Affiliate Marketing Secrets

Prior to the 1960s, war was considered to be the product of industrialized nations and civilizations. It was thought that civilizations fighting for territory and religion were the only wars ever fought. The first wars were for territory, and when more religions sprouted up, there were wars over religions. Anthropologists thought that tribes and villages were peaceful, and were not affiliated with a warfare culture. All tribes they encountered were relatively peaceful, and were even compliant to researchers.
They were wrong.
Small tribes had to be gathering resources, hunting and gathering were the primary focus. But, once a tribe has gotten big, say a couple villages, resources plentiful, and population stable, the culture shifts. All of the tribes researched prior to the 60s had some sort of intervention with civilized society. In fact, there was evidence that tribes were violent, like the Sioux, Cherokee, and Utes. But those examples weren’t ever used to prove that even tribes had warring states. In fact, they were blatantly disregarded as proof. (That pisses me off, since I myself am 1/4 Native American, Pueblo Indian, so they didn’t disregard my ancestry, but still offended.) there was no specific reason why this evidence wasn’t classified as proof, but I think it was civil unrest toward Native Americans.
The tribe studied which brought this subject up for debate was the Yanomamö tribe. Napoleon Chagnon studied them, totally surprised by their culture. They pretty much adopted civilized culture when the closest form of it was on the opposite side of the globe. South America was full of tribes that faced close to no civilized intervention, but still had wars, culture of honor, similar religions, even the same weapons. The bows and arrows in the Americas were way beyond their time, and more efficient than the firearms made until the late 1800s. Clubs they made were similar to maces, and blades they made were very sharp and help edges after impact, like primitive swords.
The Yanomamö wars were primarily over women, the Men were concerned with honor, and had a sort of culture based off of reputation and nobility. This organization was so similar to feudal Europe, it inspire Napoleon Chagnon to name the book he wrote about the Yanomamö, “Noble Savages”.
Wars are fought for many reasons, but the most profound reason they are fought is for religion. The Crusades and the constant wars between Spain, France, and England were over Christianity. Wars over Jihad are being fought today in the Middle East. Nearly every religion has been fought over, even Buddhism. Hell, if you consider Atheism a religion, it also has a substantial kill count, among the highest, but Atheists have always been stubborn in claiming Atheism is not a religion, but that is for another time. My point is, even atheism isn’t immune to wars fueled by belief.
But war has been proven to be a catalyst in innovation. Anthropologists still debate whether which was made first, weapons or tools? Tools would make sense, but weapons make more sense. The fact is, weapons made for killing game and rival tribes were tweaked to become tools, or something vice versa. But that fact alone should prove that innovation is fueled by war.
The most profound and incredible example of this was Nazi Germany. Ever since Adolf Hitler took control of Germany, he built his military up, while spending a lot of money and time researching to make his weapons better. The research done made some of the first ballistic missiles, the most efficient bombs, and the first stealth technology. The easiest way to prove how ahead the nazis were was occasionally the Nazis would bomb warships, and the bombs would be so aerodynamic and so fast that they would often tear through warships and sink into the sea before exploding. The bombs were too aerodynamic and fast for the warships to handle. They also made some of the most dangerous tanks in history, and equally dismal planes. Some even argue that Nazi Germany was only defeated because of the enemies’ sheer numbers, Britain, France, the United States, and of course Soviet Russia.
If the world was warless, there would be a strangulation on innovation. Whether it be war on religion or war over territory, war is the mother of innovation, while necessity is the father.

they might in the case of christianity and islam but what about judaism, hinduism, buddhism, shamanism, or zorastrianism? there are no hells for apostates in those religions so their is no fear involved.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the association between religion and suicide either in terms of Durkheim’s social integration hypothesis or the hypothesis of the regulative benefits of religion. The relationship between religion and suicide attempts has received even less attention.
METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.
RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.…

I found out that Sweet Frog donates some of the money they make to Christian churches and organizations, and that kind of made me stop going there. Am I being petty or does this sort of thing happen to others as well?

I find it interesting. Maybe they are just seeking to understand, I can identify with that. There are groups of atheists that choose not to be affiliated with religion and don’t even like the term “atheist” because of the religious connotation. Someone said something to me one time that the presence of atheists in religious discussions has to do with reverse propaganda because evangelicals spend so much time forcing their views on others. So is it an eye for an eye thing? Is it a attempt to win converts? I know that it can’t be the goal of the atheists and believers on yahoo to just to troll one another daily with such tenacity and rudeness as is so often displayed with no higher motive in mind. Maybe they should have an atheism section in the yahoo answers categories. I am not a religious person, I am not an atheist either, I did join the site ‘think atheist’ however. I like having conversations with atheist because they tend to be able to look at religious topics objectively and their only bias is that they consider it all to be bullsh*t lol. Even on the blogs like “Think atheist” which are geared directly at the atheist community there is a lot of religious discussion. What are some ways that atheists can distance themselves from the drama of religion? I know the late Christopher Hitchens considered it a personal goal to expose religion for its innate destructive aptitude, and the role of brainwashing in the worldwide community. So there is that.. but then on the other hand I believe it was Stephen Hawking who proposed that atheists call themselves “brights” to avoid the connection with the idea of a deity. I don’t think it has quite the same ring to it but it certainly presents a better connection of being intelligent which would be a step in a positive direction. I realize this kind of a loaded question. What do you think? by the way, it is not my intention to offend anyone or to come across as a troll. I hate trolls, i think they should be put i thunder dome an forced to fight to the death. thanks 🙂

Here is why I ask…
Super bowl commercial “Atheism” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGcPjAH2i…
Super bowl commercial “Scientology” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y800s8y9…
They are the same video, and I didn’t know atheism & scientology are the same thing or not, or what is the difference, is there any connection between the two?