Learning how to read a person's body language is very essential in socialising and not just when it comes to attracting the opposite sex.
Reading body language
Doesn't matter whether she is interested in you, you'll make her interested eventually anyway:) But look for these signs to show you whether you're already making progress:) It's also fun to look for these signs as a by-stander, either in everyday situations or for example in a bar - when the guy earnestly believes he is being sooo smooth but the woman he is talking to isn't displaying any of the signs presented below, you can't help but have a chuckle about it:)
Her lips:
Big smiles with upper and lower teeth showing with a relaxed face.
Biting of the lips or showing of the tongue, licking her lips or touching of her front teeth.
She wets her lips, some women use only a single-lip lick, wetting the upper or lower lip, while others run the tongue around the entire lip area.
She puts her fingernail between her teeth.
She protrudes her lips and thrust her breasts forward.
Her eyes:
She gazes in your eyes with deep interest and her pupils are dilated.
She raises both eyebrows exaggeratedly for a couple of seconds, this is often combined with a smile and some eye contact.
She winks at you while talking to you or winks at you from a distance.
While talking to you, she blinks more than usual, fluttering her eyelashes.
Eyebrows raised and then lowered, then a smile indicates interest in you.
Her hair:
She pushes her fingers through her hair. This can be one hand movement or more of a stroking motion.
She twirls her hair around her fingers while she is looking at you.
She is throwing her hair back off her shoulders.
Her clothing:
The hem goes up to expose a little more leg.
She is fixing, patting or smoothing her outfit to make herself look better.
While she is seated:
She moves in time to the music, with her eyes on you.
She starts sitting straight up and her muscles appear to be firm.
She is sitting with her legs open.
She sits with her legs crossed in a manner to reveal her thigh.
Her legs are rubbing against each other.
Her legs are rubbing against the leg of the table.
Her crossed leg is pointed towards you or if that same leg is rocking back and forth towards you.
Her hands:
She exposes the palms of her hand facing you.
While talking to you, she rests an elbow in the palm of one hand, while holding out her other hand, palm up.
She rubs her wrists up and down.
She rubs her chin or touches her cheek. This indicates that she's thinking about you and her relating in some way:)
She is fondling keys, sliding hands up and down a glass, playing with toys or other things on the table.
She plays with her jewellery, especially with stroking and pulling motions.
She touches your arm, shoulder, thigh, or hand while talking to you (in case you already haven't started doing the same to her yourself, dumbass:).
She is pretending to look at her watch as you pass her.
Her voice:
She raises or lowers the volume of her voice to match yours.
She speeds up or slows down her speaking to match yours.
She laughs in unison with you.
In a crowd she speaks only to you and focuses all of her undivided attention on you.
Micellaneous:
She mirrors your body language and body positions.
Her skin tone becomes red while being around you.
She leans over and speaks into her friend's ear, just like in junior high school.
She is standing with her head cocked slightly at an angle, one foot behind the other, hips slightly thrust forward.
At a party - every once in a while she seems to appear out of nowhere in your vicinity and if you move to another spot, soon she appears out of nowhere again, you catch her glancing in your general direction (actually, glancing at YOU dummy!:), she bumps into you… accidentally, touches you… accidentally etc:)
When talking to a girl, these are some of the more important signs to watch for:
Can you keep conversation going with her?
Does she react well to you touching her physically( touch as in friendly gesture kinda touch, not molesting, you idiot.)?
Does she touch you(again, is she comfortable enough or attracted enough towards you in order to start touching u in a friendly manner yet)?
Does she laugh?
Now I don't have to explain what the answer "yes" to these questions means, do I:)
All these signs usually tell you that the girl is captivated by your charms. But before you get there, chances are that her body language changes as the discussion progresses. Make sure that you watch her closely and as soon as you get a sign that should be an indication that you are on the right track, keep going in that direction. If the opposite happens, just change the subject and see what happens."
The really gorgeous and beautiful girls however very seldom get around to displaying the signs of interest described above. They simply don't have to, as they are used to getting some attention already long before that. With such girls you have to be on a lookout for the initial and thus much more subtle signs of interest. One example of this would be a gorgeous girl simply looking at your face. Obviously people tend to look at what or whom they like to look at. But whereas an average girl first just looks at your face and then progresses into the more overt signs of interest described above, looking at your face from time to time might be the only sign of interest you'll ever get from the most beautiful of girls.
So if you think you're not getting any signs of interest from beautiful girls - you are, but you just can't see them well enough yet.
Here are signs of interest sent from across the room. Most are applicable to both sexes. The sequence of the list approximates the courtship sequence.
I'M INTERESTED
Sidelong glance(s)
Looks at you a few times
Holds your gaze briefly
Downcast eyes, then away
Posture changes to alert
Preens, adjusts hair, attire
Turns body toward you
Tilts head
Narrows eyes slightly
Smiles
Matches your posture
Eyes sparkle
Licks her lips
Thrusts breasts forward
DON'T BOTHER ME
Never sneaks a peek
Fleeting eye contact
Looks away quickly
Looks away, eyes level
Posture unchanged
Does no preening
Turns body away
Head remains vertical
Eyes remain normal
Neutral, polite face
Posture unchanged
Normal or dull eyes
Keeps mouth closed
In Summary.
Frequency of eye contact, the more the better. Amount of time she, or he, holds your gaze, the longer the better. How she breaks off eye contact, down before away is great! Shine of the eyes, the brighter the better. Direction of body, toward you, good, away, bad. Overall posture, erect and alert are good. Tilt of head, vertical is bad, increased tilt is great. Where the drink is held, high in front as a barrier, that's bad. Hand activity, clenched, squeezing or pinching is bad, open, caressing or stroking is great.
Most of us are slightly afraid as well as somewhat excited in settings where social interaction is expected and required. So, most people do not sit or stand in an open posture. But, during courtship, the more open the other person's posture is, the more open that person is to you and your advances. And, the more open you are, the more likely the other person is to open up to you.
First Conversation Signals.
Men, pay attention to all the ways she communicates during the first few minutes as you talk with her.
KEEP TALKING
Alert, energetic
Pupils dilated
Gradually opens posture
Lowers drink
Touches self gently
Caresses objects
Crosses and uncrosses legs
Flashes of palm
Crossed legs steady
Dangles shoe on toe
Hands never touch face
Touches you any reason
Feet firmly on floor
Loosens anything
Leans forward
Steady hands, feet
MOVE ON
Tense, restless
Normal or small pupils
Posture remains closed
Keeps drink high
Grips or pinches self
Squeezes, taps objects
Legs remain crossed
Back of hand gestures
Swings crossed legs
Keeps shoe on
Touches face
Never touches you
Feet on edges or toes
Tightens anything
Leans away
Tapping, drumming
In social settings, most of us start out in a closed, defensive posture because we're a bit apprehensive. A closed posture feels safe. When the person you are talking with shifts to a more open posture, it signifies trust and comfort. That person is, literally, opening up to you and what you have to offer.
It takes courage to open up to the other person. If you go first, she, or he, will usually follow your move from closed to slightly more open.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
Saint Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God.
I would insist that everyone read this. Especially Atheist and Agnostics. I would first warn that this might be considered heavy stuff by some, but nevertheless, read it. Some really astounding and magnificent answers by Saint Thomas Aquinas.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Atheist vs Theist. The Theist in particular is a Roman Catholic.
Is It Possible For God's Existence To Be Proved?
Examine the following debate and answer the question yourselve.
Atheist:
I don’t know what makes Catholics think that God exists. A rational person would ask for proof of the existence of something he could not see. It’s like living in a fairyland to believe that there is a personal God who exists somewhere out there.
Theist:
Your challenge applies, of course, to historic Protestant Christians, observant Jews, and devout Muslims as well. In fact, I dare say that the vast majority of the human race, for most of its history, has believed in some form of deity. Are you implying that the vast majority of the human race has been irrational?
Atheist:
I don’t want to be judgmental, so I’ll refrain from answering that question, but I just don’t see any good reason for believing in a God like you Christians do. Can you prove that God exists?
Theist:
You may be familiar with different forms of proof from high school geometry. One of them is called a reductio ad absurdum method. Its logical form is like this: (1) God either exists or he does not exist (both cannot be true); (2) If we can show that the statement “God does not exist” leads to an absurdity, it leaves “God does exist” as the only rational statement.
Atheist:
Okay, so show me that not believing in God leads to an absurdity.
Theist:
First, we must distinguish between different types of absurdity. In mathematics, absurdity means a contradiction. Saying that three is not greater than two leads to a contradiction with other well-known truths of mathematics and is therefore an absurdity. In speaking of God, absurdity would mean something like this: If we deny that God exists, then we would expect the universe and human life to look one sort of way. If we affirm that God exists, then we would expect a quite different set of observations. My claim is that denying God’s existence leads to absurd conclusions about the universe and human life.
Atheist:
Well, I must commend you for your audacity. Do you mean to tell me that you can show me that my not believing in God is absurd? It seems to me quite the other way around. People who believe in God seem to be living in a dream world, not in the real world.
Theist:
I understand why you say that. Let me begin by limiting my goal. I cannot show you that denying God’s existence is absurd in the mathematical sense of a contradiction, but I can show you one of two things. Either denying God’s existence is incompatible with some of the most basic realities of the universe and human life, or at least affirming God’s existence is more rational than denying it.
Atheist:
What kind of realities are you talking about?
Theist:
Take the universe. Would you agree that the universe, as we see it every day and as we learn in various sciences, shows a law-like behavior? That is, do you agree that the universe displays effects that are governed by regular laws of nature?
Atheist:
You mean like the law of gravity or the laws of genetics? Of course. But how does that prove God?
Theist:
If the universe we live in is law-like, what explains these patterns? If you deny the existence of a rational God, I suppose there might be several explanations still available, but can you agree that one of the most common explanations today is that this universe came into being by chance?
Atheist:
Many scientists seem to think so, at least those in the biological sciences.
Theist:
Right. For example, Richard Dawkins is a biologist at Oxford University. He has tried to show in many of his popular writings that the laws of the organic world could have resulted from chaos and chance.
Atheist:
And he has been successful. So why do we need to invoke God to explain the natural laws of the universe?
Theist:
I am not competent to judge whether or not he has been successful, although many of my biologist friends have grave doubts about his attempts. My point is a more foundational one. Even if we can show a linkage between the chance occurrences of organic history and the laws of genetics, for example, it does not follow that such laws came from those chance occurrences. At best, all it shows is that those chances occurrences are not incompatible with those laws.
Atheist:
What you say may be true, but do those who believe in God have any better explanation?
Theist:
Which seems more rational to you: to believe in fixed laws of nature resulting from chance occurrences in the universe, that is, in law-like patterns of nature emerging from un-law-like events, or that these laws come from a being who placed these laws in the very fabric of the universe?
Atheist:
I am content with the idea that the laws of the universe emerged by chance. Your appeal to God doesn’t seem to me any more persuasive than my belief. And it certainly doesn’t show that my belief in chance is absurd.
Theist:
I think we can speak of relative absurdity. That is, we can compare two explanations and decide that one of them seems more rational than the other. Your belief in laws emerging from chance violates a basic principle of explanation that Aristotle articulated over 2,000 years ago: The cause of an event must be greater or more powerful than the event itself. Your explanation suggests that chance caused the laws in some sense. But it is clear that the fixed laws of nature are more powerful in explaining things than are chance events. Appealing to chance would be the opposite of the normal way we do science.Let’s take a concrete example. In physics, we explain particular events by appealing to general laws of nature. The phenomena of free fall (apples descending to the ground), projectile motion (bullets), and planetary movement are all subsumed under the law of universal gravitation, because the law is more general and powerful than the particular events.So appealing to chance violates this basic principle that the cause must be more powerful than the effect being explained. That is why I say that your explanation of the laws of nature by appealing to chance is more absurd relative to invoking God to explain the same laws.
Atheist:
Invoking God doesn’t seem to me to be any more effective or powerful. Basically, you are appealing to something you can’t touch or see (non-empirical) to explain the touchable, seeable world. A vague appeal to a notion of God is not very scientific.
Theist:
You’re right. That is not very scientific, but it is not because God is not an empirical entity. Science posits non-empirical constructs all the time. Take gravity. No one has ever seen it. All we can do is state the law in a mathematical equation. Black holes are even more non-empirical. If they exist, they will never be directly observed. Black holes are theoretical constructs used to explain phenomena we observe (e.g., radiation emissions), but they are very difficult to observe and can be observed only indirectly.
Atheist:
Yes, but that is precisely the point. Physical laws like gravity can be verified by prediction. Even though black holes cannot be verified directly, they are posited as real physical entities, not supernatural constructs. God is not like gravity or black holes. He is a supernatural entity, not a physical one. God is not something you can verify.
Theist:
Yes, that is why I agreed with you that invoking God is not a scientific explanation. Science invokes only physical causes; some are directly verifiable (like gravity) and others are only indirectly verifiable (like black holes). This is what Aristotle called efficient causes. My point was that even though God is invisible, that fact is not what distinguishes invoking God from invoking non-observable entities in science. Science invokes unobservables in many instances.
Atheist:
Okay, I agree that science invokes non-observable entities, but you still haven’t shown that invoking God is a rational thing to do, since God is a supernatural entity and science deals only with natural ones.
Theist:
Yes, I would not want to invoke God as a part of science, but I insist that the scientist—or any human being, for that matter —is more than a scientist. In other words, to be human is to ask for explanations of the universe, not just parts of it or specific laws within it. So when we ask about the universe and its laws as a whole, we are led into questions that science with its methods cannot answer. It is then that we are led to a choice. Either we content ourselves with the explanation you offered—namely, that these laws of nature came from chance occurrences—or we have a more powerful explanation of these laws by invoking a being who possesses them.
Atheist:
Well, as a person who has been trained to think scientifically, I am content with appealing only to physical explanations.
Theist:
I suggest that is because you have unknowingly adopted a viewpoint that excludes other types of explanations. That exclusion, I dare say, is not rational but arbitrary. I agree that science as we have it today invokes only physical explanations, but I cannot agree that physical explanations alone are adequate to satisfy the human yearning to know.
Atheist:
Well, even if I agree with you on that point, I don’t think you’ve shown that not believing in God leads to absurdity.
Theist:
All I ask is that you think of yourself not just as a scientist but as a human being who desires explanations whether they are physical or not. And the same search for explanations that guides science should guide our search for explanations that go beyond science. Remember that I spoke of relative absurdity. It is more absurd to believe that the laws of nature originated from chance and chaos than from a rational being. The universe, as we observe it and as we study it in science, demands a more powerful explanation than chance.
And so the debate goes... The conclusion is that we have no solid evidence that God exist. At the same time we have no solid evidence that God does not exist. This is merely a philosophical debate about which is more probable then the other.
But no matter it all comes down to one simple thing... Faith.
It might seem rather naive for people who tend to pride themselves with superb intellectual abilities to believe in *faith*.
Reasoning can only bring us and answer us so much...
Faith is whats left to answer when reasoning and logic reaches a dead end.
But do not put faith as the answer.
Remember, always question.
Everytime you question, your faith is being renewed.
Examine the following debate and answer the question yourselve.
Atheist:
I don’t know what makes Catholics think that God exists. A rational person would ask for proof of the existence of something he could not see. It’s like living in a fairyland to believe that there is a personal God who exists somewhere out there.
Theist:
Your challenge applies, of course, to historic Protestant Christians, observant Jews, and devout Muslims as well. In fact, I dare say that the vast majority of the human race, for most of its history, has believed in some form of deity. Are you implying that the vast majority of the human race has been irrational?
Atheist:
I don’t want to be judgmental, so I’ll refrain from answering that question, but I just don’t see any good reason for believing in a God like you Christians do. Can you prove that God exists?
Theist:
You may be familiar with different forms of proof from high school geometry. One of them is called a reductio ad absurdum method. Its logical form is like this: (1) God either exists or he does not exist (both cannot be true); (2) If we can show that the statement “God does not exist” leads to an absurdity, it leaves “God does exist” as the only rational statement.
Atheist:
Okay, so show me that not believing in God leads to an absurdity.
Theist:
First, we must distinguish between different types of absurdity. In mathematics, absurdity means a contradiction. Saying that three is not greater than two leads to a contradiction with other well-known truths of mathematics and is therefore an absurdity. In speaking of God, absurdity would mean something like this: If we deny that God exists, then we would expect the universe and human life to look one sort of way. If we affirm that God exists, then we would expect a quite different set of observations. My claim is that denying God’s existence leads to absurd conclusions about the universe and human life.
Atheist:
Well, I must commend you for your audacity. Do you mean to tell me that you can show me that my not believing in God is absurd? It seems to me quite the other way around. People who believe in God seem to be living in a dream world, not in the real world.
Theist:
I understand why you say that. Let me begin by limiting my goal. I cannot show you that denying God’s existence is absurd in the mathematical sense of a contradiction, but I can show you one of two things. Either denying God’s existence is incompatible with some of the most basic realities of the universe and human life, or at least affirming God’s existence is more rational than denying it.
Atheist:
What kind of realities are you talking about?
Theist:
Take the universe. Would you agree that the universe, as we see it every day and as we learn in various sciences, shows a law-like behavior? That is, do you agree that the universe displays effects that are governed by regular laws of nature?
Atheist:
You mean like the law of gravity or the laws of genetics? Of course. But how does that prove God?
Theist:
If the universe we live in is law-like, what explains these patterns? If you deny the existence of a rational God, I suppose there might be several explanations still available, but can you agree that one of the most common explanations today is that this universe came into being by chance?
Atheist:
Many scientists seem to think so, at least those in the biological sciences.
Theist:
Right. For example, Richard Dawkins is a biologist at Oxford University. He has tried to show in many of his popular writings that the laws of the organic world could have resulted from chaos and chance.
Atheist:
And he has been successful. So why do we need to invoke God to explain the natural laws of the universe?
Theist:
I am not competent to judge whether or not he has been successful, although many of my biologist friends have grave doubts about his attempts. My point is a more foundational one. Even if we can show a linkage between the chance occurrences of organic history and the laws of genetics, for example, it does not follow that such laws came from those chance occurrences. At best, all it shows is that those chances occurrences are not incompatible with those laws.
Atheist:
What you say may be true, but do those who believe in God have any better explanation?
Theist:
Which seems more rational to you: to believe in fixed laws of nature resulting from chance occurrences in the universe, that is, in law-like patterns of nature emerging from un-law-like events, or that these laws come from a being who placed these laws in the very fabric of the universe?
Atheist:
I am content with the idea that the laws of the universe emerged by chance. Your appeal to God doesn’t seem to me any more persuasive than my belief. And it certainly doesn’t show that my belief in chance is absurd.
Theist:
I think we can speak of relative absurdity. That is, we can compare two explanations and decide that one of them seems more rational than the other. Your belief in laws emerging from chance violates a basic principle of explanation that Aristotle articulated over 2,000 years ago: The cause of an event must be greater or more powerful than the event itself. Your explanation suggests that chance caused the laws in some sense. But it is clear that the fixed laws of nature are more powerful in explaining things than are chance events. Appealing to chance would be the opposite of the normal way we do science.Let’s take a concrete example. In physics, we explain particular events by appealing to general laws of nature. The phenomena of free fall (apples descending to the ground), projectile motion (bullets), and planetary movement are all subsumed under the law of universal gravitation, because the law is more general and powerful than the particular events.So appealing to chance violates this basic principle that the cause must be more powerful than the effect being explained. That is why I say that your explanation of the laws of nature by appealing to chance is more absurd relative to invoking God to explain the same laws.
Atheist:
Invoking God doesn’t seem to me to be any more effective or powerful. Basically, you are appealing to something you can’t touch or see (non-empirical) to explain the touchable, seeable world. A vague appeal to a notion of God is not very scientific.
Theist:
You’re right. That is not very scientific, but it is not because God is not an empirical entity. Science posits non-empirical constructs all the time. Take gravity. No one has ever seen it. All we can do is state the law in a mathematical equation. Black holes are even more non-empirical. If they exist, they will never be directly observed. Black holes are theoretical constructs used to explain phenomena we observe (e.g., radiation emissions), but they are very difficult to observe and can be observed only indirectly.
Atheist:
Yes, but that is precisely the point. Physical laws like gravity can be verified by prediction. Even though black holes cannot be verified directly, they are posited as real physical entities, not supernatural constructs. God is not like gravity or black holes. He is a supernatural entity, not a physical one. God is not something you can verify.
Theist:
Yes, that is why I agreed with you that invoking God is not a scientific explanation. Science invokes only physical causes; some are directly verifiable (like gravity) and others are only indirectly verifiable (like black holes). This is what Aristotle called efficient causes. My point was that even though God is invisible, that fact is not what distinguishes invoking God from invoking non-observable entities in science. Science invokes unobservables in many instances.
Atheist:
Okay, I agree that science invokes non-observable entities, but you still haven’t shown that invoking God is a rational thing to do, since God is a supernatural entity and science deals only with natural ones.
Theist:
Yes, I would not want to invoke God as a part of science, but I insist that the scientist—or any human being, for that matter —is more than a scientist. In other words, to be human is to ask for explanations of the universe, not just parts of it or specific laws within it. So when we ask about the universe and its laws as a whole, we are led into questions that science with its methods cannot answer. It is then that we are led to a choice. Either we content ourselves with the explanation you offered—namely, that these laws of nature came from chance occurrences—or we have a more powerful explanation of these laws by invoking a being who possesses them.
Atheist:
Well, as a person who has been trained to think scientifically, I am content with appealing only to physical explanations.
Theist:
I suggest that is because you have unknowingly adopted a viewpoint that excludes other types of explanations. That exclusion, I dare say, is not rational but arbitrary. I agree that science as we have it today invokes only physical explanations, but I cannot agree that physical explanations alone are adequate to satisfy the human yearning to know.
Atheist:
Well, even if I agree with you on that point, I don’t think you’ve shown that not believing in God leads to absurdity.
Theist:
All I ask is that you think of yourself not just as a scientist but as a human being who desires explanations whether they are physical or not. And the same search for explanations that guides science should guide our search for explanations that go beyond science. Remember that I spoke of relative absurdity. It is more absurd to believe that the laws of nature originated from chance and chaos than from a rational being. The universe, as we observe it and as we study it in science, demands a more powerful explanation than chance.
And so the debate goes... The conclusion is that we have no solid evidence that God exist. At the same time we have no solid evidence that God does not exist. This is merely a philosophical debate about which is more probable then the other.
But no matter it all comes down to one simple thing... Faith.
It might seem rather naive for people who tend to pride themselves with superb intellectual abilities to believe in *faith*.
Reasoning can only bring us and answer us so much...
Faith is whats left to answer when reasoning and logic reaches a dead end.
But do not put faith as the answer.
Remember, always question.
Everytime you question, your faith is being renewed.
Is there a God?
THE wave of political correctness, which has affected universities at every level, has also infected religious and philosophical thought. Whereas Western universities once existed to train clergymen and educate others in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, modern centers of higher learning are much more secular and skeptical toward anything remotely religious. Faith is a taboo subject among many of the educated elite; indeed, persons with strong religious convictions are often viewed with scorn and disapproval. Equating all religious beliefs with the seemingly intolerant attitude of Fundamentalists, the more ardent critics of religion are so bold as to equate faith with ignorance and disparage any attempt to support faith with reason as naive.
The trendy alternative to organized religion is a proud belief in the absolute supremacy of humanity. Modern rationalists, who make the individual and not God the center of attention, make the mistake of asserting that the lack of definite evidence for God's existence and the coincidence of religious belief with psychological needs prove that God does not exist, as if God must be constrained by man's limited knowledge and would create beings contrary to his nature. Of course God does not overwhelm the unwilling with his presence or force his creation to be in self-conflict when worshiping him.
It is not enough to show a coincidence of phenomena (psychological needs and God) to assert a causal relation. Atheists must also show that man's need for a higher being preceded God's existence if they are to assert that the needs created God and not vice versa. Atheists must show why their belief in the non-existence of God is any more credible than the theists' belief in God. The rationalist assertion that God only exists if he is perceived by the subject is surely not how we approach the world. It would be ridiculous to claim that the existence of DNA depends on whether I am convinced of its reality. Though we routinely believe in many things we cannot see or fully understand, atheists have chosen not to believe in God.
Though most proponents of modern rationalism stop short of the radical implications of secular humanism, which truly deifies the individual, many do embrace the belief that the natural and social sciences will eventually explain away God. While certain biologists and physicists explore the mysteries of the origin of matter and life, some political scientists and sociologists formulate theories of social interaction without reference to objective morality.
The honest scientist, whether investigating nature or politics, should acknowledge that circumstantial evidence certainly favors the existence of a supernatural and transcendent being. My intention is not to prove any particular conception of God, but to show that atheism, which is often combined with moral relativism or a blind faith in science, is not the most probable explanation of the human condition. Rather, the most fundamental aspects of God, supernaturalness and transcendentalism, are supported by all available evidence.
God is creative and thus supernatural. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A b eing which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.
Oxford biologist Richard Daw-kins, author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, recently engaged in a debate entitled "Science versus Religion." Dawkins asserted that unassisted evolution explains the development of human beings from inorganic chemicals and thus does away with the necessity of God to explain the origin of life. It is important to note that Dawkins's argument is a specialized form of the general discussion about the creation of matter, energy, and order; though he is concerned primarily with the origin of life and specifically human life, the same basic physics principles still necessitate a supernatural being. Even if we grant Dawkin's assumption that human beings are the product of unassisted evolution, which is quite a generous gesture since there is much controversy over the fossil evidence for evolution, Dawkin's argument misses two crucial points. Like all others who attempt to use science to disprove God, Dawkins gives science too much credit and the mystery of creation too little.
First, Dawkins merely has explained the development, not the origin, of life. He is left with an unexplained starting point. It makes no difference if this starting point is carbon or the first spark of energy associated with the Big Bang. This starting point must be created, as must the order that allows inorganic molecules to combine randomly and form intelligent selective forces--the ability to bind into meaningful genetic structures.
Dawkins' theory does not reduce the complexity of the initial assumption. Facing the mystery of the origin of life, he claims that life is in continuity with inorganic material, and he does not bother to explain the origin of the inorganic building blocks or the selective forces which combine to form life. The infinite amount of complexity in any theory of the origin of life is in the supernatural creation of something from nothing and order from disorder. No evolutionary biologist has produced or ever will produce a conclusion with any relevance to the necessity of God. At best he can push the location of the supernatural assumption from the origin of life to the origin of matter, energy, and order.
This is not an indictment of science, but a realization of the limits of scientific inquiry. While scientists long ago abandoned the principle of spontaneous generation--that life arose directly from non-living matter--theists believe that such a creation event occurred through God's intervention.
Dawkins' assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference.
Similarly, Dawkins' supernatural starting point is not substantially different from God. He has no reason to claim that scientific evidence favors atheism over theism. Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Second, Dawkins reduces human beings to the moral equivalent of other animals and does not even consider their unique attributes. Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Hum ans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them.
It is significant to note that Dawkins's fellow panelist and biologist, Professor John Maynard-Smith, argued on the side of science, but disagreed with Dawkins and conceded that biology and other sciences had nothing to say about the presence of conscience, morality, and free will. Maynard-Smith was honest and humble enough to admit that the circumstantial evidence pointed to the work of a "divine architect." Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders. Scientists should be content with this awesome power and should not reduce all creation to mechanistic phenomena without higher purposes.
Science points the honest investigator toward belief in a creative and thus supernatural being. There are critics who will insist that science will one day resolve the issue of the origin of matter, energy, and order. Just as science has progressed over the centuries to explain phenomena such as shooting stars, locust plagues, and microscopic parasites, some hardened atheists believe science will explain away creation and the need for God.
Yet there is a fundamental difference between such localized concepts and the natural laws dictating entropy and the conservation of matter and energy. The latter form the basis of all modern scientific research and the principles of logic. Spontaneous order or creation would nullify all scientific observations and conclusive theories relying on causation. The world would be a chaotic and unintelligible place without the basic laws of nature.
The very methods used to "disprove" natural laws would be rendered useless. It is impossible for humans to grasp a being which defies the natural laws which govern the way we perceive and understand reality. Science can tell us much about the origin of creation, but will never be able to explain it in natural terms.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
The atheist persists in demanding that God reveal himself while denying all possible forms of communication as invalid. Miracles are dismissed as unexplained events, theists are engaged in self-deception, even personal spiritual inclinations are nothing more than psychological phenomena. In Jesus' parable, Abraham said, "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead." Science will always hint at, but will never conclusively prove, the existence of God. All experiential and objective evidence can be dismissed as incomplete by those who choose not to believe.
Objective evidence, such as the existence of order and matter, is dismissed as natural phenomena to be explained in the future. Subjective evidence, such as personal testimonies and modern miracles, is dismissed as hallucination. Atheists demand that God reveal himself in a way that allows no choice or free will. Such skeptics should stop claiming a detached objectivity missing in theists and admit their bias against the existence of God.
Whether one appeals to justice, love, or value of human life, one is appealing to a common belief in some abstract principle of good. Even the nihilist must acknowledge some higher good, even if only the truth of his perspective. The fact that all societies and individuals live according to ethical codes, which often override utility considerations, proves that some transcendental force or being, God, exists.
John Rawls, author of A Theory of Justice and a respected political philosopher, has single-handedly done more to retard honest discussion of issues like justice and equality than any recent writer. He has done this through his adoption of normative principles without acknowledging the necessity of underlying justification.
Multiculturalism, with its taboos against positing universally applicable principles; post-Enlightenment rationality, which claims objective transparency for itself; and other popular academic trends have found their ultimate expression in the "liberal neutrality" pioneered by Rawls and evidenced by Ronald Dworkin and other liberals. Rawls answers complicated questions of political obligation and morality with the maxim that society must maximize the advantage of its least attractive position, assessed against his list of "primary social goods."
More dangerous than Rawls's conclusion, which requires individuals to set aside their religious and other interests in the public arena, is his methodology. He refuses to admit that his initial principles are transcendental and objective truths, but instead claims to be presenting a self-evident "neutral" position from which all others must justify their departure. Unwilling to claim, and thus defend, the veracity of his position, Rawls limits his theoretical speculation to liberal Western democracies that have supposedly already accepted his premises.
He posits his principles only insofar as members of society, abstracted from their particular interests, would choose his plan. The cardinal virtue of the liberal project proves to be its shortcoming. Reducing morality to a social construct, devoid of any transcendental content, makes liberalism impossible to attack exactly because it accomplishes nothing.
The first problem with a relativist approach to morality is that it does not allow for intersocietal comparisons. Even the most adamant multiculturalist reserves the right to condemn Nazi Germany and the atrocities committed during the Holocaust.
Harder for the subjective position is the situation of slavery in which the oppressed individual has been trained to expect and accept subordination. In contrast with the first example, in which the relativist can appeal to the interests of the Jewish people, the relativist must choose between paternalism and allowing slavery. It is irrational to condemn the injustices of slavery or genocide and justify paternalistic intervention without basing one's arguments on universal human rights, the inherent value of human life, and the natural preference for freedom.
The nature of subjective morality, regardless of whether it is based on the individual or on a particular society, is that it is entirely dependent on one's experience and thus cannot be transmitted to others. A relativist can never intervene in or condemn another individual's or society's actions. Though the relativist's concern for tolerance is noteworthy, one should not sacrifice the right to condemn any injustice in the name of "diversity." Objective morality, by its definition, is meant to be a common code that is applicable to all.
Relativists do not understand the fundamental purpose and function of morality. The claim that morality is an artificial construct perpetuated to advance society's interests contains two fundamental flaws. The first is that such a weakened form of morality never motivates the individual to act against his own interests. Morality would always lose when conflicting with expediency.
Any rational individual, enlightened enough to realize that morality is simply a social construct, would be free to act as a "free rider." There is no incentive for any individual to refrain from stealing or other selfish acts. The argument that society cannot function if everyone steals makes no sense at the margin; the individual knows he can steal without causing the entire system to self-destruct. Only the risk of getting caught prevents the truly consistent relativist from stealing, killing, or acting in any other selfi sh or destructive manner. There is no reason to care for others, including loved ones and future generations, except for the feeling of self-satisfaction generated by such feelings.
Benevolence, charity, and goodwill would have no ethical value in a relativist framework and would be dismissed as mere social constructs designed to force the individual to conform to society's expectations. Yet people do refrain from selfish behavior, for reasons more complex than the chance of being caught and punished. Not all of our guilty feelings are products of social training; men possess an innate sense of right and wrong. They also care for others and engage in true altruism, for reasons more noble than self-gratification. It is arrogant to assert that such individuals are not rational enough to discern that they are being duped by society. Without asserting that all men are consciously self-reflecting, one can still defend the notions of objective morality and free will.
The second fundamental flaw with the relativist's view that morality is constructed to advance the interests of society is that much of morality contradicts the material interests of society. The empirical evidence shows that morality often causes inefficiencies in the daily workings of society. Though one may explain the need for honesty and the Protestant work ethic in terms of economic production, it is not obvious what material justifications can be found for protection of the weak, the basic value of all human life, and other seemingly unproductive tenets of all mainstream religious faiths and most moral codes. The argument that preservation of life is necessary to give society stability does not explain why no moral code advocates eugenics, concentration of resources on the productive, and killing the disabled. Certainly, efficiency would dictate that one life be sacrificed to provide organs to save the lives of ten others, especially if one sacrifices an uneducated laborer to save a brain surgeon. But notions such as bodily integrity, human rights, and basic human dignity trump any such considerations of efficiency.
Moral relativism is often advanced by academics in the name of tolerance and diversity, but its lack of objective protection for the weak and dependence on society for all morality often leads to intolerant and monolithic conclusions. Even the most basic moral codes rely on some objective assumption. Objective morality, which must transcend the particulars of any given situation or society, allows the minority to criticize the atrocities committed in the name of efficiency and also coincides with the manner in which most people resolve moral conflicts.Atheists insist on theoretical models of moral relativism, but then rely on the norms of objective morality in formulating their codes and resolving their moral conflicts.
Whether one chooses to view objective transcendent morality as God or the creation of God, even the hardened atheist should admit his own dependence on such morality.
Atheists should realize the daunting task ahead of them if they are to continue in their faith. Unlike agnostics or adherents of dogmatic faiths, atheists must assert that anyone with a religious belief is misguided. While Catholics may allow room for partial revelation and different perspectives, the atheist must condemn the most exalted philosophers and the most devout servants, both the Augustines and the Mother Teresas.. The atheist may not stop at rejecting discredited televangelists, materialistic gurus, and other charlatans, but must declare all religious beliefs to be false and all prayers unanswerable. Not one exception is allowable. Though atheists prefer to single out hypocritical believers as a means to attack religion, their beliefs do not make such distinctions; they group together all who believe in some higher being or force.
My intention has not been to defend particular actors or notions of religion, but rather the very concept of religion. There may be hardened atheists who claim I have not achieved my g oal. They will remain unconvinced of the existence of God. I doubt if any of these individuals will be honest enough to admit an irreducible blind faith in autonomous creation and moral relativism, the spontaneous creation of something from nothing and the lack of right and wrong.
The atheist, unlike the agnostic, makes metaphysical assumptions as significant as those of theists. Not content with admitting uncertainty about the existence of God, the atheist claims that God does not exist and that creation can explain itself. My tactic has been to show the logical conclusions of atheism in an effort to illustrate its contradictions with scientific reason, humility, and the concept of morality. Anyone still choosing to adhere to atheism cannot be convinced otherwise because he has made a free-will decision based on faith alone. Atheism becomes a religion unto itself.
Once the honest investigator admits that evidence points to a supernatural and transcendental God, one must then ponder if this God is self-conscious and whether this God is interested in communicating with human beings. The next choice is between an impersonal, uncaring God and a God of love and hope.
This is personally as much as I can say to the existence of God...
Faith and logical thinking... I'm sure there is a way we can work things out between the both of them.
The trendy alternative to organized religion is a proud belief in the absolute supremacy of humanity. Modern rationalists, who make the individual and not God the center of attention, make the mistake of asserting that the lack of definite evidence for God's existence and the coincidence of religious belief with psychological needs prove that God does not exist, as if God must be constrained by man's limited knowledge and would create beings contrary to his nature. Of course God does not overwhelm the unwilling with his presence or force his creation to be in self-conflict when worshiping him.
It is not enough to show a coincidence of phenomena (psychological needs and God) to assert a causal relation. Atheists must also show that man's need for a higher being preceded God's existence if they are to assert that the needs created God and not vice versa. Atheists must show why their belief in the non-existence of God is any more credible than the theists' belief in God. The rationalist assertion that God only exists if he is perceived by the subject is surely not how we approach the world. It would be ridiculous to claim that the existence of DNA depends on whether I am convinced of its reality. Though we routinely believe in many things we cannot see or fully understand, atheists have chosen not to believe in God.
Though most proponents of modern rationalism stop short of the radical implications of secular humanism, which truly deifies the individual, many do embrace the belief that the natural and social sciences will eventually explain away God. While certain biologists and physicists explore the mysteries of the origin of matter and life, some political scientists and sociologists formulate theories of social interaction without reference to objective morality.
The honest scientist, whether investigating nature or politics, should acknowledge that circumstantial evidence certainly favors the existence of a supernatural and transcendent being. My intention is not to prove any particular conception of God, but to show that atheism, which is often combined with moral relativism or a blind faith in science, is not the most probable explanation of the human condition. Rather, the most fundamental aspects of God, supernaturalness and transcendentalism, are supported by all available evidence.
God is creative and thus supernatural. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A b eing which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.
Oxford biologist Richard Daw-kins, author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, recently engaged in a debate entitled "Science versus Religion." Dawkins asserted that unassisted evolution explains the development of human beings from inorganic chemicals and thus does away with the necessity of God to explain the origin of life. It is important to note that Dawkins's argument is a specialized form of the general discussion about the creation of matter, energy, and order; though he is concerned primarily with the origin of life and specifically human life, the same basic physics principles still necessitate a supernatural being. Even if we grant Dawkin's assumption that human beings are the product of unassisted evolution, which is quite a generous gesture since there is much controversy over the fossil evidence for evolution, Dawkin's argument misses two crucial points. Like all others who attempt to use science to disprove God, Dawkins gives science too much credit and the mystery of creation too little.
First, Dawkins merely has explained the development, not the origin, of life. He is left with an unexplained starting point. It makes no difference if this starting point is carbon or the first spark of energy associated with the Big Bang. This starting point must be created, as must the order that allows inorganic molecules to combine randomly and form intelligent selective forces--the ability to bind into meaningful genetic structures.
Dawkins' theory does not reduce the complexity of the initial assumption. Facing the mystery of the origin of life, he claims that life is in continuity with inorganic material, and he does not bother to explain the origin of the inorganic building blocks or the selective forces which combine to form life. The infinite amount of complexity in any theory of the origin of life is in the supernatural creation of something from nothing and order from disorder. No evolutionary biologist has produced or ever will produce a conclusion with any relevance to the necessity of God. At best he can push the location of the supernatural assumption from the origin of life to the origin of matter, energy, and order.
This is not an indictment of science, but a realization of the limits of scientific inquiry. While scientists long ago abandoned the principle of spontaneous generation--that life arose directly from non-living matter--theists believe that such a creation event occurred through God's intervention.
Dawkins' assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference.
Similarly, Dawkins' supernatural starting point is not substantially different from God. He has no reason to claim that scientific evidence favors atheism over theism. Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Second, Dawkins reduces human beings to the moral equivalent of other animals and does not even consider their unique attributes. Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Hum ans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them.
It is significant to note that Dawkins's fellow panelist and biologist, Professor John Maynard-Smith, argued on the side of science, but disagreed with Dawkins and conceded that biology and other sciences had nothing to say about the presence of conscience, morality, and free will. Maynard-Smith was honest and humble enough to admit that the circumstantial evidence pointed to the work of a "divine architect." Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders. Scientists should be content with this awesome power and should not reduce all creation to mechanistic phenomena without higher purposes.
Science points the honest investigator toward belief in a creative and thus supernatural being. There are critics who will insist that science will one day resolve the issue of the origin of matter, energy, and order. Just as science has progressed over the centuries to explain phenomena such as shooting stars, locust plagues, and microscopic parasites, some hardened atheists believe science will explain away creation and the need for God.
Yet there is a fundamental difference between such localized concepts and the natural laws dictating entropy and the conservation of matter and energy. The latter form the basis of all modern scientific research and the principles of logic. Spontaneous order or creation would nullify all scientific observations and conclusive theories relying on causation. The world would be a chaotic and unintelligible place without the basic laws of nature.
The very methods used to "disprove" natural laws would be rendered useless. It is impossible for humans to grasp a being which defies the natural laws which govern the way we perceive and understand reality. Science can tell us much about the origin of creation, but will never be able to explain it in natural terms.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
The atheist persists in demanding that God reveal himself while denying all possible forms of communication as invalid. Miracles are dismissed as unexplained events, theists are engaged in self-deception, even personal spiritual inclinations are nothing more than psychological phenomena. In Jesus' parable, Abraham said, "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead." Science will always hint at, but will never conclusively prove, the existence of God. All experiential and objective evidence can be dismissed as incomplete by those who choose not to believe.
Objective evidence, such as the existence of order and matter, is dismissed as natural phenomena to be explained in the future. Subjective evidence, such as personal testimonies and modern miracles, is dismissed as hallucination. Atheists demand that God reveal himself in a way that allows no choice or free will. Such skeptics should stop claiming a detached objectivity missing in theists and admit their bias against the existence of God.
Whether one appeals to justice, love, or value of human life, one is appealing to a common belief in some abstract principle of good. Even the nihilist must acknowledge some higher good, even if only the truth of his perspective. The fact that all societies and individuals live according to ethical codes, which often override utility considerations, proves that some transcendental force or being, God, exists.
John Rawls, author of A Theory of Justice and a respected political philosopher, has single-handedly done more to retard honest discussion of issues like justice and equality than any recent writer. He has done this through his adoption of normative principles without acknowledging the necessity of underlying justification.
Multiculturalism, with its taboos against positing universally applicable principles; post-Enlightenment rationality, which claims objective transparency for itself; and other popular academic trends have found their ultimate expression in the "liberal neutrality" pioneered by Rawls and evidenced by Ronald Dworkin and other liberals. Rawls answers complicated questions of political obligation and morality with the maxim that society must maximize the advantage of its least attractive position, assessed against his list of "primary social goods."
More dangerous than Rawls's conclusion, which requires individuals to set aside their religious and other interests in the public arena, is his methodology. He refuses to admit that his initial principles are transcendental and objective truths, but instead claims to be presenting a self-evident "neutral" position from which all others must justify their departure. Unwilling to claim, and thus defend, the veracity of his position, Rawls limits his theoretical speculation to liberal Western democracies that have supposedly already accepted his premises.
He posits his principles only insofar as members of society, abstracted from their particular interests, would choose his plan. The cardinal virtue of the liberal project proves to be its shortcoming. Reducing morality to a social construct, devoid of any transcendental content, makes liberalism impossible to attack exactly because it accomplishes nothing.
The first problem with a relativist approach to morality is that it does not allow for intersocietal comparisons. Even the most adamant multiculturalist reserves the right to condemn Nazi Germany and the atrocities committed during the Holocaust.
Harder for the subjective position is the situation of slavery in which the oppressed individual has been trained to expect and accept subordination. In contrast with the first example, in which the relativist can appeal to the interests of the Jewish people, the relativist must choose between paternalism and allowing slavery. It is irrational to condemn the injustices of slavery or genocide and justify paternalistic intervention without basing one's arguments on universal human rights, the inherent value of human life, and the natural preference for freedom.
The nature of subjective morality, regardless of whether it is based on the individual or on a particular society, is that it is entirely dependent on one's experience and thus cannot be transmitted to others. A relativist can never intervene in or condemn another individual's or society's actions. Though the relativist's concern for tolerance is noteworthy, one should not sacrifice the right to condemn any injustice in the name of "diversity." Objective morality, by its definition, is meant to be a common code that is applicable to all.
Relativists do not understand the fundamental purpose and function of morality. The claim that morality is an artificial construct perpetuated to advance society's interests contains two fundamental flaws. The first is that such a weakened form of morality never motivates the individual to act against his own interests. Morality would always lose when conflicting with expediency.
Any rational individual, enlightened enough to realize that morality is simply a social construct, would be free to act as a "free rider." There is no incentive for any individual to refrain from stealing or other selfish acts. The argument that society cannot function if everyone steals makes no sense at the margin; the individual knows he can steal without causing the entire system to self-destruct. Only the risk of getting caught prevents the truly consistent relativist from stealing, killing, or acting in any other selfi sh or destructive manner. There is no reason to care for others, including loved ones and future generations, except for the feeling of self-satisfaction generated by such feelings.
Benevolence, charity, and goodwill would have no ethical value in a relativist framework and would be dismissed as mere social constructs designed to force the individual to conform to society's expectations. Yet people do refrain from selfish behavior, for reasons more complex than the chance of being caught and punished. Not all of our guilty feelings are products of social training; men possess an innate sense of right and wrong. They also care for others and engage in true altruism, for reasons more noble than self-gratification. It is arrogant to assert that such individuals are not rational enough to discern that they are being duped by society. Without asserting that all men are consciously self-reflecting, one can still defend the notions of objective morality and free will.
The second fundamental flaw with the relativist's view that morality is constructed to advance the interests of society is that much of morality contradicts the material interests of society. The empirical evidence shows that morality often causes inefficiencies in the daily workings of society. Though one may explain the need for honesty and the Protestant work ethic in terms of economic production, it is not obvious what material justifications can be found for protection of the weak, the basic value of all human life, and other seemingly unproductive tenets of all mainstream religious faiths and most moral codes. The argument that preservation of life is necessary to give society stability does not explain why no moral code advocates eugenics, concentration of resources on the productive, and killing the disabled. Certainly, efficiency would dictate that one life be sacrificed to provide organs to save the lives of ten others, especially if one sacrifices an uneducated laborer to save a brain surgeon. But notions such as bodily integrity, human rights, and basic human dignity trump any such considerations of efficiency.
Moral relativism is often advanced by academics in the name of tolerance and diversity, but its lack of objective protection for the weak and dependence on society for all morality often leads to intolerant and monolithic conclusions. Even the most basic moral codes rely on some objective assumption. Objective morality, which must transcend the particulars of any given situation or society, allows the minority to criticize the atrocities committed in the name of efficiency and also coincides with the manner in which most people resolve moral conflicts.Atheists insist on theoretical models of moral relativism, but then rely on the norms of objective morality in formulating their codes and resolving their moral conflicts.
Whether one chooses to view objective transcendent morality as God or the creation of God, even the hardened atheist should admit his own dependence on such morality.
Atheists should realize the daunting task ahead of them if they are to continue in their faith. Unlike agnostics or adherents of dogmatic faiths, atheists must assert that anyone with a religious belief is misguided. While Catholics may allow room for partial revelation and different perspectives, the atheist must condemn the most exalted philosophers and the most devout servants, both the Augustines and the Mother Teresas.. The atheist may not stop at rejecting discredited televangelists, materialistic gurus, and other charlatans, but must declare all religious beliefs to be false and all prayers unanswerable. Not one exception is allowable. Though atheists prefer to single out hypocritical believers as a means to attack religion, their beliefs do not make such distinctions; they group together all who believe in some higher being or force.
My intention has not been to defend particular actors or notions of religion, but rather the very concept of religion. There may be hardened atheists who claim I have not achieved my g oal. They will remain unconvinced of the existence of God. I doubt if any of these individuals will be honest enough to admit an irreducible blind faith in autonomous creation and moral relativism, the spontaneous creation of something from nothing and the lack of right and wrong.
The atheist, unlike the agnostic, makes metaphysical assumptions as significant as those of theists. Not content with admitting uncertainty about the existence of God, the atheist claims that God does not exist and that creation can explain itself. My tactic has been to show the logical conclusions of atheism in an effort to illustrate its contradictions with scientific reason, humility, and the concept of morality. Anyone still choosing to adhere to atheism cannot be convinced otherwise because he has made a free-will decision based on faith alone. Atheism becomes a religion unto itself.
Once the honest investigator admits that evidence points to a supernatural and transcendental God, one must then ponder if this God is self-conscious and whether this God is interested in communicating with human beings. The next choice is between an impersonal, uncaring God and a God of love and hope.
This is personally as much as I can say to the existence of God...
Faith and logical thinking... I'm sure there is a way we can work things out between the both of them.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Fall Out Boy- Dance Dance
She says she's no good with words but I'm worse
Barely stuttered out
A joke of a romantic stuck to my tongue
And weighed down with words too overdramatic
Tonight it's "it cant get much worse
"Vs. "no one should ever feel like.."
I'm two quarters and a heart down
And I don't want to forget how your voice sounds
These words are all I have so I write them
I need them just to get by
We will own your thoughts
We'll own the songs stuck in your head
We'll leave you kicking and screaming so you can thank us in the end.
(Chorus)
Dance, Dance
We're falling apart to half time
Dance, Dance
And these are the lives you love to lead
Dance this is the way they'd look
If they knew how misery loved me
(into bed with me)
You always fold just before you're found out
Drink up its last call
Last resort
But only the first mistake and I...
I'm two quarters and a heart down
And I don't want to forget how your voice sounds
These words are all I have so I write them
I need them just to get by
Why don't you show me a little bit of spine
You've been saving for his mattress
(with love)
Repeat (chorus)
Why don't you show me a little bit of spine
You've been saving for his mattress
(with love)
I only want sympathy in the form of you crawling into bed with me.
Dance Dance,
Dance Dance,
Dance Dance,
Dance Dance.
Barely stuttered out
A joke of a romantic stuck to my tongue
And weighed down with words too overdramatic
Tonight it's "it cant get much worse
"Vs. "no one should ever feel like.."
I'm two quarters and a heart down
And I don't want to forget how your voice sounds
These words are all I have so I write them
I need them just to get by
We will own your thoughts
We'll own the songs stuck in your head
We'll leave you kicking and screaming so you can thank us in the end.
(Chorus)
Dance, Dance
We're falling apart to half time
Dance, Dance
And these are the lives you love to lead
Dance this is the way they'd look
If they knew how misery loved me
(into bed with me)
You always fold just before you're found out
Drink up its last call
Last resort
But only the first mistake and I...
I'm two quarters and a heart down
And I don't want to forget how your voice sounds
These words are all I have so I write them
I need them just to get by
Why don't you show me a little bit of spine
You've been saving for his mattress
(with love)
Repeat (chorus)
Why don't you show me a little bit of spine
You've been saving for his mattress
(with love)
I only want sympathy in the form of you crawling into bed with me.
Dance Dance,
Dance Dance,
Dance Dance,
Dance Dance.
Friendship and what is it all about...
This will be a post regarding friendship and what is it really all about.
I shall start with a few famous peoples opinion and philosophies regarding friendship.
Aristotle on friendship.
Friendship... is a kind of virtue, or implies virtue, and it is also most necessary for living. Nobody would choose to live without friends even if he had all the other good things.... There are, however, not a few divergent views about friendship. Some hold that it is a matter of similarity: that our friends are those who are like ourselves... Others take the contrary view....
There are three kinds of friendship....
Friendship based on utility.
Utility is an impermanent things: it changes according to circumstances. So with the disappearance of the ground for friendship, the friendship also breaks up, because that was what kept it alive. Friendships of this kind seem to occur most frequently between the elderly (because at their age what they want is not pleasure but utility) and those in middle or early life who are pursuing their own advantage. Such persons do not spend much time together, because sometimes they do not even like one another, and therefore feel no need of such an association unless they are mutually useful. For they take pleasure in each other’s company only in so far as they have hopes of advantage from it. Friendships with foreigners are generally included in this class.
Friendship based on pleasure.
Friendship between the young is thought to be grounded on pleasure, because the lives of the young are regulated by their feelings, and their chief interest is in their own pleasure and the opportunity of the moment. With advancing years, however, their tastes change too, so that they are quick to make and to break friendships; because their affection changes just as the things that please them do and this sort of pleasure changes rapidly. Also the young are apt to fall in love, for erotic friendship is for the most part swayed by the feelings and based on pleasure. That is why they fall in and out of friendship quickly, changing their attitude often within the same day. But the young do like to spend the day and live together, because that is how they realize the object of their friendship.
Perfect friendship is based on goodness.
Only the friendship of those who are good, and similar in their goodness, is perfect. For these people each alike wish good for the other qua good, and they are good in themselves. And it is those who desire the good of their friends for the friends’ sake that are most truly friends, because each loves the other for what he is, and not for any incidental quality. Accordingly the friendship of such men lasts so long as they remain good; and goodness is an enduring quality. Also each party is good both absolutely and for his friend, since the good are both good absolutely and useful to each other. Similarly they please one another too; for the good are pleasing both absolutely and to each other; because everyone is pleased with his own conduct and conduct that resembles it, and the conduct of good men is the same or similar. Friendship of this kind is permanent, reasonably enough; because in it are united all the attributes that friends ought to possess. For all friendship has as its object something good or pleasant — either absolutely or relatively to the person who feels the affection — and is based on some similarity between the parties. But in this friendship all the qualities that we have mentioned belong to the friends themselves; because in it there is similarity, etc.; and what is absolutely good is also absolutely pleasant; and these are the most lovable qualities. Therefore it is between good men that both love and friendship are chiefly found and in the highest form.
That such friendships are rare is natural, because men of this kind are few. And in addition they need time and intimacy; for as the saying goes, you cannot get to know each other until you have eaten the proverbial quantity of salt together. Nor can one man accept another, or the two become friends, until each has proved to the other that he is worthy of love, and so won his trust. Those who are quick to make friendly advances to each other have the desire to be friends, but they are not unless they are worthy of love and know it. The wish for friendship develops rapidly, but friendship does not.
C. S. Lewis on friendship.
Companionship is, however, only the matrix of Friendship. It is often called Friendship, and many people when they speak of their 'friends' mean only their companions. But it is not Friendship in the sense I give to the word. By saying this I do not at all intend to disparage the merely Clubabble relation. We do not disparage silver by distinguishing it from gold.
Friendship arises out of mere Companionship when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common some insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure (or burden). The typical expression of opening Friendship would be something like, 'What? You too? I thought I was the only one'....
In our own time Friendship arises in the same way. For us of course the shared activity and therefore the companionship on which Friendship supervenes will not often be a bodily one like hunting or fighting. It may be a common religion, common studies, a common profession, even a common recreation. All who share it will be our companions, but one or two or three who share something more will be our Friends. In this kind of love, as Emerson said, Do you love me? means Do you see the same truth? - Or at least, 'Do you care about the same truth?' The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. he need not agree with us about the answer.
Our experience of friendship alters with age.
There has been a substantial amount of research and model-making around the development of children's abilities to make friends. One way of presenting this is as a stage-based model. One approach is to use a five stage model:
Aged 3-4
Children start to use the term 'friend' to describe playmates.
Aged 4-7
Children start to appreciate that own views and identity is different from others.
Aged 6-12
Children start to be able to 'put themselves in other peoples' shoes'.
Aged 9-15
Children/young people are able to take on the perspective of a 'third person'; to look at interactions and, thus, to work on relationships.
Aged 15+
There is a recognition that individual friendship is part of a larger network of relationships - and that friends are linked with others in 'personal communities'.
The final stage here, if achieved, is seen to continue into adulthood.
Dependence and independence are perceived as having a dialectical relationship with each other. Friends rely on each other both for support and a sense of personal identity, but also accept that each needs the space to develop relationships with others. There follows a growth in maturity through such experiences.
Models such as this are notoriously slippery and subject to considerable debate and disagreement - and can lead to rather wooden interventions to ensure that children have reached the appropriate stage. This said, it does seem to be fairly reasonable to work on the basis that the quality of the relationships one is able to form as a child and young person will have a significant impact on the nature of the friendships we are able to make in adult life. However, it is also important to recognize that the effect of these experiences is not set in stone. Adults can transcend, for example, rejection by peers at school.
As people enter the labour market, move in with partners, have children and so on, there is an impact on the character of the friendships they are able to develop and sustain. From the preceding discussion we can see that context and setting play a significant role. Friendship needs time, space and material resources to develop and will be impacted upon by the particular social environment and setting in which it arises. The nature of friendship among older people has excited a significant amount of scholarly attention - not surprisingly by gerontologists.
Friendship is of great significance to older people - as partners and relatives die, friends play an increasingly important role in people's lives. This is especially the case where the person does not have children - or where they live at a significant distance. Club-going and associational life
emerges as a strong feature of such friendship - and opens up wider networks into which pairs of friends can integrate.
My definition of friendship.
What I personally feel about friendship is that friends are chosen simply by chance. It may be true to conclude that we choose our friends but there are many reasons why we may sub-consciously choose the people we hang out with. The ratio of which we choose our friends goes as the following: 50% chance, 25% your choice, 25% their choice.
There are many reasons why someone would want to hang out and just chill with someone else.
- Enjoys his/her company.
- Shares common interest. Be it interest in the same type of gals or guys, or interest in the same type of sports or probably seeming to have the same type of mentality or wavelength there has to be some kind of mutual or common interest that binds the two people that seemingly considers themselves to be friends.
- One of the party has done a certain amount of sacrifice that has receive recognition by the other party which generates a certain kind of bond between the both of them which is a result of gratefulness.
- One of the party seems to recognise that the other party is someone really worth being in a close relationship with. Whatever the reason is be it financial benefits, or power benefits, these friendship is a result of wanting something from the other person. Thus one party will do anything that is within his or her frame of mind to generate friendship and bond between the both of them. Be it faking common interest or making up some sort of sacrifice in order to increase the intensity of the bond.
- Mutual or perfectly sound reasoning towards rekindling a certain friendship which has no sort of much common interest due to perfectly mutual reasons. For example Sarah and Jane have been friends since they were four years old. When the both of them reach the age of seventeen, their friendship begans to crumple little day by day due to mentality differences and lack in common interest. However, they still try their very best to preserve the friendship because the friendship has been so long. They then result in trying to be interested in the certain interest that the both of them do not share. This is a friendship thats base on a long term friendship.
- One sided friendship. The friendship in which one party is willing to do almost everything for the other person in the name of friendship but the other person does seem to share the same particular mentality. The reason by which the other party does'nt end the friendship is under the pretext that he or she is trying to be nice...
- A strong bonded relationship which is generally very very very hard to find. This is a friendship which is generally considerered to be very long, which was first base on common interest and then after a certain amount of time the bond grew in the form by which both parties are willing to do almost anything for the other. Sacrifice are performed under the grounds of friendship due to common interest, a history of friendship, and a genuine concern over each other. Such friendship are usually attained when both party realises the impact of the other on each others life. Realisation of the benefits one gets from the other without realising it. Realisation that both parties helps each other without really expecting anything much in return. Realisation that both parties have seen the best and worse of each other. A true friendship must be solely base on trust.
Below are certain quotes regarding friendship which I find to be very meaningful. They are written and said by man that are widely known due to their intellectual power.
"Fate chooses your relations, you choose your friends."- Jacques Delille (1738 - 1813) French poet.
"A friend is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him I may think aloud."- Ralph Waldo Emerson .
"The only reward of virtue is virtue; the only way to have a friend is to be one."- Ralph Waldo Emerson .
"True happiness consists not in the multitude of friends, but in their worth and choice."Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) British lexiographer.
"It is not so much our friends' help that helps us as the confident knowledge that they will help us."- Epicurus (341 - 270 BC) Greek philosopher.
"Anybody can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature to sympathise with a friend's success."- Oscar Wilde.
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them."- Mother Teresa.
"Misfortune shows those who are not really friends."- Aristotle.
"The bird a nest,the spider a web,the man a friendship."- William Blake.
"A true friend stabs you in the front."- Oscar Wilde.
"Grief can take care of itself, but to get the full value of joy you must have somebody to divide it with."- Mark Twain.
"Thus nature has no love for solitude, and always leans, as it were, on some support; and the sweetest support is found in the most intimate friendship."- Cicero.
"The friendship that can cease has never been real."- Saint Jerome.
"Too late we learn, a man must hold his friendUnjudged, accepted, trusted to the end."- John Boyle O'Reilly.
"Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods."- Artistotle.
"My best friend is the one who brings out the best in me."- Henry Ford.
"Friendship without self interest is one of the rare and beautiful things in life."- James Francis Byrnes.
"A friend to all is a friend to none."- Aristotle.
"When we seek to discover the best in others, we somehow bring out the best in ourselves." -William Arthur Ward.
"Books and friends should be few but good." Anonymous.
"Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow.Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.Walk beside me and be my friend." - Albert Camus (also attributed to Maimonidies).
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather is one of those things that give value to survival." - C. S. Lewis.
Do not see your friend simply for who they are, but rather see them for who they can be. -CasSanNo.
People generally tend to hide their very worst and try to show their very best. As a friend, inspire their very best and enfeeble their very worst. - CasSanNo.
"An honest answer is the sign of true friendship." - Proverbs 24:26
"A friend means well, even when he hurts you. But when an enemy puts his hand round your shoulder - watch out!" - Proverbs 27:6
"The greatest love a person can have for his friends is to give his life for them." - John 15:13
Conclusion.
A true friend is someone that I would give anything for. But do true friends really exist?
That solely depends on your definition of a true friend.
Have a good day.
I shall start with a few famous peoples opinion and philosophies regarding friendship.
Aristotle on friendship.
Friendship... is a kind of virtue, or implies virtue, and it is also most necessary for living. Nobody would choose to live without friends even if he had all the other good things.... There are, however, not a few divergent views about friendship. Some hold that it is a matter of similarity: that our friends are those who are like ourselves... Others take the contrary view....
There are three kinds of friendship....
Friendship based on utility.
Utility is an impermanent things: it changes according to circumstances. So with the disappearance of the ground for friendship, the friendship also breaks up, because that was what kept it alive. Friendships of this kind seem to occur most frequently between the elderly (because at their age what they want is not pleasure but utility) and those in middle or early life who are pursuing their own advantage. Such persons do not spend much time together, because sometimes they do not even like one another, and therefore feel no need of such an association unless they are mutually useful. For they take pleasure in each other’s company only in so far as they have hopes of advantage from it. Friendships with foreigners are generally included in this class.
Friendship based on pleasure.
Friendship between the young is thought to be grounded on pleasure, because the lives of the young are regulated by their feelings, and their chief interest is in their own pleasure and the opportunity of the moment. With advancing years, however, their tastes change too, so that they are quick to make and to break friendships; because their affection changes just as the things that please them do and this sort of pleasure changes rapidly. Also the young are apt to fall in love, for erotic friendship is for the most part swayed by the feelings and based on pleasure. That is why they fall in and out of friendship quickly, changing their attitude often within the same day. But the young do like to spend the day and live together, because that is how they realize the object of their friendship.
Perfect friendship is based on goodness.
Only the friendship of those who are good, and similar in their goodness, is perfect. For these people each alike wish good for the other qua good, and they are good in themselves. And it is those who desire the good of their friends for the friends’ sake that are most truly friends, because each loves the other for what he is, and not for any incidental quality. Accordingly the friendship of such men lasts so long as they remain good; and goodness is an enduring quality. Also each party is good both absolutely and for his friend, since the good are both good absolutely and useful to each other. Similarly they please one another too; for the good are pleasing both absolutely and to each other; because everyone is pleased with his own conduct and conduct that resembles it, and the conduct of good men is the same or similar. Friendship of this kind is permanent, reasonably enough; because in it are united all the attributes that friends ought to possess. For all friendship has as its object something good or pleasant — either absolutely or relatively to the person who feels the affection — and is based on some similarity between the parties. But in this friendship all the qualities that we have mentioned belong to the friends themselves; because in it there is similarity, etc.; and what is absolutely good is also absolutely pleasant; and these are the most lovable qualities. Therefore it is between good men that both love and friendship are chiefly found and in the highest form.
That such friendships are rare is natural, because men of this kind are few. And in addition they need time and intimacy; for as the saying goes, you cannot get to know each other until you have eaten the proverbial quantity of salt together. Nor can one man accept another, or the two become friends, until each has proved to the other that he is worthy of love, and so won his trust. Those who are quick to make friendly advances to each other have the desire to be friends, but they are not unless they are worthy of love and know it. The wish for friendship develops rapidly, but friendship does not.
C. S. Lewis on friendship.
Companionship is, however, only the matrix of Friendship. It is often called Friendship, and many people when they speak of their 'friends' mean only their companions. But it is not Friendship in the sense I give to the word. By saying this I do not at all intend to disparage the merely Clubabble relation. We do not disparage silver by distinguishing it from gold.
Friendship arises out of mere Companionship when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common some insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure (or burden). The typical expression of opening Friendship would be something like, 'What? You too? I thought I was the only one'....
In our own time Friendship arises in the same way. For us of course the shared activity and therefore the companionship on which Friendship supervenes will not often be a bodily one like hunting or fighting. It may be a common religion, common studies, a common profession, even a common recreation. All who share it will be our companions, but one or two or three who share something more will be our Friends. In this kind of love, as Emerson said, Do you love me? means Do you see the same truth? - Or at least, 'Do you care about the same truth?' The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. he need not agree with us about the answer.
Our experience of friendship alters with age.
There has been a substantial amount of research and model-making around the development of children's abilities to make friends. One way of presenting this is as a stage-based model. One approach is to use a five stage model:
Aged 3-4
Children start to use the term 'friend' to describe playmates.
Aged 4-7
Children start to appreciate that own views and identity is different from others.
Aged 6-12
Children start to be able to 'put themselves in other peoples' shoes'.
Aged 9-15
Children/young people are able to take on the perspective of a 'third person'; to look at interactions and, thus, to work on relationships.
Aged 15+
There is a recognition that individual friendship is part of a larger network of relationships - and that friends are linked with others in 'personal communities'.
The final stage here, if achieved, is seen to continue into adulthood.
Dependence and independence are perceived as having a dialectical relationship with each other. Friends rely on each other both for support and a sense of personal identity, but also accept that each needs the space to develop relationships with others. There follows a growth in maturity through such experiences.
Models such as this are notoriously slippery and subject to considerable debate and disagreement - and can lead to rather wooden interventions to ensure that children have reached the appropriate stage. This said, it does seem to be fairly reasonable to work on the basis that the quality of the relationships one is able to form as a child and young person will have a significant impact on the nature of the friendships we are able to make in adult life. However, it is also important to recognize that the effect of these experiences is not set in stone. Adults can transcend, for example, rejection by peers at school.
As people enter the labour market, move in with partners, have children and so on, there is an impact on the character of the friendships they are able to develop and sustain. From the preceding discussion we can see that context and setting play a significant role. Friendship needs time, space and material resources to develop and will be impacted upon by the particular social environment and setting in which it arises. The nature of friendship among older people has excited a significant amount of scholarly attention - not surprisingly by gerontologists.
Friendship is of great significance to older people - as partners and relatives die, friends play an increasingly important role in people's lives. This is especially the case where the person does not have children - or where they live at a significant distance. Club-going and associational life
emerges as a strong feature of such friendship - and opens up wider networks into which pairs of friends can integrate.
My definition of friendship.
What I personally feel about friendship is that friends are chosen simply by chance. It may be true to conclude that we choose our friends but there are many reasons why we may sub-consciously choose the people we hang out with. The ratio of which we choose our friends goes as the following: 50% chance, 25% your choice, 25% their choice.
There are many reasons why someone would want to hang out and just chill with someone else.
- Enjoys his/her company.
- Shares common interest. Be it interest in the same type of gals or guys, or interest in the same type of sports or probably seeming to have the same type of mentality or wavelength there has to be some kind of mutual or common interest that binds the two people that seemingly considers themselves to be friends.
- One of the party has done a certain amount of sacrifice that has receive recognition by the other party which generates a certain kind of bond between the both of them which is a result of gratefulness.
- One of the party seems to recognise that the other party is someone really worth being in a close relationship with. Whatever the reason is be it financial benefits, or power benefits, these friendship is a result of wanting something from the other person. Thus one party will do anything that is within his or her frame of mind to generate friendship and bond between the both of them. Be it faking common interest or making up some sort of sacrifice in order to increase the intensity of the bond.
- Mutual or perfectly sound reasoning towards rekindling a certain friendship which has no sort of much common interest due to perfectly mutual reasons. For example Sarah and Jane have been friends since they were four years old. When the both of them reach the age of seventeen, their friendship begans to crumple little day by day due to mentality differences and lack in common interest. However, they still try their very best to preserve the friendship because the friendship has been so long. They then result in trying to be interested in the certain interest that the both of them do not share. This is a friendship thats base on a long term friendship.
- One sided friendship. The friendship in which one party is willing to do almost everything for the other person in the name of friendship but the other person does seem to share the same particular mentality. The reason by which the other party does'nt end the friendship is under the pretext that he or she is trying to be nice...
- A strong bonded relationship which is generally very very very hard to find. This is a friendship which is generally considerered to be very long, which was first base on common interest and then after a certain amount of time the bond grew in the form by which both parties are willing to do almost anything for the other. Sacrifice are performed under the grounds of friendship due to common interest, a history of friendship, and a genuine concern over each other. Such friendship are usually attained when both party realises the impact of the other on each others life. Realisation of the benefits one gets from the other without realising it. Realisation that both parties helps each other without really expecting anything much in return. Realisation that both parties have seen the best and worse of each other. A true friendship must be solely base on trust.
Below are certain quotes regarding friendship which I find to be very meaningful. They are written and said by man that are widely known due to their intellectual power.
"Fate chooses your relations, you choose your friends."- Jacques Delille (1738 - 1813) French poet.
"A friend is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him I may think aloud."- Ralph Waldo Emerson .
"The only reward of virtue is virtue; the only way to have a friend is to be one."- Ralph Waldo Emerson .
"True happiness consists not in the multitude of friends, but in their worth and choice."Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) British lexiographer.
"It is not so much our friends' help that helps us as the confident knowledge that they will help us."- Epicurus (341 - 270 BC) Greek philosopher.
"Anybody can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature to sympathise with a friend's success."- Oscar Wilde.
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them."- Mother Teresa.
"Misfortune shows those who are not really friends."- Aristotle.
"The bird a nest,the spider a web,the man a friendship."- William Blake.
"A true friend stabs you in the front."- Oscar Wilde.
"Grief can take care of itself, but to get the full value of joy you must have somebody to divide it with."- Mark Twain.
"Thus nature has no love for solitude, and always leans, as it were, on some support; and the sweetest support is found in the most intimate friendship."- Cicero.
"The friendship that can cease has never been real."- Saint Jerome.
"Too late we learn, a man must hold his friendUnjudged, accepted, trusted to the end."- John Boyle O'Reilly.
"Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods."- Artistotle.
"My best friend is the one who brings out the best in me."- Henry Ford.
"Friendship without self interest is one of the rare and beautiful things in life."- James Francis Byrnes.
"A friend to all is a friend to none."- Aristotle.
"When we seek to discover the best in others, we somehow bring out the best in ourselves." -William Arthur Ward.
"Books and friends should be few but good." Anonymous.
"Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow.Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.Walk beside me and be my friend." - Albert Camus (also attributed to Maimonidies).
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather is one of those things that give value to survival." - C. S. Lewis.
Do not see your friend simply for who they are, but rather see them for who they can be. -CasSanNo.
People generally tend to hide their very worst and try to show their very best. As a friend, inspire their very best and enfeeble their very worst. - CasSanNo.
"An honest answer is the sign of true friendship." - Proverbs 24:26
"A friend means well, even when he hurts you. But when an enemy puts his hand round your shoulder - watch out!" - Proverbs 27:6
"The greatest love a person can have for his friends is to give his life for them." - John 15:13
Conclusion.
A true friend is someone that I would give anything for. But do true friends really exist?
That solely depends on your definition of a true friend.
Have a good day.
What is Logical Argument all about.
Arguments and Inference.
The Discipline of Logic.
Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways.
If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.
In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don't accept the points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the discipline that studies this distinction—both by determining the conditions under which the truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its truth. This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning does ensure that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.
In this review of elementary logic, we'll undertake a broad survey of the major varieties of reasoning that have been examined by logicians of the Western philosophical tradition. We'll see how certain patterns of thinking do invariably lead from truth to truth while other patterns do not, and we'll develop the skills of using the former while avoiding the latter. It will be helpful to begin by defining some of the technical terms that describe human reasoning in general.
The Structure of Argument.
Our fundamental unit of what may be asserted or denied is the proposition (or statement) that is typically expressed by a declarative sentence. Logicians of earlier centuries often identified propositions with the mental acts of affirming them, often called judgments, but we can evade some interesting but thorny philosophical issues by avoiding this locution.
Propositions are distinct from the sentences that convey them. "Smith loves Jones" expresses exactly the same proposition as "Jones is loved by Smith," while the sentence "Today is my birthday" can be used to convey many different propositions, depending upon who happens to utter it, and on what day. But each proposition is either true or false. Sometimes, of course, we don't know which of these truth-values a particular proposition has ("There is life on the third moon of Jupiter" is presently an example), but we can be sure that it has one or the other.
The chief concern of logic is how the truth of some propositions is connected with the truth of another. Thus, we will usually consider a group of related propositions. An argument is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion). The transition or movement from premises to conclusion, the logical connection between them, is the inference upon which the argument relies.
Notice that "premise" and "conclusion" are here defined only as they occur in relation to each other within a particular argument. One and the same proposition can (and often does) appear as the conclusion of one line of reasoning but also as one of the premises of another. A number of words and phrases are commonly used in ordinary language to indicate the premises and conclusion of an argument, although their use is never strictly required, since the context can make clear the direction of movement. What distinguishes an argument from a mere collection of propositions is the inference that is supposed to hold between them.
Thus, for example, "The moon is made of green cheese, and strawberries are red. My dog has fleas." is just a collection of unrelated propositions; the truth or falsity of each has no bearing on that of the others. But "Helen is a physician. So Helen went to medical school, since all physicians have gone to medical school." is an argument; the truth of its conclusion, "Helen went to medical school," is inferentially derived from its premises, "Helen is a physician." and "All physicians have gone to medical school."
Recognizing Arguments.
It's important to be able to identify which proposition is the conclusion of each argument, since that's a necessary step in our evaluation of the inference that is supposed to lead to it. We might even employ a simple diagram to represent the structure of an argument, numbering each of the propositions it comprises and drawing an arrow to indicate the inference that leads from its premise(s) to its conclusion.
Don't worry if this procedure seems rather tentative and uncertain at first. We'll be studying the structural features of logical arguments in much greater detail as we proceed, and you'll soon find it easy to spot instances of the particular patterns we encounter most often. For now, it is enough to tell the difference between an argument and a mere collection of propositions and to identify the intended conclusion of each argument.
Even that isn't always easy, since arguments embedded in ordinary language can take on a bewildering variety of forms. Again, don't worry too much about this; as we acquire more sophisticated techniques for representing logical arguments, we will deliberately limit ourselves to a very restricted number of distinct patterns and develop standard methods for expressing their structure. Just remember the basic definition of an argument: it includes more than one proposition, and it infers a conclusion from one or more premises. So "If John has already left, then either Jane has arrived or Gail is on the way." can't be an argument, since it is just one big (compound) proposition. But "John has already left, since Jane has arrived." is an argument that proposes an inference from the fact of Jane's arrival to the conclusion, "John has already left." If you find it helpful to draw a diagram, please make good use of that method to your advantage.
Our primary concern is to evaluate the reliability of inferences, the patterns of reasoning that lead from premises to conclusion in a logical argument. We'll devote a lot of attention to what works and what does not. It is vital from the outset to distinguish two kinds of inference, each of which has its own distinctive structure and standard of correctness.
Deductive Inferences.
When an argument claims that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion, it is said to involve a deductive inference. Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness. A deductive inference succeeds only if its premises provide such absolute and complete support for its conclusion that it would be utterly inconsistent to suppose that the premises are true but the conclusion false.
Notice that each argument either meets this standard or else it does not; there is no middle ground. Some deductive arguments are perfect, and if their premises are in fact true, then it follows that their conclusions must also be true, no matter what else may happen to be the case. All other deductive arguments are no good at all—their conclusions may be false even if their premises are true, and no amount of additional information can help them in the least.
Inductive Inferences.
When an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve an inductive inference. The standard of correctness for inductive reasoning is much more flexible than that for deduction. An inductive argument succeeds whenever its premises provide some legitimate evidence or support for the truth of its conclusion. Although it is therefore reasonable to accept the truth of that conclusion on these grounds, it would not be completely inconsistent to withhold judgment or even to deny it outright.
Inductive arguments, then, may meet their standard to a greater or to a lesser degree, depending upon the amount of support they supply. No inductive argument is either absolutely perfect or entirely useless, although one may be said to be relatively better or worse than another in the sense that it recommends its conclusion with a higher or lower degree of probability. In such cases, relevant additional information often affects the reliability of an inductive argument by providing other evidence that changes our estimation of the likelihood of the conclusion.
It should be possible to differentiate arguments of these two sorts with some accuracy already. Remember that deductive arguments claim to guarantee their conclusions, while inductive arguments merely recommend theirs. Or ask yourself whether the introduction of any additional information—short of changing or denying any of the premises—could make the conclusion seem more or less likely; if so, the pattern of reasoning is inductive.
Truth and Validity.
Since deductive reasoning requires such a strong relationship between premises and conclusion, we will spend the majority of this survey studying various patterns of deductive inference. It is therefore worthwhile to consider the standard of correctness for deductive arguments in some detail.
A deductive argument is said to be valid when the inference from premises to conclusion is perfect. Here are two equivalent ways of stating that standard:
-If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
-It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises are true.
(Considering the premises as a set of propositions, we will say that the premises are true only on those occasions when each and every one of those propositions is true.) Any deductive argument that is not valid is invalid: it is possible for its conclusion to be false while its premises are true, so even if the premises are true, the conclusion may turn out to be either true or false.
Notice that the validity of the inference of a deductive argument is independent of the truth of its premises; both conditions must be met in order to be sure of the truth of the conclusion.
The only thing that cannot happen is for a deductive argument to have true premises and a valid inference but a false conclusion.
Some logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.
Conclusion.
This, for now is the definition of a sound and logical argument...
Logic, can never be wrong.
The Discipline of Logic.
Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways.
If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.
In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don't accept the points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the discipline that studies this distinction—both by determining the conditions under which the truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its truth. This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning does ensure that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.
In this review of elementary logic, we'll undertake a broad survey of the major varieties of reasoning that have been examined by logicians of the Western philosophical tradition. We'll see how certain patterns of thinking do invariably lead from truth to truth while other patterns do not, and we'll develop the skills of using the former while avoiding the latter. It will be helpful to begin by defining some of the technical terms that describe human reasoning in general.
The Structure of Argument.
Our fundamental unit of what may be asserted or denied is the proposition (or statement) that is typically expressed by a declarative sentence. Logicians of earlier centuries often identified propositions with the mental acts of affirming them, often called judgments, but we can evade some interesting but thorny philosophical issues by avoiding this locution.
Propositions are distinct from the sentences that convey them. "Smith loves Jones" expresses exactly the same proposition as "Jones is loved by Smith," while the sentence "Today is my birthday" can be used to convey many different propositions, depending upon who happens to utter it, and on what day. But each proposition is either true or false. Sometimes, of course, we don't know which of these truth-values a particular proposition has ("There is life on the third moon of Jupiter" is presently an example), but we can be sure that it has one or the other.
The chief concern of logic is how the truth of some propositions is connected with the truth of another. Thus, we will usually consider a group of related propositions. An argument is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion). The transition or movement from premises to conclusion, the logical connection between them, is the inference upon which the argument relies.
Notice that "premise" and "conclusion" are here defined only as they occur in relation to each other within a particular argument. One and the same proposition can (and often does) appear as the conclusion of one line of reasoning but also as one of the premises of another. A number of words and phrases are commonly used in ordinary language to indicate the premises and conclusion of an argument, although their use is never strictly required, since the context can make clear the direction of movement. What distinguishes an argument from a mere collection of propositions is the inference that is supposed to hold between them.
Thus, for example, "The moon is made of green cheese, and strawberries are red. My dog has fleas." is just a collection of unrelated propositions; the truth or falsity of each has no bearing on that of the others. But "Helen is a physician. So Helen went to medical school, since all physicians have gone to medical school." is an argument; the truth of its conclusion, "Helen went to medical school," is inferentially derived from its premises, "Helen is a physician." and "All physicians have gone to medical school."
Recognizing Arguments.
It's important to be able to identify which proposition is the conclusion of each argument, since that's a necessary step in our evaluation of the inference that is supposed to lead to it. We might even employ a simple diagram to represent the structure of an argument, numbering each of the propositions it comprises and drawing an arrow to indicate the inference that leads from its premise(s) to its conclusion.
Don't worry if this procedure seems rather tentative and uncertain at first. We'll be studying the structural features of logical arguments in much greater detail as we proceed, and you'll soon find it easy to spot instances of the particular patterns we encounter most often. For now, it is enough to tell the difference between an argument and a mere collection of propositions and to identify the intended conclusion of each argument.
Even that isn't always easy, since arguments embedded in ordinary language can take on a bewildering variety of forms. Again, don't worry too much about this; as we acquire more sophisticated techniques for representing logical arguments, we will deliberately limit ourselves to a very restricted number of distinct patterns and develop standard methods for expressing their structure. Just remember the basic definition of an argument: it includes more than one proposition, and it infers a conclusion from one or more premises. So "If John has already left, then either Jane has arrived or Gail is on the way." can't be an argument, since it is just one big (compound) proposition. But "John has already left, since Jane has arrived." is an argument that proposes an inference from the fact of Jane's arrival to the conclusion, "John has already left." If you find it helpful to draw a diagram, please make good use of that method to your advantage.
Our primary concern is to evaluate the reliability of inferences, the patterns of reasoning that lead from premises to conclusion in a logical argument. We'll devote a lot of attention to what works and what does not. It is vital from the outset to distinguish two kinds of inference, each of which has its own distinctive structure and standard of correctness.
Deductive Inferences.
When an argument claims that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion, it is said to involve a deductive inference. Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness. A deductive inference succeeds only if its premises provide such absolute and complete support for its conclusion that it would be utterly inconsistent to suppose that the premises are true but the conclusion false.
Notice that each argument either meets this standard or else it does not; there is no middle ground. Some deductive arguments are perfect, and if their premises are in fact true, then it follows that their conclusions must also be true, no matter what else may happen to be the case. All other deductive arguments are no good at all—their conclusions may be false even if their premises are true, and no amount of additional information can help them in the least.
Inductive Inferences.
When an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve an inductive inference. The standard of correctness for inductive reasoning is much more flexible than that for deduction. An inductive argument succeeds whenever its premises provide some legitimate evidence or support for the truth of its conclusion. Although it is therefore reasonable to accept the truth of that conclusion on these grounds, it would not be completely inconsistent to withhold judgment or even to deny it outright.
Inductive arguments, then, may meet their standard to a greater or to a lesser degree, depending upon the amount of support they supply. No inductive argument is either absolutely perfect or entirely useless, although one may be said to be relatively better or worse than another in the sense that it recommends its conclusion with a higher or lower degree of probability. In such cases, relevant additional information often affects the reliability of an inductive argument by providing other evidence that changes our estimation of the likelihood of the conclusion.
It should be possible to differentiate arguments of these two sorts with some accuracy already. Remember that deductive arguments claim to guarantee their conclusions, while inductive arguments merely recommend theirs. Or ask yourself whether the introduction of any additional information—short of changing or denying any of the premises—could make the conclusion seem more or less likely; if so, the pattern of reasoning is inductive.
Truth and Validity.
Since deductive reasoning requires such a strong relationship between premises and conclusion, we will spend the majority of this survey studying various patterns of deductive inference. It is therefore worthwhile to consider the standard of correctness for deductive arguments in some detail.
A deductive argument is said to be valid when the inference from premises to conclusion is perfect. Here are two equivalent ways of stating that standard:
-If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
-It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises are true.
(Considering the premises as a set of propositions, we will say that the premises are true only on those occasions when each and every one of those propositions is true.) Any deductive argument that is not valid is invalid: it is possible for its conclusion to be false while its premises are true, so even if the premises are true, the conclusion may turn out to be either true or false.
Notice that the validity of the inference of a deductive argument is independent of the truth of its premises; both conditions must be met in order to be sure of the truth of the conclusion.
The only thing that cannot happen is for a deductive argument to have true premises and a valid inference but a false conclusion.
Some logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.
Conclusion.
This, for now is the definition of a sound and logical argument...
Logic, can never be wrong.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
How Or When... can you meet Girls? =)
Where To Meet Girls.
Shopping Malls.
Try to remember the last time you went to a mall. Can you possibly look in a direction and not spot a beautiful girl that you would like to get to know? I'd venture a guess and say no.
The malls are always full of girls. Girls who work at various stores and shops within the mall, but also a lot of girls who go shopping or just hang out. Girls love shopping. Though it is harder to know a girl if she is surrounded by her friends, it is not always the case.
Walk up and down the halls and look inside stores for beautiful clerks or shoppers. If it is a women's clothing store or something feminine, even better. You can easily walk up to a girl (clerk or shopper) and ask her:
"Excuse me. Would you be so kind to hold this up in front of you for a moment? It's my sister's birthday next week and you are about the same size as her and from what I can tell you have the same excellent fashion sense."
Better yet, after the initial approach you can even ask her if she sees anything else that she really likes in the store that your sister might like too because of the similar tastes in fashion. Probe for keywords why she likes certain things over the others etc.
Once you have sufficient information of not only what she likes but also why she likes it you can start your charm. Expand the conversation to likes and dislikes in other areas of her life to get her view on things and so on. If she's a shopper you might want to act very quickly to finding ways for you to continue your conversation somewhere else, but if she works there she won't mind spending the time with you especially if it's not very busy.
Libraries.
If there is one place that girls almost always outnumber guys, it has to be the library. Whether it's a public library or a college/university library, you will always find young girls trying to do research for a project or homework.
These girls are usually very intelligent and dedicated to their work, but the plain truth is the fact that everybody can use a break once in a while. If you provide a bit of a pleasant distraction they'll be more than happy to talk to you. You could be asking them for some help to locate a specific section or specialty book. Even if they can't help you out they will at least have to tell you that they don't know where you can find your book. But guess what? That is a conversation taking place right there. Ask them about their own work, interests, etc. Show interest, and let them talk about it for a while.
These girls like to show off their knowledge so they'll tell you more than you need to know about the subject. But if you develop good rapport at this stage you can easily continue this fascinating conversation elsewhere. Get my drift? You can start asking why they're interested in this particular subject, what's the most fascinating thing about it, what are the challenges and so on. Once you move to answering this type of questions then you will be able to get an insight as to what type of girl she is, what she holds dear and so on.
Workplace or School/College.
This is a more relaxed atmosphere for knowing women because you are not under time constraints. If you can't get her hotter than hot for you today, you can talk to her again tomorrow. You'll have much better opportunities to get to know her. In addition, if you work or study closely together for an extended period of time chances are that you will become attracted to each other anyway.
Restaurants with attached bars.
These places are often great Tuesday to Thursday nights, around 6 - 8:30 PM. Especially upscale places, they cater to a professional crowd. Some VERY nice looking women looking to unwind after work. Also often these places serve as a meeting ground for women having bacheleorette parties.
Coffee houses.
Like Starbucks, Coffee Bean, Tea Leaf etc. Great from 8 - 10:30 AM every day of the week. After 9 AM you are more likely to get women who work in retail, outside sales like pharmaceutical reps, self-employed, students etc.
Supermarkets.
M-F Noon to around 1:30 PM as women on their lunch hours pop into buy things. Monday to Thursday 6 - 8:30 PM, Saturdays 10 AM to noon, same for Sundays.
Shopping malls.
This is a no brainer. If they have a good food court and are near offices, then noon til 1:30 PM, M - F. Hit the food courts and forget most of the rest of the stores. Other good times: Tues - Thurs 6:30 - 8 PM and Sat afternoons.
Self-improvement seminars.
Such seminars are LOADED to the gunwales with good-looking, SUGGESTIBLE women who are totally open to the type of themes discussed in any good pattern. Same with most of the self-help gurus. Christianity, ya don't even have to sign up. But it would of course be better if you do. Just find out where they are being held, hang out in the lobby of the hotel and swoop in on the HB's during the coffee, pea and dinner breaks.
Gyms.
The women are in awesome shape and usually quite adventurous.
Yoga Classes.
Unbelievable amounts of hard-bodied, wildy well-shaped women. Take a beginners class if you've never done it before and you'll met lots of women, who are also VERY suggestible and open to "new ways" of thinking.
Sporting clubs and associations.
These areas are very good for meeting single women. You find out easily which women are single and you can talk with them easily because you have a similar interest. What could be easier? There is immediate conversation to talk about and its enough to get to know each other enough to work out: "Am I attracted to this person or not?"
Conclusion.
Well... there are probably some additional other places that we could go hunting, but these are those that I can think of at the present moment. Enjoy the post...
Btw... I don't do this anymore. At least not in the last one year.
Have a good day.
Shopping Malls.
Try to remember the last time you went to a mall. Can you possibly look in a direction and not spot a beautiful girl that you would like to get to know? I'd venture a guess and say no.
The malls are always full of girls. Girls who work at various stores and shops within the mall, but also a lot of girls who go shopping or just hang out. Girls love shopping. Though it is harder to know a girl if she is surrounded by her friends, it is not always the case.
Walk up and down the halls and look inside stores for beautiful clerks or shoppers. If it is a women's clothing store or something feminine, even better. You can easily walk up to a girl (clerk or shopper) and ask her:
"Excuse me. Would you be so kind to hold this up in front of you for a moment? It's my sister's birthday next week and you are about the same size as her and from what I can tell you have the same excellent fashion sense."
Better yet, after the initial approach you can even ask her if she sees anything else that she really likes in the store that your sister might like too because of the similar tastes in fashion. Probe for keywords why she likes certain things over the others etc.
Once you have sufficient information of not only what she likes but also why she likes it you can start your charm. Expand the conversation to likes and dislikes in other areas of her life to get her view on things and so on. If she's a shopper you might want to act very quickly to finding ways for you to continue your conversation somewhere else, but if she works there she won't mind spending the time with you especially if it's not very busy.
Libraries.
If there is one place that girls almost always outnumber guys, it has to be the library. Whether it's a public library or a college/university library, you will always find young girls trying to do research for a project or homework.
These girls are usually very intelligent and dedicated to their work, but the plain truth is the fact that everybody can use a break once in a while. If you provide a bit of a pleasant distraction they'll be more than happy to talk to you. You could be asking them for some help to locate a specific section or specialty book. Even if they can't help you out they will at least have to tell you that they don't know where you can find your book. But guess what? That is a conversation taking place right there. Ask them about their own work, interests, etc. Show interest, and let them talk about it for a while.
These girls like to show off their knowledge so they'll tell you more than you need to know about the subject. But if you develop good rapport at this stage you can easily continue this fascinating conversation elsewhere. Get my drift? You can start asking why they're interested in this particular subject, what's the most fascinating thing about it, what are the challenges and so on. Once you move to answering this type of questions then you will be able to get an insight as to what type of girl she is, what she holds dear and so on.
Workplace or School/College.
This is a more relaxed atmosphere for knowing women because you are not under time constraints. If you can't get her hotter than hot for you today, you can talk to her again tomorrow. You'll have much better opportunities to get to know her. In addition, if you work or study closely together for an extended period of time chances are that you will become attracted to each other anyway.
Restaurants with attached bars.
These places are often great Tuesday to Thursday nights, around 6 - 8:30 PM. Especially upscale places, they cater to a professional crowd. Some VERY nice looking women looking to unwind after work. Also often these places serve as a meeting ground for women having bacheleorette parties.
Coffee houses.
Like Starbucks, Coffee Bean, Tea Leaf etc. Great from 8 - 10:30 AM every day of the week. After 9 AM you are more likely to get women who work in retail, outside sales like pharmaceutical reps, self-employed, students etc.
Supermarkets.
M-F Noon to around 1:30 PM as women on their lunch hours pop into buy things. Monday to Thursday 6 - 8:30 PM, Saturdays 10 AM to noon, same for Sundays.
Shopping malls.
This is a no brainer. If they have a good food court and are near offices, then noon til 1:30 PM, M - F. Hit the food courts and forget most of the rest of the stores. Other good times: Tues - Thurs 6:30 - 8 PM and Sat afternoons.
Self-improvement seminars.
Such seminars are LOADED to the gunwales with good-looking, SUGGESTIBLE women who are totally open to the type of themes discussed in any good pattern. Same with most of the self-help gurus. Christianity, ya don't even have to sign up. But it would of course be better if you do. Just find out where they are being held, hang out in the lobby of the hotel and swoop in on the HB's during the coffee, pea and dinner breaks.
Gyms.
The women are in awesome shape and usually quite adventurous.
Yoga Classes.
Unbelievable amounts of hard-bodied, wildy well-shaped women. Take a beginners class if you've never done it before and you'll met lots of women, who are also VERY suggestible and open to "new ways" of thinking.
Sporting clubs and associations.
These areas are very good for meeting single women. You find out easily which women are single and you can talk with them easily because you have a similar interest. What could be easier? There is immediate conversation to talk about and its enough to get to know each other enough to work out: "Am I attracted to this person or not?"
Conclusion.
Well... there are probably some additional other places that we could go hunting, but these are those that I can think of at the present moment. Enjoy the post...
Btw... I don't do this anymore. At least not in the last one year.
Have a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
