babelfish

Don't mothers get blamed for enough of their children's ills already? They get blamed for being single parents and turning their sons into homosexuals, for not being nurturing enough, for smothering their children, for working outside the home, for staying home and being parasites, etc., etc.

Maybe we should be rejoicing that fathers are being blamed for something, even if it's something ridiculous like this.

I'm really enjoying reading about all you free-thinkers who have great relationships with your dads. Especially this close to Fathers Day.

Oh and Happy Fathers Day to all you Infidel Dads, too!

Perchance

Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that. Maybe it's just where I live, but the past few years in school I've been hammered with the idea that "absent" or "evil" fathers are responsible for everything- pregnancy, mental disease or "anti-sociability" in their children, the abuse of children, drug problems in young women, and on and on and on and on. I think it actually takes away from the idea that women have any independence or will of their own, to blame men for everything.

On the other hand, I had a few raging feminist teachers who were committed to the idea of "women as oppressed victims even if they don't feel oppressed," so they might have exaggerated the statistics.

-Perchance.

oriecat

My dad is totally cool. He has always (until my current boyfriend, love of my life) been the most important person in my life, the person I felt closest to. We would often complain about religion together. I don't know if he's truly atheist or agnostic (I wonder if he truly knows himself, I don't think he thinks about it too much) or if he's just anti-religious, but it definitely influenced me. I'm always thankful that the family stopped going to church when I was about 5 or 6, who knows how I might have turned out otherwise?!

AtlanticCitySlave

Did you copy the exact same post twice?

The problem with every atheists response, including mine, is that it is simply anecdotal evidence, which basically really isn't all that convincing. It's also the problem with Vitz's book, since he hasn't, so far as I know, done a study, or several, on the correlation between atheists and bad fathers, nor has anyone else. It would be a very interesting study I think. But, unfortunately, Vitz basically just takes famous dead atheists, who just happen to have had bad fathers, and comes to a conclusion. Oddly, he ignores many who have had good fathers (i.e. his sample isn't random).
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some truth in the notion that bad fathers may lead to one being an atheist. My hypothesis would be that a bad father makes one less trusting of authority (i.e. "dads a lying loser cheating on mom, why should i trust anyone?" or something like that). And, following from that, it may lead to people questioning the truth/authority of just about everyone, including the church/religion.
Basically, I don't see the big deal even if Vitz is right. He says himself that whether he's right or not has no bearing on the truth of atheism, so it would more be, in my opinion, an interesting aspect of developmental psychology, rather than anything for atheists to get all up in arms about.
Take care.

blame_the_gods

Dr. Vitz does not deserve to worship, let alone kiss, an ASS as 'sweet' as yours... Please don't get his hopes 'up', you Big Tease!

babelfish

Huh?

I would also like to see a more scientific survey done on this subject. Just out of curiosity.

I guess what I'm all up in arms about is just the whole idea that a happy well-adjusted person can't possibly be an atheist.

Mageth

Originally posted by AtlanticCitySlave:
Did you copy the exact same post twice?


Perhaps the confusion is from my posting of virtually the same topic <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000206" target="_blank">here</a> in MF&P yesterday.

DRFseven

Which no one, especially Vitz, ever said. Everybody is all defensive as if someone had accused them of having something wrong with them because they were atheists.

What if he'd said, "When infants are exposed to having cats as pets, they are more likely to want cats for pets when they are adults." Would everyone cry "Bullshit!; my family never owned a cat and I have five of them!"?

It's just a hypothesis, and I think there is some evidence to justify having such a hypothesis. This doesn't mean it's true; just means there is some reason to think so. I've noticed that those of us with broken father-relationships are over-represented in the atheist populations I have come across. This does NOT imply that atheism is evidence of something wrong, and, of course, it in no way rules out OTHER reasons for being an atheist. In my opinion, the broken father-relationship breaks the "can-do-no-wrong" spell that is normally in place when children are young. Most fathers are believers, so a disruption in that relationship could certainly mitigate against one's religious beliefs. But so could a loving father who encourages a child to be analytical. There are MANY roads to Rome. I'd love to see some objective studies on this hypothesis undertaken.

babelfish

Good, I'm glad I'm not the only one who listens to Xian radio!

Plus I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds this ridiculous.

babelfish

DRFseven:

That analogy would only work if having cats as pets was thought to be evil, as atheism is.