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.

>>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?