When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?

By googling 1611 King James Version fascimile, I see it is widely available, complete with the Apocrypha.I'll be ordering one. Thanks for the notion, Faith.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.htmlThis tells about many of the things that people 'knew' were wrong but are shown to be correct with added information.http://www.satellitediscoveries.com/...s/bahamas/baha_4.htmlWhat I was talking about I'd seen on TV, but this site shows some of the many underwater areas that can't be explained by the 'present knowledge'. While looking for this I've come upon sites all over the world that show: Many underwater cities, some a half mile down; Several sites that have all the indications of ancient atomic blasts; Evidence from many places that there were giant 'humans' as stated in the Bible; The statement that evidence of evolution of humans can fit into one small coffin!The concept that those who believe the Bible or who believe something that isn't scientifically acceptable today are insane is in itself rather a form of insanity. The only things that are real are those we know? Reminds me of the three blind men standing at different parts of an elephant, 'knowing' that they know what an elephant looks like while touching it's tail, leg and trunk respectively. Each is right, as for the information they have, but they are collectively wrong because of lack of complete information.People thought driving a car faster than a mile a minute would be deadly... People knew that flying faster than the speed of sound would be impossible...We're still trying to understand the human mind and it's still more an 'art' than a 'science', assuming that 'science' has all the answers! I've had many personal experiences that were way beyond the accepted limits of the mind, let alone my mind! I guess I'm therefore insane according to what I'm reading here.

Yes, there are some pretty ones out there. I guess there are many that claim to be the real thing that aren't. I'd like to have the real thing but I don't need the old typeface or the old spellings, just the accurate text.

quote:

---

We are products of a mindless universe. We have no purpose. We just happen to be here. We can think up purposes of our own, but of course this is something we just make up. No purpose is any better than any other purpose--because we make it up. We live for awhile and then we cease to exist. We are of no more importance than the wind that blows across the Texas plains. During this time we struggle trying to figure out what we should do, how we should live. We never figure it out. The reason is there is no answer to that question. It doesn't matter what we do or how we live. A hundred years from now it's all the same. We are of no more significance than a roach crawling across the floor.

---

You've simply stated a series of your favorite conclusions from the premise, and alsmost all of them are entirely subjective.You have provided no logical progression at all, just a bunch of your own subjective assertions.In particular, the bit about what we do, not having significance is simply wrong on it's face. We may die, but what we do now can impact future events. In fact, I would say that this is inevitable.Just because you may feel like you've wasted your life and couldn't figure it out doesn't mean that everyone else has, or couldn't.Try again.

quote:

---

people who run their lives on the fumes of their own subjectivity simply haven't thought it through carefully.

---

But that's precisely what RR IS doing.

Not at all. I don't know why there is this misunderstanding but his statements are completely objective (2+2=4) about meaning in life -- in the context of Darwinism for sure -- and those who think the meaning is what they themselves create are the subjective ones.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 09:28 AM

Not at all. This is what Darwinism concluded. It's an objective statement based on that. This is also an objective conclusion from Darwinism. For instance we can think that because we might have some impact on future events that that confers signficance. But while it may confer subjective significance for some who like thinking this way, it doesn't confer objective significance. It makes no difference in the great scheme of things at all whether we have some impact or not as long as we are basically purposeless beings in a mindless universe. Things can be endlessly rearranged and affected by all kinds of things we do without any of it mattering in any ultimate objective sense. Like a rockslide or a flood rearranges the terrain there's an impact but the impact is meaningless in itself. This too is the objective conclusion from the Darwinist / atheist point of view. Ditto. Or a rock slide or a flood or a forest fire. Absolutely objectively true within the framework of science-defined humanity -- and in fact consciously embraced by many. But this is irrelevant to the point RR is making. His point is about an objective or intrinsic or ultimate significance to human life, as defined especially by Darwinism. The idea that impacting future events confers significance is your own subjective interpretation. Objectively speaking, impacting future events confers no significance whatever on a being that has no intrinsic worth or significance in the great scheme of things. He'd have to explain further I suppose, but the impression I get is that although one could have fulfilled all kinds of subjective purposes in one's life just fine, he's alert to the overarching fact that there is no ultimate objective purpose to any of it, and this is what leads him to the judgment that it's all a waste no matter how successful he may have been with the subjective purposes.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 10:11 AM

I don't know much about the different versions. The one I've got says on the title page, "translated out of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised by his majesty's special command."Then it says, "authorized King James version."

It sounds pretty authentic but I was really kidding as it would be very unusual for anyone to have a true original of the King James with the old English. (Though Omnivorous has just ordered a true facsimile edition he says). At the very least the spellings have been modernized and some contemporary terms substituted to update it.

Yeah, what I really want is to have some more time to myself--to pursue my hobbies (reading, writing, etc.). That's why the monkish life is attractive to me. I don't need any more parties. It seems like the older I get, the more duties I have. One of these days it'll be too late . . . You got that right. They must have been desperate to make you an Admin. with your wild irresponsible attitude. One of these nights you're going to get drunk and come on here and suspend ever single poster on general principles--essentially shut the place down. In fact, I think you should do that. It would be very amusing.

Lead me not into temptation.As long as I don't need narcotic pain meds, the shackles of responsibility they've put on me should hold. There are snarly bits of my Id that should never be disinhibited.But don't worry, Robin. After the Revolution, I'll take care of you.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Objectively speaking, of course, I've not wasted my life, since there was nothing of significance that could have been wasted. My whole argument is objective except for that one part about wishing I had a second life in which to apply the lessons I learned in the first. Perhaps there are people out there who have no regrets about anything they have ever done or left undone. Every decision they ever made was exactly right. I don't know any such people, but I do know people who live sentimentally, who color over their past subjectively to make it look just fine, thank you. I also know a few people who have no regrets because their sensibilities are so dull that they are incapable of sincere regret.The truly sentimental attitude is one in which the subjective purpose that one devises is taken as objective, and one conveniently forgets the true nature of the human condition. This perhaps--to get back on topic--is a "mental disorder."

quote:

---

Not at all. I don't know why there is this misunderstanding but his statements are completely objective (2+2=4) about meaning in life -- in the context of Darwinism for sure -- and those who think the meaning is what they themselves create are the subjective ones.

---

RR believes that, objectively, life has no meaning at all.Therefore, if he attaches some kind of meaning regarding life to acceptance of the ToE, he is, by his own definition, presenting a subjective opinion.Since you agree that his conclusion, that if one accepts that allele frequencies in populations change over time, one MUST also logically conclude that life is "meaningless, brutal, and short", then perhaps you would be so kind as to lay out the logical progression that starts at the former and ends at the latter and includes no subjective statements?So far, he hasn't been able to, although I haven't read the rest of the thread yet.The error you and Robin are making is this: Because you can't derive meaning in life from X, you assume that X excludes the possibility of meaning in life.In your case, "X" is the TOE. Replace X with "Life is carbon-based". I doubt you can derive meaning in life from "Life is carbon-based" either. Does that mean that if one accepts "Life is carbon-based" that one must agree that life is meaningless, brutal and short?Seems silly, doesn't it? But I have seen no other argument provided.If you have another argument, then lay it out for me.

Not at all. There IS objectively speaking NO inherent meaning to life if it all derived from biochemical processes. Whatever meaning anyone finds in it is meaning they have subjectively invested into it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-19-2006 11:07 AM

Think in terms of "formal purpose." The formal purpose of something is that which it was intended for by its maker. The formal purpose of a hammer is to drive nails. You can use it for other purposes, too, such as knocking somebody in the head, but that would not be its formal purpose.Humans have no formal purpose. We were not made for anything because we mere made by mindless nature with no purpose in mind. Hence we are in a formal sense useless.All purposes we come up with are necessarily subjective. They mean something to us but objectively speaking they are meaningless.ABE: Therefore, someone who takes their subjective purpose to be objective might be said to have a mental disorder.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-19-2006 11:18 AM