From the comments section of the study itself. Forget about the religious or atheist view point. This commentor questioned the methodology.

"This is a copy of what I posted in a previous group, where a derrogotory post was made against theists (so ignore the apologetics information and look at the experimental critique instead please):

This is a response to an anti-theist (due to the caricature and purposefully denigrating ridicule given by this person towards religions in his comments.) post from a member of this group. The study this poster refers to is the following: http://www.theguardian.com/…/religious-children-less-altrui… I am aware of a substantial atheist presence in this group (in fact, several have argued with me), but if the common mis-attribution of "reason" is a common descriptor that is true of the group, then a real experimental critique by another scientist should not be denied. My rebuttal: A flawed pseudo-scientific study from a known anti-theist. 1.) The study itself makes the arbitrary link between giving stickers out "the dictator game", and altruism. Many factors, such as S.E.S. (not wanting to give away belongings), cultural indicators, demand characteristics, and framing effect, all can come into play with this flawed methodology questionably chosen by the lead researcher, Jean Decety, an atheist. 2.) As someone in the mental health field, I squirm when I see studies like this by neuroscientists and evolutionairy psychologists, out of their area of expertise (ethics/philosophy). I know very well the majority of scientific literature points out that religion is a protective factor, I also see it in practice. On the other hand, high suicide rates are to be found in those with an atheistic worldview, which is linked to self-esteem, and the view of others. I'm sure most people understand the link between self-esteem, altruism, and view of others. Thus, this study contradicts what other studies show and imply, and the head of researchers is a known anti-religionist, just like the O.P. I responded to. 3.) The sample size was too small, especially for the non-religious, and though the lead researchers said the object of the study may not require this, the conclusion that he and the journalists arrived to does... Further, if not, then why was religious belief even a variable in the study that was published, and not simply ignored (as far as publishing a study goes)? Smells fishy (red herring fishy). 4.) Were these sample sizes random, and if random, why were the massive differences in S.E.S. and culture not adequately accounted for that surge from randomization? 5.) The lead researcher is an anti-theist, and anyone can see this by looking at his twitter feed and recent interview about the study. 6.) The confounding variables of multi-cultural differences and S.E.S. were not accounted for (considering the dictator game is largely an economic study, with an arbitrary and contested assumption that it measures altruism). 7.) The conclusion that Decety gave in the interview, and other journalists covering this study, with an anti-theist worldview, of morality being compatible with atheism, is not proven in this study in any sense... That is a philosophical assumption (ethics - a metaphysical branch). 8.) Of course, how the dictator game can be considered to measure objectively, and empirically, altruism, needs to be substantiated first of all.

9.) Contrary to the original dictator game, money was not given, but ca...

From the comments section of the study itself. Forget about the religious or atheist view point. This commentor questioned the methodology.

"This is a copy of what I posted in a previous group, where a derrogotory post was made against theists (so ignore the apologetics information and look at the experimental critique instead please):

This is a response to an anti-theist (due to the caricature and purposefully denigrating ridicule given by this person towards religions in his comments.) post from a member of this group. The study this poster refers to is the following: http://www.theguardian.com/…/religious-children-less-altrui… I am aware of a substantial atheist presence in this group (in fact, several have argued with me), but if the common mis-attribution of "reason" is a common descriptor that is true of the group, then a real experimental critique by another scientist should not be denied. My rebuttal: A flawed pseudo-scientific study from a known anti-theist. 1.) The study itself makes the arbitrary link between giving stickers out "the dictator game", and altruism. Many factors, such as S.E.S. (not wanting to give away belongings), cultural indicators, demand characteristics, and framing effect, all can come into play with this flawed methodology questionably chosen by the lead researcher, Jean Decety, an atheist. 2.) As someone in the mental health field, I squirm when I see studies like this by neuroscientists and evolutionairy psychologists, out of their area of expertise (ethics/philosophy). I know very well the majority of scientific literature points out that religion is a protective factor, I also see it in practice. On the other hand, high suicide rates are to be found in those with an atheistic worldview, which is linked to self-esteem, and the view of others. I'm sure most people understand the link between self-esteem, altruism, and view of others. Thus, this study contradicts what other studies show and imply, and the head of researchers is a known anti-religionist, just like the O.P. I responded to. 3.) The sample size was too small, especially for the non-religious, and though the lead researchers said the object of the study may not require this, the conclusion that he and the journalists arrived to does... Further, if not, then why was religious belief even a variable in the study that was published, and not simply ignored (as far as publishing a study goes)? Smells fishy (red herring fishy). 4.) Were these sample sizes random, and if random, why were the massive differences in S.E.S. and culture not adequately accounted for that surge from randomization? 5.) The lead researcher is an anti-theist, and anyone can see this by looking at his twitter feed and recent interview about the study. 6.) The confounding variables of multi-cultural differences and S.E.S. were not accounted for (considering the dictator game is largely an economic study, with an arbitrary and contested assumption that it measures altruism). 7.) The conclusion that Decety gave in the interview, and other journalists covering this study, with an anti-theist worldview, of morality being compatible with atheism, is not proven in this study in any sense... That is a philosophical assumption (ethics - a metaphysical branch). 8.) Of course, how the dictator game can be considered to measure objectively, and empirically, altruism, needs to be substantiated first of all.

9.) Contrary to the original dictator game, money was not given, but cards, which seem to be meaningless... Thus how can sacrifice be measured in this way? 10.) The game has in both expressions, a problem in not accounting for the obvious confounding variable of the actual interaction between more than just the giver. It does not measure the other person receiving a card or dollar. It does not account for whatever receptive qualities or not the person may have, or what cultural implications may modify the giving or retention of said material. For example, how are the confounding variables of social shyness, desire to not interact with certain particular persons in the group, a temporary desire not to socialize, etc., accounted for? 11.) demand characteristics -should give away some stickers- is a potentential and probable flaw. 12.) frame effect is a potential and probable flaw. 13.) The game is by nature, not analogous to normative relations in culture. Inserting (in this case) children (most likely confused as to the point), with meaningless cards makes the actual game even more arbitrary and meaningless.
It is also important to note, that those anti-theists in question usually appeal to science as the only method of knowing reality (scientism), or at least the best one. Unfortunately, the bias is clearly shown in this group, considering they wish to appeal to poor "scientific" studies to promote a secular agenda, when a wealth of scientific studies substantiate the opposite conclusion of this "study", that religion is a protective factor in mental health, and believers are also more charitable in BOTH time and money given to charitable causes. Thus, it's important to be aware of the persons that liked the comment I am responding to, a substantial number, and also to relate those persons to a lack of knowledge or desire in the experimental method and scientific critique in regards to this study, a lack of philosophical knowledge and rigor regarding this study, and conclusively, a biased anti-religious outlook contrary to what the facts are, etc... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904-low self- esteem, in conjunction with reference 1 (self-esteem correlates with altruism) -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21190929ht.../www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20602903Rosmarin, D.H., Pirutinsky, S., Cohen. A.,Galler, Y., & Krumrei, E.J. (2011). Grateful to God or just plain grateful? A study of religious and non-religious gratitude. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(5), 389-396http://web.archive.org/…/Religious-people-make-better-citiz…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24218518http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553494Am J Econ Sociol. 2011;70(1):152-86.Charitable giving expenditures and the faith factor.Showers VE1, Showers LS, Beggs JM, Cox JE Jr. ... and many, many more studies that have been peer reviewed with more objective methods.Religious affiliation and suicide attempt. - PubMed - NCBI"