Do you think that some people just pretend to be non believers to "rebel" against parents, establishment or something else when they really just enjoy the arguments? (Like the new Emo/Grunge)
Of course. I couldn't argue without receiving physical punishment so my rebelion may had been more in silence but I was not forced to go to church. Me going to private catholic school was more for the better education than the religion and I noticed that many classmates were on the same boat I was... their parents didn't cared much... it was the better education not the religion.
Teens or earlier by natural personality development assert more choices over instructed parental matters: clothes, food available in or out of home, vocabulary and phraseology WHICH INCLUDES any ritual speech or prEyer. ....I think child participation levels in school might reveal whether critical thinking is applied to family faith tradition by maturing children. ...certainly puberty is a time for rebellion from religio-sexual dictates from parents. ....and sports develop more body control than marching up church aisles to sing in kids choirs
It is possible. But no belief system will be able to sustain itself on such fickle foundations so they will be forced to return to what they know or to start a genuine quest for knowledge, so who really cares what the original motivation was for their personal journey? ????
Can't say that it is hype, some people are what would be refered to as belongers the have a need to be included, So no matter what is going on they join the hot topic and in most cases have not thought about their choice and have no idea how to back the choice up with well chosen words.
I definitely think some people, old and young, like being a rebel or counter-culture. Some people thrive on being contrarians. For that matter, one of my coworkers was reared in a nonreligious home and she became a hippie Christian, and to hear her talk it's quite obvious she did so out of some sort of rebellion and it stuck into adulthood (though I'm sure that's not how she sees it). So it seems it goes both ways.
I'm sure there are some that do, but I figure that, were one so inclined, it would be relatively easy to expose the fakers. Just engage them in a debate as the "devil's advocate." In other words, make them defend their position. I suspect that most fakers wouldn't be able to keep up.
What is there to "believe"? People argue because what is proposed is just absurdly unbelievable. Sometimes the arguer just wants to test out the mettle of his/her arguments so he/she can become better at defending against the onslaught of baseless arguments thrown at them.