Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

While people can have faith in science (I do), science is not faith based. It is evidence based. It doesn't require ardor or faith. It requires empirical proof. 

If you don't love The Truth, critical thinking naturally leads to arbitrariness. If you love The Truth, your critical thinking in theory would perform the function you say it would.

What is the motivation for thinking critically?

The goal of critical thinking is to make better decisions. This includes decisions about what one believes.

Part of critical thinking is recognizing logical fallacies. One such fallacy is equivocation, which occurs when a key term in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one part of the argument and another meaning in another part. You commit this fallacy when you equate God with Truth, when people don't simply mean Truth when using the word God.

 all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die

 all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die

I'll give you the answers we can absolutely be sure of, all of us. In order: humans, we're all made of elements forged by exploded stars (specify the question a little more perhaps) , that's philosophy's department not science, and decomposition into the elements we are all comprised of. The questions that science should be answering, it has answered. They're of cold comfort but they are based on factual evidence. Not faith. 

The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone.

Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from.

Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins

The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone.

It is stunning that this incredibly stupid argument is still being used by theists. Hey pal, no one was there to witness the origins of the earth or how life started, that includes CHRISTIANS, hence Christianity does not know either. That's why this argument is futile and stupid.

Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from.

There is no slant in how scientists interpret evidence. The only slant we see is from theists and their hilariously absurd creationist fables.

Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins

So, what you're saying is that if police detectives and forensic scientists were not there to witness a crime, then the crime can never be solved. Again, that's how utterly stupid the argument.

That appears to me to be a loose attempt at a mechanical conception of human beings, no more. I do not believe you can be absolutely sure of that and your worldview can't make sense of it (i.e., recreate how consciousness comes from something lacking it; how life stems from non-life).

Second, if you are wrong about science as your ultimate god and reason there are consequences. 

Third, origins is an interpretation of what happened. We are in the present looking back at the past and interpreting the data. We are limited in our knowledge and are speculating on the way things were. We build models and try to fit as many positives into those models as they will allow. The anomalies we put aside for a later date as long as there is not an overwhelming amount we continue to build on that paradigm. Once the anomalies become to many we abandon the model in search of a new one that better explains the conditions.   

Christianity can make sense of origins. 

Theists often misunderstand why most atheists don't believe, saying it is because they hate God, or don't wish to obey Him, or don't want to follow religious morality. This article describes the real reason, which most atheists already knew.

There's always been young people leaving the church in the U.S. What the article isn't telling you is that many people return to church, particularly the one's who grew up in the church. Not all people in general have left the faith when they left church. Some who have come back have stated they've just found their faith that they didn't have before they left.

but through restrictive education.

 I am not going to be able to prove the existence of a superstition.

First of all, I bet I know more atheists than you, and in real life, not here. And none of the ones I know got into it because they "wanna sin!" or they're mad at god. Uniformly, they just don't have any reason to believe in god. And almost as uniformly, I find them more morally upstanding and WAY more egalitarian than the loudmouth Christian on Sundays. Saying an atheist is an atheist because they're mad at god is not only incorrect (much like me saying you don't believe in the One Ring because you're mad at Sauron). An atheists' assessment of god's moral character as a thuggish baby doesn't mean atheists are mad at god, any more than saying people who read Harry Potter books don't follow Voldemort because he's evil. It's simply a reading of the character in the book, it has nothing to do with them being real. 

And some, like me, are still counted among the Catholics because I've not been excommunicated. My point is that leaving "the church" is not the

same as "leaving the faith." Yeah, plenty of people leave and come back. But more and more people don't go in the first place, according to the

numbers, and a subset of those people do so because they simply don't believe. Why is it that hard to get this idea down? 

Please explain.

Now these atheists you know that don't want to sin, are any of them not married? If so, do they vow sexual purity until marriage?

The purpose of the Dover Trial was to determine whether teaching ID in public schools is constitutional. 

This article doesn't describe the real reason. It gives partial reasons. Some of the other reasons include those you're claiming are not reasons.

There's always been young people leaving the church in the U.S. What the article isn't telling you is that many people return to church, particularly the one's who grew up in the church. Not all people in general have left the faith when they left church. Some who have come back have stated they've just found their faith that they didn't have before they left.

Militant atheists (the Oh my God, someone placed "The footprints in the sand inspirational" on government property" atheists) are stuck on the idea of recruiting the youth away from religion. Not through force, but through restrictive education. It's ironic since they often criticize Christian parents for teaching their children the Bible.

What are you talking about? Of course the article gives the real reason, plain as day. It couldn't be simpler.

"...most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true."

Saying that they are mad at God is absurd, since they don't believe in God.

Not all have left the faith when they leave the church, sure, but it is clear that most have, unless you think no longer believing a faith is true is somehow different than leaving the faith.