Yes.
One is a subset of the other and both are failing as evidenced by the research.
The false separation of 'religion' from 'believers' is a tactic invented by Christians to explain/excuse away the fact they have been losing (lost) the intellectual, scientific, moral, and cultural wars for a long time now. In this way, they can explain away unfavorable religious demographic shifts and lousy personal examples of Christianity as not representing the 'true faith'.
It's called the fallacy of equivocation and it is a bedrock of Christian apologetics.
(Also falls under the example of 'No True Scot' fallacy)
What's interesting is WHY the cultural shift. While the survey touched on disgust with religion's treatment of of certain groups, it showed that the majority of UA was due to rejection of the teachings of religion. I'm curious as to why so many reject those teachings in today's world--especially as many were taught them from an early age, which is the best way to indoctrinate people.
The "bedrock of Christian apologetics" is not the "No True Scot" fallacy.
The bedrock of Christian apologetics is best exemplified by John Locke's treatise, "The Reasonableness of Christianity", an appeal to empirical evidence that leads one to reasonably conclude that the claims of Christianity are in fact,
true.
