The Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of (strong) Atheism

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Stumbled upon this hypothesis by Dr. Paul Vitz while watching one of the Sedevacantist videos. This is an interesting hypothesis.

It goes: If you have/had a "defective" father, you were likely to become (strong) atheist.





Now, there is a distinction between strong/weak atheists. This is about strong atheists, and the correlation of dead/abusive/absent/weak fathers.

I, myself, had a strong father who was deployed for 6 months at a time throughout my childhood. Although, I have a father, he was not always there. When he came home, he was an effective father. As such, I developed a weak atheism/theism in young child/adulthood as he was both defective and effective at differing times. In my fathers presence, I was the prodigal son. In his absence, I became the fallen son. I took the same attitude with God.

Really interesting stuff for my theist friends on this forum, and if some of my atheist friends would like to self-reflect without a kneejerk rejection to this hypothesis, it may help you understand yourselves further. At the very least, expand your mind a little at a time. Theists, this understanding of strong atheists can help us in showing more compassion to our fatherless brethren. Enjoy:



Happy Thanksgiving!

[deathwarmedup]

I have much less of a knee jerk reaction to the idea (which is old, simplistic and unwieldy) than I do to the manipulative passive aggression I see in your posts, disguised under a veneer of civilised cordiality.

The idea you quote is a pervasive but limited psychological paradigm within which a certain psychologcal type has always either submitted to or rebelled against a belief system which they can only appreciate on cerebral terms. It has nothing to do with faith or the lack of it or why many others outside that narrow paradigm believe or don't.

Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist because he has daddy issues, he's an atheist because he's a vaguely autistic narcissist - who has long since milked a wonderful niche for attention and the limelight.

The same was true of Christopher Hitchens (who also recognised the impossibility of making an intellectual case for faith and so made a sub-career out of intellectually challenging it and then got called a genius by legions of fanboys who followed him out of the same motivations as they might have followed a religious leader in another era).

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I have much less of a knee jerk reaction to the idea (which is old, simplistic and unwieldy) than I do to the manipulative passive aggression I see in your posts, disguised under a veneer of civilised cordiality.

One could say: "Fighting fire with fire"? Years of following the Left-Hand grants one insight into the Enemy's psychology.

<---See the Civilized Wolf in the avatar is not a Sheepdog. They fill different roles.

The idea you quote is a pervasive but limited psychological paradigm within which a certain psychologcal type has always either submitted to or rebelled against a belief system which they can only appreciate on cerebral terms. It has nothing to do with faith or the lack of it or why many others outside that narrow paradigm believe or don't.

Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist because he has daddy issues, he's an atheist because he's a vaguely autistic narcissist - who has long since milked a wonderful niche for attention and the limelight.

The same was true of Christopher Hitchens, who also recognised the impossibility of making an intellectual case for faith and so made a sub-career out of intellectually challenging it and then got called a genius by legions of fanboys who followed him out of the same motivations as they might have followed a religious leader in another era.

We agree on some atheists being autistic in their inability to differentiate the literal from metaphor, closely resembling creationists (which might be a different *psychological bag altogether). The opportunism of Hitch and Dawkins on the Atheism niche is a new one. Thank you for that idea.

[deathwarmedup]

One could say: "Fighting fire with fire"? Years of following the Left-Hand grants one insight into the Enemy's psychology.

You'll probably never know the volumes you just spoke about religion within the context of America's culture wars. You'd be better just leaving the whole thing alone. For the sake of religion.


PS - and the term you're looking for is militant atheism.

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

PS - and the term you're looking for is militant atheism.

Strong, anti-, militant, etc. all describing the same or similar thing.

You'll probably never know the volumes you just spoke about religion within the context of America's culture wars. You'd be better just leaving the whole thing alone. For the sake of religion.

This is a learning opportunity. What do you have to offer? (I've an idea what you mean to say)

To reference my earlier post:

Right-Hand Path

The Right-Hand Path is commonly thought to refer to magical or religious groups which adhere to a certain set of characteristics:

• They divide the concepts of mind, body and spirit into three separate, albeit interrelated, entities.[2]

• They adhere to a specific moral code and a belief in some form of judgement, such as karma or the Threefold Law.[2]

The occultists Dion Fortune[3] and William G. Gray[4] consider non-magical Abrahamic religions to be RHP.


Left-Hand Path

The historian Dave Evans studied self-professed followers of the Left-Hand Path in the early 21st century, making several observations about their practices:

• They often reject societal convention and the status quo, which some suggest is in a search for spiritual freedom. As a part of this, LHP followers embrace magical techniques that would traditionally be viewed as taboo, for instance using sex magic or embracing Satanic imagery.[1]:197 As Mogg Morgan wrote, the "breaking of taboos makes magic more potent and can lead to reintegration and liberation, [for example] the eating of meat in a vegetarian community can have the same liberating effect as anal intercourse in a sexually inhibited straight society."[5]

• They often question religious or moral dogma, instead adhering to forms of personal anarchism.[1]:198

• They often embrace sexuality and incorporate it into magical ritual.[1]:205

[deathwarmedup]

A Different Christianity: Early Christian Esotericism and Modern Thought by Robin Amis

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

A Different Christianity: Early Christian Esotericism and Modern Thought by Robin Amis

Thank you. Gnosticism was one of the earlier ideas considered shortly after deism. It's certainly interesting, isn't it?

[deathwarmedup]

Thank you. Gnosticism was one of the earlier ideas considered shortly after deism. It's certainly interesting, isn't it?

It isn't gnosticism. It's the psycho-spiritual roots of what came to be the teachings of Gurdjieff, of which came to be the modern Enneagram, which provides us with hours of fun, typing our favourite celebrities.

[Tactical Turtleneck]

It’s well known Dawkins’ daddy used to put out cigars on little Ricky’s nutsack

[Qlip]

I imagine also "Strong Atheists" would also be people who either really got screwed over by their particular church, or got screwed over while their church looked the other way while it was happening. I've seen plenty of that. It's pretty damaging when the thing that was supposed to protect you ends up messing you up. One of my goals when I left my religion was to not fixate too much on it, which was by far the healthiest move. People who jump from Christianity to reactive Satanism or militant-Atheism are still on the same shitty trip. Of course, zealots of any stripe are the worst, especially new converts to whatever belief they think will save them/make them special.