The gullibility gene.

[heidler1]

Pretty consistent the way religious people tend to believe in Bush, big on Christmas, believe in water witching, believe in obvious scams, believe in life after death, believe in psychics, believe in Ghosts, believe that people are so neat they must go to heaven if they're good and live forever, belive in Santa and I listened to one last Saturday who even believed that the Government had refilled all of the depleted oil wells so hallelujah no oil shortage. A recent poll here in showed that the more you go to church the more gullible you get (actually they believed in Bush's war more). I keep wondering if these people are mentally handicapped.

[Mythsaje]

1. That's a pretty big generalization...

Believing in one of those things, whichever it is, doesn't necessarily mean one falls for the whole kit and kaboodle.

[heidler1]

6. I didn't say it did. I said "It's pretty consistent."

[Is It Fascism Yet]

2. Religion is not the cause, I think literal interpretation of religious

allegory is merely another symptom, not the cause. The cause, I suspect, is heavy metal poisoning, lead and mercury, known to make people both stupid and aggressive, and present in alarming quantities in all American public water supplies.

[heidler1]

5. I don't either. It's just part of the package. It's not every time either.

The susceptibility IMO does get pretty consistent though.

[Fovea]

3. The sweeping generalizations

and pejorative tone of this post are jejune, un-scientific, and rather insulting.

[heidler1]

8. No one ever told me that this religious forum was limited to scientific

opinions. If you like religious opinions that mirror your own, this forum is a poor choice.

[Fovea]

16. Not limited to scientific

but your post elevates you beyond 'superstition' and puts the mantle of empirical philosophy on your shoulders, and the ground of empirical science under your feet.

What else can you stand on, when you eschew faith?
That being said, you cannot stand on empirical fact, and from that platform make sweeping generalizations, devoid of proof.

Well you can, but nothing holds you up.
Which is my point, your pejoritive screed carries no more weight
than the fundie pronouncments of Sharia law.

[Zhade]

31. "What else can you stand on, when you eschew faith?"

Wait, you mean I'm, like, floating in mid-air or something? Am I an atheist hovercraft?

:P

Talk about arrogant and insulting!

[beam me up scottie]

4. Pretty pathetic attempt at flamebait.

Ask a real atheist how to do it next time.
;)
Poser.

[NAO]

7. Please, tell us. I am interested in empirical research on this topic

I think it is critical for People of Reason to develop methods and practices to debunk religious superstition and release people from the stranglehold of these savage notions.

I would like to know, not just what appeals to sophisticated atheists, but what actually results in the most de-conversions from religious superstitions, in the least amount of time, and at the least cost.

I have been active in the freethought movement for over 20 years, and while am an avid supporter, the greatest problem I have seen is that the movement is far too passive and far too academic oriented.

Imagine how much success Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Dr. James Dobson would have had if they had taken the same approach to their "ministries" as most secular humanists have taken to their cause. These leaders of the religious right did not get a stranglehold on American culture and politics by holding conferences for prominent theologians. Secular Humanists need to rethink their strategy, and hire some marketing/PR muscle, and launch an aggressive offensive into American society. We do not need to worry about what Christians will think of us if we actively attack their superstitions. They already think - and endlessly discuss among each other and everyone who will listen - how Secular Humanists are worse than Satan Worshipers.

Here are some examples of the type of activities that I think an aggressive offensive would include. First, we should get copies of Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" and Robert Ingersoll's "Some Mistakes of Moses" into EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL LIBRARY IN AMERICA. Those books are timeless classics, they are easily accessible in ordinary language, and they attack the notion that the US is a Christian Nation, and rigorously refute the whole creationist nonsense, respectively.

Granted getting copies of these books into school libraries would not be any guarantee that they would be widely read. They are obscure books, and they need marketing. While I would love to see a high budget marketing campaign for them, there is another way. We could write anonymous letters to key critical organizations within the Christian Right warning them that "the Secular Humanists" are trying to get blasphemous, infidel books into the school libraries. The Christians will of course run with it, and "The Age of Reason" and "Some Mistakes of Moses" will be on every Christian's lips every day for months. They will talk about the need to stop those books, and how they must be banned, how they must be taken from libraries and destroyed. These fine books will not remain obscure for very long. The highly organized, massive attempt at censorship and repression by the Christians will of course generate tremendous interest in these books - and those two books alone will cure countless people of their religious superstition.

As budgets permit, Secular Humanists ought to run TV ads, and take out ads in magazines and on billboards. We should not try to 'stay positive' and talk about our values and what's important to us - look how well that worked out for John Kerry in 2004. Instead, we should directly and fiercely attack the fundamentals of the Christian superstition. We should try to establish errancy of the Bible, throw doubt and ridicule on the doubtful and ridiculous parts of the Bible, and remind people of the brutal horrors that Christians have perpetrated on non-believers for the past 2,000 years. For example, we should have magazine ads and billboards (with internet links to freethought websites) with Bible verses on them like Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." and ask people to consider if God really said that or if there are mistakes in the Bible.

Finally, we ought to procure sympathetic marketing/PR heavyweights to help us develop materials and approaches that will result in the greatest number of de-conversions in the least amount of time. We need to take this effort at least as seriously as Evangelical Christians - millions and millions of them - take their effort to "win souls for Jesus".

If the current trend goes unchecked, the Christians will overwhelm American culture and politics and establish a brutal theocracy based on their religious superstition. The last time that happened was in 300-500 AD, and we all know how that worked out…utter collapse of civilization, end of learning, progress - the Dark Ages that lasted more than 1,000 years. The specter of religious superstition is once again casting a frightening shadow over our world. The ghosts and demons of the Dark Ages, once believed to be banished forever by Reason, are again haunting our culture. Christianity destroyed civilization once before - let's not let that happen again!

[heidler1]

9. I'm not very optimistic about solving this problem, but I agree with you

it's real problem and it must be attacked with vigor. I'll be 80 this week and it worries me that for some reason (I think it's fear) the majority of religious people today are falling for Bush's spin on things that are not in their best interest. Which sadly includes sending our young men and women off to die for nothing IMO. Any support that Bush gets from the whole religious body of believers is despicable and inexcusable on his part especially. When I hear that church goers who do not support Bush say so in bulk I'll ease off, but not until they do.

I get emails frequently from people who assume that I'm cowering in fear because of my age. One women even sent me a new leather bound Bible, which I sent back. One email from a relative had a hoax quote from the Muslim Bible that claimed that in verse 9/11 it predicted the Iraqi war. Yes she believed it 'till I proved it was a hoax and she apologized for sending it with out checking it out. I told her I was proud of her.

[beam me up scottie]

10. That's nice. I love your posts but I hate disruptors and that was MY point

I'm tired of troublemakers who come here just to start a war for entertainment.

Then I have to hear about how horrible we evil atheists are for the next six months because of one poster who probably isn't even an atheist wanted to pick a fight by pissing on the believers.

My opinion, of course.

The ghost of tony would be so proud.

[heidler1]

11. Somehow you remind me of: who so ever is without sin cast the first stone

[beam me up scottie]

12. Quoting pseudo-bible speak to me?

That'll work.

[NAO]

13. I was trying to roll right over the bait, and scrape up the bits looking

for something useful.

Yeah, this was pretty obvious flame-bait. I just thought I'd come at it from an unexpected angle.

And part of my question is, "can we de-convert more people with honey or piss-and vinegar?" Everyone always assumes atheists need to tip-toe around the beliefs of Christians and be real nice to them. Well, they tell me I am going to burn in hell forever, that everyone else is wrong and they are right - that does not seem like the nice approach, but it does seem to work for them.

I wonder if an all out offensive, take no prisoners, spare no feelings, call a primitive superstition a primitive superstition, approach might be more effective than the atheist mouse that squeaked.

I'm wondering if when they moan about Christmas, we need to point out that they stole pagan holidays and then brutally murdered the pagans.

What if we put up bible verses like Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." on billboards and took out full page ads in People magazine, etc.

What if instead of being ultra-considerate to the point of not being heard, we took this as seriously and as aggressively as they take it?

Possibly this would be the wrong approach. Or it might work very well, defined as numbers of de-conversions per dollar spent or per month of activity. I'd just like some data on it, so we can begin the very important work of de-converting them and re-secularizing our culture so that science, civilization and progress can again proceed unencumbered.

[beam me up scottie]

14. I really do love your posts.

I actually quoted you tonight.

But I don't know how to convince people that having secular society is the only way we can progress.

I'm not even sure many of them believe we belong here.

If we are aggressive, we do the fundamentalists a favor by mobilizing their followers.

If we are passive, well, look where that got us.

Not having dogma or organized beliefs hurts us, but it also defines us.

You could ask the atheist forum at the Neural Gourmet.
The link is in my sig.
This is exactly the kind of free-thinking that SH had in mind when the community was formed.
We're still young but growing.

[Zhade]

32. Yo, BMUS!

I signed up at NG, but I'm at work and cannot finish the registration process yet.

Seeya there! :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

34. Hey Zhade!!!

It's great to hear from you!
I'm going to be spending more time at NG over the weekend and I hope to see you there!
Not having to worry about offending people constantly is very liberating.
(not that I worry too much about it here, as my posts in this thread illustrate!:P )

I'm now known by the name 'Shut Up Wesley'.

[Zhade]

35. Aw, and I stayed with my stale name.

Drat! :P

Glad to see you too, hope all is well for ya! Are you back in Vermont yet?

[beam me up scottie]

36. No, broke and hating life

in the red state south.
I need to get back home before Vermont secedes from Bushopia.:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

37. I hear ya on the broke front!

I just paid about 2k for car repairs (and I paid off the car in June - ouch)!

Glad you're not homeless, at least - I was worried back then.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Thanks. I'm one paycheck away from there again.

I think I'm burnt out on worrying because I've been doing it for so long.
Being that close to living on the street kind of took the panic out of the possibility.
Now if it happens, I know I can survive.

2K in car repairs?
Ouch!
I remember when you paid it off.
Tempted fate, you did.

[cosmik debris]

15. Current trend?

"If the current trend goes unchecked, the Christians will overwhelm American culture and politics and establish a brutal theocracy based on their religious superstition."

This may just be a part of a mini-trend. Over the past 300 yrs we have gone from the Salem Witch Trials to the point where you can actually admit to being an atheist in most parts of America. That is the big picture that I like to see.

These things take time. It took a full 2 years at Baylor University for me to become an atheist, other people have even slower learning curves. I believe(I have faith)that the best source of atheists is disillusioned Christians. While Falwell and the American Taliban appear to be making great headway, I feel confident that he will create more problems than he solves for the Christian religion.

[heidler1]

17. There does seem to be a trend to take a giant step back wards sponsored

by Bush and the religious right. What worries me is the whole body of religious type people seen to be too quick to go along with this crap and then must be dragged kicking and screaming 'till they are finally convinced that it was BS from the get go. During this revaluation period our country is vulnerable to blundering into very poorly thought out wars for instance. I strongly suspect that the 75% or so initial support for this Iraqi war blunder came primarily from those with religious tendencies.

[cosmik debris]

18. You are talking short term,

I am talking long term. You can only see a trend by looking BACK. The trend you see depends on how far back you look. I am looking far enough back to see that we are a lot better off than we were when people were burned for heresy, or when the KKK acted on god's behalf to lynch the un-cleansed. 100 years ago cross burning was as common as a Sunday Church Picnic. Now it is relatively rare, most lynching has ceased, and heresy is little more than a social faux paux. Perhaps you have seen a mini-trend in this larger trend, but the mini-trends seem to have evened out and left us with an improving(if not steadily improving) situation.

[heidler1]

19. You are right, My concerns are mostly short term of around 15 years.

However there is a big push to go back, for instance Pat Robertson is flexing his clout by suggesting that we eliminate Cesar Chavez.

[Mythsaje]

20. I think humanism is an inevitable evolution...

The easiest question to answer, for me, is "why does God allow suffering to exist."

Because our suffering isn't caused by God. It's caused by us.

I consider myself a pantheist humanist. I think our intelligence bestows upon us a greater responsibility to the whole because, as far as we can tell, WE (and any other intelligent life we may or may not encounter) are the mind of God, as well as being "the beast that thinks."

Expecting some supernatural being to solve our problems is insane, and I think it's insanity that a lot of the world is slowly moving away from...Europe, for example. Then again, they've seen the horrors of war, religious and otherwise, for several centuries first-hand...Americans have no concept of what that's like.

[heidler1]

21. I was reading today that e coli bacteria have the capability to commit

suicide for the greater good of other e coli. If there is a food shortage they explode thus killing off other non e coli bacteria so what food there can be had by the other e coli bacteria that are immune to the toxins released by the explosion. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1296284,00.html

This site also mentions the probability of a gullibility gene.

[cosmik debris]

22. Ok Very Funny

a quote from the article:

"While isolating the smug gene in humans is some way off, scientists have had some success producing genetically-smug wheat, which sits in a field all day looking extremely pleased with itself. Anti-GM protesters have labelled the wheat "very irritating"."

I suppose smug wheat would be very irritating. So who do you think got this gullibility gene?

[heidler1]

23. Actually I read this after I posted this thread and was pleased LOL to

find out that there really is a gullibility gene, according to the article anyway. Strangely I have always doubted the notion that we are primarily a product of our environment and generally believed that were all pretty much stuck with what we are and will be. When I read about the similarities between identical twins who were raised apart it solidified that view in my mind. I have two sons in their 50s and we've ground this out many times especially with the one who graduated from Berkley.

As to your question I know of no one who has taken the spit test for gullibility. By personal observation I came to the view in my original post.

[cosmik debris]

24. It is a parody

The link you posted is to an article that is a parody of genetic science. How can you engineer "smug wheat"? The punch line is the last paragraph. The clear implication is that you have the gullibility gene because you believe in the gullibility gene, a wonderfully circular argument. Good luck with all that.

[heidler1]

25. I think you might of misread the article. Yes the smug wheat example that

you gave is a joke, but the part on the gullibility gene was intended to be serious. IMO

[cosmik debris]

26. If you didn't crack up laughing

at the paragraph on the procrastination gene then you need to see a Dr. about your dysfunctional funny bone. It's a joke, just a joke.

[heidler1]

27. Ok so they haven't identified a gullibility gene yet, but the same guy

that found the homosexual gene claims to have found the religious gene, a rose by any name is still a rose.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147
Genes contribute to religious inclination

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age.

[cosmik debris]

28. They did find it in you

The more you squirm and try to defend yourself the more evident it is that you fell for a parody. Now you are quoting an article that "suggests" this and "suggests" that. Just let this thread die, just let it die.

[beam me up scottie]

29. *snort*

:rofl:

Okay, that was the last snort from the peanut gallery.
It can die now.

[cosmik debris]

30. Are you sure

You might still have a chortle coming for the Smug Wheat?

[Zhade]

33. New, Smug Cream of Wheat!

I got nothin'.

[beam me up scottie]

39. I know.

Wheat just isn't funny.

[Zhade]

40. But what about rye?

That's pretty witty stuff!

[cosmik debris]

41. I always thought it was the Oat that was smug.

Maybe it is just that Quaker guy. But if you want wit, I'd go with John Barleycorn every time.