http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpImeYCZKBk&feature=sub

A talk about violence, suicide, terrorism and the evolutionary psychology associated.

i think if we had a band of these, they could address those issues:

Excellent follow up by the same speaker this year on the concept of evolution and morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

I can't watch videos on my computer so I can't see what these are about.

I haven't watched either of things. However, one thing that I feel is missing in these discriptions is the qualifier "Human evolution".

I say this because even without watching these videos I have seen other presentations on this same topic, and in those presentations it was made clear that all animals do not evolve in the same way.

In fact, one thing that was brought up was the idea of 'monogamy' and parenting. Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees and other mammals that actually fight for the right to be the stud of a harem. They call this a "Trophy Species". Humans retain a lot of traits associate with a "Trophy Species". And it clearly shows in human social behavior. It also explains why male humans are naturally inclinded to settled down into a single relationship and actually become a 'parent'. In a "Trophy Species" the males seldom, if ever, take on any parenting responsiblities.

Males in a "Trophy Species" also are short-lived (at least in the capacity of being the King Stud of a harem). It isn't long before a more powerful male will come along and dethrone the previous stud. Those males will also kill all the babies that are still breastfeeding thus freeing those females up to become pregnant with their offspring.

So "Trophy Species" are a pretty rough bunch and we are basically a "Trophy Species".

Of course, this isn't true of evolution in general. There are species that have evolved into a natural "Monogamous Parenting" relationship where the males and females pair up in a monogamous way and both the male and the female play a role in the parenting of the offspring. Birds are the most popular animals that exhibit this behavior.

So now if we move on to "morals", it seems ironic because most humans will now claim that monogamy and parenting is more highly moral than stud service and abandonment of parenting responsiblities.

Yet, this is what we fundamentally are! Or at least it's the the traits shown by animals that we are most closely related to, (as well as being displayed by many humans even today)

In this sense, birds actually have 'higher moral values' than do humans.

Well, I never did believe that humans were 'special'. We're just highly evolved monkeys is all.

This is often inconvenient for me, also. Can anyone summarize?

Dial up?

I mean if you can download and watch it its worth the wait. Its a professional, skeptical, scientific evolutionary psychiatrist getting fairly deep into the psychology of suicide bombing terrorist.

I do not think I could give a good summary without watching it a BUNCH of times.

I don't have my own internet connection these days, I often use various libraries and other public places. I don't always carry headphones. Thanks for the summary.

Abra, I wanna be a stud.

I don't mind the short life.

Is there a school for this? How much are the tuition fees? Any hands-on lab?

I hope it's an immersion course.

Down with the headmaster!

Down on the headmistress!

For those who have not or cannot view the video, it is about 1 hour and 17 minutes long, so a summary would not be very easy to compose.

The presentation itself is only about 55 minutes. The rest is introductions and acknowledgements before, and Q&A period after that main presentation

Here is the last minute or so of the presentation, quoted almost verbatim (only stammers, verbal fumbles and other obvious irrelevancies were corrected or left out, and my own evaluation of reasonable punctuation and italicization has been added.)

“That brings me to the conclusion.

The basic argument here is, that if we want to understand suicide terrorism, at a fundamental level – at it’s most basic level – then we have got to face the horrors of our evolutionary history, and the murderous legacy it has left in all men.

And we have to acknowledge the capacity for suicide that resides in all of us – men and women.

And most importantly, we have to face the fact that religion is a man-made phenomenon. A dangerous man-made phenomenon.

That because of [religion]’s very design, it is the most powerful ideology, that can hijack these capacities for lethal raiding, murder and suicide.

Thank you very much.” (end of presentation)

Now my own conclusion about the video are this:

There are two main points

1) Evolution is the cause of the potential for violence
2) Religion is the most dangerous factor in the precipitation of violence.

First off, #1 one simply sweeps aside any and all considerations of everything having anything to do with spiritual concerns. It effectively denies the existence of anything spiritual at all. (Or at the very least, it denies that anything spiritual can have any effect on human behavior.)

And then #2 proceeds to generalize “Religion” as a group phenomenon, which by its very nature is not true. All religious have at there core, a very personal significance. They are never oriented toward a group. They are always oriented toward individuals. “Churches” and “Political Parties” are group phenomena, but Religion is not – at least no more than “personal beliefs” are a group phenomenon.

So personally, I see #1 as a denial and #2 as a misrepresentation, the combination of which leads to a false conclusion.

The curious thing is seems to be trying to place Religion outside the confines of evolution – as if it were caused by something other than evolution. Which to me is the most flagrant of all contradictions.

But then, it is given from the viewpoint of a psychiapriest, whose entire reason for being are based on the concept of mind control in the truest sense of the word – so I’m really not surprised.

Just stirring things up a little.


Edited to add:
So in light of the title of this thread, yes, I consider this something disturbing that we all should know.

Sky, thank you for watching and passing along your impressions. Like MT I'm also on dial-up and find it quite bothersome to download videos.

I'm not sure I agree that it's "worthy of watching". The thing that I find "disturbing" is that someone would give this shrink's opinion so much credence.

Based on what you've described I would be inclined to agree with your assessment:



To assume no such thing as spirit is indeed a very biased opinion right there. That could indeed be seen as 'denial' by those who believe in spirit. It's certainly an unwarranted assumption. Or, at the very best, it should indeed be made very clear that this is indeed the assumption that is being made.

In fact, once that assumption has been made then why blame anything on "evolution", why not just confess that life is a miserable accident and we're all just hopless meaningless goop.

If that's the assumption then why not just say so up front?

I personally feel that this also flies in the face of peaceful monogmamous bird species that also happened to 'just evolve'. Why did they turn out so nice, and we turned out so rotten, if evolution is to blame in general?



I think that's a very good point. If the psychology of a suicide bomber can be attributed to evolution, then sure the psychology of religious fanatics must also be attributed to evolution. Yet all humans aren't religious fantatic (or suicide bombers) so what are we supposed to make of that?

Why don't we study the most loving people that we can find and say, "Hey! Now they are a result of evolution! All these other yo-yos are defects!"

I mean why look at the scum of the Earth and say, "That's disturbing, we have the potential to be that sick!" Instead, why don't we look at the most loving people on Earth and say, "Wow! That's inspiring! We all have the potential to be that wonderful!"

We can ask is this shrink's glass half-full, or half-empty?

I also agree totally with what you've said about religion in general. So many people look at the egotistical Mediterranean religions with their jealous egostical Godheads who lust for blood sacrifices and threaten to cast heathens and sinners into hell fires, and they think (That's Religion!)

Yes, unfortunately those grossly sick and demented mythologies have indeed become "religions". And powerful ones at that. Sad to say.

But that doesn't automatically mean that all religions are sick and demented, or dangerous. It's only the one's with the jealous gods who hate heathens that are causing all the frigg'in problems.

Those jealous egotistical gods should have been dumped a long time ago. Those divisive religions should be recognized as 'hate crimes' and pronounced to be illegal from that perspective.

In any case, it does sound like a quite biased and opinionated presentation. I would have enjoyed watching it just the same. Unfortunately DSL still isn't available in my area. Where's Obama? I thought he wanted to get Internet access to everyone?

I think you've hit on a very important point. I thought about it quite often during the course of the presentation and I'm actually a little surprised that you thought the same thing based only on the exceprt of the conclusion...

Throughout the entire presentation, there was a slide show that the presenter controlled. And the thing that struck me about it was the same thing you talked about...

Every single slide in the entire presentation was somehow related to dysfunction or disaster. There was:
1) Quotes that related to how bad the human condition is.
2) Text originated by the presenter that showed or related to how bad people are
3) Pictures of the results of terrorism (you’ve all seen these - explosions, bombed buildings, dead and mangle bodies)
4) Pictures of religious leaders who’s countenance could only be described as either “grim” or "indifferent"
5) Pictures of terrorists (including one of a smiling, pubescent girl with sticks of dynamite strapped to herself – which was accompanied by the single longest “pause for effect” in the entire presentation)

So it makes one wonder just exactly what this guy was “selling”. It most certainly was not anything related to “happiness” or “cooperation” or “peace” or even any kind of “solution to the problem.” (Or if any “proposed solution” could be gleaned from it, such solution could only be something along the lines of “eradicate all religion”)

Personally, I would sum it up as “fear mongering” in the sheeps clothing of a “scientific study”.

“But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.” – Dennis Miller

I haven't watched the video, but if evolution can be "blamed" for all the nasty stuff, then surely it deserves credit for the good people it's produced as well.

I too would like to see the Mediterranean religions "eradicated". Hopefully through education though and not through "fear mongering" though. After all, those religions came to be what they are via their versions of "fear mongering" to fight against them using their own techniques is just as stupid.

In a nutshell, the speaker (Dr. Andy Thompson), is one of the top people in the American Atheists - a group very much like the KKK except they only want to destroy people who practice any type of religion rather then people who aren't white Christians.

He gave a talk sponsored by the Richard Dawkins Foundation to help sell their collection of books and DVD's.

If you'd like to skip the speech, you can go here: richarddawkins.net store
and buy their books that explain why every core belief you have is wrong, why the evolution of mankind is destroying your brain and why you need to buy more of their books and dvd's to be able to see the world clearly.

"Dr" Thompson is pretty much the "televangelist", of the atheist world - you can only find personal salvation by sending him money :)

Intersting. I had never heard of him or anyone else in the vid before. But if what you say is true, it would explaine a few things. Thanks for posting the link.

I checked out the American Atheists website and noticed that there is very little on the subject of atheism itself. It is more like a political party than anything else.

They have what they call "A Wiki", with a link that says "random page". SO I checked out the first five "random pages" that came up and was a little surprised.

Every single one of them was some sort of a "logical argument" against religion. (Quite a bit of illogic present too, but that's not the point.) It really wasn;t a compendioum of facts. It was a compendium of reasons why religious beliefs are wrong.

The point is that their wiki is hardly discernable from religious propaganda - except that their propagand is for atheism instead of for theism.

The other thing I noticed was that the major target is the Mediterranean religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). There is nothing at all (that I could find) regarding any of the Eastern religions, or any type of non-Monotheistic beliefs (e.g. spiritualism, Wicca, etc.)

But if one is interested in learning how to argue against the Mediterranean religions, this would definitely be a good place to start.

And if one is interested in arguing against them, it is never a bad idea to "know thy enemy".

I enjoyed Dawkins, though in God Delusion, I think he re-wrote more what others previously wrote. I like Christopher Hitchens even better.

The speaker gave very precise examples of evolutionary behavioral adaptations (of which sky mentioned none), and how many religious ideologies and there practices hijack these behavioral tendencies.

If you are too try to refute the significance of this presentation you must deal with those points.

No one has done that, you can sit here and bash atheism, the possible motivation of the American atheist organization, but you have said nothing about this topic.

Also, if you have not watched the video, dont pretend to have an opinion, its pretty clear you have no clue. If you cannot watch the video's, please just don't participate in this thread, your not going to be effective in understanding, and im not about to write up a full transcript which would be necessary to catch you up. If you take whole cloth someone else's opinion, that kind of proves your mind is readily open to group think, and needs a critical thinking bath, some of my best friends can have opinions on something, and if I myself have not truly taken the time to investigate I will withhold my own opinion.

In fact I have done just that in this thread, and many like them, I prefer to let the commentator's take a swing and come in later, which I will continue to do, in a bout a week ill write up concise points that cannot be swept away with a nod to spiritualism.

I am not familiar with the political motivations of any of these poeple, however as a scientist myself, this man cited specific behavioral adaptations. Deal with that, and you will be apart of this conversation, if you think your post here invalidates any of that video, then this is the definition of an Ad hominem. Which is a waste of forum space, and should be deleted, its off topic and not a real argument against what was presented.


You are wrong. I didn't even watch it(so the imagery was meaningless IMHO to the core of the topic), I listened while I cooked dinner, and his points where valid, concise and had backing of evolutionary behavioral adaptations. He used non religious examples of EACH and every single behavioral adaptation and showed how they are used and manipulated to set up the tragedy of the mental state of suicide bombers. Sadly, religion is being USED, as a political tool in almost every single suicide bombing, 99% are an attempt to modify a group of people's behavior, that was presented clearly, and ignored so far by each poster here in this forum.

Sky what you have done here, is decide you didn't like the message, and then ignore the significance.

Bushi points out


Actually the second lecture for which Bushi provided another link deals with the special interest of the speaker (evolutionary psychology) In this lecture Dr. Andy discusses morals – very interesting. Viewing also gives a better perspective of the first lecture in which Dr. Andy is explaining the evolutionary links for the human propensity for violence.


[quote ] 1) Evolution is the cause of the potential for violence
First off, #1 one simply sweeps aside any and all considerations of everything having anything to do with spiritual concerns. It effectively denies the existence of anything spiritual at all. (Or at the very least, it denies that anything spiritual can have any effect on human behavior.)

He does consider the fact that many believe in some kind of spirituality – and what he considers is that such beliefs can easily be used as a tool by which to manipulate the underlying naturally occurring tendencies of human nature. He does not deny that this manipulation is not used by others. He is specifically relating how religions can turn otherwise intelligent and educated people into terrorists willing to take their own life in an effort to destroy many others.



Sky – “THEY ARE NEVER ORIENTED TOWARD A GROUP” ????? OH PALEEZE!
Did you really watch the lecture – do you understand the nature of government in religious states? (as in the middle east?) Have you EVER looked at early European history? Broaden your scope with an OPEN mind and look beyond your own opinions when you look outside your door. Sorry if that deflating in any way, but your comment implies an extreme and fundamtally instilled bias. Sorry, I shouldn't speak so harshly, it only serves to solidify the opinions of a closed mind. But I lack the time to be more subltle - so please accept that my comments are blunt but only meant to make you turn your head in a few new directions.

The false conclusion you assert is your own, even if you don’t agree with the perspectives of Dr. Andy consider what he is saying and relate it to reality.

I do find fault with Dr. Andy’s lecture, though he is confining it to a single frame of reference.

For example – let me ask all of you “What is Nationalism?”

If we widen the angle of Dr. Andy’s perspective we could include nationalism as a belief. Nationalism can produce the same effects as the religious connections to terrorism he has made.
Example – How do we get so many people to get on a plane, or a ship and go to another country to kill and destroy?

The manipulations are the same and Dr. Andy’s theories regarding psychology combined with naturally selected human qualities are the objects to be manipulated to make humans the tools of violence.

At first consideration it seems Dr. Andy is speaking only of religions (and for the sake of lecture he has confined his speech in this manner). But his theories are far broader than that – for any belief which would purposely be used to make humans tools for violence is equivalently utilizing the tools of manipulation in the same way. Nationalism can be such a belief and IT is not necessarily inclusive of spiritual recognition.

So he was considering the spiritual throughout this lecture, it was your own bias that did not allow you to see it.