Generally speaking...

[hiyymer]

So it's not genetic, then? It's sociological.

I do tend to run into that response when I question whether the rational conscious self is actually running the show. "Genetic determinism" seems to be this bogey that can be used to dismiss the point. Hawking and co-author make the point quite bluntly in their new book "the grand design". I don't have it in front of me but they say something to the effect that it is our brain that determines what we do as a physical biological process, and not some agent self that is separate from our physical being. He states that neuroscience has pretty much experimentally nailed it. He calls "free will" an "effective theory". In other words it's how the brain represents something that is so complex that it is only possible in theory to define the initial state and would take a billion years on a supercomputer to determine the next state. It's not genetic or sociological. It's the dance of life. It's not about genes but about the mechanism by which we survive and replicate, and the fact that your experience is not what exists but is part of the mechanism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If we were talking about aviation right now I'd say we were at the stage where men flapped their arms and said, "Well, that doesn't work." Still a long way to go before we have a grip on the issue.

[hiyymer]

If we were talking about aviation right now I'd say we were at the stage where men flapped their arms and said, "Well, that doesn't work." Still a long way to go before we have a grip on the issue.

What's "we"?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If we were talking about aviation right now I'd say we were at the stage where men flapped their arms and said, "Well, that doesn't work." Still a long way to go before we have a grip on the issue.

What's "we"?

"If this discussion was about aviation right now" . . . (Better?)

[hiyymer]

If we were talking about aviation right now I'd say we were at the stage where men flapped their arms and said, "Well, that doesn't work." Still a long way to go before we have a grip on the issue.

What's "we"?

"If this discussion was about aviation right now" . . . (Better?)

So back to what "we" can actually change via rationality without re-engineering what we are.

[charlou]

I don't have it in front of me but they say something to the effect that it is our brain that determines what we do as a physical biological process, and not some agent self that is separate from our physical being.

I agree that it's not some separate agent "self", but external factors do play a part, nonetheless.

[hiyymer]

I don't have it in front of me but they say something to the effect that it is our brain that determines what we do as a physical biological process, and not some agent self that is separate from our physical being.

I agree that it's not some separate agent "self", but external factors do play a part, nonetheless.

Of course.

[charlou]

I don't have it in front of me but they say something to the effect that it is our brain that determines what we do as a physical biological process, and not some agent self that is separate from our physical being.

I agree that it's not some separate agent "self", but external factors do play a part, nonetheless.

Of course.

Hence:

It's not about genes but about the mechanism by which we survive and replicate, and the fact that your experience is not what exists but is part of the mechanism.

Elegant.

[Coito ergo sum]

What would the typical reaction be, to say, pronouncing one's atheism in Southern US? If one was a tourist, and say, one was invited to a dinner and religion came into topic, what would people say to you if you were to mention it?

I found it to be not much different than the reaction in the northern US. There is a range of reaction. Some will react harshly and get upset, for some reason. Some will be surprised and curious. Some won't care. Some will silently agree, and some will openly agree.

Generally, in company where I am not sure how the conversation will go, I will be careful about how open I am. Generally, I try to not be argumentative about it. I resist the topic, but if I am asked I will simply state that I'm an atheist and that's that. I try never to be apologetic, because that kind of attitude just emboldens those who would react negatively. Plus, a confident air of "this is what I believe and that's that" puts others at ease with it, and will often draw some support towards you. What I try not to do is suggest that anyone else needs to believe, or not, as I do.

[Coito ergo sum]

people would react with anger and disgust. and thats not just limited to southern US.

I've had people, in Chicago, get really upset about it. I marveled at how people could get upset at my beliefs. I made clear I didn't have any issue with their beliefs, but they were quite upset about mine, as if my comfort with not believing in a deity was somehow a threat to their beliefs. I think that might be at the heart of some of the strong objections of the religious folk. They take an atheist's nonbelief as a direct challenge to their beliefs. I've found that with some good people management skills, you can talk them in off that ledge, and educate them that nonbelief is not a threat to their belief, no matter how ridiculous it might be.

[maiforpeace]

What would the typical reaction be, to say, pronouncing one's atheism in Southern US? If one was a tourist, and say, one was invited to a dinner and religion came into topic, what would people say to you if you were to mention it?

I live on the California west coast in a very liberal area, and I got this response the other day:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p647045

If you were a tourist coming from the UK and you mentioned it, they would probably think you were an alien.

[Feck]

If often think that the reaction varies between "there is no such thing as atheists they are just lazy evil Protestants " to " but don't you think humans have to be special because of all we have done " and " Yeah we don't believe in any of that shit either " that was was from 2 cops and " but if there was no hell people could just do whatever they wanted " Thank you for the input Dave ,glad the the stupid gene wasn't passed to your son , Cos he's lovely and not scared of Hell .

Mind you I do live and socialize(ish) amongst the Godless and I have always found them to be more intelligent and honest people than god botherers

[Robert_S]

What would the typical reaction be, to say, pronouncing one's atheism in Southern US? If one was a tourist, and say, one was invited to a dinner and religion came into topic, what would people say to you if you were to mention it?

I live on the California west coast in a very liberal area, and I got this response the other day:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p647045

If you were a tourist coming from the UK and you mentioned it, they would probably think you were an alien.

I was out in Santa Cruz in '97 and found it to be very spiritual/religious. It seemed they were very open to different religious outlooks (I was a DIY-spiritual type at the time) but I imagine that a lot of people out there would be scared of reason-based atheism. Seriously, I think it would harsh their buzz.

I remember a great conversation I had with a guy who had a big anti-Santa rant on a sign on his house.

[hiyymer]

I don't have it in front of me but they say something to the effect that it is our brain that determines what we do as a physical biological process, and not some agent self that is separate from our physical being.

I agree that it's not some separate agent "self", but external factors do play a part, nonetheless.

Of course.

Hence:

It's not about genes but about the mechanism by which we survive and replicate, and the fact that your experience is not what exists but is part of the mechanism.

Elegant.

Hence "God"; the brain-created "effective theory" (like the "self") of that which controls the mechanism and is the force of our social compulsions. The first thing the preacher says is "you aren't in control. God is." He's got a point.

[Rob]

but I'm not on some rationalist delusional trip that eliminating religion would change the world,

See this is where I think you are 100% wrong. eliminating religion would radically change the world. Think of all the theocracies that are out there, nations with close to 1% atheist populations(openingly) through force and fear tactics, primarily Islamic nations of course.

I don't know how anyone could seriously proclaim that a world without religion would not change the world.