Affiliate Marketing Secrets

This is not a religiously oriented question. I don’t care what faith you have, scientific or religiously verified conclusions are welcomed. Though, I am someone who appreciates scientific verification’s above religious rhetoric or philosophy. I do not like to put faith in things that cannot be verified or recognized to be slightly probable.
The extent to which we can calculate or figure out probabilities is determined by our intellectual capability to recognize patterns. The less bias we are, or how receptive we are to new information that may oppose our current world view, the clearer we can identify these patterns and base our actions on reasonable probabilities. Since it’s in the very nature of our brain deny ideas that do not fit into our current paradigm, the more attached we are to a belief system, the less able we are to make conscious choices for ourselves.
Therefore, I make it clear I am not basing my question on a religious foundation, nor am I not excluding religious probabilities. I am not biased, and I am not looking for biased results in this question. If you believe life after death or don’t, I would like to know what information you are using to base your faith on that particular probability.
Though, desiring a response from an Atheist may seem pointless and obvious, however, there is indeed information non-religiously affiliated that would be appropriate enough to put faith in a probable afterlife. I wont go into detail, because it is irrelevant to my question, but understand I am desiring answers from all aspects of beliefs and faiths.
God, or Godless, what do you think is the fate we all share when we die? Nothing? Afterlife?

Well, during my long nights before sleep, I have on more than one occasion gone ahead and tested my reaction times. However, I’ve always been struck by how far below the bell-curve I am when it comes to the average– the average being around .2s.
I average at .3, .26 if I concentrate.
Now, it may be my ego convincing my consciousness that there is something amiss here, but I have 2 things that I think may be affecting the testing data I’ve seen-
1. Lag
2. Prediction
The most common form of test I’ve seen is one in which you are to wait for a light or other indicator change, red to green per se, and you are to click or press a button as soon as you can.
The most obvious skew here is that users with shoddy internet access could have either consistently or unevenly lower results.
However I would think if anything this effect would drop the average, even if it can account for a single person’s low score.
The second alteration I can see would be people attempting to preempt the clock, and in doing so get ridiculous times of .1 or less. Even with min-time limits, a lucky series of clicks, or a well-crafted system for timing probabilities can easily produce results that would destroy the bell-curve.
Testing the second point, in under ten minutes I was able to get 4 consecutive times in under .15s, one of which at .03s. But this is mostly because there is no feasible way to prevent false-start statistical skewing so long as they manage to get lucky– there is no system in place for many of these tests to prevent this, and even if there were, (deducting .5s for false-starts for example), one would simply have to restart whenever they mistime a click, and eventually a highly-above-average result is all but guaranteed.
now gimme my Ph.d.