portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

faith & spirituality

"...atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all"

Check out the research.

It appears that for all their dogma bullshit, 'Born-again Christians' divorce more than the heathens.

Glass house anyone?
Not a meaningful statistic 05.Sep.2006 14:55

Mike Novack stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

Unfortunately, the populations cannot be considered as iving in the same soicety with the same customs and mores. Divorce statistics refer to legal proceedings dissolving "marriages" recognized by the state.

Maybe I better start with a sotry. Back in the 60's (when I was in college) it became customery for grad student couples to live together without LEGAL ceremony -- becuase if they did, SHE would lose her fellowship/grant (sorry, but back then it was expected SHE would drop out, go to work, and pay hubby's way through school). But in our student community we certainly consdered these "married" couples. About that time Margaret Meade was asked "what do you think about this new thing with couples living together for a couple years without being married" to which her surprised reply was along the lines "but that obviously IS the current marriage custom".

Understand? You have no evidence that these "atheist" couples are not MUCH more likely to have gone through a several year "trial marriage" than religious couples are. And it is not unreasonable that couples who have first lived together several years and then decided on a formal marriage might not represent more stable unions than the average.

But PLEASE ----- "agnostics" include people who are religous, just thoughful about it. Remember that while Christianity might be heavy of the "faith" thing it's not so important with practice oriented religions where you can be full of doubts. And PLEASE again --- atheists and agnostics are not "heathans". The "heathans" (various sorts of Pagans) you need to count among the "religious"

The gist of my comment was humor... 05.Sep.2006 16:03

Pravda or Consequences

The irony is that whether you agree with the analysis or not I don't think that 'born again' Christians can claim a moral high ground especially when you consider their allegiance to GW and his version of Christianity.

yes it is 05.Sep.2006 20:50

what a bunch of bullshit

when Americans say "marriage," they mean a ceremony wherein people commit to each other in writing, establishing a publicly recognized status, with legal consequences, that is not dissolved solely by one person moving out

i had an argument about this with some ordinary people (taking your position at the time) yesterday

these statistics are not about "living together," and margaret meade's personal deviant opinion about these common-language terms is not relevant

the remark about "agnostics being religious" is just wrong, and we all know what the author meant by "heathens"

Not at all 06.Sep.2006 06:03

Mike Novack stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

Margaret Meade was giving a standard Anthropological answer. Do you think that you would find many other Anthropologists disagreeing? Who would say "marriage means a particular formal arrangement as handled by THIS society at THIS time in its history ------ in all other societies there is no "marriage", people simply live together, and even in this society there was no "marriage" in the past".

Now our society is somewhat diverse (we might say highly diverse but in terms of all possible human societies it isn't). The result of this diversity as it affects "marriage" means I claim that it is far more likely that among the "athiests" (considered as a group) the ordinary "marriage" custom involves a reasonably long "trial period". Which means that in cases where this dissolves BEFORE what you call "marriage" takes place there will be no "divorce" and that this affects the statistics collected when compared to the "fundamentally religious" among whom there is unlikely to be a preliminary "trail marriage" component to their "marriage".

What you are saying to me is that it isn't -- that the customery preliminary stage (what I am calling a "trial marriage") isn't "marriage" because it doesn't meet the definition according to how YOU define "marriage". You are treating the concept "marriage" as if it had some fixed truth meaning as opposed to how Anthropoligists would put it; "among the Naciremas the marriage customs are thus and so" (and the Naciremas in subgroup A do it differently than the Naciremas in subgroup B)

there's nothing wrong with this article 06.Sep.2006 22:22

thanks for sharing

Yes, out here in the real world we're all using "words" as "if" they "mean" something.

Feel free to join us, if "you" can "tell" the "difference."