anything that causes harm to others). Will I always try to spread my beliefs? yes, and I understand why that upsets so many people. But I would never *impose* my beliefs, just present them and invite others. Ultimately, it is their decision and I will always respect that

uof...wrote:

there are thousands of Christian churches in this country that are only Christian in name.

Ahh yes, the good old "No True Scotsman" fallacy once again!

perhaps I did exaggerate a little too far on that one. but my point still stands, that there are 1,000's of churches that are Christian because they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, sacrificed for our sins, etc. But they preach, teach and walk completely different lives than Christians are called to in the gospel. Just a couple of the examples of the selective teaching of scripture are Jeremiah Wright and Joel Olsteen. Wright has spoken some of the most angry, hateful words of any pastor I've ever seen, even though the Bible calls us to love our enemies (in his case, every non-black, non-poor person, and the government). Olsteen preaches the bible to hundreds of thousands of people around the country and world, basically telling them that if you follow Jesus, your dreams and aspirations will come true. Well what about the scripture that says leave your cares and desires behind and let God lead you? I've seen hours of his preaching, and I've *never* seen him mention the salvation from our sins by Jesus...this is the CORE teaching of the Bible! Whether you believe it or not, it is clear that Olsteen (just as an example of hundreds and hundreds of other churches), does not teach this CENTRAL message of the Bible. It would be like going to a school to learn physics, and they never mention F=ma

adding on to that post...

No church or Christian is perfect, because we are sinful by nature. The only perfect person spiritually was Jesus. But there are churches that do a MUCH better job than others of teach and living how the Bible has called Christians to do. That is what I meant by "only Christian in name"

From David Silverman...

I am PRO-premarital sex for this reason. Adults should have lots of safe sex before marriage, so they feel no, ummm... "pressure" to get married.

Something that occured to me...if all adults had lots of pre-marital sex, wouldn't that lead to *lots* more single, unwed parents (which is the point of this survey?) Not all of that tax money is spent on just divorced parents. I'm sure a lot of it goes to those who were never marreid in the first place.

Just a thought, and I'm not saying that scenario is exclusively atheist, or anything. I really don't mean for it to be applied to any specific religious/non-religious group

"Safe sex" is to protect oneself against STD's and pregnancy when either you are unable to provide for a child and/or unwilling. Sexually active adults should be responsible with their toys.

No church or Christian is perfect,

Can't argue with that.

because we are sinful by nature.

Sin is a word used only by religious nutjobs.

The only perfect person spiritually was Jesus.

It didn't take you long to transition into your fantasy world.

But there are churches that do a MUCH better job than others of teach and living how the Bible has called Christians to do.

Sorry but all the resources that you theists spend in support of your fantasy world does not have any statistically significant effect on behavior. You're wasting your money and your time.

Reason

What i have to disagree somewhat with you i think that folks like uoflcard,spanders even phreedm get a full return on their money because they are not seeking wealth,power,sex.if religion gives them hope,comfort,joy no problem as long as our rights are respected.

Ah, but I stated that they sink lots of "resources into religion and achieve no positive and statistically significant outcomes". Show me objective data that supports any other conclusion.