• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Wis-dumb of Pogo

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
It is unfortunate that this thread has gotten hijacked over an "is the Bible true" argument. When I initially mentioned it, I intended to give my .02 about a source of happiness. Happiness will depend on your belief system. One's belief system is the essence of who they are...

No one can come to the table with undeniable proof when speaking of the "things not seen". However, it is the personal, individual discovery of those things not seen that warms the heart.

I quote the above for this reason... though it is an impossibility for a person to PROVE that the Bible IS a reliable source of history, it is most assuredly the same impossibility to show it is NOT a reliable source of history. Thus is the dilemma for those of us without the gift of time travel.

Uh, it is quite easy to show it's not a reliable source of history. For example, demonstrating that the things claimed to happen at a certain period either never happened, or did not happen as recorded. Those kinds of things show that it is not a reliable source of history, and I did link to such a source already.

Nice try, though.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Uh, it is quite easy to show it's not a reliable source of history. For example, demonstrating that the things claimed to happen at a certain period either never happened, or did not happen as recorded. Those kinds of things show that it is not a reliable source of history, and I did link to such a source already.

Nice try, though.

Ok... if we're going to continue this then a new thread is in order...

We shall call it "demonstrating that the things claimed to happen at a certain period either never happened, or did not happen as recorded." in the Bible.

Let's see how easy it is and... um... make sure you're source contains an eye witness because hearsay is not acceptable.

Edit - I checked your "source" http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

Ummm... nope... Looks like your "source" needs a source.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Ok... if we're going to continue this then a new thread is in order...

We shall call it "demonstrating that the things claimed to happen at a certain period either never happened, or did not happen as recorded." in the Bible.

Let's see how easy it is and... um... make sure you're source contains an eye witness because hearsay is not acceptable.

Edit - I checked your "source" http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

Ummm... nope... Looks like your "source" needs a source.

Eyewitnesses are not considered reliable. Archeology is a much greater source of evidence than an eyewitness account, and when the two are in contradiction, the archaeology should be taken as guiding, especially when it's something along the lines of "city claimed to be defeated in war by tribe was destroyed hundreds or thousands of years prior."

Further sources that the stories of Ai and Jericho are not supported by archaeological evidence can be found attached to the Ai article at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_(Bible)
If et-Tell is indeed Ai, this poses a problem for defenders of the literal historicity of the Biblical accounts concerning the origin of ancient Israel; the reason for this is that traditional dating schemes place the Exodus from Egypt in 1440 BC and Joshua's conquest of Canaan around 1400 BC, a time at which the archaeological evidence shows Ai to have been completely unoccupied, as it had been for almost 1000 years. The later Iron Age I village appeared with no evidence of initial conquest, and the Iron I settlers seem to have peacefully built their village on the forsaken mound, without meeting resistance.[1] In addition Ai, meaning Ruin is a particularly strange name for a city to have, while it is a quite ordinary name for a pile of rubble to have; Ai would only really be expected to become Ai after it had been destroyed not before.

To show something to not be entirely historically accurate requires showing only one such account to be unsupported by the historical record, but there is more than simply a single inaccurate account here. Other things, such as thousands of Israelis wandering the desert for 40 years after escaping from the Egyptians, the lack of records of Solomon, etc all speak much louder though. In short, Let the Stones Speak.

Were the Israelites ever in Sinai? The answer, as far as archaeology can tell, is no, although "it has not been for lack of trying" (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 62). Repeated, extensive archaeological surveys of the peninsula have turned up absolutely no remains that could be attributed to a large group of wandering Israelites: no firepits or ash lenses, no pottery shards, no metal or stone implements, no day-to-day artifacts, no traces of campsites or ruins of temporary structures, no dolmens or cairns, no worn footpaths or trails, no domesticated animal bones, not even any human graves. Throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Age, the south and central Sinai is a wasteland as far as archaeology is concerned, lacking any evidence of transient or permanent occupation on any significant scale (Dever 1997, p. 72). The only evidence of human presence in the Sinai during the supposed time of the Exodus is along the northern coastal dunes, the so-called "Ways of Horus" - an Egyptian royal road leading from the Nile delta to Palestine, used by the New Kingdom pharaohs to facilitate quick movements of troops. Along this route, archaeologists have found abundant evidence of Egyptian presence, including fortified military outposts, granaries, and water reservoirs (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 60). However, this is precisely the route which the Bible tells us the Israelites did not take (Exodus 13:17).
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Eyewitnesses are not considered reliable. Archeology is a much greater source of evidence than an eyewitness account, and when the two are in contradiction, the archaeology should be taken as guiding, especially when it's something along the lines of "city claimed to be defeated in war by tribe was destroyed hundreds or thousands of years prior."

Further sources that the stories of Ai and Jericho are not supported by archaeological evidence can be found attached to the Ai article at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_(Bible)


To show something to not be entirely historically accurate requires showing only one such account to be unsupported by the historical record, but there is more than simply a single inaccurate account here. Other things, such as thousands of Israelis wandering the desert for 40 years after escaping from the Egyptians, the lack of records of Solomon, etc all speak much louder though. In short, Let the Stones Speak.

Being as polite as possible... start another thread. Repost this and we'll discuss.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
To get this thread back on track:

We now know that the key to not self-sabotaging is to learn how to develop good habits, break bad habits and to self-affirm daily. "I'm good enough", "I'm worth giving myself some praise", "I'm worthy of some 'me time', for a few minutes each day", and so forth.

When you find yourself playing a 'negative tape', rephrase it in a positive light. "I'm stupid, I didn't study hard enough in school" ...becomes..."I can go back to school and having learned that studying is important will do better this time".

What we're examining is a 'Delivery System' for our plans and aspirations and for a way to not live a deficiency-based life or a life full of guilt.

More on what a 'Delivery System' is in the next message if interest is still here for NON RELIGIOUS BULLHOCKEY-based comments. All religious NUTS please create your own thread, thank you.

-B
PS - I have a belief in a spiritual component to my life but I keep it PERSONAL where it belongs, not proselytized like some wannabe TV Evangelist.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
You invited people here to "ponder" with you over our supposed propensity to be unhappy, then get your tail feathers ruffled when they share what makes them happy. While I do agree that the thread did get derailed a tad, it sounds like you want to control what is posted by others. You don't seem to like people posting about religion or spiritual beliefs because you keep yours private. I don't believe anyone was proseletizing; georg jetson and Tawnos were having a discussion, which rightly should go to PMs. But you should know by now that you can't start a thread and dictate what people post. Religion and spiritual beliefs are a major part of some people's happiness. As long as there are no personal attacks, profanity, or other no no's, people here are pretty much free to post what they think or feel. If you don't like that, don't start threads on such subjects or define your parameters better.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
You invited people here to "ponder" with you over our supposed propensity to be unhappy, then get your tail feathers ruffled when they share what makes them happy. While I do agree that the thread did get derailed a tad, it sounds like you want to control what is posted by others. You don't seem to like people posting about religion or spiritual beliefs because you keep yours private.

Fair enough but the topic was not what causes people to be unhappy - that was a consequence. It was about how we self-sabotage our own happiness. How people become inconsolable and how some people rise above it.

For example, my Dad is 87 and has battled Central vision loss since he was in his late 60s (Macular Degeneration). Yet he has remained upbeat and happy and jokes around. I think I would be devastated by such a malady. How does he stay 'happy' in the face of loss of vision, inability to drive, inability to do he once beloved crossword puzzles. How does Stephen Hawking go to a dance in his wheel chair and cause all the people to throng around him as he 'dances' using his gimbal-controllers to 'dance his chair'?

Why does Dick Cavett, a seemingly super-happy tv comic and host end up battling devastating depression to the point of not wanting to live?

What causes depression, how do people deal with tragedy and keep on living? How do some people with horrible childhoods grow up to be healthy thriving contributors to society?

(Actually what do ANY of these questions have to do with religion? We're talking human psychology, human nature, and physiology and brain chemistry and behavior modification).

As to who can post what, just as anyone can take this thread off on a direction that is repugnant, I can insist it stay on track. Who gets their wish remains to be seen.

Sometimes the very persons who can benefit from introspectively pondering a topic are most inured against hearing the advice.
---------
Thanks for your comment though, even if it was also OFF-TOPIC. Please consider posting about your delivery systems for happiness and how you avoid self-sabotaging and leave the LECTURING to your interactions with your children, OK?
---------
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
1345.png
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
More on what a 'Delivery System' is in the next message if interest is still here for NON RELIGIOUS BULLHOCKEY-based comments. All religious NUTS please create your own thread, thank you.

-B
PS - I have a belief in a spiritual component to my life but I keep it PERSONAL where it belongs, not proselytized like some wannabe TV Evangelist.

The search for happiness requires an attempt at understanding purpose. Do you disagree?

There is no religion involved. Communicating the experience of things unseen is not an attempt at conversion. It is sharing.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
What is a Delivery System?

When people talk about doing anything, from learning a new language, to dieting, to getting started on a workout program, to learning how to fight, they often focus on WHAT they should do, WHAT they do.

They give endless lists of types of exercises, of types of computer language program Applications, they post on types of fighting ("Is Krav Maga better than Judo?").

The WHAT of something serves little purpose on how to accomplish it. The actual day-to-day methodology, the training systems, the ability to self-coach are what makes a systematic approach work. These are the details learned often through direct experience which will enable others to achieve similar success.

A Delivery System includes:
1. An effective regimen which causes a direct result from following it;
2. Is repeatable and testable;
3. Is simple and direct;
4. Involves movement, unpredictability in 'force-on-force' training, involves 'a flowing' or seamlessness, and involves progressive resistance or 'taking baby steps' towards a goal. It also involves appreciating the journey.

More on DS's in the next round of posts. Has anyone here heard of this concept?
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Fair enough but the topic was not what causes people to be unhappy - that was a consequence. It was about how we self-sabotage our own happiness. How people become inconsolable and how some people rise above it.

For example, my Dad is 87 and has battled Central vision loss since he was in his late 60s (Macular Degeneration). Yet he has remained upbeat and happy and jokes around. I think I would be devastated by such a malady. How does he stay 'happy' in the face of loss of vision, inability to drive, inability to do he once beloved crossword puzzles. How does Stephen Hawking go to a dance in his wheel chair and cause all the people to throng around him as he 'dances' using his gimbal-controllers to 'dance his chair'?

Why does Dick Cavett, a seemingly super-happy tv comic and host end up battling devastating depression to the point of not wanting to live?

What causes depression, how do people deal with tragedy and keep on living? How do some people with horrible childhoods grow up to be healthy thriving contributors to society?

(Actually what do ANY of these questions have to do with religion? We're talking human psychology, human nature, and physiology and brain chemistry and behavior modification).

As to who can post what, just as anyone can take this thread off on a direction that is repugnant, I can insist it stay on track. Who gets their wish remains to be seen.

Sometimes the very persons who can benefit from introspectively pondering a topic are most inured against hearing the advice.
---------
Thanks for your comment though, even if it was also OFF-TOPIC. Please consider posting about your delivery systems for happiness and how you avoid self-sabotaging and leave the LECTURING to your interactions with your children, OK?
---------
WOW!!!! You just confirmed everything I said in my post. I wasn't lecturing anyone, just offering my opinion the same as everyone else. What a control freak!! You can have your thread, I don't care to interact with you again, it's not that important and I have better things to do.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
What is a Delivery System?

When people talk about doing anything, from learning a new language, to dieting, to getting started on a workout program, to learning how to fight, they often focus on WHAT they should do, WHAT they do.

They give endless lists of types of exercises, of types of computer language program Applications, they post on types of fighting ("Is Krav Maga better than Judo?").

The WHAT of something serves little purpose on how to accomplish it. The actual day-to-day methodology, the training systems, the ability to self-coach are what makes a systematic approach work. These are the details learned often through direct experience which will enable others to achieve similar success.

A Delivery System includes:
1. An effective regimen which causes a direct result from following it;
2. Is repeatable and testable;
3. Is simple and direct;
4. Involves movement, unpredictability in 'force-on-force' training, involves 'a flowing' or seamlessness, and involves progressive resistance or 'taking baby steps' towards a goal. It also involves appreciating the journey.

More on DS's in the next round of posts. Has anyone here heard of this concept?

Ah... yes... a delivery system. The Bible makes a splendid delivery system.

That's why it is important to first search out an understanding of the Creator. By definition, the Creator would have knowledge of this thirst for "happiness" and would likely provide a delivery system by which the creatures may learn how to quench this thirst.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Ah... yes... a delivery system. The Bible makes a splendid delivery system.

That's why it is important to first search out an understanding of the Creator. By definition, the Creator would have knowledge of this thirst for "happiness" and would likely provide a delivery system by which the creatures may learn how to quench this thirst.

On the flip side, a perfect kind and/or loving creator would never have created a desire that cannot be fulfilled for some.

Or, in other pictures:
20110630.gif
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
On the flip side, a perfect kind and/or loving creator would never have created a desire that cannot be fulfilled for some.

Or, in other pictures:
20110630.gif

Bingo. My thought on this is that if the Creator is all knowing then he knew that people would sin before he even created them. Riddle me that one.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
First off, daily affirmations are bad. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsc...ive_thinking_-_why_positive_messages_hurt.php They will only make you dwell on the negative that you are trying to overcome, so stop.

Second off, if there is a god of the bible he is evil. A true God would know that I, as a mere mortal, am incapable of picking the correct God out of all of these recycled myths. To punish me to hell would be like kicking the **** out of a retarded kid for failing to answer a complex math problem. Cruel. Therein lies the argument that proves the bible to be false. No loving, forgiving, perfect being would be such an ego- maniacal, vengeful, spiteful, evil *******. :shocker:

'nuff said.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
Back to the subject matter!

Here's an interesting article. (I just skimmed it) http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsc...l_make_you_happy_ask_a_stranger_rather_th.php

I'm going to start thinking of my future self when it comes to happiness. For instance, how will doing what I'm doing at this very moment matter to me in 1 yr, 5 yrs, etc.

Will it be memorable? If no, does it have an aggregate affect? Is the affect positive or negative?
If yes, was it a positive or negative experience.

I want to be answerable to my future self. If I was to travel back in time would I lecture myself for wasting time or consider this productive. Hmm, I think this could be wasteful but yet the aggregate affect of entertainment, i.e. escapism could be beneficial.

5 years from now would I be upset if I didn't work out hard enough? Will I be out of shape and blame the past me?

You get the idea by now I hope.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
WOW!!!! You just confirmed everything I said in my post. I wasn't lecturing anyone, just offering my opinion the same as everyone else. What a control freak!! You can have your thread, I don't care to interact with you again, it's not that important and I have better things to do.

Sorry you feel that way. Your opinion was on my type of reply, not on the subject, so yes, please read other threads and put me on ignore, thanks. I don't want to run off any females, we need them on the forum. (However this reply was also not on topic)

Posting on a thread is not 'interacting' with someone. I'm sure we'd get along fine in real life, which a forum is not. It's an intellectual discussion medium and it's important to stay on topic and not editorialize on how people argue topics. In fact sometimes people take a devil's advocate view or try to tweak people to get a reaction.

Have a good day! :)
 
Last edited:

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
First off, daily affirmations are bad. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsc...ive_thinking_-_why_positive_messages_hurt.php They will only make you dwell on the negative that you are trying to overcome, so stop.

'nuff said.

I'm surprised about the negativity of self-affirmations. Lets me say this. i do NOT espouse anything that I PERSONALLY have not found to work (in general). I have used self-affirmations during my bicycle riding to enable me to get beyond bad drivers and dog walkers and enjoy my ride and not give in to making lewd gestures to drivers and generally upsetting myself. It took me about 4 weeks of daily self-talk to have this happen (it was an internal process) and it wears off after two weeks of not doing it.

So, while 'web articles' are good, they do NOT beat personal experience. (true what works for me might not work for you).

As far as your other comments about 'future self' and being satisfied by that self looking back at current actions, THANKS! That's a GREAT idea!!!

----
Edited to add: Now that I've read the article, I find it HIGHLY apropos and I discovered that back in the day I did use 'negative thoughts' as a spur to get myself to work harder. This is brilliant. (reverse psychology). So self-affirmations only work if you BELIEVE them. You have really helped me understand - to wit, my partner has low self-esteem so I'm going to have her read this. The point is you must find what works for YOU and self-help gurus are often right-minded but wrongly following a dogma. FIVE STARS for this post my friend.
 
Last edited:

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
The search for happiness requires an attempt at understanding purpose. Do you disagree?

There is no religion involved. Communicating the experience of things unseen is not an attempt at conversion. It is sharing.

A child runs through a field of flowers, laughing and full of glee. Is the child attempting to understand "purpose"? Does the child have 'purpose' (as in a belief they must worship a supreme being?). NO! The child is happy and there's no need for postulating a need for a religious belief. When we are happiest we are experiencing the 'inner child'. There is no overt thought (see the Inner Game of Tennis, or All I Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten)

A dog jumps and plays with another animal, dog, cat, farm animal. Does the dog have an understanding of 'purpose'? No. Well, you might say animals don't have 'souls'. But they do seem to have 'happiness'.

A husband and wife, separated by their jobs in the military, reunite after weeks at sea. Are they attempting to be religious, to evince the bonds of matrimony as defined by the church or God? NO! They're experiencing a physiological reaction, being humans, biological computation machines, with hormones and bio-electric innervation. They might be a young Billy Graham and wife, but they are not thinking of religion or supreme beings at that moment.

So yes, I couldn't disagree more that there is no Purpose in life (see Teleological principle), just function. You're overlaying human nature with a man-created dogma - thus you're one step away from reality.

HTH.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
I'm surprised about the negativity of self-affirmations. Lets me say this. i do NOT espouse anything that I PERSONALLY have not found to work (in general). I have used self-affirmations during my bicycle riding to enable me to get beyond bad drivers and dog walkers and enjoy my ride and not give in to making lewd gestures to drivers and generally upsetting myself. It took me about 4 weeks of daily self-talk to have this happen (it was an internal process) and it wears off after two weeks of not doing it.

So, while 'web articles' are good, they do NOT beat personal experience. (true what works for me might not work for you).

As far as your other comments about 'future self' and being satisfied by that self looking back at current actions, THANKS! That's a GREAT idea!!!

To be fair, the study in the article was short term. Affirmations were shown to boost the mood of people with healthy self esteem. Maybe given enough time the affirmations wouldn't be such an affront to the psyche of individual with low self esteem.

On the flip side, if I go to bed constantly thinking about how soon I have to get up I won't be able to sleep. If you're depressed and keep thinking about how you need to be happy it will elude you. Hope I'm making sense here.

I like what you said about the joy in children.
 
Top