Are You Drawn to the "Needy" Types?

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@May 12 2005, 01:55 AM
The labels 'weak' and 'stupid' are not labels that I have stuck on myself, those were your words.

[post=310284]Quoted post[/post]​

:shrug: it goes without saying that anyone who feels the need to believe in a god or gods does so out of a lack of mental fortitude and personal conviction. similarly, the desire to belong to an organized religion indicates a lack of willpower and personal self-sufficiency.

I don't have a problem with any of those things or any of those people as individuals - most non-religious people are exactly the same, and merely substitute other external factors for an organized religion - I recognize that that is just human nature and the vast majority of human beings will always be like that. I guess I'm using the terms "weak" and "stupid" as essentially interchangeable in this respect. I can only see true "intelligence" as being a consequence and development of the ability to think for onesself.

I wouldn't even have any particular animus against organized religions AS organizations, if they were content to leave everyone else alone. unfortunately, history has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) that as soon as any cult or sect has sufficient power and influence in its own society, its sets out to inflict itself on everybody else - lobbying for political power, specific privileges or exemptions for its adherents, and in extreme cases fostering internecine conflicts and international wars supposedly justified by their beliefs. look at the laws and customs of any "western" nation right now - they're based on judaeo-christian moral values, branded into the "fabric of society" by 2,000 years of religious doctrine. THAT is the kind of shit I have a BIG problem with. I am NOT gonna be forced to live, under threat of violence and incarceration, by ANYONE else's rules, least of all a set of rules supposedly promulgated by some kind of magic fairy in the sky.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+May 12 2005, 10:10 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; May 12 2005, 10:10 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper@May 12 2005, 01:55 AM
The labels &#39;weak&#39; and &#39;stupid&#39; are not labels that I have stuck on myself, those were your words.

[post=310284]Quoted post[/post]​

:shrug: it goes without saying that anyone who feels the need to believe in a god or gods does so out of a lack of mental fortitude and personal conviction. similarly, the desire to belong to an organized religion indicates a lack of willpower and personal self-sufficiency.

[post=310405]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
New way of staying what you said earleir. Look at what your wrote and I quote part of it, "lack of mental fortitude and personal conviction" I have plenty of mental fortitude. I am a bit shocked that you would suggest that I lack personal conviction. Anyone who reads my posts would know that I have strong opinions.

You have no clue where I have been and experienced. Have you laid on a floor paralyzed from the neck down? I have. Have you had a vision from God while lying on the floor dying? I have. Do you have spinal cord injuries that baffle the doctors and the doctors say only supernatural power could be the reason that you can walk? I was told that. Can you play the old hymns blindfolded and never miss a note while at the same time have almost no feeling in your fingers? Been there and still am.

I have felt the power of God in my life. I have unshakable faith that God is who is says he is and that God will finish His creation and there will be total perfection and I really believe I will be a part of that.

Can you find a post where I have condemned your beliefs? NO. I get tired of your condemning all believers for be weak and having lack of metal fortitude and personal convictions.

 

[Dr Rock]

can&#39;t figure out what point you&#39;re trying to make there. I don&#39;t recall having condemned anyone FOR their beliefs, or even for their need to believe them, regardless of why I think they do so (which is ultimately irrelevant to anyone except me). I already specified that I don&#39;t have a problem with anyone BEING religious, only with organized religions as social blocs - in exactly the same way as I resent ANY abuse of authority (and most positions of authority in our societies are created for abuse). I don&#39;t consider someone&#39;s subscription to an established organized religion to be a part of their personality or humanity, regardless of how they themselves might feel on that issue (and for the record I don&#39;t consider personal beliefs to be any more integral than doctrinal beliefs in that respect, either).

I ain&#39;t putting anyone down by pointing out that their religion is a crutch that they&#39;d be better off without. if you wanna attribute part of yourself TO a religion, that&#39;s your decision, and it&#39;s no use blaming me if you then become offended. there is a big difference between saying "organized christianity is a bad thing" and "freddie53 (or DMW) is a bad person because he goes to a church." criticizing something that someone DOES is not - as far as I&#39;m aware - the same thing as criticizing someone for who they ARE. maybe I&#39;ve not been making myself very clear on this so far, but if you can&#39;t distinguish which of those I AM saying, then we&#39;re gonna be arguing at cross purposes.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 12 2005, 09:43 PM
I don&#39;t recall having condemned anyone FOR their beliefs, or even for their need to believe them, regardless of why I think they do so (which is ultimately irrelevant to anyone except me).

What you said is that "anyone who feels the need to believe in a god or gods does so out of a lack of mental fortitude and personal conviction." Accusing someone of being mentally weak or spineless isn&#39;t condemnation? It&#39;s at the very least insulting. It&#39;s clear that you&#39;ll never understand what religion means to some of us. You can&#39;t: you don&#39;t understand religion period. It&#39;s a driving force in the world community whether or not you believe in it. Regard me as weak and stupid if you want; others might apply those words to someone who, out of ignorance, hurls epithets at those who are different than them out of ignorance.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+May 12 2005, 11:10 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; May 12 2005, 11:10 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>:shrug: it goes without saying that anyone who feels the need to believe in a god or gods does so out of a lack of mental fortitude and personal conviction. similarly, the desire to belong to an organized religion indicates a lack of willpower and personal self-sufficiency.

[post=310405]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Oh come on now. I think a lot of believers have huge personal convictions (often scary ones, but they have them). Plus, a desire to look for people who share our beliefs (whatever they are) or to share our experiences with others and feel a sense of community is, for a many of us, a human need.

Look at the LPSG. Why do you come here, Dr.Rock? It&#39;s not an isolated, individual experience--it&#39;s a group experience.

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 12 2005, 11:10 AM
I can only see true "intelligence" as being a consequence and development of the ability to think for onesself.

I think, for some, the decision to believe or have faith is just that: a decision. It&#39;s a choice for some, and that would seem to indicate personal thought.

<!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@May 12 2005, 11:10 AM
most non-religious people are exactly the same, and merely substitute other external factors for an organized religion.[/quote]

I would most certainly agree with that. I think we all have our belief systems, even if they are non-religious. Might it be argued that choosing not to "believe" in anything (be it a human system, a form of government, a higher power, whatever) and adopt an attitude of extreme cynicism and negativity might be the same sort of shortcut phenomenon?

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 13 2005, 02:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 13 2005, 02:53 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>What you said is that "anyone who feels the need to believe in a god or gods does so out of a lack of mental fortitude and personal conviction." Accusing someone of being mentally weak or spineless isn&#39;t condemnation?[/b]

:shrug: as I said, I personally couldn&#39;t care less. most human beings are like that; religion is by no means the only substitute they use. as I said in my previous post, you can take it as condemnation if you like, but my intent is to point out that those weaknesses are better addressed by facing up to ourselves and the world than by taking refuge in some fabricated belief of universal order. I&#39;m not expecting anyone to listen; as a rule, human beings only ever listen to things that they already want to hear. I&#39;m sure you and freddie are perfectly fine people, but the fact remains that you&#39;re wilfully substituting self-delusion for self-affirmation. I don&#39;t hold that against you personally, but if you insist on defending the supposed validity of organized religions, then obviously I&#39;m gonna disagree.

you don&#39;t understand religion period.

oh, I think I understand it a lot better than YOU guys do, actually

It&#39;s a driving force in the world community whether or not you believe in it.

[post=310594]Quoted post[/post]​

and therein, of course, lies the problem.

<!--QuoteBegin-steve319@May 13 2005, 03:02 AM
I think a lot of believers have huge personal convictions (often scary ones, but they have them).[/quote]
I think you&#39;re confusing religious convictions with personal convictions.

Look at the LPSG. Why do you come here, Dr.Rock? It&#39;s not an isolated, individual experience--it&#39;s a group experience.

the difference is that I don&#39;t look to LPSG for personal validation, moral guidance, or a means to keep the fear of death at bay.

I think, for some, the decision to believe or have faith is just that: a decision.

... and why do they make it? see above.

Might it be argued that choosing not to "believe" in anything (be it a human system, a form of government, a higher power, whatever) and adopt an attitude of extreme cynicism and negativity might be the same sort of shortcut phenomenon?

[post=310596]Quoted post[/post]​

:tinfoilhat: I don&#39;t have "an attitude of extreme cynicism and negativity." I&#39;m way too apathetic to make that kind of effort.

I enjoy fantasy and escapism as much as, and probably more than, most other people - I just don&#39;t make the fundamental error of confusing them with reality.

I "believe" in personal freedom unadulterated by the involuntary dictates of law and government - but I don&#39;t pretend that my "beliefs" in that respect are endorsed by some invisible authority beyond human reach.

I&#39;ve survived cancer, spinal meningitis, 27 stab-wounds to the chest and abdomen, 2 bullet-wounds to the shoulder, 2 vehicle smash-ups in which everyone else on board was killed, a 40-foot drop onto concrete which broke 2 limbs, dislocated several vertebrae, tore most of the muscles behind my left shoulder to ribbons, and drove several broken ribs into my left lung; and tony blair&#39;s government. I&#39;m more familiar with death and physical pain than most people will ever be in their worst nightmares. but I don&#39;t try to hide from it or reassure myself without any evidence whatsoever that there&#39;s something "better" waiting for me the other side of the incinerator. I ain&#39;t afraid of much these days, and I sure as hell ain&#39;t afraid of dying. we all gotta do it, and I feel we should be spending our time making the most of our lives instead of trying to inflict our own fears upon everyone else, and/or chasing our own brains in circles with prayer or worship or whatever the fuck.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

my intent is to point out that those weaknesses are better addressed by facing up to ourselves and the world than by taking refuge in some fabricated belief of universal order.

You&#39;re stating your opinion as fact. I have no weaknesses that cause me to take refuge in religion. As I&#39;ve said before, you have no idea what religion means to me. You&#39;ve mentioned &#39;confirmation&#39; more than once. That has nothing to do with my religiosity.

you don&#39;t understand religion period.

oh, I think I understand it a lot better than YOU guys do, actually

Okay, let&#39;s see: I&#39;ve studied ecclesiastical history and theology for three years in college and the finer points of morality, eschatology, exegesis, apocalyptic literature and canon law during my two years in the seminary. How silly of me not to realise that you must have a firmer grasp of the subject than someone who has actually studied its various aspects and the writings that have shaped it.

the difference is that I don&#39;t look to LPSG for personal validation, moral guidance, or a means to keep the fear of death at bay.

Nor is it the reason that I follow a religion.

I enjoy fantasy and escapism as much as, and probably more than, most other people - I just don&#39;t make the fundamental error of confusing them with reality.

I&#39;ve survived cancer, spinal meningitis, 27 stab-wounds to the chest and abdomen, 2 bullet-wounds to the shoulder, 2 vehicle smash-ups in which everyone else on board was killed, a 40-foot drop onto concrete which broke 2 limbs, dislocated several vertebrae, tore most of the muscles behind my left shoulder to ribbons, and drove several broken ribs into my left lung

So let me get this straight: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, René des Cartes, Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, Sir Thomas More, et al., are stupid and weak, right? They believed in God. That they are mentally inferior to you, who dropped out of school at sixteen and obviously led a life filled with danger, is not apparent to me. Now I know I don&#39;t know your life story and what led to those injuries, but you don&#39;t live in Beirut. Twenty-nine stab wounds, two bullet wounds, forty foot drops onto concrete suggest the results of questionable behaviour ... maybe &#39;stupid&#39; acts or lapses of judgment.

No, thanks. I&#39;ll stick with the great thinkers of history rather than the bitter dropout who dismisses everything he hasn&#39;t personally seen or experienced.

 

[prepstudinsc]

DMW...thank you for your post. You expressed my thoughts in a rational way because Dr. Rock&#39;s post got me so riled up, I would have flown off the handle if I had responded to him.

I am religious but I am no way weak minded, nor do I need a crutch. I have had too many instances where God has clearly given signs. Faith is a concept that is so simple yet difficult to grasp, but there are rewards for those who hold to it.

I&#39;m sorry Dr. Rock doesn&#39;t see the need for religion, but for me, it&#39;s a necessity. My faith gives me the strength to press on that just my inner strength can&#39;t. It&#39;s not because I&#39;m weak, but God has far more power than any human can or will ever have.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 13 2005, 10:36 AM

I think, for some, the decision to believe or have faith is just that: a decision.

... and why do they make it? see above.

I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s that simple. I tend to fall pretty far onto the whole "opiate of the masses" interpretation of religion in general, but I&#39;m certainly not going to assume those motivations are the core for everyone. I&#39;m not sure morality is necessarily a central factor for everyone who chooses to believe in a higher power or even to worship in a group.

If there&#39;s no truly compelling or convincing evidence either way for the existance or non-existance of God, then maybe it boils down to a choice for each person.

I don&#39;t have "an attitude of extreme cynicism and negativity." I&#39;m way too apathetic to make that kind of effort.

Cute. Please forgive me if I don&#39;t completely buy it. I&#39;d say that apathy suits you, though. And I honest-to-God get a kick out of it, too.

But it isn&#39;t eveyone&#39;s cup of tea. I mean, what extremes would you then have to go to if everyone adopted that attitude? How far would you have to go to maintain the misanthrope routine then?

(just jerking your chain here)

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

I can&#39;t help but think about the martyrs of the early Church. Apparently they didn&#39;t lack conviction, and were they afraid of death? Religion meant something to them. And there are martyrs today. I&#39;d like for someone to read Richard Wormbrand&#39;s book Tortured For Christ and then try to claim that members of organised religions are stupid, weak, spineless.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 13 2005, 10:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 13 2005, 10:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, let&#39;s see: I&#39;ve studied ecclesiastical history and theology for three years in college and the finer points of morality, eschatology, exegesis, apocalyptic literature and canon law during my two years in the seminary.[/b]

that&#39;s cool. I attended the University of Life and majored in Getting The Shit Kicked Out Of Me (honors). the textbook routine don&#39;t impress me much.

So let me get this straight: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, René des Cartes, Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, Sir Thomas More, et al., are stupid and weak, right?

again, since I don&#39;t even know who half of those folks are, I can&#39;t really comment. I&#39;m sure they were all perfectly great people and all, even if they never realized that they didn&#39;t need any gods or devils to get them through the night.

Now I know I don&#39;t know your life story and what led to those injuries, but you don&#39;t live in Beirut.

you don&#39;t know WHERE I&#39;ve lived or what I&#39;ve done there, any more than I know as much about you (as you keep pointing out). if your point is that I did stupid things in the past, I&#39;m afraid you won&#39;t find any argument there. I&#39;m not ashamed of having learned from my own mistakes as well as those of others. it&#39;s the only way we find out who we are, as I&#39;m sure you must appreciate.

anyway, the discussion seems to have veered away from the validity of organized religion and towards the validity of Al Derby. I&#39;m quite happy to continue it as such, if it genuinely interests you, but most folks here&#39;ll probably find it pretty boring. it&#39;d be cool if you could sustain the original debate by - for example - postulating any mitigating aspect of organized religion beyond "it&#39;s here, you don&#39;t understand, get used to it" ... but there&#39;s no pressure or nothing.

<!--QuoteBegin-steve319@May 14 2005, 02:52 AM
I tend to fall pretty far onto the whole "opiate of the masses" interpretation of religion in general, but I&#39;m certainly not going to assume those motivations are the core for everyone.[/quote]
at some level, they have to be. there is no other way for a thinking mind to convince itself of blind belief. it can be disguised as, acknowledged as or covered by any number of other things, but it&#39;s gotta be there to begin with, or else logic just disqualifies the whole premise of belief.

there&#39;s no truly compelling or convincing evidence either way for the existance or non-existance of God

well, one doesn&#39;t "prove" negatives - one only disproves theories.

maybe I&#39;ve been convinced, or convinced myself, that you&#39;re a rhinoceros. I can&#39;t PROVE that you&#39;re NOT a rhinoceros, but I CAN prove that your appearance, behavior and genome bear very little resemblance to those of a rhinoceros - so in pure fact I can&#39;t consider you to be a rhinoceros, even if I personally BELIEVE that you are one.

there&#39;s no avoiding the fact that there is no demonstrable evidence to suggest the existence of god, souls, tooth fairies and so on. nor is there any reason to suppose that the models we base our sciences on would be improved in any way by factoring in the existence of gods or universal orders that are impossible to describe or demonstrate.

How far would you have to go to maintain the misanthrope routine then?

-_- I&#39;m not "maintaining" any "routine." I don&#39;t deny that I get frustrated, but that&#39;s just a weakness of MY character. if I was a misanthrope, why would I consistently spend time and effort on my futile one-man war against authoritarian government and organized religion? as I&#39;ve told you before, the entire human race is getting a raw deal, not just me or DMW. the time I spend typing all this shit, and writing/drawing/singing/shouting other shit for the same reasons, I could use getting drunk or painting my dogs or watching my goofy friends get into fistfights over Star Wars. but then who else would care enough about YOUR lazy asses to try and make you THINK for 15 seconds?

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 14 2005, 10:40 AM
at some level, they have to be. there is no other way for a thinking mind to convince itself of blind belief.

"The thinking mind"--using loaded language in the same manner as the religious "right" there, Rock? Even they would have to admire your tactics.

it can be disguised as, acknowledged as or covered by any number of other things, but it&#39;s gotta be there to begin with, or else logic just disqualifies the whole premise of belief.

Again, it just doesn&#39;t seem that simple to me. I&#39;m not sure we can define everyone else&#39;s experience in terms of our own and be giving it a fair shake.

It really doesn&#39;t matter to me (much) if you don&#39;t respect someone else&#39;s choice to believe something that isn&#39;t traditionally "rational." Where would the fun be if everyone had the same outlook? But being so casual with the name-calling and the dismissive comments, particularly when it seems to be targeting a divergent set of personal experiences from your own--one that you couldn&#39;t know or understand, seems unfair. To me. But I&#39;m not the arbiter of fairness. (Thank God)

Does allowing someone their faith (assuming they don&#39;t use it to batter someone else into submission--and yeah, that&#39;s a big assumption) necessitate the hurling of negative epithets?

if I was a misanthrope, why would I consistently spend time and effort on my futile one-man war against authoritarian government and organized religion?

AH&#33; So you&#39;re the martyr. Cool.

Or Don Quixote tilting at the windmills of the Church. An unchallenged faith is a weak faith and all that.

but then who else would care enough about YOUR lazy asses to try and make you THINK for 15 seconds?

It&#39;s nice to know you care. Gives me a warm feeling in my weak and stupid insides. I&#39;ve always had a love for the devil&#39;s advocate in the crowd--even when it isn&#39;t me&#33;

Can we assume, from your efforts, that you have faith in humanity?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+May 14 2005, 02:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; May 14 2005, 02:40 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper@May 13 2005, 10:59 PM
Okay, let&#39;s see: I&#39;ve studied ecclesiastical history and theology for three years in college and the finer points of morality, eschatology, exegesis, apocalyptic literature and canon law during my two years in the seminary.

that&#39;s cool. I attended the University of Life and majored in Getting The Shit Kicked Out Of Me (honors). [/b][/quote]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of religions and theology. I still don&#39;t get your claim that you know more about religion than I do. "I studied ichthyology, so of course I know more about nuclear physics than you&#33;"

So let me get this straight: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, René des Cartes, Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, Sir Thomas More, et al., are stupid and weak, right?

again, since I don&#39;t even know who half of those folks are, I can&#39;t really comment.

I mentioned six people. I would think that people with any common knowledge would&#39;ve at least heard of Einstein, da Vinci and Galileo. Your lack of education is becoming more evident all the time.

I&#39;m not ashamed of having learned from my own mistakes as well as those of others. it&#39;s the only way we find out who we are, as I&#39;m sure you must appreciate.

Well, at least we agree on something.

I&#39;m quite happy to continue it as such, if it genuinely interests you, but most folks here&#39;ll probably find it pretty boring. it&#39;d be cool if you could sustain the original debate by - for example - postulating any mitigating aspect of organized religion beyond "it&#39;s here, you don&#39;t understand, get used to it"

It is probably getting boring for most, and I really don&#39;t see a reason to continue it. Whatever I might put forth, you will doubtless answer which your usual, "I don&#39;t believe it, so it&#39;s not real. And anyone who does believe it is weak and stupid because I say so." That&#39;s not really enough to sustain a serious philosophical discussion.

 

[jonb]

Yeah, but Einstein&#39;s views on God were quite different than Judeo-Christian-Islamic views. Actually, Einstein was closer to pantheism. Remember what he said? "God does not play dice." Well, contrary to what most people think, Einstein was simply rejecting quantum mechanics. Why? Because in quantum mechanics, whether or not a law applies is governed by chance. And so he rejected it because God (i.e., the laws of the universe) does not play dice: Einstein thought it was possible to have a universe with no laws, but not one with laws which aren&#39;t deterministic.

 

[naughty]

Back to the main topic....

I must say that I need to be a little less harsh about neediness. I think it hits all of us at times when we least expect it. I dont hate individuals who are needy I guess it really takes someone with a lot of energy to deal with them and I am not that person.

Naughty

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by steve319+May 14 2005, 04:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve319 &#064; May 14 2005, 04:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>"The thinking mind"--using loaded language in the same manner as the religious "right" there, Rock? Even they would have to admire your tactics.[/b]

I&#39;m working under the (perhaps naive) assumption that all sentient creatures are CAPABLE of thought.

Does allowing someone their faith (assuming they don&#39;t use it to batter someone else into submission--and yeah, that&#39;s a big assumption) necessitate the hurling of negative epithets?

blah blah blah. I already said I have no problem with anyone&#39;s personal faith. my issue is with organized religions and the idea that they&#39;re necessary or even acceptable. you can believe whatever you want without endorsing sociopolitical groups. the reason we still have organized religions is because people continue to subscribe to them instead of acknowledging their "faith" as their OWN.

Can we assume, from your efforts, that you have faith in humanity?

[post=310985]Quoted post[/post]​

humanity is something that can&#39;t be disputed. we&#39;re all human and we all have to deal with it. we do, however, have a degree of choice over our social systems and personal development.

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@May 14 2005, 08:42 PM
I still don&#39;t get your claim that you know more about religion than I do. "I studied ichthyology, so of course I know more about nuclear physics than you&#33;"

I know. I&#39;m not really expecting you to. it has a lot to do with objectivity vs subjectivity.

I mentioned six people. I would think that people with any common knowledge would&#39;ve at least heard of Einstein, da Vinci and Galileo.

yeah yeah, I&#39;m sure I&#39;ve heard all six names before, I said I don&#39;t know who half of them ARE (or were, whichever). this is relevant how?

Your lack of education is becoming more evident all the time.

well that&#39;s terrible.

It is probably getting boring for most, and I really don&#39;t see a reason to continue it. Whatever I might put forth, you will doubtless answer which your usual, "I don&#39;t believe it, so it&#39;s not real. And anyone who does believe it is weak and stupid because I say so."

yeah okay. the burden of proof is on the proponent, though. I&#39;ve been waiting for you or anyone else to present me with any example, however insignificant, of how an organized religion can be justified as such in any supposedly "civilized" society ... but of course, as you&#39;ve realized, I already knew I wasn&#39;t gonna get one.

<!--QuoteBegin-jonb@May 14 2005, 11:59 PM
Einstein thought it was possible to have a universe with no laws, but not one with laws which aren&#39;t deterministic.

[post=311113]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
yeah, he was quite adamant that certain physical laws must apply over all of space and time ("god" I guess) ... and he also believed that atoms were the smallest individual components of matter. we might laugh at both those theories now, but they were valid enough to contend 80 years ago.

 

[Altairion]

Hmmm, I&#39;m going to stay out of this &#39;discussion&#39;, but if I were the judge my current vote would go towards DMW. However, that could just be because I know who Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, René des Cartes, Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, Sir Thomas More were and what they did. I&#39;ll say right now that I am not part of a single religion, but I follow my own path, and I am fine as long as no one tries to force their personal ideas upon me...*cough Bush...


Back onto the topic of neediness...I recently dated a girl that turned out to be really clingy and all. It wasn&#39;t due to anything really emotional that happened in her past, just seems to be her personality. What&#39;s worse is that she is really nice, so I felt like a jerk when I cut things off with her. And now, she still wants to hang out which makes it more of a persistant annoyance since she seems to be clinging still. I hope she finds the right person for her someday, but it just won&#39;t be me.

 

[txquis]

Sometimes it is a question of too much too soon.
If a relationship is established, and I know someone extremely well,
and there is a history together.........and something changes and the person
needs a shoulder........that is fine.

But when the needy/clingy comes right from the beginning it
weirds me out.
Actually i think there is a thread on this called "what scares you off"...
well...i guess this is one of the things.

 

[madame_zora]

Txquis, you speak my mind&#33; The whole "too much too fast" syndrome is gross and creepy. I don&#39;t like it when I first meet someone and they are instantly in the midst of a crisis, or they decide we&#39;re in love after a week&#33; Love takes time, and a lot of it. Someone who is too eager makes me very uncomfortable indeed, but yes, dear friends who need a shoulder will always have mine.

 

[naughty]

Hi,

I think when someone is attempting to manipulate the intimacy time table a red flag goes off. The the individual is really not about the other person at all. This is about themself and a deep seated need to connect. Whereas most of us wish for connection, to seek a energy source while naming it love is seriously dishonest and I think that may be what so many of us are viscerally reacting to on a wide scale. Because we all know you dont get something for nothing.

I also dont like being flooded with inappropriate gifts too early on because it feels as if my affections are being bought without my consent. Affection is a gift not a commodity. I resent this type of emotional "trojan horse".When it is presented there is usually a bottomless pit of need behind it that I really do not feel equiped to deal with on any level.

Naughty