I followed one of 420’s links, the one about atheism not being rational. It had a scholarly-ish look to it, but it was jumping to conclusions. I could see how 420 was taking phrases from it and claiming that he had done some research. Following the links, I kept coming to sites that looked religion based, but were talking about scientific studies. The abstracts of the studies weren’t quite in line with the conclusions from the summary links, but I’m not ready to fully evaluate the studies.
So, thank you “Big Think”. Here’s the bottom line from their article, and my bet is, the studies lead to this conclusion:
Langston discovered that religious importance predicted a delay in the age which people became atheists, while choice and conflict hastened the process. And, as he initially predicted, CREDs did indeed lead to an earlier onset of atheism. When children hear their parents talk but they don’t walk, it’s the children who end up walking away.CREDs are big displays of religious belief, like fire walking, people watch them and think there must be something to this because people have invested so much into it. An atheist version of CRED might be a convention, I’m not sure, I haven’t found anywhere that describes that.
But atheism or theism, if those displays are not followed up with a life that is in line with whatever philosophy is claimed by the display, children won’t buy it in the long run.