Monday, November 24, 2008 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

Why we believe in gods

J. Anderson Thomson

Download Quicktime Version (63.1 MB, 1:15:47)

J. Anderson Thomson gave this lecture at the Washington & Lee Law School on October 15, 2008. Q&A follows the lecture. This is the first attempt at a future video production which we are working on, and we welcome your comments or criticisms below.

UPDATE:
To clarify, this video is just a low-fi capture from the school (that's why it's such a wide shot, and you can't see the slides). We are hoping to create a high-quality video program with similar content, about how religion hijacks cognitive mechanisms in the brain which were 'designed' by natural selection for other purposes. Which parts do you find most interesting? Which need work, or should be cut? The idea is to show that humans are vulnerable to religious ideas, but they don't NEED religion. It's an attempt to answer the question: "Why is religion seemingly everywhere?" - Josh

UPDATE: From Andy

To those who waded through the fixed camera, hard to read slides and maiden voyage of a new presentation, thank you very, very much.

I have read all the posts and learned. Yes, it was disjointed, my speed is too slow with too many "ok's," and it needs to be tightened up.

I will rethink presenting the Sapolsky material on desert vs rainforest religion and research the music as by-product idea.

We are trying to prepare a possible video that will convey the ideas to any interested listener, especially a curious teenager or young adult.

Again, many thanks. Andy Thomson.

Posted: Monday, November 24, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 208 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #290241 by mordacious1 on November 24, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Dr. Thomson is great. He has done a lot of work on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder...something that is very useful lately. He's an expert on how the brain functions and it is wonderful to see him speaking of how religions hijack brain processes that are inate. Great stuff.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #290242 by Diacanu on November 24, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Kalon-

this lecture is reductionist to the point of being infantile.

Ah, go blow it out your ass.

Your long and winding posting career here has yielded not one positive sentiment.
I can stand no more.

EDIT-
Lol! He got in a huff and deleted it!
Ah, man, that's funny.

Other Comments by Diacanu

3. Comment #290244 by Lucas on November 24, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Way to weed 'em out early, Diacanu.

Other Comments by Lucas

4. Comment #290246 by Diacanu on November 24, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Lucas-

*Evil grin*

Other Comments by Diacanu

5. Comment #290248 by ffr on November 24, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Anybody mind posting to Google Video or something? QuickTime is painful.

Much appreciated.

Other Comments by ffr

6. Comment #290274 by rod-the-farmer on November 25, 2008 at 1:05 am

Sorry, I had to stop listening to this drivel. I am already a member of the choir, and this has to be the weakest sales pitch I have seen. The word "disjointed" comes to mind. I cannot imagine anyone in his audience being convinced of his ideas, by the end. It was, to me, telling, that after his talk, it sounded like a great many people just got up and left, rather than wait to ask & hear questions.

I can just imagine fundies showing this video on THEIR sites, saying "Look how weak their arguments are".

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

7. Comment #290278 by rod-the-farmer on November 25, 2008 at 1:08 am

Re-reading the header, I see you are looking for comments etc. I know it takes extra work, but his pitch would have been much more intelligible to us web types if his slides could have been shown full-screen so we could see his points. Especially when he says things like "I'll let you read this yourselves."

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

8. Comment #290281 by LeeC on November 25, 2008 at 1:12 am

Something to watch on the train tomorrow - Excellent.

I'm a bit worried after reading rod-the-farmer's comments about the choir, but there is nothing like a good sing-a-long

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

9. Comment #290291 by ridelo on November 25, 2008 at 1:22 am

Amen for rod-the-farmer. I gave up not being able to read the slides. Maybe it was good, maybe it wasn't.

Other Comments by ridelo

10. Comment #290303 by suffolkthinker on November 25, 2008 at 1:41 am

A small request for posters here. Could you stop putting Quicktime files up? They are proporietary and require the downloading of a specific player. Much better to use a format with supported codecs that can be used with a variety of players on a variety of operating systems.

Thanks!

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

11. Comment #290305 by doubletap on November 25, 2008 at 1:48 am

I actually thought this was very informative. A few things that I'd never heard before (I'm in the choir but still keen to learn new songs). Sure the production needs a little fine tuning, one of those lapel microphone's would have helped to mask the footfalls but I've heard much worse before. Good effort all round.
regards.

Other Comments by doubletap

12. Comment #290324 by olunda on November 25, 2008 at 2:18 am

Why we believe in gods J. Anderson Thomson mp3 audio

A lighter audio only mp3 version (17,3 MB, 32 Kbps, 22050 Hz, 16 Bit, Mono):

http://www.zshare.net/audio/518256378c3e49e9/

Made one for my mp3player and thought I'd share it for all you non-visuals out there.

Hope that's ok.

Other Comments by olunda

13. Comment #290326 by SilentMike on November 25, 2008 at 2:20 am

7. Comment #290278 by rod-the-farmer

Amen (EDIT: on the slides. Not on the drivel part).

If the sides could be made available that would be grand. I can't read them and a ppt file would be appreciated (in the spirit of sharing n'stuff).

Other Comments by SilentMike

14. Comment #290333 by Lightnin on November 25, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #290303 by suffolkthinker

Try downloading quicktime alternative, it is just the codec and allows you to watch quicktime files in any player, and you don't need all the extra rubbish that comes with quicktime (like iTunes etc).

Other Comments by Lightnin

15. Comment #290334 by Logicel on November 25, 2008 at 2:50 am

Lively video presentations need to include the ability to zero in on both the speaker's face (and perhaps some from the audience) and the slides/demonstrations, etc.

I think even Dawkins would have fizzled in such a boring frame.

Andy Thompson gave a very spirited/interesting lecture (I think it was on the cruise ship to the Galapagos). The guy's content and style deserves more than this wooden frame provided him in this case.

Also in such a small group, a more informal sitting arrangement would have added some visual warmth/congeniality.

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #290337 by ev-love on November 25, 2008 at 3:00 am

For all its faults of presentation, I dont understand why rod-the-farmer thought this was just drivel....

I thought it helped me understand better why people I like still cling to irrational religious beliefs. What did I miss?

Other Comments by ev-love

17. Comment #290348 by robotaholic on November 25, 2008 at 3:48 am

this sux and im fucking stupid

Other Comments by robotaholic

18. Comment #290350 by Dispiracist on November 25, 2008 at 3:50 am

I’ve got that Nicholas Wade book ‘Before the Dawn’. This has inspired me to actually read it.

Ignoring the fact that Spielberg wasn’t available as production director, I picked up a possible content error around 13 minutes:

Music cannot originally have been a cultural by-product of language put to rhythm, even if it appears that way today. Evolutionary developments must be incremental and developing spoken language must depend on enhancing an existing ability to discern and to produce vocalisations. This means that song and dance is likely to have preceded language, perhaps for mate selection as occurs in birds. Rhythm sources are more likely to be limb movement – with periods derived from walking, jumping, running, waving arms etc. rather than heart rate. It’s more of a coincidence that the frequency of heart pulses corresponds to the range of limb movement frequency.

Around 34 minutes there’s some discussion of monotheism versus polytheism and that desert religions are more repressive to women etc. Not sure how that fits with Australian aboriginal religion. Being a typical Australian (well a Kiwi actually, which is pretty typical for Australians) I therefore know virtually nothing about Aborigine culture. I've heard they whack their women around, but that isn’t their original cultural outlook. They probably learned that from the European missionaries. Perhaps Australian aboriginal spirituality is an exception to desert environments. Aborigine culture is one of the oldest human cultures and is apparently well adapted to desert conditions rather than being in conflict with geography.

In the Q&A the first commenter mentioned Greek polytheism compared to desert–originated monotheism. I’m not sure that there really is any shift from poly to mono in religious practises from Greek to Roman to Roman Catholic. Zeus was the top god with scores of lesser gods. Pronunciation shifts take Zeus to Deus and Theus and the original lesser gods just become complex hierarchies of angels, demons, and various prophets, disciples, and saints. It remains as polytheistic as ever. Does the same thing apply to Islam? It would make evolutionary sense that any novel religion is a small innovation producing a slightly more infectious mutation of something already in circulation.

I don’t think the polytheism versus monotheism question is relevant to the message. Perhaps best deleted if the theory is inconsistent.

Other Comments by Dispiracist

19. Comment #290375 by Anvil on November 25, 2008 at 4:25 am

RTF:
I don’t think it was the logical presentation of cognitive mechanisms that was ‘disjointed’, merely the presentation of such by the speaker. The use of ‘Okay?’ after every sentence was annoying, as was the stumbling (and yes, the slides... argh, my old eyes!). As regards the fundies using this to show weakness of argument, well, they’ll twist and turn anything; I spent an enjoyable 30 minutes on the ‘Truth in Science’ website last night where Dawkins is quoted at length in order to show ‘...how weak their arguments are’.

That said, I ploughed through the lecture and got something out of it by pouring myself a glass of red wine and singing along in a choir of my own with regards to the development of language, attribution of agency (divine and otherwise – those bastards down the road, it’s their fault!) and the codifying of ritual and its relationship to performance and the means of production (when two hands could produce more than one mouth could consume etc’). J Anderson Thompson wouldn’t have made a good priest, would he? At least not one with a full belly.

I sorted it all out and came up the definitive reason ‘Why we believe in God’ but then unfortunately got drunk and cannot now remember a thing?

Anvil.

Other Comments by Anvil

20. Comment #290378 by Anvil on November 25, 2008 at 4:32 am

18. Comment #290350 by Dispiracist

Well spotted.

"This means that song and dance is likely to have preceded language, perhaps for mate selection as occurs in birds".

Thanks for that. Food for thought, indeed.

Anvil.

Other Comments by Anvil

21. Comment #290379 by SilentMike on November 25, 2008 at 4:32 am

The problem today is that the field of knowledge is too wide. Thomson isn't a biologist, so some mistakes about our evolutionary history are to be expected. It was still disappointing though. He could have done better.

Other Comments by SilentMike

22. Comment #290394 by decius on November 25, 2008 at 5:01 am

SuffolkThinker

Use VLC, it opens ALL files and needs no codecs.

http://www.videolan.org/

Other Comments by decius

23. Comment #290424 by Lucas on November 25, 2008 at 6:32 am

What was his audience here? I liked what he had to say, but I'm not sure I liked it so much in 10th grade level language. Any scientist, psychologist, or anthropologist would have been aghast at some of his generalizations, but I understand (or hope) that he was talking to the general public. Many of us here have special knowledge of parts of what he talked about, and, yes, he oversimplified a lot of things, but his basic points about how religion exploits ancient, evolved psychological traits were spot on. I'd like my little brother to watch this; he's 13 and it is just at his level. Actually, I just listened, as there wasn't anything to watch, really. I'd like to read his writings, and if we've got another ally that will go out there and explain this stuff to regular people at a dumbed-down level, then cool! We need ideas like this simplified and summarized so that they will survive better as memes in the general consciousness.

Other Comments by Lucas

24. Comment #290430 by Ishruul on November 25, 2008 at 6:52 am

I have to agree with Rod-The-Farmer. This presentation is not compelling at all. I can't help but doze off.

I don't say you have to put 2 or 3 strippers there...(well...nah!)... It's like listening to an engineer talking about all the specification of a TV remote control.

You shouldn't use power point presentation (sorry but you don't seem to know how to use it efficiently). I suggest using props, like different skull form, maybe some scaled setting (watch growing up in the universe, R. Dawkins knew how to exploit them really well).

Bring more down to earth example for your argument, not just a oneliner. And stop saying 'OK' after every 3 sentence.

Still, you have great debate material there. Keep up the good work.

Other Comments by Ishruul

25. Comment #290476 by mordacious1 on November 25, 2008 at 8:43 am

I have to admit that I have only read papers on PTSD by Thomson before. He's easier to read than to listen to. His audience seemed to be students, since most of them picked up backpacks and slammed the door on the way to their next class. The Q&A is always a rough spot in these talks, because either the person asks a dumb question or has h/h own agenda that has nothing to do with the topic. I still like his premise, although his delivery was rough. This guy does know his stuff on the brain, its development, and its interactions. I'm glad he is focusing on why people believe in gods, I think he'll have a lot to contribute.

Other Comments by mordacious1

26. Comment #290485 by rod-the-farmer on November 25, 2008 at 9:08 am

OK, here is how I would have done this, given the title of the article. The concepts mentioned in the presentation hopped all over, and never really made the point of the title. Too many, too weak.

Imagine a time in the distant past of the human race, back maybe even before wandering hunters settled down into some sort of community. One individual came up with the idea that his hunt for food had gone badly, because some unknown person was angry at him. Perhaps he even saw a figure on a distant hill. Maybe his aim was off that day. The frustrated hunter decided he would propitiate this unknown person, by putting out some food as a friendly gift. Maybe the food even disappeared overnight ! Whatever happened, his next hunt was successful. And remember, all it takes is ONE individual having this experience, ONCE. What are the chances !

The second happenstance is that he mentions this to a fellow hunter, saying, in effect, "Well, you have to put out some food as a gift for the hunter spirit." If this is not successful for the second hunter, it doesn't take much for the first hunter to say "Well, you have to do it the right way. Tell you what, YOU bring the food gift, and I will set it out properly for you. I've done this before."

Even if this fails, it is only a short step to "Well, you should bring food regularly, and maybe some drink too, but you can't watch while I set the food out, or it won't work."

Presto, you have a priesthood, who gets free food and drink for dealing with "the gods". Pretty soon he figures out he better pass along some basic hunting skills to help ensure the "prayers" work. Now he is not only a priest, but a community leader. Almost all religions say you can only deal with the deity by going through an interlocutor. No factory direct stuff here. Almost all the religions I ever heard of have this business of food gifts for the gods, and sometimes even money. As George Carlin says, god may be all powerful, and all knowing, he just can't handle money !

And just think for a moment. Anyone ever heard of a religion spread WITHOUT the priesthood telling the flock to "go forth" etc. ???? All their holy books make sure to include a command to bring in more people to join the club. Either make lots of babies, or bring in net new worshippers. I never heard of one that said "Let's keep this to ourselves, so no one else finds out how to have a successful hunt."

With this as a start, you can surely do a better job than was done here, reinforcing this concept with examples from different cultures. Even modern religions like Mormonism and Scientology use this same approach. All they are after is power. The minute you tell congregants they can deal with god themselves, directly, the need for a priesthood vanishes overnight, and within days, probably the religion itself.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

27. Comment #290512 by ev-love on November 25, 2008 at 9:57 am

I campaigned against the banning of ‘Lady Chatterley’. When Larkin writes “They fuck you up” he’s making a poetic statement that works. Scatological comments can make writing powerful (try reading Swift!) My grandchildren have been revolted by my bad language, for goodness sake – but I still think this thread is a disgrace so far.

Is there meant to be some ironic, surreal humour in post 2 to 4? Have I become the sort of annoying person who has to have jokes explained? Or are they just childish nonsense?

If a subject is poorly presented does it really become drivel? (Comment 6)

“this sux and im fucking stupid” writes robotaholic immediately after my last post (16). I don’t think that was meant for me, robotaholic, but I would like to know what you meant.

All this on “a clear-thinking oasis”?

Please, I DON’T want to censor any of this. ‘I defend your freedom to say these things’, etc. etc. I just don’t understand what you hope to gain by it.

I can think of religious and political websites which would quote all this with relish. Are you really advancing the aims of The Richard Dawkins Foundation? Now, THAT’S something I really do care about!

ev-love

Other Comments by ev-love

28. Comment #290518 by ev-love on November 25, 2008 at 10:26 am

The exigencies of websites are such that I made my last comment before I read rod-the-farmer in comment 27.

ev-love

Other Comments by ev-love

29. Comment #290519 by Eshto on November 25, 2008 at 10:26 am

Yeah, I have to agree with rod-the-farmer, this presentation was poorly given. I felt a bit bad for the student at the end who can't understand how life began. He didn't really get a straight answer from anyone, I can see why he's still confused.

Interesting ideas, but I'm left to wonder how many are backed by concrete evidence, or how many are hypotheses.

EDIT: It felt like a weird combination of being overly general, as if meant for lay people, but then he stuttered and backtracked so much it made it hard to follow.

Other Comments by Eshto

30. Comment #290522 by decius on November 25, 2008 at 11:02 am

Prof. Thomson is not an idiot, as those who follow his work know all too well. Those who haven't, should watch his presentation at the atheist convention (also available on this site), or read his paper on depression and suicide.

So, why is he this time using such a plain language and delivering a lecture of wide perspective and unadorned content? Clearly, he must be filling his role as educator.

The event took place at a law school in the bible belt - all circumstances seem to suggest that he is talking to the kids of rich slack-jawed religious yokels, many of which were probably home-schooled and had never been exposed before to science or to a critical look at religion.

If that were indeed the case, we should all be thankful to him for his sterling effort.

Other Comments by decius

31. Comment #290532 by Lucas on November 25, 2008 at 11:35 am

ev-love - If you have a problem with the content of Diacanu's posts, I suggest you take it up with him directly. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to appreciate our resident shit-talker and top rate comedian. I would also recommend lightening up a tad.

Other Comments by Lucas

32. Comment #290535 by Eshto on November 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

@decius:

Your stereotype is uncalled for.

However I do agree that it's obvious he's talking to a less-than-expert crowd.

But that's exactly why it's a bigger problem that he doesn't speak clearly, and jumps all over the place. He didn't use plain language, that's the problem.

Other Comments by Eshto

33. Comment #290536 by DarwinsPitbull on November 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

Lucas

ev-love - If you have a problem with the content of Diacanu's posts, I suggest you take it up with him directly. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to appreciate our resident shit-talker and top rate comedian.

Is that what he is? Should you really be calling him top-rate though? If he is top rate then George Carlin is god, literally. But to me, his posts just show someone who has sand stuck in their vagina.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

34. Comment #290541 by decius on November 25, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #290535 by Eshto

Well, I thought home-schooled science-illiterate pupils were a real problem in the bible belt and constituted a non-negligible part of the student population. At least, that's what we keep on hearing.

I am perfectly comfortable with calling anyone who neglects to provide their children with a proper education a "slack-jawed yokel" (not the entire population, mind you), and I don't care much if it bothers you, thank you.

Other Comments by decius

35. Comment #290579 by The Hogfather on November 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Yet another wondefully enlightening, well presented talk from Dr. Thomson! Thanks for the post.

Other Comments by The Hogfather

36. Comment #290589 by Steve Zara on November 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Comment #290512 by ev-love

I value Diacanu's posts enormously. He is our court jester. He deflates pomposity and his posts certainly can have a poetic quality.

Click on "other posts by Diacanu" and enjoy a vibrant mind at work.

And, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins in another context, anyone who criticises Diacanu can fuck off!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #290592 by twistedgizzard on November 25, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I'm not sure why one of the students repeatedly asks about 'the spark' that was the catalyst for life when it was made reasonably clear that this wasn't Dr Thomson's area of expertise. I also took it that Dr Thomson suggested that ongoing developments in this area made any comment on his part rather outdated. Yet the same question kept comming !
Unreadable script made this hard work.

Other Comments by twistedgizzard

38. Comment #290593 by decius on November 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm

ev-love

Diacanu was replying in post 2 to someone who has since removed their comment, hence the confusion.

Other Comments by decius

39. Comment #290601 by The Hogfather on November 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm

I am sure to get some criticism for the "well presented" bit in my previous post. Let me clarify what I meant. I thought the aim of the presentation was to cover a broad list of psychological dispositions that open up the human animal to the mind virus of religious faith. I don't think it was designed to go into much detail on the specific nature of each and every one of those dispositions. As a broad summary then, designed to get the viewer interested in the topics being discussed I think the talk works. Many interesting points are made, and they are usually linked in a fairly logical manner throughout the talk. The fact that the camera doesn't show us the slides is a inconvience though.

Other Comments by The Hogfather

40. Comment #290604 by Titania on November 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm

35. Comment #290541 by decius

Decius,

There are not large numbers of home-schooled children in the Bible Belt, although there may be a few more statistically here than in other areas of the country. There are more privately schooled children than home-schooled children.

Young adults in law school are not very likely at all to be home schooled. There are some very fine universities and law schools in the South, including my alma mater, which is ranked as one of the top law schools in the US. Most of the students who enter law school have passed the LSAT and have good grades, so they are not likely to be poorly educated.

Washington and Lee, the law school to which you referred, is actually a very highly rated law school, and I am sure does not accept slackers. I don’t think it is fair to judge a school’s students by how one professor speaks to the students. Also, the students are likely to come from all over the US and not just from Virginia.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/washington-lee-law.html

The national statistics on home schooling are not very recent, with 2003, being the latest I could find. It appears that about 2 % of US children are home-schooled.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009305

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/statistics.html#homeschl

Washington and Lee Law School is in Virginia. The numbers of home-schooled children can be found here.

http://www.vahomeschoolers.org/statistics/

The public school numbers may be found here.

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/dbpubs/Fall_Membership/2007/readme.htm

There are over 1.2 million public school students in and about 20,000 home schooled kids in Virginia, if I am reading these correctly. So that would be less than 2 % of home-schooled children. (My math skills are not great so correct me if I am wrong.)

I do think home schooling (and private religious schooling) is a problem in the Bible Belt as well as in other areas of the country and in my humble, prejudiced and controversial opinion may constitute child abuse in many, if not most, situations.

Other Comments by Titania

41. Comment #290607 by EvilConservative on November 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm

This is obviously a small camera recording of a small group get together (Secular Student Society at WNL Law School). Criticizing the presentation should not take away from the points that Dr. Thomson is bringing up. Reading the slides in the video isn't all that important since he reads off the title of each slide and gives a synopsis and example of each slides meaning.

He does an excellent job IMO of outlining the cognitive mechanisms humans use for survival and showing how they can be used to bring people into religion. That is something I've not yet seen in the current Atheist argument/case against religion in such detail.

Rod-the-farmer,

It appears your looking at this at a different level than the speakers presentation. Your example of the hunter and priest is a good example of how religion can begin from scratch, but it doesn't explain the mechanisms that need to be in place for that scenario to even be feasible. That is what Dr. Thomson is doing here.

Now what your example does bring up that Dr. Thomson didn't cover in his presentation is "Superstition". The ability that humans have of associating certain useful/useless variables with certain outcomes.

This is shown in your example by the hunters making a sacrifice to a deity thinking that without it, the upcoming hunt would fail. At some point in time, this superstitious behavior was reinforced and the sacrifice became a legitimate process.

Other Comments by EvilConservative

42. Comment #290608 by mordacious1 on November 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm

The spark of life guy was annoying...some speakers are just better at handling this type of question than others. Unfortunately for Dr. T., there were too many questions where he had to say that if you want an answer to that, read such and such. This is related to my comment earlier about stupid questions or people that have agenda questions. You can either respond briefly and move on, knowing everyone else in the room knows what you're doing or do a Hitch on them. With students, the first is best. With cretinists the latter works well.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #290620 by decius on November 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Comment #290604 by Titania

Thanks.

Actually, having now watched the whole presentation, I've found it perfectly adequate. Earlier on, I had watched only the introduction, which is wanting and simplistic, and I assumed that the broad criticism vented by others was fair. Now I think they are plainly wrong.

I am glad that the situation isn't so bad as we keep on hearing with regard to home-schooling. I would still agree with you that at least 20 000 pupils are being abused and deprived of their fundamental rights.

Other Comments by decius

44. Comment #290626 by Hellene on November 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

34. Comment #290536 by DarwinsPitbull

... then George Carlin is god, literally.

*sigh*

DP... there is no god.

Other Comments by Hellene

45. Comment #290641 by Titania on November 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm

decius,

I heard Dr. Thomson speak at the Atheist Alliance Convention in 2007 on Suicide Bombers. I thought he gave an excellent, well-documented talk, except that I think his conclusions were based on research into the attitudes and beliefs of men and did not include the women and their influence. Because Muslim men often silence women, their attitudes are often not studied or considered.

In my experience, Muslim women greatly influence their children's religious beliefs and conduct. One example would be the Muslim mothers who sent their young sons to clear the minefields in the Iran/Iraq war.

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv part4.html

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/blogs/20991?comment_start=386&comment_count=20

I can’t find the original article I read about the mothers sending their seven year olds to clear the minefields and were rejoicing in their deaths. Disgusting.

Other Comments by Titania

46. Comment #290642 by Titania on November 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Hellene,

That brain of yours is always spinning!

Other Comments by Titania

47. Comment #290657 by Eshto on November 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm

@decius:

I am perfectly comfortable with calling anyone who neglects to provide their children with a proper education a "slack-jawed yokel" (not the entire population, mind you), and I don't care much if it bothers you, thank you.

That's special, but you made a sweeping generalization and applied an uninformed judgment to a group of people you know nothing about.

You might not care what my opinions are, but for your own sake, you might want to take care not to throw around stereotypes, so as not to make yourself sound like a fucking idiot.

Just a suggestion.

@Titania:

Thank you. That's what I was wondering about.

@Diacanu:

Don't ever fucking change.

Other Comments by Eshto

48. Comment #290674 by Goldy on November 25, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Iran does seem, sometimes, to be a special case wrt to children. Odd, as all the Iranians I know are the most loving of people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ateqeh_Rajabi

Other Comments by Goldy

49. Comment #290680 by TurkishAtheist on November 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm