Brainwave #fundie

Brainwave #fundie beliefnet.com

(On Paul Vitz's book Faith of the Fatherless, which claims that atheism is caused by having a bad relationship with one's father in childhood.)

Atheism IS a zero on the spiritual health scale because atheism denies the existence of spirits, and therefore must also conclude that there is no such thing as "spiritual health" at all. So spiritual health, according to atheism, is equal to zero because it is totally non-existent.

Anyone who has taken the time to READ Vitz's actual book knows that he does not make "ridiculous over-generalizations." He specifically points out and addresses the fact that there are exceptions to his theory.

But as long as we're presenting anecdotal evidence, let me have a go: My Dad spent EVERY day with me growing up, as did my Mom. If your dad only spent a measly 3 days a week with you growing up, your childhood was an appalling travesty.

Try reading Vitz's actual book all the way through BEFORE you judge it. How does that sound?

77 comments

old comment by Pule Thamex

Indoctrination, home schooling, brainwashing, poor education, desperately clutching at straws, deception, accepting a load of old bollocks from blockheads who have no qualms whatsoever about lying to all and sundry, these are some of the means by which you can raise a child to be a proper right-thinking man. This type of well brought up child will become a model Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Fundamental Cultist etc. and will avoid atheism like the plague.

So well done to all you deluded fathers who set your children on the correct paths to righteousness, spirituality, gullibility and stupidity etc, you have good parenting skills and your children will reap the rewards of all the hard work that you the deranged father have put in. Your son's blossoming idiocy will surely be a source of pride and jolly laughter for many years to come, even when he's a ghost.

old comment by WWWWolf

> Atheism IS a zero on the spiritual health scale because atheism denies the existence of spirits, and therefore must also conclude that there is no such thing as "spiritual health" at all. So spiritual health, according to atheism, is equal to zero because it is totally non-existent.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that you're a Christian who has never heard of this "spiritual health" theory. If someone told you everyone has "spiritual health", just like mental and physical health, would you agree on it because it's already validated by the doctrines of your faith, or because the guy's babblings seemed coherent enough to fit to your religious preconceptions, and that just happened to solidify in your mind at that instant?

I'm a computer guy, so I definitely know that people have an incredible ability to believe things that have enough buzzwords in them. Feed enough buzzwords to your boss, and he's totally convinced that this technology is what your company has always needed.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

Well, it's good that he acknowledges that there are exceptions, however when there are so many exceptions that it is difficult to find examples that actually fit, then your hypothesis is clearly wrong.

For the record, I may not be an atheist, but since you fundies have no sense of nuance you would consider me an atheist anyway if you knew what I believed, so let's assume that I am relevant for these data. I have a very good relationship with my father, who is a Christian. In fact, we occasionally discuss politics and religion, and I usually (but not always) agree with him. Guess that puts me down as another exception, eh?

You also have no position to judge how much of a travesty a person's childhood was by how much time a person's father spent with them. Three days a week is still almost half the week. That's pretty good, in my opinion.

old comment by Papabear

"Atheism IS a zero on the spiritual health scale because atheism denies the existence of spirits, and therefore must also conclude that there is no such thing as "spiritual health" at all. So spiritual health, according to atheism, is equal to zero because it is totally non-existent."

A person's SPIRIT, as in his/her attitude, outlook, feelings, etc.) certainly exists, but, I as an atheist, understand that SPIRITS, as in deities, ghosts, etc.) do not exist, therefore, SPIRITUALITY is a fiction.

"Anyone who has taken the time to READ Vitz's actual book knows that he does not make "ridiculous over-generalizations."

That statement in itself is a ridiculous generalization.

"He specifically points out and addresses the fact that there are exceptions to his theory."

It does not make me feel any better about his or your statements to be told I may be an exception to a bad theory.

"But as long as we're presenting anecdotal evidence, let me have a go: My Dad spent EVERY day with me growing up, as did my Mom. If your dad only spent a measly 3 days a week with you growing up, your childhood was an appalling travesty."

I worked with my father in our family business starting at the age of 4 (yes, that's right, 4.) In high school and after I worked closely with him essentially every day, and yet, I ended up a staunch atheist. Curious, eh?

"Try reading Vitz's actual book all the way through BEFORE you judge it. How does that sound?"

It really doesn't sound like a very good use of my time. So many really good things to read, you know.

old comment by breakerslion

Oh please, wise one, tell me what else atheists think ... because you're so qualified to have an opinion!

Those among us who doubt that there is a ghost in this meat machine would refer to "spiritual health" as, "mental health," thereby refusing to endow it with magical attributes. Please furnish proof that we are not talking about the same thing.

"Anyone who has taken the time to READ Vitz's actual book knows that he does not make "ridiculous over-generalizations." He specifically points out and addresses the fact that there are exceptions to his theory."

Yes, and when the exceptions are great enough in number, real science rejects the theory of trend or causal relationship. Since Vitz obviously set out to find evidence to support a pet ~~theory~~ hypothesis, he is doing junk science.

From where I sit taking time to READ that kind of CRAP is a waste of my precious life.

old comment by Angua

Hey, as long as we're presenting anecdotal evidence, Mr. Brainwave (I love how fundies can chose the most ironic screen-names sometimes), I think I'll have a go to.

I'm an atheist. I get along just fine with both of my parents. I love and respect them both, and they love and respect me.

Of course, that probably doesn't count, because both of my parents are agnostic, and my father in particular is an atheistically leaning agnostic.

Well, what about my Dad? Both of his parents are religious. But he still gets along fine with his father. But he doesn't have a very good relationship with his mother, because she can't cope with their political and religious differences. What does that say?

If this "theory" of Vitz is so strong, why are there so many exceptions? Can you explain them? Does Vitz have actual statistics to back up what he says?

You see, I don't like you insulting me and making assumptions about my family simply because I'm an atheist. I'm also interested in facts. If you have evidence, if you can actual back up this "theory", then I'm all ears.

old comment by Despondent

OK maybe if your dad is highly religious then you are more likely to be an atheist if you do not have a good relationship with him. Just because if you did have a good relationship with him, then the chances are he would have pushed his religion on you at a young age and you'd have positive feelings about it.

However, if your father is an atheist himself, then a good relationship will make it more likely for you to be an atheist. And if he just doesn't talk of religion then the relationship won't have too much of an effect there.

Also any study Paul Vitz would have possibly done is purely correlational, yet it is being talked about as a causation, which should set off major alarm flags as to how good the research was.

old comment by SpukiKitty

My cousin's parents have been divorced since he was a toddler & he only visited his Dad & Stepmom once a week....but he's a happy, extremely intelligent, well-adjusted man with a lovely wife whom he loves a lot & a beautiful son. You don't need a dad around 24/7 in order to be healthy & happy & those who say otherwise are sexists who've only looked at disfunctional situations with poverty and/or miserable moms who can't parent.

Funny how noone goes beserkazoid over kids raised by single fathers! Funny how a Patriarchial society puts the primacy over Dad's parenting over Mom's parenting despite the fact that it's Mom who spends 9 MONTHS "making" the kid (Dad playing a very minor role...'Ooh Baby! *SQUIRT*'. He's just as much a parent as her but his PHYSICAL ROLE is very minor). Mom bears the kid & nurses it, yet she's the "weakest link".

Finally, atheism has nothing to do with who parented the kid....some people just don't believe in all that Religious/Spiritual stuff. Someone's character is also NOT dependent on one's Faith or lack thereof.

old comment by ThatDutchGuy

"Anyone who has taken the time to READ Vitz's actual book knows that he does not make "ridiculous over-generalizations. "He specifically points out and addresses the fact that there are exceptions to his theory."

unless you can work those exceptions into (broad)rules of their own, that means your theory sucks (and is more of a hypothesis, really, as it was never scientifically proven). You can't say "hey, i've got this great theory, it only works half the time but its really nice n stuff".

also Atheism is not the same as aspiritualism. Just ask the bhuddists. Still, youre right that for the total unbelievers here, spiritual health does not exist, so we worry more about mental health. like yours.

Brainwave #fundie beliefnet.com

77 comments

Confused?