The group known as “non-religious” have in recent time received attention in sociology of religion due to the need of presenting a more accurate and nuanced image of these individuals.  In the following study, young adults who ascribe themselves as religious to a low degree are investigated through quantitative analysis on previously collected survey material from the project Religion som resurs? (2008).  The study examines what reasons the respondents have stated for assigning themselves a religious affiliation, and to what degree they value the importance of religious tradition in their lives. Furthermore, the study includes a comparative analysis of two non-religious groups which were ethnic Swedes and Swedish born second-generation immigrants whose parents originate from outside of Scandinavia. The purpose of this comparison is to detect whether non-religiosity is expressed differently depending on ethnic background. Finally, the study also examines how the two groups differ in the degree of religious socialisation during their childhood years. Due to restrictions in method and material, this study can only show correlation or lack thereof in regard to the respondents’ answers, rather than explain what the causes behind the differences between the two non-religious groups are. The results were constructed through cross-tabulation of the two groups and six questions from the mentioned survey. In analysing the results, the theories used are socialisation theory as it is expressed by Berger & Luckman, but more so theories developed by Day (2011) from her qualitative study. The analysis uses Days categorisation of nominalist identities, belief orientations and the term which she calls performative belonging. The results of this essay show that the majority of both groups did not grow up exposed to religious socialisation, however a larger share of the second-generation immigrants than the ethnic Swedes stated that they did. Furthermore, almost twice as many second-generation immigrants than ethnic Swedes ascribe themselves a religious affiliation to a high degree. As for why the respondents ascribe themselves a religious affiliation, the reasons, and the degree of which the respondents agree to these reasons, differ slightly between the two groups. The biggest differences which can be seen is that the second-generation immigrants ascribe themselves a religion based on their relationships with family. Finally, regarding the respondents’ opinions on tradition, the results show that they have varied opinions on the question of how important traditions are, but that religious tradition largely does not affect their life-view.