Free Will has no Efficacy (If at all it exists)

There is a perennial debate on whether free will exists or not. Rather than going into the arguments about its existence, let's take a practical point of view. For a moment, keep aside the question of its existence and see if it really makes any difference if exists or it does not. We do not really know if everything in this world is predetermined. On the other hand, we also do not know if the world is just a random occurrence of events. But let's take both the cases and see if free will has any role to play in either case.

Case 1: The world is deterministic. Everything that has happened in the past and will happen in future is predetermined. Clearly, if everything happens according to predetermined things, free will is just an illusion. There is no free will that case.

Case2: The world is just a random occurrence of events where past events have no links to the future events. If that is the case, no matter what you do, the outcome is just going to be a random event. Even if you decide to do something consciously, it is not going to affect the outcome anyway. Therefore, even if free will exists, it has no efficacy.

Everybody is Selfish

It is not yet another Ayn Rand type argument that selfishness is a virtue. I am saying that a person can not be unselfish. Every person takes the decision that makes him more happy. e.g. There is no such thing as sacrifice. A person sacrifices because he would be less happy if he doesn't. Similarly, a person works for others only because he becomes more happy by working for others than working for himself. To conclude, I would say that any option has by default alternative of not choosing that option; a person chooses an option because not choosing that option makes him less happy.

Atheists and Theists are not different

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun: the belief that God does not exist.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
[I hate to start like this but I couldn't think of a better intro]

Some people claim that they are atheists. But the problem with their argument is that they only "Believe" that the God does not exist. It sounds contradictory,because if you take "belief" as the basis then there is really no difference between those who believe that He does not exist and those who believe He exists.
Therefore there is not difference between a christian missionary who is trying to spread Christianity and atheists who are trying to spread so called rational thinking. Both of them trying to put their argument based on their belief and not some proof within the well accepted frame of logic.

Equality is a Myth

I believe equality is a myth. When you ask somebody whether he is xxxx (put maharashtrian,gujju,gult,mallu,tam etc) and if he proudly says I am an Indian, he is differentiating between an Indian and a non-Indian. When somebody says I am a human being first, he is differentiating between a Human being and other living things like animals, trees etc. When he says (rarely I have heard saying somebody so) I care for living things, he is showing scant regard to non living things like water, air, petroleum etc. When somebody (assume for the sake of argument) says that I am all for anything that exists then he is differentiating between things that exist and do not exist, e.g. only conceptually exist, like law, ethics, designation etc. The argument is endless. Therefore I believe that equality is a myth. The only thing that is is important is ability to live with inequality.

Glass Theory*

This is something that I argued during our Individual Dynamics (Organisation Behaviour) class.

We have been convincingly told that the person who thinks that the half filled is "Half Full" is an optimist and the one who thinks it is half empty is pessimist.
The argument against it is that the person who sees glass half full and gets happy is actually expecting the glass to be empty and hence happy that the glass is at least half full. On the other hand the person who sees the glass half empty is actually expecting the glass to be completely filled. He would then like to fill the rest of the glass. Hence, contrary to the popular opinion, the person who sees glass half empty is an optimist and the person who sees glass half full is a pessimist.
____________________________
* The name has been suggested by Piyush "Bhai" Chaurasiya.

Why noobjectivereality?

I personally believe that there is no objective reality.Now, when I say that,I don' mean it literally.All that I say is even if there exists an Objective reality we can never come to know about it.
Here is a small,loose and non-rigorous proof for it :
Let us assume that the objective reality exists.Suppose a person X comes to know about it.Then obviously there is no way for him to verify that it is indeed an objective reality. If he asks somebody whether it is an objective reality then the opinion that the person will give will be based on his own beliefs, which essentially is a subjective opinion. On the other hand somebody "claims" that he is aware of it, then again there will be no way to "independently" verify it. Whichever way you go you will land up with a person or a group of people who think that their version of reality is "objective" which essentially is nothing but their subjective opinion about the reality. Now let us assume that you as a person start believing that a particular version of reality is objective without asking for an external probe for it.Then it is essentialy a subjective opinion of yours which can't be really termed as objective.
Absence of methods of verifications is really what makes the Objective reality elusive.

"Hello World !"

As a computer engineering student I am doing what every programming book does. Demonstrate a "Hello World!" program which does nothing but to write "Hello World !" on the console.