You are really really smart. I gotta hand you that.

 

But there is a difference between assumption and intuition.

 

They are ways of dealing with the unknown... however an assumption is where you try to force an answer that you are unsure about.

 

Intuition is based is based on trust. Trust in an inner knowledge that isn't necessarily based on logic. It comes effortlessly.

 

Not my words, and to be honest I actually had to google it cause I was at a loss of how to explain the difference.

 

Now listen, when I say your really smart, I ain't trying to flatter you, I'm genuinely impressed at how fast you can pull together a rational argument.

 

Now that being said, you seem to put your trust in a lot of head knowledge, and I do emphasize you seem to rather than you do, so as not to sound like I'm saying you ain't got no instinct, which you likely do to some indefinite degree.

 

But I'm gonna just tell ya what I've learned the hard way, and I sure hope you take it and put a modicum of stock in it. It could help you out one day.

 

You can't trust in your head knowledge alone... especially if you like science a lot. (Hoping I've inferred correctly) Science is fundamentally flawed, and as not to derail this topic, pm me and I'll be more than happy to debate the issue alone as a mutually exclusive thing apart from my religious beliefs.

 

More important than that though, is cause it can give you a big head. The more intricate, elegant, and well put an intellectual explanation is, the more convincing the error if the explanation is false and the more convincing the error seems to be.

 

As for Russia invading us, I trust in human natures predictability (and unpredictably), history (in the sense civilizations have been wiped out before, unexpectedly), and Gods promises. It's intuitive and I'm not trying to force an answer because I'm unsure of the future.

 

My intuition may be incorrect...maybe my correct intuition of the situation led me to assume that Dudumans prophecy is God inspired instead of just coincidental. Heck of a coincidence, but I'll permit it for sake of argument...not that I really wanna debate the subject anymore.

What decides assumption and intuition are association. I read briefly some chapters in a book about early society supernatural beliefs(magic). One of the oldest villages they found evidences for or, something it was years ago. What I do recall though is that they tried to get it to rain through mimicry, and through contact. Thats how they thought the world worked because for all they knew the world made no sense, except operated in specific ways. They thought contact with something good would cause someone to not get sick perhaps. The part I really recall though is sorta like rain dances, except they thought more specifically if they made rain noises with various items they could trick the world into causing it to rain. Like they thought if they could simulate rain exactly, except the fact theres no rain, that it'd suddenly fill in the blank irl, and with rain. Its sorta like lets say life is normal but no one discovered fire, ever yet for some reason, so some people see fire they flip out thinking its supernatural, others think they caused it and try simulating the events leading up to it to get it to happen. Now imagine that culture has no fiction and no history. This causes anyone's guesses to really be the same, and their 'best bet' and lack knowledge involving it entirely, then its the only way they know how to do it. So they appoint this witch doctor or oracle etc, someone who specializes in creativity perhaps. They say hey you do it, and if you make guesses they are better than ours you spend a lot more time on this than I do. So what do they say when it doesn't rain or their crops don't grow? The aztecs said hey, theres not enough blood in the soul, I think that helps crops *human sacrifices become a part of their culture*. But to make it more complicated, when they are farming right and this stuff happens it promotes religion. For instance, they have a population boom, their food becomes inadequate during a dry spell so they think they are doing poorly, they ask why is the dry spell occurring? Mystic guys say well if I had to guess its probably the person is mad who makes it rain (as they are mad its not raining so it doubles as psychological projection). So village gets mad, demands some blood or something to calm their nerves, thats how rituals start, people feel unease when no actions are taken against a threat. So by doing something like, sacrificing extra people so you don't starve, and covering for its immorality (because you don't want everyone to start killing themselves) you say the blood helps the crops grow. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/05/the-darker-link-between-ancient-human-sacrifice-and-our-modern-world/But the bible, after mentioning nomadicism as the garden of eden, god asked for some guy's son to get sacrificed, out of the blue. I know that wouldn't happen unless it were a thing, why mention human sacrifice if it were unheard of? It'd be like, uh, ok? Anyways, I will compare the old testament to the ancient celtics, they had human sacrifice and loved some battle and heroism. Point is even before the abrahamic faith they had human sacrifice, and it made sense, I mean they have crop offerings and animal offerings. But one guy learned something similar to the stuff in the art of war, perhaps a group of people, and decided that hey its more good for our people to have more land and things. So why not take down other cities and such? I mean sure some of those didn't happen and were just for show, others were because of conflicts. Some legit were just pillaging, thats why when they mention taking a smaller force upon a city it has a tactical benefit (don't need to feed as much people and taking too much ensures less work gets done back at home, some tactics like this are in the art of war, don't send 1million to 5 thousand right, itd be too expensive.) But then they specifically mention zero casualties. So either they wanna sound tough, wanna sound like their god is real, or if they did actually have zero casualties (and they dont wanna lie to their own people if they would find out about it, they'd prolly get killed) so I think its they just plain pillaged a place. Slaughtered them for land. Besides if you have only so much people, they can only do so much babysitting of sheep, and if you only have so much land your sheep won't be able to be sustained. They had enough livestock, and needed land. (turns out too much livestock promotes dry-lands, if you research how wolves help the ecosystem, it'd be ironic or such if thats what happened to Israel, and it helps give them the idea of heaven because its not an entirely original idea, people didn't have those back then. 'nothing new under the sun', The idea of a promised land came from them speaking promises of new grazing lands, its also how speaking of being a shepherd like Jesus and such was a popular idea. Sheep don't do much, they only get sheered (pay taxes) and follow their leaders. The meek will take the land? That means the sheep who are passive will get land to graze on, it means those who follow their leaders will work and get taxed, just like we see the catholic church doing in the 1400s with serfs and such. Probably what got to their heads was false equivocation of their success, with their people's wellness, and because they arent in villages anymore being elders or mystics or priests, they can live in a wealthy place entirely dissociated with the truth of their actions. They break commandments and stuff, they kill their people to set them straight putting heads on pikes and one pope around then said what has the fable of christ not given us? Emphasis on fable).

 

Why I am smart though? Curiosity, at the time I learned these things, then I just kept a rationalizing habit. Also the belief that everything can be understood. When I was a christian I was curious, it was hell or heaven of course I wanted to do it right. That curiosity I googled stuff like dowsing, astral projection, magic, etc. I wanted to combine science and magic. Eventually when I learned of some of the hypocrisy of the catholic church that was the first time I didn't just dismiss that atheism was obviously wrong, I actually thought it might have a chance of being right, it flooded, I felt betrayed and deceived like my life was a lie. I grew a little bitter or resentful, but initially still believed in pseudo-science, eventually because of educating about things like how to discern the true information a study says (very context specific fyi) and learning how to recognize pseudo-science through leaps of logic (like A therefore C, rather than A and B proves C. For instance, epigenetics I googled, they can change, its dna changing, and it changes based on our behavior therefore people can shapeshift over a long enough period of time if they tried to! Then people said if that were true then thered be a lot of people doing that already. And I'm like, oh.. right.. Then eventually with logic driven into my skull over the course of two years in different debate forums that were moderated (very important, otherwise it just is opinions, superiority complexes, and trash talk) eventually my curiosity of such things plus thoroughness lead me to think like a debunker, and trying to find the truths behind things others thought were real. It taught me how to disagree with people as well. Getting trolled here and there I also head to discern motivations of people and gauge behaviors on limited information to prevent say typing out an acre of information just for people to ignore it or insult me or troll me etc.

 

Eventually I came here. Now this is a very thorough explanation, prolly gave more than I should. But I think understanding is what can change sides, I forget that alot though because if I fall into a habit of sharing or hearing the same arguments repeatedly its kind of easy to make assumptions and be a little impatient. 'Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them' - Albert Einstein. This is why i can be blunt and presumptuous at times. Funny how belief can shape action, which is why I am going through the trouble giving you a longer explanation, besides the shorter explanation I kind of already gave. And you actually do consider what I am saying, even if its taking you some time to warm up to it, and I think that was because of explanations not fact sharing.

 

And maybe because I heard of some of this chaos magic stuff before but was holding back on mentioning it specifically in case I forgot anything, or misrecalled, or made myself seem silly. So I can ask to find out, when you say chaos magic do you mean like, psychologically priming yourself to change outcomes of events? If you ask me, its related more to confidence than anything. http://www.livescience.com/8392-superstitions-bring-real-luck-study-reveals.htmlConfidence, or moral is important for sports, and if you read or listen to the art of war I think its sort of interconnected. Not entirely though, but they do mention moral and morality are what help shape outcomes. If you are seen as immoral it suggests the commoner is against you, a longer term warfare would not be wise to take such a course of actions as you would have struggles and traitors commonly. If your people have high confidence (moral not morale, the words are prolly related though in origin) your troop's actions will not be hesitant, they won't retreat out of fear or indecision, and they will not abandon the fight.

Source: Russia will invade us.