Religion

First of all, it seems to be a common deduction that if someone don't follow a religion, that they don't believe in god. It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or "against" in practically any matter, and while it may be true in some cases, normally, it is not, except in extraordinary cases where the ignorance of the said 'victim' is comparable to the said challenger. Just because you are not religious, does not make you anti-religious. Now, before I continue, I must say that I am not challenging anyone's beliefs, I am not trying to say they're wrong, I am not trying to say that I am religious, atheist, or agnostic, and most importantly, I am not trying to say that I am right. I have never talked to an atheist, agnostic, or a religious follower about what they believe, this is just a compilation of what I have derived from my observations. I also won't challenge any views on the terms atheist or agnostic or any other forms of the word, simply because they are irrelevant.

First off, I'll explain my theory of the majority of atheist views. Starting out with a fact, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something that does not stand within well defined boundaries, such as god. While there are many different types of atheists, I think that one thing is generally believed among atheists; if God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Therefore, his interaction with our universe must be, in principle, detectable. I'm going to assume that a natural response to this statement is that god is essentially undetectable, by that means, god would have no physical manifestation on this plane of existence. I'm sure that atheists would argue that if god does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. In terms of existence; A thing which cannot even be detected, in principle, does not logically exist. Relating this to the agnostic belief; there is simply a lack of proof, therefore, the lack of belief. Understandable in most cases.

The first conclusion that I have derived over the years is that reality is not decided by logic. Even if you could rigorously prove that God exists, it wouldn't actually get you very far. It could be that your logical rules do not always preserve truth, that your system of logic is flawed. It could be that your premises are wrong. It could even be that reality is not logically consistent. Unfortunately, the only way to find out what is really going on, in a sense, is to observe it. Logic serves as a means of observing - helping you find a way to "look". A few years ago, I ran into this example, which has proven quite helpful:

"Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact," but uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along."

I remember that the author of this referred to it as the redefinition game, where most philosophical discussions end up. This is part of the problem when discussing the situation based on the many definitions of god that people can have. Then, due to that situation, you have to define morality, and its relation to belief as a whole.

Social Engineering

Social engineering is a very uncommon term, as I bring it up with people, it's interesting to see their reaction, as most people think that it's a term that I have created, so they just play along. The truth is, social engineering is a hacker's most valuable tool. It can be used to gain anything that a hacker wants, as long as it is executed properly.

As I stated in my last post. if you can get your opponent to believe that you should know, or no harm will come from you knowing, you have essentially won. Now, this mainly consists of false trust. This is developed by you making your opponent think that you are close and honest to him/her. The more trust he/she has for you, the better. This is a very complicated topic, so I will provide an example.

• If you call an ISP claiming to be the CEO for a corporation that receives internet services from them, you must be friendly, make the operator think that you care about them. This is for two reasons, this is not normal for them, being that they low status, they expect to be treated as such, also, if you do specific things, such as remember their name, and ask them how their day is, they feel important. The human psyche can be manipulated by simply doing something out of the ordinary. Of course, you need a reason to be calling them. I would suggest "the internet is going slow." If you seem dumb, it can be useful for when you claim that you forgot some information.
  
• Now, being "the CEO" if you call back at a later day and ask to speak with them, and greet them by their name, this is also out of the ordinary. Already they are willing to be more open with you regarding information. After you do this a few times, you can attack.
• So now that you are friends with the operator, and have called them a few times, been friendly, found out a little about them. You can simply tell them something to the effect of "I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I seem to have forgotten my login and password, could you refresh my memory?" At this state, he/she will probably respond with "yeah, sure, one moment please." Because he/she is talking to a "CEO" they should be more than happy to help. The only trick is making sure that he/she knows you well enough at that point where he/she doesn't need to ask for verification. If he/she asks you for the last four digits of your SSN, then you hang up, and you've lost.

Now, if your opponent is too smart for their position, then you can run into problems. Such as if they decide to test you early into the conversations.

Deception

Deception is one's most powerful tool in any circumstance. It can be used to retrieve information, gain the upper hand, or whatever you might be trying to achieve.

The most notable situation that deception can be used, is combat. If engaging in such combat, there are a number of ways that the art of deception can be put into play. The most useful way of deceiving your opponent is presenting him/her with a false weakness. The people most likely of noticing your flaws, are your enemies, simply because they are searching for them. Therefore, if you present them with a false weakness, they will take it, and from that, you have the upper hand by knowing what they are planning and how to defend against it.

Other than combat, the most important thing to relate deception to, is social engineering, which is covered in another post. Deceiving your so-called opponent in order to gain information from them is a valuable skill. If you can get your opponent to think that you should know something, or no harm will come from letting you know. You have won.

Remember: If you perceive your enemy as having a weakness, it becomes their strength. It is important to keep that in mind so you are able to see what they are hiding, this applies to both explanations, it is up to you to realize how.