Let me see if I understand you.

So you suggest a strategy in which we find the people who are more likely to listen to logic, and focus on them. Thereby we will diminish the numbers of the fundamentalists, which will in effect (over much time) weaken the power of fundamentalist religion?

That would definitely make sense. And it might even change the minds of hard-core fundies. When there is no one left for the authoritarian personality to rule, these personalities turn on each other....This is going to cost much suffering and maybe even bloodshed....

I look forward to the thread you mentioned.

Nope! Doesn't work AT ALL. This seems to be a point most non-fundamentalists don't get. Like you, I have lived inside that mindset and learned how to divert all attacks against it. Unless and until non-fundamentalists understand this fact, efforts to fight fundamentalist religion will probably be in vain. Being allowed to suffer for the Lord is a mark of honor for these people...no need to repeat what you just said. Like you, I've been on both sides of the fence. There's nothing--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING--that can penetrate their defenses. Their defenses are so dense, do not have to make sense or be logical, and have but one purpose: to protect the bearer from deconversion at all costs.

It is called the "armor of the Lord." It is known as a strong faith, as "being strong in the Lord." As "standing in the day of evil." "Above all, I say, stand." "Him that persevereth unto the end shall be saved." The Bible is full of verses like this. It has answers for all possible occasions, and then some.

Many years ago I read a book--Eagle of the Ninth--was the title, I think. If I remember correctly, it was a book set in the days when the Roman Empire ruled in Great Britain. The Roman general made friends with an indigenous person but when it came to military combat between the two parties--it was a struggle based in part on religion if I remember correctly--he knew he not only lost his friend's loyalty but also that his own party was the weaker because nothing drives people's zeal as religious conviction. Whether that author was right or wrong about the ancient Brits, what we see with the fundamentalist religionists these days is a religious zeal that seemingly nothing can daunt. Definitely, it's going to take something other than law or logic. But what???

Hi All -was searching for a place to introduce myself and could not find one, so here I am to say Hello.

Lot of stuff on here, eh? I'll have a look around - see ya![font=Comic Sans MS] [/font]

Welcome to the forum. Look around, and don't hesitate to post comments or new threads on topics you wish to discuss.

RSM, do we need a section for introductions? I know not everyone that joins a forum posts a formal introduction, but it would be there for those who wish to do so.

Welcome, BobbyShafto! I have now typed an invitation under the Stories title for people to post introductions in that section. I had meant for people to do it there if they wanted to but it never came together in my head how to say it. I guess it should be in the top section. It's in the bottom. Oh well, maybe one day I'll get this all figured out nice and neat. Glad to have you on board. As Ex-COG said, make yourself at home and don't hesitate to post.

I've got news. On another forum a person posted a success story and I got permission to post it here, with the request that it be anonymous. Here it is:



I understand the brother continues to be Christian but that he is more broadminded than he used to be.

Here's an interesting essay on Fundamentalism by Joe Bageant which seems to say that we need to be blunt with our accusations of what fundamentalism really is, rather than attempt to discuss and reason with the Christian in hopes of them seeing things our way. The first part focuses on the US political situation and fundamentalism, but the last section entitled "Christian dialogue my sweet ass!" addresses the author's doubts that there can be such a thing. The entire essay is a good read.

Hung Over In The End Times
Do you think that Bageant is justified in thinking it is impossible to reach these people?

I think there's a difference between being unable to reach them and being unable to reason with them. They do change over time. In the sixties they condemned divorce. Today divorce is quite acceptable. In fact, I've seen stats that claim divorce among Christians is more prevalent than among nonreligious populations. I think the stats were for conservative Christians, i.e. evangelical/fundamentalist as opposed to Christian per se but I don't remember for sure and that is not important. What is important is that divorce has been fully accepted by most fundamentalist churches of today, whereas forty-five years ago it was not okay.

I have also seen people change their minds faster than that when it concerned their own families in important ways. While reaching them on the logical level may have minimal results if any, I am convinced there must be ways to reach them emotionally. The question is how. Setting up emotional situations involves so many ethical issues that makes it extremely tricky.

All the same, I refuse to believe that it is impossible to reach them. I don't accept that is an option.

I'm getting ideas. Let's imagine a conversation with a fundamentalist that has come to the point where the fundy says "But faith isn't logical," or whatever. What would happen if you or I said at that point:

"Okay, so you believe that being a fool for Christ is a noble thing because the Bible says so. Granted. Jesus also said to use your talents. In fact, he condemned the man who buried his talent. Maybe you are stupid. Maybe your best talent is being a fool. But shouldn't you be the best fool you can possibly be? Think about it."

And then we would use the fundy's own tactic and either walk away, or if it happened in someone's home, clam up and refuse to further discuss the issue. Change the topic. Go do something else. Just refuse to talk religion anymore. Stonewall. Make it irrefutably and irrevocably clear that you will not speak another word about this at this time. You told them to think about it and you mean for them to think about it.

They're used to having us on our knees begging for mercy and dialogue. Turn the tables. Surely that must have an emotional impact. Of course, we must be careful to follow up such an ultimatum with continuing to be the same person we have always been. They will not know what has come over us and they might be rather nervous and uncertain as to what has come over their atheist loved one; maybe the devil has entered us after all.

Only after they are reassured that we are still the same person we were before will they be able to even begin thinking about what we said. This could take quite a bit of time. Possibly a lot of days. Or more. Much would depend on the relationship, I would guess. If we're not living with the person it could take the better part of a year. I understand that in the case I posted about above the person had been working on the brother for a very long time, not just one year. I also understand that an exceptionally good relationship played into the situation. Not all of us have that advantage.

Thus, reaching these people is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. But I refuse to put it outside the range of possibilities. If, as some have suggested recently, the hold of fundamentalist religion is beginning to lose its grip, then perhaps all we have to do is be there to catch folks as their minds begin to crack open the tiniest bit. The article you posted, Ex-COG, was written in 2004. I read the entire article. I see a shift of attitude among Americans since 2004 regarding their fundamentalist-backed government. It has been noted that the numbers of people deconverting from Christianity is increasing. I am not sure that this is more than general impression but we are getting new members on exChristian all the time and many of them are Americans from fundamentalist circles.

I think the only way a fundamentalist changes is through their own inquiry and thought process. Challenging them only makes them hold even more tightly to their beliefs.

To me, the key is to educate the general population to the dangers of fundamentalism, Christian or otherwise, and teach them to be on guard for fundamentalist intrusion into politics and society at large. Many people don't perceive the threat it is really is to our freedoms. We can defend against their influence with education.

- Chris

You're right, florduh, in that many people don't perceive the threat for what it is. And I've found myself unable to convince my professors all. They just think I'm hurt and prejudiced because of my bad experience at hands of the wrong people. Educating Christians is not going to be easy because they stand up for each other. They deny that the greatest calamity of all times--9/11--had anything to do with religion.

Just now someone directed me to a blog by Arthur Silber that contains some insight re why fundamentalists (and other Christians?) will not examine or question the goodness of their authority figures. The blogger builds on the work of psychologist Alice Miller. the blogger explains that, according to Miller, when the child is raised on a priority of obedience, a genuine and authentic sense of self cannot develop. When no authentic sense of self develops, the person cannot afford to question the goodness of the parent or authority figure, even as an adult.

The example used in the blog is Mel Gibson, multi-millionaire. His father denies that the Holocaust happened and blames the Jews for killing Christ and today's problems.



I bolded the last part. Sibler emphasizes that even though Gibson is fully adult, and has all the independence a human could wish for, still he is emotionally dependent on the authority of his father; inside he is still the frightened little boy who dare not question his father's goodness.



Bolded part: He denies the cruelty of his biological father. This allows him to deny the cruelty of God. He has accepted the fable of a good biological father; he can just as easily accept the fable of a good God.

Bolded italics: By denying his own pain, credit of his biological father's cruelty, he has greatly reduced or perhaps completely destroyed his ability to empathize with others.

What Christian is not bound by blind obedience to the authority of God? What human being, in so doing, does not deny that which is most sacred--his or her genuine and authentic sense of self? When this sense of self has been compromised, there is no rudder left, no conscience, no value system by which to guide the person's life.

This, I believe, is the reason for which Christians insist they would be such horrendous evil-doers and criminals were it not for the rules in the Bible dictated by the church. They would, in reality, be such monstrous beasts. As a matter of fact, they already are such beasts. One need only look at their treatment of each other and people who disagree with their god. See especially the thread on these forums about the Legal Status of Atheists, and the links to the articles by Austin Cline.

More quotes from Arthur Sibler's blog. Basing his conclusions on psychologist Alice Miller's work, he says people believe in God because (emphasis original):

• [T]hey can only function by relying on an authority figure, who will tell them what to do, how to behave, and what to think. And they learned that in their very first years of life.
  
• [T]hey have never escaped the parent who demanded obedience, and now as adults -- since they have never developed an authentic, independent sense of self -- they dare not question the goodness of their additional authority figure. But the underlying psychological mechanism is precisely the same.

Silber goes on to explain that people become angry when the inconsistencies in their beliefs are challenged because:

• [Y]ou are challenging their entire sense of self -- or rather, their entire false sense of self. They have never been allowed to develop a true sense of self, and that is the real tragedy. The parent prevented them from developing one in the first instance, and now God does.
  
• [T]hey themselves now prevent themselves from [developing a true sense of self].

These quotes are taken from the closing paragraphs of Arthur Silber's blog entry Roots of Horror.

While these posts do not provide conclusive ideas on "how to change a fundamentalist's mind," they provide some insight on how the fundamentalist's mind works. That is a beginning.

Originally posted as a comment on GodlessGrrl's Blog to the entry entitled Motivations of an Apostate: Truth vs. Reality.



You've got a way with words there, Godlessgrrl. I had all kinds of comments in my brain but that closing statement cuts right to the core of a life-long conflict I've had with my fundy family and church.

They--family, church, and Bible--were constantly making blanket statements about truth/reality.

I write it that way intentionally. I did not/do not differentiate between truth and reality. I didn't know anybody did until I saw your title. That is when the light-bulb went on.

When the Bible says that apostates are depraved, I think I should be able to go into the city and see the depraved behaviour of the apostate. When that doesn't happen I think religion has got it wrong. It's kind of ridiculous blaming the atheist for not being as depraved as the Bible makes him/her out to be.

I guess there is always the option of not believing one's eyes. I've had that happen to me since my deconversion. People decided I was so thoroughly deceived by the devil that the good deeds and peace I demonstrated was of the devil.

I think what happens is that these people give credence to what I call the Voice of Authority above their own senses and logic. The Bible, church, parents, teachers, preachers, or some other authority figure said it so it has to be true.

If it seems not to be true, they think it has to be the case that they themselves are deluded. Because they themselves are deluded they must "work at" becoming undeluded.

Becoming undeluded means convincing their senses not to deliver to their brains what they perceive. It means convincing their brains to not accept their own logical conclusions because these conclusions must of necessity be false and untrustworthy.

At that point, when people are so many levels removed from reality, we have DANGEROUS RELIGION.

You are on the right track here. The book I suggested to you will tell you more.