There are a lot of non-religious people that have a fuck-ton of kids, so your blanket righteous analysis is flawed.
Actually, its not. You need to learn basic logic.
Premise X: Religious people have a ton of kids because they don't use protection is correct.
Premise Y: Non religious people have a ton of kids because they don't use protection is correct.
Conclusion 1: Just because Premise Y is correct, it doesn't mean Premise X is false. Premise X is true, so is premise Y.
Conclusion 2: I never stated that Premise Y doesn't exist. I only discussed Premise X because Ronnie is really religious, thus I was deciding what factors led to his many kids. There would be no sense in discussing Premise Y because we are talking about Ronnie and his lifestyle (he is religious).
Thus, my analysis is still correct and is not flawed at all.
Hope this helps, bible boy.