Evidence

Will the sun come up tomorrow morning?  What will happen if you mix an acid with a base?  

Why do you think you know the answers?  You haven’t camera footage of tomorrow morning to review; you haven’t ever mixed that acid with that base.  So why do you think you know what will happen?  

In making decisions based on evidence one is discriminating, in the way that discriminating between things is absolutely essential to existence.  For someone working in a laboratory to make certain things happen with certain chemicals, the classification of certain things as acids and of certain things as bases is necessary.  Just like “Do not walk into a wall if you want to go through.  An open doorway is instead better.”  This is the way constantly using evidence and discriminating based upon that evidence is useful to living things such as people.  

Humans have to constantly discriminate between different types of things in order to do anything.  For further example, one picks up a pen to write on a sheet of paper, but one does not pick up a desk to write on a sheet of paper.  If one is intending to type the letter A, one does not hit the key for the letter L; if one does, one has made a mistake.  Because discrimination is so truly constant and absolutely necessary, social admonitions that one should not discriminate are ridiculous.  Such admonitions are also hypocritical, because making them requires discriminating (discriminating between different sounds in order to speak, or between different shapes in order to write, the desired words).  

In addition, such admonitions also employ the old Christian standby that humans are magical and different from other things because God made it be that way.  The idea that humans should be exempt from the discrimination that is constant everywhere else in the verse is Christian.  Evolution changed breeding populations of humans over hundreds of thousands of years, of course, but in the Christian era one is not supposed to say that; one is supposed to say instead that Jesus made the predecessors to all the people from the same Middle Eastern mud.  

The "common origins" stories repeatedly told in the Bible (everyone had to come from the same cosmigasm from which Jahweh made all, and then from the couple in the paradise-garden, everyone had to be related to Noah of the Ark, etc.) are this.  When preachers now advocate for more immigrants (Catholic priests; popes; Protestant reverends; etc.), they are being Christian--S.R. made all people in His image.  The way that Jesusian Christianity is designed to promote/legitimize immivasion is not something we often now think of, but it can be visible.  No one now remembers, but traditional Christianity was designed to break Europe via immigration; by saying that every man was a brother.  The rationale for "everyone is the same fundamentally; only a randomly created culture is different" was used to make the initial Christian takeover seem to make sense.  Its employment now for continuing immigration into Europeoid societies is not surprising: that is what Christianity is.  

Within evidence, there are different kinds of evidence.  There is firsthand, eyewitness evidence, such as, “I saw it with my own eyes.”  Then, there is evidence that is not as good, such as secondhand, hearsay, like “I heard him say that he saw it with his own eyes.”  Following that pattern, there are descending levels of worse kinds of evidence, such as “Everyone is saying that it happened.”  Somewhere near the nadir is faith: "It happened because I decided it did."  

The way that different kinds of evidence lend themselves to truth or mistruth is why there were arguments over science.  Because the existence of S.R. (“Oh, Jesus helped me feel better!”) is not ever evidenced, the conflict between consensus and evidence arose.  What makes science different is that it establishes standards of what kind of evidence is reliable.  Reliable evidence, for example, can be duplicated, and it is falsifiable.  Faith is not, which is why there is never proof that S.R. did anything.  (Nor was there ever evidence, nor ever will there be evidence.)  

There was an “enlightenment” when people were supposed to start responding more to evidence and less to faith.  The occurrence of the Enlightenment, however, was a deception: people never actually started responding more to evidence and less to faith.  They started officially considering responding to evidence to be a better way to behave than responding to faith.  In reality, though, they continued responding more to consensus about preference (faith).  This can be seen in how people refer as truth to what the mass media has said even when it is ridiculous, and when they mock those who question those preferred stories.  

Real evidence does not mean observation of the event about which the evidence is telling you something.  For example, when you are determining what a substance will do when it is mixed in water, you do not film that substance being mixed in water.  Rather, you refer to other types of that substance being mixed in water.  It is the same with the types of complex substances which are known as people.  People are composed of many cells, and based upon the arrangement of those cells, you can determine how they are very likely to respond to a certain kind of stimulus.  As such, most people possessing a certain kind of genetic arrangement will respond a certain way.  

Given this, when you see a certain type of person manifesting a certain type of behavior repeatedly, it is indicative of what that type of genetic arrangement will do.  What prevents the use of this kind of information is the faith that people are magically different than other things.  Thus it is popularly thought that the evidence they produce cannot possibly be useful, and that it is forbidden—an act of hatred—to express that there is such evidence.  

If one has a non-magical, non-faithful perspective on existence, one can utilize types of evidence that can allow them to figure out certain things which are very remote in time.  So, if people possessing a certain type of genetic arrangement cause people possessing a certain other generic arrangements to behave in certain ways in certain situations, then details about what happened in the past can be understood.  Just like if you perform a chemistry experiment, something blows up, and you figure out why that happened, then residue of a lab and an explosion can show you what probably happened.  What happened in situations where other types of evidence were not kept is explicable.  

The spread of Christianity is then explicable.  For example, if you have noticed that people possessing a certain type of genetic arrangements cause certain types of behavior, then you can figure out what happened.  Either humans are magically different than all other forms of life, or they are not—they are just another form of life.  

Provided with a certain amount of calories over the course of a certain time, a lion presented with a steak will behave in a certain way.  This is because the lion’s brain will be telling it “Get calories or else!  ZOMG he’s putting a steak down there EAT IT NOW LET NOTHING STOP YOU!”  

Drawing upon your prior knowledge of lions and what they do with meat, it is very easy to figure out what happened to the steak placed by the hungry lion.  It is not unscientific, not a guess, to say what will happen to that steak.  

Consider now ^CE2003 U.K./U.S./etc. v. Iraq.  Either there was an invisible sky man who wanted—we mean, there were lots of W.M.D. in Iraq and a lot of people had to be killed to save us all from those W.M.D., or certain genetic structures are likely to say things that aren’t true in order to accomplish their objectives.  Evaluating how those genetic structures act can teach us about how Christianity originally spread.  The occurrence of “stupid White people who say they believe in an invisible sky man” is active also.  

We have seen how gullible White people act when it comes to reassuring themselves and others that they are doing very good, very humane things when they are actually doing very horrible, extremely inhumane things.  The existence of people intelligent (not good; intelligent—Decay) enough to see to what White people are vulnerable, which people are inhumane enough to use it to cause White people to do those horrible things, can explain a lot of history.  

Remember: when you can draw a reasonable assumption about how something will react when it is mixed into something particular, you are not doing so because you have evidence that that stuff is going to act a certain way.  What you have is evidence that that type of stuff acts a certain way when mixed into that something particular.  When things are historically obfuscated, or in other situations in which certain types of evidence will never be available, the evidence of genetic arrangements is still there.  There are billions of human carriers of genetic arrangements on this planet, and if you are strong enough to make a study, it can very easily be found out why and how certain things happened.  

Things like “why did a lot of people of European descent decide to fight, kill, and maybe die for an invisible rabbi who lives in the sky” seems like something that happened so long ago it can’t be understood.  However, if we think about it like we think about “why did a bunch of people of European descent decide to fight, kill, and maybe die to stop lots of W.M.D.” then it becomes something we can understand.  Evidence is not gone—just like mixing acids with bases causes a certain reaction in chemistry, mixing certain kinds of human genetic arrangements is the same way: the evidence for what happened is there.