Comments on: Words From a Former Fundamentalist

By: J. J. Ramsey

J. J. Ramsey — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:01:04 +0000

I'd say that's only half-true, Tim Bob. See Paul Bloom's article, "Is God an Accident?"

By: Tim Bob

Tim Bob — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:43:05 +0000

matt.. shouldn’t that be “reverting to atheism” instead of “converting” hahha after all we’re all born atheist.

By: Matt Stone

Matt Stone — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:12:42 +0000

In my experience, new information rarely changes a person’s worldview. What more commonly precipitates change is new information in the context of a new experience. And that seems to hold true for whatever your converting to, whether that be Atheism, Christianity or whatever.

By: SarahH

SarahH — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:36:56 +0000

Much of what Barker describes fits the way I grew up believing and the way many of my friends and family members still believe, although we really did love the sinners – which is what drove us to evangelize, really. I was never really under the impression that anyone could win extra brownie point with God. I just didn’t want the people I knew to burn in a fiery hell that I believed was literal and existed.

I don’t know if anyone could have said anything specific to me that would have made me reconsider. It did take a lot from the inside (you can only really see faulty reasoning once you’re willing to critically examine it) and several semesters of philosophy and religious studies classes in college also contributed.

I think the closest argument I can think of to something that would have derailed me is simply pointing out the plethora of popular world religions and the people who fervently believe they’re true. Most come with their own God, stories and Holy Books. They tend to run heavily in families. So how was I any different than a young Muslim woman who embraced Islam and the Koran and pitied Christians who were going to hell?

By: ATL-Apostate

ATL-Apostate — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:55:49 +0000

Speaking from the findings of cognitive dissonance theory, the memories of your and Dan Barker’s past experiences as Christians are probably colored to exaggerate the negatives:

That would certainly make me feel better if I knew that I wasn’t as bad then as I think I was(whether it’s true or not…).

By: J. J. Ramsey

J. J. Ramsey — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:17:46 +0000

ATL-Apostate: "Speaking from my own personal situation, I can say that Dan Barker is probably NOT exaggerating." Speaking from the findings of cognitive dissonance theory, the memories of your and Dan Barker's past experiences as Christians are probably colored to exaggerate the negatives:

There are four ways to reduce the dissonance that comes from making a decision: revoke the decision, increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative, decrease the attractiveness of the unchosen option, or reduce the importance of the decision. One common way to reduce the dissonance is do both the second and third options: make the chosen alternative look better and the unchosen option look worse (White & Gerard, 1981) ... This is called the “spreading effect”

By: Matt Stone

Matt Stone — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:12:06 +0000

I was left unsure of who he actually grouping under the word fundamentalist. I tend to use the word primarily in association with angry, militant Christians, in which case I find it somewhat oxymoronic to speak of peaceful fundamentalists. But he seems to be using the word more broadly. Is he suggesting that any Christian who is non-liberal is a fundamentalist? If so, that would be a rather black-white take on the world I would think, with distinct overtones of the pot calling the kettle black. For there are many of us evangelicals Christians out here who disassociate outselves from the extremes of fundamentalism and happily live with shades of grey. Maybe he hasn’t escaped his fundamentalist worldview as much as he thinks?

By: ATL-Apostate

ATL-Apostate — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:05:00 +0000

Richard Wade said:

The narcissistic vanity he describes in his old self is really over the top. I think either he’s exaggerating how self-obsessed he was or he was seriously disturbed, not just very devout. Either way I’m glad he’s over it now. It’s nauseating.

Speaking from my own personal situation, I can say that Dan Barker is probably NOT exaggerating. I saw much of my former self in his description of fundies.

It is so embarrassing when I look back on who I used to be.

Can’t wait for his next article where he lists what one could say to a fundy to get him/her to change. I honestly can’t think of a thing (one single word or argument) anyone could have said to me.

Like Dan said, my de-conversion came from within, not due to any “atheist evangelism.” I suppose over time, arguing with atheists and “liberals” did cause me to question some beliefs.

ATL-Apostate

By: J. J. Ramsey

J. J. Ramsey — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:17:55 +0000

The main slip-up that I see is the line, “Fundamentalists pretend to love you sinners while hating your sin.” Somehow, it seems unlikely that not only are the more jerky fundies lying about loving sinners but also the “peaceful, loving, gentle” ones as well. You’d think that with such a wide range of demeanors among fundamentalists, at least some of them love the supposed sinners for real.

By: cipher

cipher — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:18:32 +0000

Yes, his piece covers a lot of ground, but I didn’t pick up any ambiguity at all. Not all fundies are the same; they believe different things and sometimes metaphorically fight each other about it. But they all tend to have a similar mindset and use the same tactics, and as such, can be responded to in the same way.

Right – but that’s not what he said.