Neglect of fathers leads to atheism, says author

SIGMUND Freud claimed that once a child or youth is disappointed in or loses respect for his earthly father, belief in a heavenly father becomes impossible.

A child’s tumultuous relationship with their father is the determining factor in the widespread rise of atheism, claims Dr. Paul Vitz in his controversial new book, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. –

The author says the relationship kids have with their dads profoundly affects how they view God. Fathers who go AWOL on their kids tend to end up with children who reject God

Vitz is a former professor of psychology at New York University and was an atheist until his late 30s. –

See more at: http://www.beliefnet.com/Love-Family/2000/06/Faith-Of-The-Fatherless.aspx

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “Neglect of fathers leads to atheism, says author

    • Geez!…We certainly can’t allow facts an verifiable scientific evidence to get in the way of a good superstition, can we?!

      By the way, aren’t you godbotherers STILL seeking a few FACTS ~ or even just ONE ~ to help support your favourite fantasy?
      (3500 or 2000 or 1500 years after the ‘non-scientifically-evidenced’ wet dream of your choice of Absolute Truth?) 😆

      ….hmm; just noticed that apparently the next One True God Of All The Universes turns up about every 1500 years.
      We may indeed be about due for the Second Coming.
      …no, wait!…It’ll be the FOURTH coming won’t it?
      …or is it the 6th, 7th, or 8th.??

      ps…..You lot DO realise, don’t you, that if your (Intelligently Designed) computers were only 22 times more useful and efficient as your gods we wouldn’t be having this conversation?
      …. you’d have chucked them out long ago.
      ……..and demanded your money back!

      I suspect the chinese are godless largely because they’re so advanced that even given their scientific/industrial skills they’re not able to intelligently design and build anything as cheap and nasty as your gods. 😆

      Like

      • Lovely! Is this the point where we whip out our willies and compare sizes to see who’s a bigger prick? I ever so love such wondrous profundity! (spoiler alert: mine’s bigger! and yes, I totally ****ed your mum!)

        Hahaha. Relax dabs. I’m just messin with ya!!! ;-/

        Like

      • Since it’s Sunday I’ll refrain from posting my first ~ and the most obvious! ~ response,
        ….and just reassure you that the czech for your Dorothy-Dixer is in the mail.
        (Y’wouldn’t believe the trouble I had getting a big enough envelope!)
        ….and even then he demanded three bloody pizzas
        …..to go.

        Like

      • ps…..spoiler-alert spoiler:- Make up your mind! (“spoiler alert: mine’s bigger! and yes, I totally ****ed your mum!))
        Y’can’t have it both ways.

        Like

  1. There are finding that constantly pop up converning the importance of a father and mother figure in the family. Why do people insist on messing around with the family unit ? Children should be the highest priority.

    Low esteem daughters

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/daddyless-daughters-standards-mistake-define_n_3587142.html

    Boys without father figure grow up to be more aggressive.Fatherless children was determined as one of the major factors to the London riots.

    http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

    Without Mother figure

    Lost self esteem. Inability to relate to others, feeling insecure and unable to trust others.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/01/opinion/l-children-without-mothers-are-at-special-risk-954179.html

    We should not be messy around with the family unit. Having children is not a right .

    Like

      • Snarky Sunday, is it Alexie?
        I’ve got no time for any brand of religious rule, but the issue is father-son relationships, not husband-wife ones.

        Like

    • I agree too, Dom:- “Children should be the highest priority.”

      But doesn’t that make you wonder why, generally speaking, the closest family units and the tightest father-son relationships flourish best in the (nominally) ‘atheist’ cultures and countries?
      …and we could discuss the rise and rise in family disintergration and a particularly vicious juvenile delinquency ~including youthful mental disorders and teenaged gunmen in societies ( generally ‘religiously -oriented’ ) where the father-son relationship has been junked. Like the US and, increasingly Australia. And India, Africa, Europe, etc.

      eg. Look what’s happened in the ex-Soviet Union since the revival of religion.
      Or, conversely, China, where ‘ancestor-worship’ (father/forefathers) is disappearing and religion, we’re persistenly told, is on the rise.

      And since we’re talking about Alexie’s favourite artheists, perhaps he can give us the stats for juvenile delinquency in North Korea? 🙂

      I wouldn’t be a kid these days if you paid me an extra life-span or two.

      Like

  2. Fatherlessness or the absent father creates all sorts of problems for society and specifically children. These children leaning towards atheism is logical. But there are other issues emanating from this and greater problems birthed. There are forces continuing to break up families and saying we do not need families or fathers. The role of a father is downgraded, marriage is down graded and as it grows people then point and say, “see, we do not need marriage. We are fine.” the delusion grows but so does the pain.

    Like

    • It’s interesting also how quite a few atheists sound bitter, miserable and lacking in hope. Richard Dawkins comes across like that. An unhappy man. No light.

      Like

      • Actually, more than anything Richard Dawkins comes across as someone who is totally incompetent in terms of being able to communicate.
        I can’t think of ANY vocal godbotherer with even a fraction of his educational qualifications. (eg Billy Graham, Ayatollah Khomeini,etc.)

        If he is, in fact, “unhappy” it may be because ~ as you point out ~ he’s had three wives! 😉 (lucky he’s not a hopeless drunk!)
        But some evidence of his intelligence and social responsibility is found in the fact that he only sired ONE child. (Obviously not irish Mick!).

        And you realise, don’t you, that he was brought up an anglican? Perhaps the less religiously-strict brainwashing was partly responsible for his being able to shrug off the brainwashing in favour of the facts….and reality.

        Dawkins describes his childhood as “a normal Anglican upbringing”.[15] He was a Christian until halfway through his teenage years, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life’s complexity, and ceased believing in a god.[11] Dawkins states: “the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing.”[11]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

        Lucky he had the intelligence to find a rational substitute, and not just become an ignorant/superstitious thug as have so many others left in the lurch by god.

        Like

      • Ha! I knew it!!! You’re completely messing with us!!!

        That’s um, pretty hilarious. For awhile there you really had me going, and thought you were being serious!!! Well, played, mate! Well played indeed!!!

        Like

      • Nothing gets past you, does it Quackzalcoatl,
        …..eventually.
        Don’t overdo the ‘straight-man’ role though ; people will start to get suspicious of us. 😉

        Like

      • He might be a smarty pants, but is he happy? Is he wise? Does he really know love or does his bunsen burner not know how to evaluate love and spirituality and all that invisible stuff.

        Like

      • “Dawkins is a douche. He knows absolutely nothing”

        Says the idiot on the Internet of the Oxford professor.

        hmmm, could be right I guess…….

        Like

    • Well of course it is! –> ” These children leaning towards atheism is logical.”
      Simply because in disintergrating families you don’t have kids being inculcated with religious (or, hopefully, other) superstitions, and they revert to the default position: atheism.

      The proposition is not very far-fetched that, in fact, religion ~ and particularly the PERSONAL-god of christianity ~ renders the solidarity and support of family units redundant, Who NEEDS an earthly father (and grandfather, never underestimate the importance of that) when they can claim an omnipotent and omniscient god as their mentor and protector?….but then they’re disappointed in their expectations over and over again, and dump the god-father as well….by which time it’s usually too late to backtrack.

      The ‘Prodigal Son’ story cuts both ways.

      Remember how strong and powerful ‘The Church’ was when the priest was the only conduit to god……and how strong (in general) family units and father-son relationships were back then?

      ….and then along came the ‘I’d rather do it myself’ protestants.

      Like

      • See, this is where you’re wrong Dabs about atheism being the “default” position:
        I was raised by wolves, and still came out of it believing in God. Your argument is invalid.

        Like

      • I doubt it:- “I was raised by wolves, and still came out of it believing in God.”
        Wolves are far too intelligent and socially-responsible to raise pack-components that are lacking physically or mentally.
        They’d have culled you.

        ……Unless you meant to say you were ‘braised’ by wolves
        ….and eaten?

        Like

  3. “Some fathering advocates would say that almost every social ill faced by America’s
    children is related to fatherlessness. Six are noted here. As supported by the data
    below, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved
    in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional
    problems. Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely
    to become pregnant as teens.”

    http://www.fathers.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=391

    Like

    • The ….., er, ‘facts’ (sorry for the no-no!) aren’t in dispute, Alexie.
      The question is WHAT produces the facts.
      ….and why is all this most prevalent, focussed and degenerative in nominally (and/or officially) ‘god-fearing’ cultures?
      …including even places like Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

      Religious-based systems supplant the rule and the role of the head of the family ( the father, in case you forgot…or in jewish families the mother! 🙂 ) and replace it with some (religio-social) external power….which power ALWAYS
      let’s one down because such ‘authorities’ can only deal with populations and never the individual.

      It’s another consequence of the vastly oversized human populations.
      It’s a natural sequence that ‘authority’ (to both raise and discipline a kid) gets shifted from “Wait ’til your father gets home!” to some agency, industry or commission.
      The kid grows up with umpteen unanswered questions or else answers which even a 12-yo can instinctively, plainly, see are bullshit and/irrelevant.
      If he tries to rely on his instincts he may get some answers, but he’ll also get into a ton of trouble with the many faces of impersonal, uncaring Authority: Big Brother, since as an authority-figure his father has been castrated.
      ….and any idea he may have had about a ‘good god’ (remember, actions speak louder than words in any learning process) makes it clear that said god is part of BB’s Gang.

      It’s Sunday, so I’ll desist.
      But point out that all this stuff is instinct-dictated, and Robert Ardrey has devoted a very persuasive chapter to it in African Genesis.
      ….which none of you show any inclination the read…….

      Like

    • As you say:-
      “Read Ardrey and had a good laugh. I assumed he was a tosser and didn’t intend his book to be analyzed by anyone of critical intelligence.”
      ….and apparently he was right .
      But do, please, reassure us with the validity of your opinion: post your qualifications in paleo-anthropology (and where you won them of course), and perhaps point us in the direction of your Google-recognised achievements in literature and literacy.

      I, for one, am willing to be impressed.

      Like

  4. One expert from Harvard medical school who has studied over 40 years of research on the question of parental absence and children’s well-being said this: “What has been shown over and over again to contribute most to the emotional development of the child is a close, warm, sustained and continuous relationship with both parents.” Or as David Blankenhorn has stated in Fatherless America: “Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation.”

    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/05/17/the-facts-on-fatherlessness-part-one/

    Like

    • I read this from your link:

      “In just three decades, between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of U.S. children living apart from their biological fathers more than doubled, from 17 percent to 36 percent. By the turn of the century, nearly 50 percent of American children may be going to sleep each evening without being able to say good night to their dads.”

      and immediately remembered reading about this:

      “Since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965, the federal government has spent $16 trillion on welfare. Sadly, this massive spending has failed either to break the cycle of government dependence or to help low-income families to climb the ladder of social mobility. Instead, welfare dependence has grown dramatically. From 1960 until shortly before the welfare reforms of 1996, the total number of welfare recipients more than tripled.[2] The overall poverty rate has not changed much over the past four decades, and today, one in seven Americans lives at or below the official federal poverty line.[3]

      Moreover, since the War on Poverty was launched, the rate of births out of wedlock has increased from 7 percent to 41 percent nationally, exceeding 70 percent among the black population.[4] This has devastated the well-being of these single mothers and their children and has sharply limited their prospects of escaping poverty.

      Policymakers should reassess why spending nearly $1 trillion annually is failing to reduce poverty. A large part of the problem lies with an underlying assumption about the nature of poverty in America: that it is primarily a material problem. If this assumption is wrong, then the government can never spend enough to overcome it.”

      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/does-advocating-limited-government-mean-abandoning-the-poor

      Like

      • Wellll, DOH!

        “From 1960 until shortly before the welfare reforms of 1996, the total number of welfare recipients more than tripled.
        …..Moreover, since the War on Poverty was launched, the rate of births out of wedlock has increased from 7 percent to 41 percent nationally, exceeding 70 percent among the black population”

        STOP UNRESTRICTED BREEDING!! Even rats ~ among many other species ~ stop breeding when resources diminish.
        But not we super-dooper-intelligent, god-riddled humans. We’re too clever to understand what even locusts know.

        ….and make no mistake, Australia is following closely in the US’ footsteps.

        Like

      • Well, Dabbles, maybe the answer isn’t so much to stop unrestricted breeding, but to make sure you breed when you are in a committed marriage and that you take financial care of your own family rather than abandoning them.

        Like

  5. Pingback: Neglect of fathers leads to atheism, says author | debbiehughett1

  6. Why would children have emotional, spiritual needs?
    Why would they need a father if the mother could provide for them materially – feed them, clothe them?
    It doesn’t make scientific sense. Afterall, people are just eating, procreating machines.

    There is no such thing as a spiritual need. Ignore all the statistics.

    Like

    • Become an atheist instead.
      Atheism protects you from being hurt by not acknowledging that there is such a thing as spiritual needs.
      If you close your eyes, it won’t be there.
      If you cover your ears, you won’t hear it’s call.

      Like

    • I see you’ve adopted one of Bryan’s favourite little ploys, Kathleen:- tacking a poisonous claim onto a rational one in order to sneak some sort of recognition of legitimacy to a component that essentially has none.

      “Why would children have emotional, spiritual needs?”

      Emotional & spiritual are ‘qualities’ so different they’re not even in the same ballpark….or universe.

      ‘Emotions’ can be demonstrated, manipulated and, when necessary, ameliorated.
      ‘Spirits’ can’t ~ all of the above.

      ps. you, further, try to suggest that a significant part of a father’s role is to instil/nurture a sense of ‘spiritualism’ in his child.
      It’s not.
      As a Mick y’orta know better.

      Like

    • There’s this fella I read about who was mostly raised by his single mother. Yet he turned out ok. Name of Barack Obama maybe you’ve heard of him 🙂

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s