The Origin of Religion

I've got a project to do for school, and I thought I'd get anon's input. The topic I've chosen is The Origin of Religion. Now, don't get the wrong idea, this doesn't mean I think all religion came from one source, I just haven't been able to come up with a better title. Basically, I'm going at this with a purely scientific standpoint, looking at the reasons religions are formed, how they evolve, and why they've lasted so long. I'll also include some of the first instances of religion and why were how they were.

So far, I have the most functions of religion as:
To help give moral support.
To keep a stable social structure.
To "motivate" people.

These are, of course, a bit simplistic, but I think I've come close. If anyone has objections, changes, or anything else regarding this project, I'd be very much obliged if you'd submit them in a civil manner.

Honoring deceased people generation after generation could develop into something.

There was a study recently of how some smarter birds develop superstition to random feeding.

if they are flapping their wings randomly as food comes they start flapping when they want food. Like they think it helps the food arrive, a baseless falsehood. But in a more natural setting perhaps not so. Random flapping might loosen food from trees or something so it is a natural advantage.

But even with no reenforcement habits and superstition presents. I think that these are the precursors to religion.

Obviously, reenforcement just causes learning, and the useless actions lessen or disappear.

I'll get on the scientific journal search engines and try to find the report... maybe.

>>1
>>2
>>3
Is Time Travel Possible?
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8&feature=related

>>3
I have found what seems to be logical beginnings of religion in the Rational Choice Theory:

Psychopathological model - Under a period of stress, the founder uses the creation of religion as a sort of therapy
Entrepreneurial model - Founder takes aspects of other religions to make a new, 'marketable' religion
Social model - A society becomes more and more isolated, leading to a "social implosion", in which new religion naturally develops
Normal revelations - The founder interprets ordinary occurences or coincidences as supernatural.

I believe what you're describing would be a basic form of the last of these, and would also seem to be a probable starting point for religion without influence from other religions.

>>2
You're right for the most part. Normally, honoring of the deceased would require a belief in an afterlife. Perhaps, though, people's need for purpose in life would lead them to begin doing this as a way of making their actions have permanence, thus leading to their feeling like they've accomplished something. This would seem to fall under both the moral support and motivation categories.

dammit...

it's /sci/, not /religion/

also underage b&

the origin of religion is their divine inspirations.

>>7
There is no evidence for the source of those inspirations being divine.  Stop descending into superstition in what should be a rational debate by learned men.

>>6
I'm not the one to talk to about the lack of a religion forum, and underage for a science forum? Come on now.....

>>7
As 6 said, this is a science forum, keep the nonsense out.

>>9, look up Cognitive Sciences, Human Condition and Social Engineering. You may be suprised.

www.wikipedia.org

Thank you RedScam for trying to make us believe that what you are telling us is true, and forgetting that lying yields no results save the liar's own ignorance. Yup, what do schools for science and religious churches have in common? Hmm, they both hord lots of people into tiny rooms, make them sweat and when they leave they feel even more ignorant than when they entered, and have a strange craving for a cheese burger.

If I'd have to come up with a guess as to the original topic of this thread, I would have to guess that it was derived from the commonalities derived between many persons who experienced and practiced diligently the lives they wanted to live and from this derived some basic philosophies that later through debate, negotiation, discussion, and deliberation came to a concensus of what would be best to put into a BIBLE, Quran, Torah, and so forth. Of course, what I'm going to do is much more sinister (cause who'd believe I was trying to do something good, I'm human after all). I'm going to coallesce and integrate information from multiple philosophies, poems, religions, sciences and from personal conversations where I am able to find greater meaning in all that makes us human and what it means to acknowledge and accept that in others. Basically, my tales will be placed into the realm of fiction, written in the prose of poetry, entangled with smart-ass humor, and bound by human flexibility. I have already begun my journey of learning and practice, but what does it all mean? It means to me what it means to me. What it means to you is an idea of what it means to you. What you do with that idea is entirely up to you, it's your choice. And that is part of the understandings I'll place within the book. I was thinking I would release it on December 21, 2012 to mark it as the epiphany of man-kind, so no more would you be at the mercies of theives profaning themselves simple businessmen, politicians, or like-wise. No more would we cowar in the face of ignorance. No more would we turn our backs to the very support systems that thrive upon. No more would we destroy or segregate from that which is most dear to us. And it is dear, whether we realize now or later. To live your life is a life worth living.
A few movies to watch that'll get you going are "Peaceful Warrior" "Patch Adams" and "Revolver"
Peaceful Warrior deals with the practicing of self-awareness
Patch Adams is about self-discover and living that discovery
Revolver is about getting over the human ego
Of course, that's not what the critics will say about them. "Oh, that old story has been told over and over so many times it's making people sick to death to see it repeated."
Well, learning is repetition, life is learning, repetition is painful, pain is awareness, emotion is awareness, reactions are awareness, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. To surround yourself with the repetitive notions of self-awareness, awareness of the human condition, awareness of integration vs segregation and that they are the two components of everything in life. Life is Acid(0) + Base(12) = Balance of (7) where we as humans and water live much of the time, but as is evidenced by research you'll find that that is a balance of finite gravity. So, scientifically, religiously, phychologically, philosophically, and sociologically; how did I do? Again, too much or perhaps I need to get more schooling (I am class-trophobic, just to let you know).

"To Be or Not To Be?" This is the only question, 1 or 0. Life is as simple as that, what makes it complicated is the sheer number of these calculations which science and technology has awarded us with. Multitasking, tele-conferencing, Chat-rooms, online dating. But why is it so segregated from us as individuals? And what does it mean for us to be individuals? To slave towards someone elses benefit? Perhaps! It is the choice of the individual that should perhaps be recognized, but how do we contribute this concept to the playing fields of war where brother is pitted against brother and very real people die every day because of our simple physiological and emotional support systems that require and reinforce us to act by chemical reaction (emotions) in order pursue the need (habit). Doesn't all of this seem like we're already on drugs? Perhaps the drugs that inhabit every inch of our bodies creating chemical reaction after chemical reaction to instigate change. There is two choices in that, choose reaction or choose action. To choose reaction means all action is based upon the reactions of emotions; to choose action means that all actions are based upon choice. But how to make that transition? Well, that takes faith in the unknown. Perhaps to make a leap that feels wrong upon choosing, perhaps to look at alternatives given ample time before practice. It is solely up to the individual whether it is me or another fellow human that does this; either way, to accept that both are possible within each and every one of us is to actually believe that we are human. This is the nature that I believe we are missing out on and the very lives that we are losing are the very lives that we choose to give away for $8.00 per hour without benefits. There is no retirement, benefits, or financial package awaiting you in heaven;

but if you act now you can get all the benefits you could ever dream of, vacation, retirement, health, dental, vision, financial packages, girls, guys, animals, children if you like! All can be yours if you act today for the super-low price of just 1% of your soul plus $9.95 S/H! -Brought to you by the Mantle Pioneers, Inc. Call now and receive a double-dose of everything you see here, but don't wait these fantastic prizes are going-going-...

>>7 makes a suggestion that is perfectly reasonable given the topic being discussed.

Religion seeks explanation for what science cannot explain, primarily consciousness.  Why is the universe anything more than a mindless void?  Do you believe others are capable of thought process?  You have NO FUCKING EVIDENCE for that (do I really need to say who I'm talking to here?).  Yet most everyone believes it.  I fail to see a significant difference between that & what you call religion.

Religious theories have been disproved & amended over & over again?  Strange, so have scientific theories.  It's not like there has ever been completely unanimous opinion towards any theory.

Some of you seem to forget that you don't have to belive everything some book says to be religious, & not every religious person does think that way.  Science has yet to disprove god, and does not seem to be approaching that point anytime soon.  Thus, it IS possible in this era to believe in a god & still bow to what science teaches.

Let's say person A believes a god definitely does exist, but cannot elaborate further.  Person B believes a god definitely does not exist.  Neither one is looking at this as scientifically as an agnostic.  In fact, in this situation, person A seems more reasonable, because his theory could attribute it's inspiration to that god.  Person B just does not believe.

Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief, but people who proclaim atheism as the only thing an intelligent person could possibly believe are assholes who are looking for a reason to think of themselves as being above the masses.

I am not remotely religious but I can respect the belief of any person who does not proclaim superiority over all who do not share in it.

tl;dr RedCream is an arrogant piece of shit who likes to imagine that he is the only one to attend science courses & thus the only one that can present legitimate arguments about anything ever

>>14 here
AnOnYmOuS 2U, I would really appreciate it if you would try to break up your posts more as I just tried to do.  I find your posts are consistently interesting & respectable, but I'm sure I'm not as good a reader as the average /sci/ viewer & I lose focus very often when trying to read through a big block.  Should probably get some ritalin or something but I'm more comfortable living w/o taking pills every day.

religion

is not

science

>>16
YES IT IS.

EVER HEAR OF SCIENTOLOGY??

>>17
No

/sci/ - Religion

Yeah! Scientology! http://www.scientology.org/index.html

>>Krieger

  You've got a good start but You might want to toss this around in your head 4 awhile... "Religion is the same as normality, just a socially accepted opinion held by the masses saying that a type of behavior or action is acceptable or not acceptable."
  In other words there has been no proof of a god, just alot of people trying to explain the unexplainable in a way that is comforting to them. Example, "its a miracale! thank you lord!"         

Religions indoctrinate people so they can be controlled, but they are a double edged sword for a tyrant. The medieval church rivalled Kingdoms in wealth and influence, all the King's nobles were indoctrinated from birth to follow the church and in order to make the church more believable they had to espouse charity and virtues etc..

The Karl Marx quote "religion is the opiate of the masses" is too simplistic to describe the purpose of religion, there are 100s of other factors at play.

>>22, I would hope that you don't think that we'll accept that it's any religion's fault that people get indoctrinated or whom do the indoctrinating. Both are people who have the ability to choose, but rely solely upon their emotions to insite change.
So what do people do who are aware of this phenomena within each and every human being? They pray upon them like vultures and leeches to the point where these people are essentially sucked dry of all their funds and time on this planet. It is this grave misuse of intelligence that people use against their fellow humans to gain better foot-hold in the financial and popularity contests. See all religions, cults, politics and even advertising! All are taylor made to the whims of the physiological and emotional stabilities of humanity. But the downfalls of these are that people essentially get raped to death financially while enjoying a 90 minute video that costs you 30 dollars which is 33 cents a minute and if you make less than 20 dollars an hour you shouldn't waste your time watching anything over 90 minutes in length as it doesn't earn you any money and you are essentially burning that money. Just think about it like being raped without knowing about it. Oh, we feel the effects of it, but because it's not measured...Hmm. Thus, the need for money management. I could take advantage of corporations and people, but I choose not to do so on the simple and unchallengable reason of personal choice. Who should have the power? Those that work for the people to assist in the learning and teaching of the American people, to assist in the upbringing of the children of our states and families and workers to bring people to a greater understanding of themselves and to potentially learn the next level in our human evolutionary future. Why isn't this happening today? Choice of no choice. Choice of ignoring the overwhelming. Choice of plausible deniabilities. Choice of distraction over self-discipline. Choice of pleasure over pain when essentially pain is simply a greater version of pleasure; choice of reaction over choice. We are so in the Dark Ages of human understanding of the mind-body functioning, working, feeling, and learning states that we believe what we read at face value; we believe the words of others are the realities of our own existence; we believe that god and the devil exist only outside of ourselves if we believe that they exist at all; we believe that heaven and hell are outside of the place in which we live when it is our very choices that decide our fates; we believe that our fate are either decided by someone else and are set, or that we decide our own fate; but what about fate being the place where you are? Does any of this have to be real for people to accept it as truth? That is a choice I leave to the reader for who better to choose what is best for that person than the very person for whom it directly affects? I do apologize for my lengthy posts; some of it is interesting and some people do get lost after some time. I'll see if I can't ask 4chan's admin to create a special board for people who want to discuss the topic of potentialialities, religion, perception, cognitive and social engineering sciences, self-awareness and the like. I do believe that this is one of those topics that some people just don't yet have a taste for simply because they aren't yet aware of it...yet. While believing something is already in motion when it is not observable yet is the essence of faith, once we are able to observe and measure the effects then faith moves into the realm of science. To me, reinforcing my faith with science has granted me the abilities that I now possess, so to the potential exists for every one of you, for you too are human and my comrades upon this earth. I look forward to future events and posts. Until next time, keep reading, keeping thinking, but most importantly, reinforce with practice to discover the truth for yourselves of your own perceptions and abilities. Best of luck, it isn't easy; I know this from my own choices and actions of the past.

Listen you atheists. How is the "belief" that when you die you cease to have a consciousness or exist any different from the "belief" that you go to heaven or are reincarnated after you die? There's zero evidence for either scenario.

>>24
That's a good question and an answer I happen to agree with. There is no evidence because Religion and Belief are both just very strong opinions held by the general masses.

>>23
If you were the rewrite this entire post as a list of key points, how many key point would there be?
>>25
Untangible and/or unrepeatable proof is still proof, just nothing that can be assumed to be absolutely certain according to logic. So in terms of proof religion is more valid than atheism since atheists have no untangible and/or unrepeatable proof, if just because they don't accept it.

The part where most people fail at or are challenged at is that once the understandings, discoveries, explorations and so-forth are observed only by yourself the information moves back into the realm of faith as it now exists within your mind once again. The paper is simply a point of origin or method of measurement for future explorations, but to others it will only be seen as rhetorical non-sense. So, faith is what people believe to be true, science is the method to involve and improve upon that belief whether it's to confirm or retract from previous understandings. This is the methodology to understand ourselves, others, and the world around us and divorce ourselves from the idea that what exists in the unseen spaces doesn't exist until we uncover it. And so basically that is how my understanding of time works as well, you take something plausible, possible, potential, and opportunity and refine it to one singular point of observation and that moves from the arena of unseen/unknown potential future to the absolute observable present, and once again to the unseen/unknown but recorded past. This is what it means to be human, and I see more faith and belief in that than not doing anything and hoping that it'll work itself out. Does anyone here understand this or believe to a similar or other fundamental way?

Perhaps religions are interdimensional visions of what was, is, or could be reality in the multiverse?

>>29
Isn't everything an inter-dimensional vision of what was, is, AND will be reality in the multiverse?

Jeez, religions are based off of revelations and those revelations took place by being aware and observant. So, when those events take place again, but aren't observed, did they really occur? Do the people typing all of these texts really exist in the real world or are they just drones of a sub-quantum computer system designed by the CIA to document and catalog all IP, date, and information stated herein? How do you know that what you are reading isn't just made up or not? Well, by performing research that can be ascertained quite simply.

"There's never nothing going on." -Peaceful Warrior

>>32
WHOA! Good job! Too bad though about your viewpoints, you lack an open mind and thus you are already doomed to failure...should you stay your ground on the soul basis of ignorance of every given situation. What is science? The study of us, the universe around us, and the universe within us. What does it mean to study? To be observant, to be open to possibilities, potentials, and opportunities. How do you remain and re-institute those principles? By challenging those beliefs at every chance, every opportunity, every potentially possible situations that you may or will come into contact with. How do you challenge? Science. How do you have belief and faith? FIRSTLY! The first step is to have an idea, that idea leads to actions, actions lead to a re-inforcement of faith, it's a matter of turning it to your advantage just as you have. Your faith is only accepting something if you believe it, if you don't, then it doesn't exist at all and if it appears to exist it's really just a ghost or lie. That is your stand-point. Now, what's say you use that talent of yours and put it to a larger calibur than simply a small chat room like 4chan.org and take that talen to the bank! Generalizations are the beginning, they are the lie, faith is a lie, science is the method to reveal the lie as less of a lie and more of a truth, thusly, life is paradox, so use axiom to uncover the paradox. :) Your welcome.

If I lacked an open mind, I never would have opposed everything I'd been taught and questioned God. I believe you have somewhat of a cynic debater's attitude. Not all beliefs should be questioned, there are some that are axiomatically correct. Now, try the method of the relative optimist. Once developing a new theory, based off of either your own or others' ideas, expound upon that. It can be seen in both your attitude and your posts that you have a difficult time focusing on the idea at hand. Stick with something for more than the fleeting few sentences that seem to endlessly spew all over the board. Expound upon and offer proof for your theories. All I've seen from you so far are stream of consciousness messes. Until this dilemma is solved, I find it difficult to argue against you, seeing as there is no you to argue against. It's like taking a look at the encyclopedia, then forming an argument against it, and this means your arguments, if they could be so called, are bordering on becoming tautologies, which is bad, bad, bad.

Firstly, if you has questioned the idea of God, you would have DONE THE WORK to find out WHY do people think that god exists and done it until you understand why. DID YOU DO THIS??? Well, by your very statements, all you do is tell others and yourself that something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it yet...and when it does happen...SHOCKER! SO, do some god-damned work, get out from behind your desk that's held up with books, and start doing some true-to-life research, A-HOLE!

SECONDLY, beliefs shouldn't be questioned? WTF? Ok, just let those beliefs die then, WTF do I care what you do with them. Mine? I put mine to the test and consistently re-inforce them. Guess what that makes me...FAITHFUL. SHOCKER!

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Please note that I am the one who did the project over the origin of religion. Please note as well that I did this from an anthropological standpoint. Do you not think this would include the question: Why? No, of course note, inference is below you. Now, seeing as I did do a good third of this program over the psychology of religion, I do know why people started and continue to believe in god, both from a communal and individual standpoint. It is because of the benefits religion offers, whether it be conscious or subconscious. The moral support in being part of a collective tautology, for instance. "I'm right, the group I'm part of is right, and there's nothing you can do to disprove this." Of course, that would be an obnoxious attitude to express, but it is the subconscious drive behind most religious feeling.

I also think that, by your own statements, you shouldn't disagree with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You haven't experienced it, and it's never been disproved. Based on your own experience, you should be a Pastafarian. Yes, this is the argument you've used, and should be ashamed of yourself for using it. I believe what has been proven, not was hasn't. This is especially true when what has been proven contradicts what hasn't been disproven. So, I'm not saying that your god has been proven not to exist, I say that opposing theories have been proven.

"I put mine to the test and consistently re-inforce them. Guess what that makes me...FAITHFUL."
I believe the process you've explained here is the scientific method. That is not faith. Also, re-inforce is not a word....

Also, I never said that beliefs shouldn't be questioned, I said not ALL beliefs should be questioned, which was what you said. Some things have been proven beyond doubt and now lay as the premise for further theories. To question something as gravity would discredit numerous other theories. You haven't the time to question what has been proven in the past, simply have FAITH in what has been proven to exist and move on to what has yet to be proven. Now, when something new has been proven or disproven, by all means, question it, but leave the axiomatic ideas alone.

Now, in sensing the anger in your caps and language, I feel compelled to post a quote by Bertrand Russel:
"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."

First off;
re·in·force   Audio Help   /ˌriɪnˈfɔrs, -ˈfoʊrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-in-fawrs, -fohrs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -forced, -forc·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to strengthen with some added piece, support, or material: to reinforce a wall. 
2. to strengthen (a military force) with additional personnel, ships, or aircraft: to reinforce a garrison. 
3. to strengthen; make more forcible or effective: to reinforce efforts. 
4. to augment; increase: to reinforce a supply. 
5. Psychology. to strengthen the probability of (a response to a given stimulus) by giving or withholding a reward. 
–noun 6. something that reinforces. 
7. a metal band on the rear part of the bore of a gun, where the explosion occurs. 

Also, reenforce, re-enforce.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1590–1600; re- + inforce, alter. of enforce]

Taken from Dictionary.com

Secondly, DUMASS! What is it you are questioning!!?!?!?!?!?!?! YOU ARE QUESTIONING AN AXIOM!!!! WHYYYYY!!!?!?!?!?! BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KNOW IF IT IS A PARADOX. OR at least that's what scientists do.

Hence, read this in the WIKIPEDIA.ORG;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Good hunting!

Alright, reinforce is a word, re-inforce isn't....

Also, I just stated that I don't question axioms. "Now, when something new has been proven or disproven, by all means, question it, but leave the axiomatic ideas alone." Next time, avert your eyes 5 inches upward to read the post you're responding to.

I've managed so far to address nearly every aspect of your chaptered posts, but you, on the other hand, seem to focus on one aspect which you think you could possibly prove wrong, which, by the way, you have failed to do, and proceed to attempt to do so.

Perhaps someone else would like to join in this, because, quite frankly, I've proven enough idiots wrong in my meager lifetime. It really offers no satisfaction anymore.

YES! I am looking at what you are typing, and I'm finding that we simply have a varied vocabulary since we consistently compliment one-another with our definitions. And yes, I am only focused on one idea, the complete understanding of self, choice, AND how to activate use awareness and ignorance, the fundamental human capacities and reinforce them.
Plus, if you had read the entire (POST TRUNCATED) portion, you would have realized that re- +inforce was used at one point in time, therefore it has the capacity to be used again. But thank you for delivering to me your proof "re-inforce isn't a word"(axiom "what you believe to be true") for me to prove "re-inforce isn't a word"<skepticism<(by questioning the proof) and delivering to you my proof "The text-book definition of reinforce, its varients, and previous usages" (axiom "what I now believe to be true"). But, if you think I'm trying to prove to everyone here whether you or myself is an idiot, I really couldn't care less. That is a child's agenda, not an adult's -with adult responsibilities- agenda. If I were to prove something to the world it is this;

We have the capacity for both {good and evil} (self-awareness and self-preservation) [choice and ignorance]
My study is showing so far that ignorance at first isn't choice, it's the beginning before the axiom, faith if you will. But over time, a skill is born called perception and recollection. From knowing what your capacities are; the choice is born. With choice, regardless of environment, the situation lies completely in the control of human Will. Once this is accomplished, I find that some people fail to see the common points between choice and ignorance, they both fall under the choice aspect at the point of self-awareness; However, I am finding that once choice is given to chemical emotional reactions, ignorant actions are reinforced over time, the skill of perception and recollection begin to break down until only chemical emotional reactions and absolute ignorance remains. And so, from this, I have also found that learning is hindered, belief-telling is hindered by falsified memories via imagination|memory barrier breakdowns, to finally a complete failure to understand the world around us on an intellectual level is finally recurrent. Basically, to be human or animal in nature's point of view, is seperated by choice in adolescent teenagers during puberty. Such a chemical change shows the results by average rates of school drop-outs, if any do survive they live on the streets or low paying jobs, if any push forward they may make something out of there lives, but only just. My experiment is to find a methodology that works to provide the proof of self-ignorance by choice and to bring someone back from ignorance to self-awareness. I have a feeling that this will be a learning trait that all humans will have to undergo during the course of their learning experiences in order to overcome the hardships in life and see the miraculous in the mundane. So, now you see the experiment I'm still working on, what do you think of the potential implications?

Has anyone here ever read two awesome books by a man named Pútídámó (菩提達摩)? They are called the Yì Jīn Jīng (易筋經) and the Xǐ Suǐ Jīng (洗髓經) and they are the best martial arts guides ever written.

>>40, thanks, I'll look into them! :)

I'm done with this re-inforce deal. We're both right in different ways, and it serves no purpose to argue further.

As for the second half, surprisingly enough, I just wrote an essay on the subject a week or so ago. Frankly, I disagree with you completely, but could we have it any other way? The majority of your argument lies on the assumption that human will exists, and seeing as you have done nothing to prove this, the rest would seem to be invalidated. Now, I'll try to sort of summarize my essay, but if you want the full text, just say so, and I'll paste it. It relies on several interlocking principles, but I'm sure you, of all people, won't mind a bit of length to the text.

Assume you have two balls. One ball is struck in such a way that it will roll directly towards the other. Given the momentum of the ball, the masses, the volumes, and all the other relevant facts, you could accurately calculate what the paths of each ball would be as they strike each other. There is no uncertainty to this. The only uncertainty in calculation comes when not all of the data is present, but seeing as the laws of physics in practice need no calculations, then the motions of the two balls will never vary. The only factors that effect these two balls are the state they are in before they are struck, the environment, and the striking. The ball itself has no influence once it is struck.

I believe that this same principle can be applied to humans. The only factors that would effect them would be the genetics (the state that the ball is in before being struck), the environment (which includes other people), and the catalytic event (the ball being struck or the baby being born). All other things arise from these factors. The most common confusion comes when people believe that the brain and it's complicated functions are above the laws of physics and attribute this to a spirit or some other entity. It has been proven though, that the brain is simply an extremely complicated series of electrical pulses and chemical reactions. Given this, it would be safe to assume that seeing as the person in question has absolutely no effect on his life, the choices made aren't his.

Now, the radical ideas contained in this have seemed to shock most people I've presented it to into immediate disbelief. "This can't be right, otherwise I wouldn't be able to make a decision." Well, the knowledge of the system by the system is simply part of the system. It is an advanced form of fate in which fate affects itself, but seeing as the fate was fated to effect itself, it was already fate that this change should happen. So, before you reject this, take a good look at the facts and see what can really be disproven. What flaws you see here are probably simply a side-effect of the summarizing, the essay's text does it much more justice.

Also, I believe this would be a good time for a favorite quote of mine:  "Always see, no matter what you see."

>>42

>Assume you have two balls.

LOL
/thread

>>40

Traditional Chinese sucks. Everyone needs to start using simplified. 菩提达摩, 易筋经, and 洗髓经 are how your things should be spelled.

>>42, Wow! I am really shocked that someone besides me or my uncle came up with pretty similar findings. I do have a few questions for you though concerning this experiment:

1. How did the first ball initially get rolling?
2. Did you include human imagination (the ability to visually guess what a non-existent reaction is before it happens, if and at all)?
3. Did you include the differences in internal and external time-perceptions compared to observed external occurences, imagination and recollection?
4. What do you think about dreams?
5. What do you think about the altered state of perceptual observation and recollection compared between ignorance and awareness?
6. How do you create the opportunity of choice?

Here are my axioms similar to the choice hypothesis of yours:
In order of occurence:
Animals-
-1. Observation
-2. Self-Preserving Chemical Emotional Stimulation
-3. Action
-4. Reaction
-5. Observation
-6. Self-Preserving Chemical Emotional Stimulation
-7. (repeat)
This is all Self-preservation, in animals, the POTENTIAL for choice exists, if it didn't a chemical emotional reaction stimulation would occur to move the organism.
But, when it comes to choice theory, observation, recollection, and awareness plays a role:
Humans-
-1. Choice (aware and observed)
-2. Observation
-3. Self-Preserving Chemical Emotional Reaction Stimulation
-4. Choice (aware and observed)
-5. Recollection
-6. Awareness of prior recurrences and outcomes
-7. Choice (aware and observed)
-8. Self-Preserving Chemical Emotional Reaction Stimulation
-9. Action
-10. Reaction
-11. Choice (aware and observed)
-12. Observation
-13. (repeat)

Not only am I working on this small project, but I'm learning about the processes of how to choose the reaction of ignorance (put relinquish choice to chemical reactions only, mostly relying on my past 22 years of experience) so as to better understand choice and other people. <this is sort of what your experiment sounds like from my perception.
My choice hypothesis is:
Situation>Observation>Memory>Recollection>Imagination = Option(choice)
This is just a rough guess at the moment, I haven't integrated overlapping action, reaction, choice (past, present, future) or for every action (+A1-) there is an equal reaction = (+Ra1-) and oppossing reaction + (-Ra2+). I'm still working on this model to include resistence over time using statistical vector logistics, put together with the elemental nature to return to a balanced state of harmony (ie thermal induction, air heats, moves up to cold air to achieve cool state of balanced harmony, opposing reaction is cold air moving downward, difference is resistence), but what do you think? It's all based off of potential energy, not just kinetic energy. :)
It's my hypothesis that our self-awareness is built on top of another system called self-preservation. Upon the acquisition of this human trait we developed an ego to communicate between the ID located in the chemical receiving portion of the brain and our frontal Neo-cortex, ie ego is the internal voice (GOD OR DEVIL to some). Once I integrate my figures in, I'm going to begin studying adaptation, and become more aware of the methodologies of evolutionary processes in order integrate that into this model. So basically, my model will be the exact methodology as human evolution, only now there is awareness and choice. The choice of evolutionary direction; at least, as a hypothesis, and a lot of hope. I'm not stopping this experiment until my life ends. You do have a lot of great insite into what you have spoken. I would like to read your report if that is possible, perhaps there is a great deal of information we could share with one-another.

noobs

knock it off sage! ya braggart! You know we can't compete with you, so why? Aren't you living high off the hog in your 20 summer homes and 3 castles across the globe?

I'd be more than happy to share it. Please note that this was done as an English project. The prompt basically was whether a person could be born good or evil, and I argued that these don't exist. It's not COMPLETELY relevant, but one of the larger points made was that choice is non-existant. So, here it is:

    I believe that people may not be naturally good or evil; they are simply products of environmental influence and predisposition.  It can be said of these terms, good and evil, that not only are they almost completely ambiguous, they lack any backing for a real definition of either. Also, as for being born good or evil, this is nonsense, as not only are people not born with any concept of good or evil, and so possibly not even susceptible to this judgment, they also haven’t the conscious capacity to act outside their own predisposed limits, which are defined by environment and heredity. Overall, it is only the generalist who would label someone as good or evil, and only then so as to simplify things for themselves. It is easier to act in accordance with someone who has a clear and definite label, and so society associates people with these labels with people based on their overriding impact on society, which isn’t the true judge of a person’s motives. This, one would think, would say in itself that a person isn’t good or evil until made so by those who give the label, and so aren’t naturally good or evil themselves.

    The first problem that arises in calling someone good or evil is, of course, the label’s ambiguity. Any traits or actions associated with the labels are given by society’s customs, which differ from place to place. This would mean that one considered good in a certain place could be the absolute essence of evil in another. This is seen in many cases, such as the war currently raging in the Middle East. Each side views their own as heroes while seeing the enemies as the vilest evil. The martyrs of the east are praised for their sacrifice while being persecuted for their terrorism, while the American soldiers are simultaneously called liberators and invaders. Also, it could be said that the fight between individualism and conservatism complicates the matter so much so that it is no longer effective to use these labels. While some people are called good for their individual ideas, their forces of change, others dismiss them as rebels offsetting the balance. On the other hand, these conservative forces are praised for their long-lasting stability, while persecuted by the rebels for their stagnation. I would say that, as nearly no two people would be able to give the same definitions of good and evil, they become nearly meaningless and nonsensical to use in any serious context.

    Also, when considering the concepts of good and evil, there comes the idea of predisposition. This states that a person’s life as a whole is dictated by the environmental factors at birth, then the actions and reactions between person and environment all the way up to death. While this may be a bit of a stretch for some, it has strong scientific backing and the benefit of not being a tautology. At birth, the only factors affecting a person’s life is their predisposed genetics and physical characteristics plus the environment, other people being included in this. Seeing as no other forces are added between birth and death, then life as a whole would be made up of these two: self and environment. If an object in its entirety is made up of only two elements, then what other thing would dictate the inner movements other than the properties of these two elements at the catalytic moment. This could be compared to flicking a marble at a group of other marbles. Only two things would dictate what happened here: the initial flicking of the marble, and the consequent reactions of other marbles being struck and striking each other. This would continue until they stopped moving (death). Now, given that people are simply a series of actions and reactions that’s natures are determined by outside forces, could it really be said that a person’s actions make that person good or evil. They are simply products of their environment, and in this case, it is the environment that should be given the label, not the person.

    Many would say,”If this is true, then why do we have conscious thoughts? Wouldn’t these thoughts be an outside influence which would upset the initial inertia?” Now, or conscious thoughts do have an effect on our lives, a very large effect, in fact. This would seem to imply that it is an entity separate from the other workings. This is not true; our thoughts are merely another product of environment, predisposition, and the reactions thereof, however large a product they may be. This can be proven in the direct relation between brain activity and thought activity. The chemical reactions and electrical pulses in our brain are simply another consequence of influences outside our control, even though these relations between thought patterns and brain reactions may be too complicated to yet understand. The genetics of the parents form the basic brain structure, which is the building block upon which the conscious mind is built based on reactions to the environment. While there may still exist some haziness as to the absoluteness of thought patterns, overall, it can be proven that these patterns are, as the rest of us are, shaped by nothing except environment and predisposition.

    Overall, I believe that the concept of good and evil has lasted far too long. It had its uses back when clear enemies needed to be defined for the purpose of morale, but that time is over. Now, the basic structure should be around morality, and this idea that it can be simplified into two categories simply perpetuates the ignorance with which many people view acts of both rebellion and conservation. The evidence stands before you: not only is the concept of good and evil ambiguous beyond the point of practical use, it has no backing in the face of the theory of predisposition, and its use has nearly no benefits in the modern era. So, there lies the choice; the idea that everyone is absolutely one way or that there is a mid-ground amidst this ambiguous chaos.


A bit lengthier than it needs to be, really, but it had to be to fulfill the criteria. Now, I've also written some voluntary paragraphs, if you could call them that. They're mostly just notes to myself in paragraph form. They are basically over the same topic, although they haven't bee at all revised, and I haven't so much as read them in months. Now, I do believe you had some questions.

1. The first ball gets rolling as the result of another series of actions and reactions. Basically, either there was one start to the series which I, as of yet, can't accurately explain (such as the Big Bang), or these reactions have existed forever.
2. This is simply part of the brain structure's reactions. It sees the action, and based off of memory, predicts what will happen in the future. If you saw an object you had never seen before which gave no clues as to its mass, you wouldn't be able to make an accurate guess as to its future actions, because you wouldn't have enough data to make the subconcious calculations.
3. If I'm not mistaken, you mean people's differing views of time relative to the viewed action, then their even more altered view of time during recollection. If this is the case, I believe that it is due to the fact that time isn't an observable dimension, such as height, width, and depth are. This goes back to another favorite theory of mine, which states that time is a dimension. If this is true, it is a dimension which we are unable to visually form a frame of reference. In the other three, objects act as a frame of reference to each other. As time moves though, this visualization breaks down into comparing an object's observable velocity to their movement, and then recording the result. This is a very complicated procedure for the brain to do almost instantaneously, though, and so the mistakes show through in the form of alterred perceptions of time.
4. I believe dreams are simply the side-effect of the brains differing activity during sleep. It is just that as the brain still has a slight amount of conciousness during REM sleep, it observes the organization and memory that has been proven to occur during sleep. The dreams' oddness comes from the fact that the logic center of the brain is the first to shut down as you become tired and fall asleep.

I'd love to answer the rest, but I have to go right now. I may be able to finish tonight, but no promises.

ETHEREAL

Swift shimmering shadow steps silently; saddened, still softly severing serenities, slicing sympathy staggering sturdily; suffering sarcastic solace. Never noticing naïve naiads nor narrows nor necrotic nethers nestled nearby; naughty neutral nocturnal nexus nevertheless normally nostalgic notions; noteworthy nemesis neo neurotic neuralgia. Exceptional effervescing elemental ephemeral entity experiencing euphoria everlasting eternally eschew evermore, Ethereal

Alright, I'm back. Now, where were we?

5. I think this is due to the fact that the brain tried to sort of fill in the blanks. It has been shown that whenever a person doesn't recall specific details, they will still believe they know them, and will proceed to tell the wrong truth. I believe the same phenomenon occurs whenever someone doesn't know part of something due to the fact they are ignorant of it. As they observe, they ignore some facts, which are then filled in by the brain.
6. I don't believe there is such a thing as choice. Whatever 'choice' is made, it always would have been made. It is one of those loops in which whatever happened had to happen. If, though, someone finds out through observation of data what will happen, then the new outcome will be the original outcome, so noone may ever find the true outcome. Sort of a paradox, but it makes perfect sense.

I just finished reading this last little part before I go grab a bite to eat. You would be right to assume that people do this activity of "filling in the blanks" whenever experience falls short, it's a self-preservation mechanism so the speaker "saves face". It's yet another delusion tactic for those who don't want to be wrong. YUP! Nailed that one. And that's what faith and belief are, filling in the blanks. The question I have is, how true-to-life is what's written in any book, or thought of in anyone's head truly, true to life? Experience is my answer, and probably most others too, right? Well, what about the conduit of perception? What if perception has the ability to fool us?
Basically, the model I came up with is a man in a box with out-dated equipment hooked up all backwards like. What happens if someone on the outside puts a motion picture of battles going on, with sound effects that simulate those experiences, but the person in the box only has the ability to perceive using this equipment. What happens if what he perceives he believes to be true and never questions it or his equipment? He would be out of his damned mind, when actually, all is fairly safe in the world. It's the WarGames movie all over again. Nobody questions their equipment, they just accept and move on, accept and move on. No questions asked. Well, I use the answers people give me to research other avenues to find common denominators in stories, poetry, science, mathematics. A tie-in thread if you will, that when pulled tight together will bind everyone and everything together in a perfect understanding of one another, but even that is stating an assumption of a yet-to-occur future. But the potential for it exists whether we want it to or not. Just like the potential for someone stealing money from a bank exists, even if the money isn't yet under any direct evidential threat. Now we are getting into the field of speculation and temptations. What drives a person to move their body? What choices do they make. If it's something destructive, and not very well planned, most likely their choice is backed by their chemical emotional steam-engines pushing them forward, the hotter the burn, the greater the pressure to move. Yes, I use metaphores, hyperboles, similies, and the like to explain something I don't understand, but the fact that I have something to use in order to find out something I don't know, is saying a lot. Most people just through everything about themselves right down the toilet and don't look back. It's truly sad. My speech, writing, thought processes and english have actually grown dramatically since I started using communication points. So, from what I do know, how much further will I go into that blackest abyss of unexplored space called the unknown? My answer will always be this, as far as it goes.

I simply love the poetic irrelevance of your posts. They cover so much of great import, yet most of it strays completely off the original track. I don't know whether to applaud you for your great thinking or give you a slap on the wrist for the rambling.

Now, I believe that there is no "true to life". Life is what the living make of it. There is most certainly no correct way to determine it. We may see something, but something that can't see the same spectrum of light may see something entirely different. It's all a matter of data gathered and interpretation, which both differ for every observer. To ask which observer is right is like asking which snowflake is right.

Bravo! That's the "true to life" answer. Congrats! Of course, try telling that to someone, and they'll probably tell you that you're a liar or a fraud. But, don't take my word for it, find out for yourself what's "true to life".

What is experience to one man is imagination to another. Which man are you?

You say that experience to one man is imagination to another, but I would say that experience is which imagination one deems worthy. If life is simply observation, then anything observable is part of life, including things such as hallucinations and dreams. So, only if two people were to 'imagine' the same event would this statement be true. I also think this would be the underlying truth you seek. The matching up of that imagination which the majority see as experience. But, when doing this you should remember: Where everything to become abstract, one wouldn't know how to make it mundane once more. Concept without application is nothing, so make your thoughts applicable.

Tell me what you think of this: (for every action there is an equal and opposting reaction)


                               ______________
                                Equal Reaction
                                (gain) + momentum
                                 of activity through
                                 reinforcement
________________  = 
Activity
(practice)                     _______________
Movement                        Opposing Reaction
                                 (loss) - resistence to
                                  activity

--------------------------------------------------------------
                              ________________
                               Equal Reaction
                               (gain) + Momentum
                               of inactivity through
                               reinforcement
_________________ =
Inactivity
(practice)                    _________________
Torpor                          Opposing Reaction
                                (loss) - Resistence to
                                 inactivity

(Post truncated cont)

                            ________________
                               Equal Reaction
                               (gain) + Momentum
                               of inactivity through
                               reinforcement
_________________ =
Inactivity
(practice)                    _________________
Torpor                          Opposing Reaction
                                (loss) - Resistence to
                                 inactivity
End Diagram

If something appears as a disadvantage at first, how may it be turned into an advantage? Everything and everyone has the POTENTIAL as a resource for your needs and wants.
Be it a need for money, shelter, food;
Be it a want for respect and love;
But, how to stay true to what is? <Question what is known.
Those that follow the path of Inactivity are unfortunately doomed to become delusional, preach mysticism, and doctrine. Why is this? From isolating factors and inactivity of conversation and cooperation. These people refuse to identify who and what they really are as individuals and believe they are "better off" as are we all. W...T...F? :|
I too used to fall into this category, until I learned that the ratio was flipped when it came to personal experience (practice)vs imagination (mysticism).

For 23 years it was experience 10%, imagination 90%.
for the just this year alone it has now flipped to a whopping 25% experience, 75% imagination. So, I'm simply less confused and delusional than I used to be, but that is due to taking the path of Activity and foregoing the pains of torpor resistences. God, those resistences piss me off.

All I'm saying is that we as delusional mystics simply have our ratio backwards. Everything is a source for activity, you just have to choose what path you want and use everything to your advantage be it activity or inactivity.

Activity   = Fire
Inactivity = Coal

Do you wish to become fire or be consumed by fire?
"To be or not to be?" That is life's big question.
The choice will always be yours to make, whether you make it or not.

(Post truncated cont)

Do you wish to become fire or be consumed by fire?
"To be or not to be?" That is life's big question.
The choice will always be yours to make, whether you make it or not.

Yes, this is the argument for liberalism at its best. Basically, the purpose of inactivity is stability and the purpose of activity is progress and betterment. Too much inactivity and you stagnate; overtaken by your changing surroundings. Too much activity, and you fall apart; the progress made doesn't have time to turn itself into a practice. The important thing is to maintain a balance, as with all things in life. I believe this has an application in many aspects. For instance, in governing, you need the ability to make changes, but the stability of partial ignorance. This is why Christian America is so successful. It is ignorance making changes, a subconscious balancing act that lets activity act with the consent of inactivity, and vice versa.

Now, as for your last question. I believe this is what separates the thinkers from the livers. Some live their lives, settle down with a nice family, get a middle class job, go to church, etcetera. These are the livers, the forces of inactivity. Then, on the other hand, there are the thinkers. They are among those who reject the long-standing ideas and replace them with their own. They make the forces of change.

I would say that these forces of activity would overtake the forces of inactivity, but this would be their undoing. Neither could exist without the other for any duration. Serious problems arise, mainly the above stated careless collapse.

So, I believe your analogy works quite well. The fire consumes the coal, but without the coal to consume, the fire may not exist.

You stated that wisely. Yes, I have considered the absoluteness of either or when I designed it. This is how I am beginning to see that all things are going.


Activity             = 66.00%
Inactivity           = 33.00%
Inertia              = 00.01%
Exciting influence   = 00.33%
Resistence influence = 00.66%


Day                  = 24 hours
Awake                = 16 hours
Sleep                = 8 hours

1st month
Investment    = $1000.00
ROI           = $1100.00  
Gross Profit  =  $100.00   (ROI-Investment)
Reinvestment  = $1090.00   (90%Gross+Investment)
Net Profit    =   $10.00   (10%Gross)

2nd month
Investment    = $1090.00
ROI           = $1199.00
Gross Profit  =  $109.00    (ROI-Investment)
Reinvestment  = $1188.10    (90%Gross+Investment)
Net Profit    =   $10.90    (10%Gross)

10:1 ratio


But to build credit as well, would also need this:

Loan          =   $100.00
Monthly pymnts=   $1.00 (1%)
Interest      =   $0.075(7.5%)
Mnthly pay ttl=   $1.075
Take home     =   $9.00
So long as the amount of money that you are loaned doesn't exceed more than 25% of your total net profit you will have a working profits and gains cycle of growth potential for future reinvestments as well as greater loan withdrawl. The numbers may be fictituous, but the method is sound. My uncle is actually practicing this method as we speak and makes money AND credit even if he is inactive. His gains are now the active element in paying off loans via credit cards and such. Since you can pay more over time, and with less per month. Let me know what you think.

Basically, the balance of 50/50 are incorrect due to other minor environmental details involved and movement forward in time.              
                 /-----\
   Debit        /+66.66%| Investments
_______________/_______/_____________________>
   +33.33%/   /           Loans
   Credit \--/

Pretty interesting, eh? Where else may this type of idea work? Energy perhaps?

The diagram also applies to business entrapreneurs vs consumers

Entrapreneurs = 10%(profits & gains, self-awareness)
Consumers     = 90%(debt management, self-preservation)

So, gains are great, spendature is low, potential for growth extremely high.

Ignorance is a great source of income, Entrapreneurs are great at turning natural resources to their advantage.
Ignorant people are a great source of credit, consumers are great at turning natural disasters to their advantage.

This isn't all accurate at all, just a layout that I'll refine over time, but this is what it looks like starting out.

This is the diagram, sorry bout that.

                 /-----\
   Debit        /+66.66%| Investments
_______________/_______/_____________________>
   +33.33%/   /           Loans
   Credit \--/

Right, well, seeing as I have next to no interest in money (pardon the pun), I see very little in all of this.  This is an extremely specific example of balance, but 90% of it strays way off-topic. A method for making money? I saw absolutely nothing relevant about it. Your diagram was ambiguous; what do the labels mean? Lastly, the idea that ignorance is simply a source of income was the mentality of some of the most horribly failed dictators. The whole population can't be classified as entrepreneur or consumer. That demonstrates an ignorance of the economy. If there were only two classes, one who made commodities to sell and one who bought said commodities, the system would collapse almost as soon as it started. Where would the consumers get the energy required to buy these commodities? Where would the supplier get the raw materials needed? No, it is a vast series of interconnected cycles which entrepreneurs are only a small fraction of. All that word means is that they started a business, and that just puts them in a different portions of the cycle. This is why economics is a bad example of activity and inactivity. And still, I try to discover what that first diagram/paragraph was about... I see a loophole in the banking system, nothing more. So no, it will not work with energy because energy doesn't use a system of interest.

Yesh, you are correct. Energy doesn't use a system of interest, because it is not money nor is it created by the hand of man. The similarities are there, but you need to look for them amidst the obvious differences, if not, this is yet another fine example of FAILYOUR to complete the scientific cycle of questioning and answering. Whatever the source may be, the ends are its source. The question and answer are self. The paradox leads back to the paradox, leads back to the paradox. The cycle will never end until one side is overwhelmed by the other. This is expressed in money, politics, debate and war; and where did this idea stem from? The discoveries of energy, and yet energy continues to flow even afterwards, so yes, what came first the egg or the chicken, I say energy. Energy contains both kinetic and potential, but there is movement and there is transference. What is moved and what is transfered? None of you see it, but are you really looking? *this is your question to answer for yourselves not mine to receive* Right now I'm turning a disadvantage into an advantage just as energy has the potential, money has the potential, life has the potential, ...does that mean God is potential? Something that can not be seen or measured as it has failed to happen YET, but it's signature is recognized by performing reverse mathematics of our easily perceivable reactive present? Does that mean action is the past? Where would then potential lie? The future perhaps? Could choice be that potential? Could hope lie in potential? How can we use that potential now? Could anyone have possibly perceived this idea before? I believe the people that created religion did infact. So, I truly believe we haven't even escaped the dark-ages. We are so immersed in darkness yet we continue looking into the light of the sun saying, "LOOK, I CAN SEE JUST FINE!"

And as for energy not using a system of interest.
Energy vs money:
Differences-
Money = waxes or wanes due to interest
Energy = has no form of interest....?

Similarities-
Money = Movement + Transference "Money management + Time Management"
Energy = Movement + Transference "Kinetic + Potential"

HMMMM.......

ITT: Pseudoscience.

>>66
Pseudointelligence

Well, I don't have much more to say on the topic of economics, especially not in its relation to energy, because I think the similarities are skin-deep. Anyway, I'm going to be away for a few weeks at a college, but try to keep this thread going while I'm gone. I'll check back if I get the chance, but the odds aren't in my favor. So, best of luck while I'm gone.

I hope you have fun at college, Krieger. I'll be here in hell burning the good burn. hehehehe. Just remember, without experience to back up the theory, the theory becomes mysticism. But then again, who is it I'm really intending to listen to such talk? ...*A2U thinking* ah shit...it's me isn't it..crap. *Heads back to cave*

Just privatise currency and let market forces decide. If energy is a good standard, then it should corner the market.

Equally likely is the possibility that god is incarnated as a human being and proceeds to found the one true faith.

Currency is privatized dumb-fuck! The Federal Reserve is a private corporation!!!! THE MINT, private corporation! When the government of US needs money, they call the mint and have some new bills printed...where does that value come from then???... US! THE US CITIZENS!!! JEZUS FUCKING CHRIST, GET SUM EDUCATION NOW AND STOP FUCKING AROUND ON 4CHAN.ORG, NUTTER!!!!

$<this is your GOD!

btw, what is the current value of the $1.00 bill?*you know, it has the face value of $1.00*

Oh...that's right...$0.04 cents was it? Yeah, we're rolling in the dough now. That God is a righteous one at that....whoreshit that, never. I'd rather barter and trade than allow someone else to devalue what I have worked my ass of for. FUCK THEM!

>>72
OK smartass, why isn't there more than one mint then?  Antitrust laws would bust the monopoly.

Ok, I'm back sort of. Messaging from Mizzou right now. Anywho....I don't believe that the topics of interest, corporations, or policies are at all relevant to this thread. How about this: let's discuss the origins of religion. Now, I'd like you to take a good scroll up and take a look at all the fine posting me and Anon2u did. Please note as well our refraining from common obscenities as a form of valid argument. Please, cite examples or valid forms of logic to back up what you're saying, or else it will regress into infantile jibber-jabber. I cite as an example the conversation that continued after I left, which was primarily composed of people calling each other dumb-fucks as they said what they though without a scrap of evidence. Now we've gotten to people like >>72
.....let's just not do that again. Anyway, I'd better get going, but I'll check back when I get the chance.

>>72
The Federal Reserve is quasi-public, in that it's a government entity with private components, but it was created by Congress.
The United States Mint is fully a government entity, and part of the Department of the Treasury.

I bet you're a Ron Paul fanboy too.

...>>76
Do even know what history is...First off, The Federal Reserve isn't a government entity with private components it's a private entity with government components and yes...it has a monopoly on your money. No, it wasn't created by Congress, it was voted into congress during christmas time when all of us were enjoying our turkey dinners and opening christmas presents. The US Mint is not a fully governmental entity as it is owned and run by the Federal Reserve, all the Department of Treasury does is keep that money flowing the way the Federal Reserve wants it to be flowing. Value out of The American People's pocket and back into the Government's hands which means it goes to pay of the national deficit (loan from the Federal Reserve + interest/comming out of our pocket) which is paid for by the American public by Federal Income Taxes which is supposed to be apportioned and we are supposed to receive a receipt to list and detail that apportionment...is this done?!?! NO! We just get raped and pillaged and everybody stands back up and says, "Thank you kind sir, may I have another?" Give me a fucking break. Do some fucking homework, talk to more people, find out that a lot of people don't want to do research...BTW, here's some reference materials...if you are willing to do research, if not, STFU and GTFO;

1862 - Creation of the Commission of Internal Revenue
1913 - Creation of the 16th Amendment and The Federal Reserve
1918 - Name change from Commision of Internal Revenue to Internal Revenue Service
1929 - Wall Street Market Crash

Plus check out references to Chamber of Commerce and its history, you'll find it was run much like an organized crime syndicate until responsibilities were shifted so that the right hand didn't know what the left was doing (plausible deniability) and the formation of corporations. You'll find that we are savage wolves, with the skin of sheep.
And if you go back further, check out the origins of NATO and how it was formed and why...Bricks will be shat.

This is the greatest power struggle our world has faced in quite some time, though there are historical references to similar events as well, after all we are human, aren't we?
Plus, before confronting me, do research, don't accept or deny what I say, instead challenge it and test its validity. You may find some fault in it, but what the fuck? How would you know I'm wrong without doing research...ah, the games that children play.

Ah...just woke up. What's up Krieger, I've not been to busy writing, I just got a job over at the local K-Mart re-designing their departments for the summer.

Ok, I have come up with a few things for people to do with their work, if they so please:

When someone is talking to you just keep in mind that they are talking about themselves as well as what it is that they are talking about, that is what they know. If you do this with them, what does it mean to you if you do the same to yourself?
Reference: Resepect/Self-Respect
Mysticism: What can be learned must be perceived, what is perceived is merely a reflection; for how else can we perceive the world around us, and how do we dispell our own mysticisms about what we believe and/or know, but to exercise and experience the details changing the way we think. 

To know yourself is to reflect your actions off of the tasks and gain the details from experience -dispelling presummed knowledge-, document them and catalog your growth.
These are the details of your lives, what are you going to do with them...throw them away as I have done in the past, or search and find what it is you're looking for out of this life? Best of luck.
btw, origin of religion doesn't really matter, only that it exists as a tool and how to use that tool to turn every disadvantage into an advantage. The church is doing a fine job already, but what about you?
You have hands, use them; you have eyes, use them; you have legs, use them. Else...those choices are yours as well, use them.

That seems to be the very idea that brought me here. Where is here? Well, you could say here at MSA, having the time of my life and learning more than I had in the previous two years, or you could say here, talking to someone who know the difference between surviving and living. Either way, it is the same. And yes, I see what you mean in the origin of religion, but that was all I could think about as being a valid topic at the time. Hmm, perhaps a more appropriate one would be in order. Ahh, is ignorance a bliss? A simple enough question, seemingly uninteresting in its premise, but more interesting i the questions that arise from it.

ignorance is a big seller. I was actually thinking of making a spoof commercial that sells ignorance and have all the marketting and advertising protocols involved.
Basically it would be a can of "iGnorAntZ" that a child drinks promoted by big busted women; an "iGnorAntZ" tape that teaches you how to be "iGnorAnt" with the appeal of body shaping. I would promote a penile extension drug that says, "iGnorAntZ" 500mg on it which is actually a placebo and there would be bunches of busty women hanging on the guy taking it. The best part is...it's absolutely FREE! Just $9.95 shipping and handling. Have your credit cards ready, operators standing by.

What do you think?

Ok, let's see; Where was I? Ah! I would have to give this explanation again. The only truth there really is is that of personal experience. If you don't do it yourself, you're either accepting what you're told or denying what someone's already experienced as non-existent. Both the latter points seem to be prevalent, that must be why the impoverished are the first to be made into fools. Would you say, Krieger?

Oh, and did any one bother to do the research on the history of The Chamber of Commerce? It would probably be interesting to some, because that is the ethics practiced in our modern day society. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing, this disjointed way of doing things is how business men stay businessmen and humble working class stay humble working class. It is confusing and as well it should, the purpose to disjoint work procedures is to throw of the scent of accountability of corporate leaders and thus the reason they adopted the "corporation is a person" law which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. No one person is responsible for the goings on of corporate activities...such ridiculous activities warrant a smack in the face, but I guess that would be the intangible face of the corporation, wouldn't it? So, once again, I'm here doing the wrong thing to find out why it's wrong so those that are too scared can maintain their own personal holodecks. Little do they know what's going on outside of their own house let alone outside of their own cities, their own countries, etc. So long as those people want to be safe, I get to make obsurd amounts of money off of them. Thank you for your agoraphobia and patronage as it has kept my business going for well over 10 years. God Bless you, America!

I am Baphomet,
god of the Templars,
advocate of the damned and guide of the souls through the underworld.
In the ancient mystery cults, a priest worshiped me as Abraxas,
As drawn as goats who unites aspects of the darkness and light in one single godly image; but in truth I am a substance imprisoned, the world-creating spirit who moves in the realms of the shapes.
For between my horns is a torch alight as symbol of the spirituality which allows itself to be perceived as light, for I am the bringer of light though the darkness belongs to my nature.
And so I bring to mankind the hidden knowledge when I appear in their minds as a field of energy, and they sense my thoughts and believe that they are their own: For I have no physical form, but I am just a point of light moving in their brains.
You too have just visualized me as an image, for I am the seed called insight by you, which leads the soul back to it's own origins.
Through me you encounter who you really are, and through me you lose yourself in the one whom you encircle in ever new images.
So I am the godly spirit, who has materialized himself in order to show you how you can form ideas from energies and then, from these, substance.
And now you arise in me out of the force of totality as a spark of god, projected into space and time.
For it is I who creates you through feeling you because you are a part of that which is I, for I am anything which is.
Only when I have completely penetrated you, is all the longing of the flesh assuaged.
Then you will become like god and recognize good and evil.
But understand that I am more than just the part which touches you here, and you are more than just the the part which you encapsulate, for our symbol is the phoenix, the symbol of rejuvenation, the legendary Egyptian eagle of the skies with red and golden plumage, who burns in its nest of myrrh and rises ever new from its own ashes.
The final answer to all questions are you yourself, in the innermost eye which conceals itself from you, because it itself is the seeing, for I am the symbol of the spirit which recognizes itself which looks itself in the eye and of a glance recognizes itself in its own eye and of the shadow which conceals itself in light.
In the recognition of the recognized, beyond understanding, mankind knows, without knowing, that he knows. For now he knows why he cannot know, but because he knows this, he knows--and is silent! Only in silence is there nothing more which could be expressed in words, and it is no longer a matter of the images behind the truth, but of the truth behind the images and that throws the one who recognizes back upon himself: upon the truth behind the mask behind which is image of the recognition hides!
For I am nothing because I am all! For being everything I need not be anything else, for I am NOW; the all-encompassing, all-penetrating, all-illuminating “I myself!”

Poeple scared of lightning.

How about the origin of religion is because religion is real.

Dr. Andy Thomson have some ideas that you might enjoy:
Why We Believe in Gods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

Here's a question for ya folks; why do those that believe in God believe him to be in human image?

Here's another coinciding question; why do those that don't believe in God have a mechanical viewpoint of how the universe and all things function?

And the finale? Which of these two types of people are human in being and doing? Please explain your answer. :3

/frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}

-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}} /over 2a

-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac} /over 2a

-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac} \over 2a