Is it that they are truely lazy, or is it something that is just unimportant to them? There's a variety of things that I don't know about that I take an unknowing stance in regards to simply because I don't have the time to investigate everything and I deem those things unimportant to me. While I can discuss a variety of subjects, I can't discuss how to build a rocket engine, the chemical composition of plastic vampire teeth, or how to hunt bears. While these all may seem like trivial examples to you as compared to your interests in the freethought movment, they may not seem trivial to the person that you speak of. Hence, it may not be the case that the person is truely being lazy, they may just not value issues surrounding the existence of a deity.

Clearly everyone is not like that - that's why we're here, isn't it?

However, you've lept from someone not worrying about one particular idea (the question of the existence of a deity) to people not worrying about all ideas.

Which, would have ment we never would have gotten into the stone age, much less past it. Clearly not everyone thinks this way, and I think it would be somewhat alarmist to worry about everyone thinking this way. Obviously we don't really think everyone is closed to investigating things and asking questions, otherwise the Rational Responders et. al. would be effectively wasting a lot of time - but we know that they really aren't, because we've already witnessed some learing experiences from people, and have seen the results of what they do to at least some extent.

This is the effect of some people who don't question certain things, not all people not questioning. In fact, many of the people who fuel these things are rather brainwashed, and much of it has to do with their environment and what reinforces them. Most creationists, for example, spend comparably more time with other creationists, or focusing on creationism in some manner than they spend considering evolutionary theory. They have more invested in their lives with creationism than they do with evolutionary theory. The same thing goes for the godhatesfags people and people stuck in patriarchal societies. When most of what you know and are familiar with IS these things, then that is what you often live. If tomorrow, say, Kent Hovind suddenly realized how very wrong he was, but was able to consider what it would do to his income, his family, and how his immediate peers would view him, what do you think he would see his options as? He would likely realize that his income would be gone right along with many of his friends and it would be a big disruption in his family. Would he be willing to take such a large risk?

So, it isn't just not questioning that keeps them there - they actually have much at stake, and that keeps them there as well.

Is it really that criticism is seen as evil? My guess is that it isn't the criticism is evil, it is that it is threatening. If I knocked on your door, took out the agreement that says that you are allowed to live there (rental document, deed, whatever) and said that the signatures on it must have been forged and could not belong to those who claim them and as a result, you must be evicted; despite you knowing that they belong to those individuals, would that not seem threatening to you? Now, granted you would have more reason to believe in the documents than a theist does in their religion, but the important thing is they don't perceive it that way. They often see their livelihood depending on their religious beliefs. So in trying to help others see reason and rationality, we are doing more than just grappling with their inability to see our points, we are also fighting with how our interactions and what we are saying to them affect their entire lives. Now that is a particularly large barrier, isn't it?

The blind acceptance of ideas is not necesarily a moral good, either. Instead, evolutionarily speaking, it is an advantageous trait. Conforming to a group allows us to breed more successfully, and the passing on of information helps us have advantages in survival. Say we look to hunting and gathering groups and examine the passing of information. Two economically related but separate groups (say they participate in trade agreements) are hunting the same pack of animals. One group, after having acquired meat, is passing the other who is going out for a hunt. The first group says that the pack of animals that they need is to the northwest, a mile or so away - which has more of an evolutionary advantage in this case, questioning that statement, or going to the northwest?

Now we can clearly see the advantages of questioning particular things, but that doesn't mean that years of evolutionary history that has selected in favor of acceptance of information is going to be readily gotten rid of.

It seems to me that people have already started asking questions and that at this point, it is more of a matter of helping others see things the way that we do.

I don't have druken rants yet, but I haven't gotten drunk so give me a few years. :: Is young ::

Thanks for the compliments and response. Indeed, it is frusterating when other people don't see the same value in particular things that we do. I do hope that my post wasn't terribly abraisive. Some people just don't want to know more about the world around them - if they're not interfering with us, though, I am content to just let those people be.