the search for God in the physical realm might not be as absurd as it sounds. — Jacob-B

When one does seek god in the physical realm, --- the verdict must be against god's existence, if we view all the evidence for and against.

God id said to be Omni-present. I am looking about and he or she is not here and thus that is a small piece of evidence against god's existence and that small evidence for non-existence is more than what theists have come up with for their side.

Regards
DL

James Statter — James Statter

I hear and agree with all your points but think the cons outweigh the pros.

If we lived in a world where our wealth was in our labor alone, it might work, but we live in a world where our labor and it's value is mostly augmented by machines and we now mostly live in cities instead of a rural world where barter is more workable.

Regards
DL

the nation-state is still the primary political unit. — Cabbage Farmer

True, but ours can be manipulated by the U.N., for instance, if the majority of other countries and their coalitions are powerful enough.

There is also the U.N. court that has teeth. Little one. yes, but they can still bite.

Regards
DL

Alas, I'm not sure that program's any less likely to be realized than the one you've proposed. — Cabbage Farmer

I agree. Neither of us will get our wish list until universal government becomes a reality. That applies to the whole world but u see no reason why individual countries could not target their own oligarch and super rich.

Sure, some of thoase people might threaten to move their assets elsewhere, but then a government could just help those bastards get out of their countries so as to allow a more worthy oligarch to take over the markets left.

We can play hard ball with those sons of bitches that do not want to p[lay fair and share.

Regards
DL

I admit cash will always be more straight forward than bartering but i believe through a sophisticated piece of software bartering could become tremendously easier. I guess i did a poor job describing the software idea in the 5 paragraph essay — James Statter

The software is not the problem. That would actually be the easy part.

The problem is getting the goods ands services to the one who might want them as he might be quite far away.

Take Canada's asbestos. We now ship it to India while outlawing it's sale here.

Your idea is sound but you fail to recognize that we have substituted actually bartering with individuals to just dumping all into a massive (warehouse), taking the cash value and just buying what we need or want. We are already, in that sense, doing what you think we should do. Just not individual to individual directly but by dealing directly with distributors and middle men.

That does add value to goods and services but do not forget that we live in a make work/jobs economy. many would starve to death if we were as efficient as we could be.

Regards
DL

We humans are are notorious for being greedy, so we are not the ones to govern us.

Ai is — Nort Fragrant

Yet it is our selfish gene that has gotten us this far.

We have no idea how an A I would rule so to say that it would do better than us is pre-mature.

I do not mind trusting data that an A I would produce but do not yet know if it would know of the honor and duty that man owes society.

For instance. An A I would have us all have equal rights, while ignoring the logic behind the unequal rights that mankind decided on when writing the law of the sea that rightly put's women and children above men, where they belong.

Regards
DL

Nort Fragrant

Thee current western governing system favours those in power, so that needs an overhaul, or removal. — Nort Fragrant

Those in power have it because the masses have given it to them and those masses will not let the minority rule.

In conclusion: Nothings going to change until we are forced to do so. — Nort Fragrant

We have basically always lived slaved to our oligarch owners.
Changes have happened for the good as well as the evil so to say that only force and not intelligence will create change would not be accurate.

Regards
DL

Nort Fragrant

I think you overestimate the progress we will collectively allow.

I hope I am wrong, but based on the collective intelligence, logic and reason produced by the U.N. on climate change in their reports, --- which the world is ignoring, --- I think an A I telling us the right thing to do, just as the U.N. did, will also be ignored.

What you envisage, I think, will not come even close to happening until we move to a one world government. That is when the leader will rule by demographics and A I or just plain old human intelligence.

Regards
DL

Take talking serpents and donkeys and a water walking Jesus.

If your faith tells you they are all real, and logic and reason does not tell you that your belief is completely wrong, then you are allowing your faith in the supernatural to guide you instead of logic and reason.

If you are doing that then I do not mind parting company with you are you have allowed your mind to go into intellectual and moral dissonance.

If you are that then I will give you cab fare to leave ASAP. You, as this link indicates, are a disgrace to the human race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

Regards
DL

i'll have to rewrite that article on electronically assisted bartering so that it is more elaborate. — James Statter

No need. It is easy to understand but nearly impossible to implement. That is why we use cash value instead of good and services value.

Take your own case, if you are working.

If you are in a home factory making widget A, what good is it to those you wish to trade with if they have no need for widget A or your skill in making them?

Finding a buyer with something he has that you want becomes nearly impossible.

That is why factories sell to various outlets known to all customers/traders who just use cash to barter with instead of goods and services. Your idea is ok for local, but not for global.

Economy of scale comes into play and that takes central distribution and not individual local distribution.

Regards
DL

there time will also soon come to an end. — Nort Fragrant

Soon!!!

Let us pray. Not that that is worth anything.

What change do you see happening that will get the masses to stop putting up with the outright fraud that we presently allow from lying religions and politicians.

Regards
DL

we dont have free will — James Statter

Your thinking is right but so shallow that you do not see your errors in thinking.

You did not take my little irrefutable test that would prove you wrong.

Care to?

Regards
DL

So prepare for the soon to arrive change in what you think you are, — Nort Fragrant

I look forward to having stupid people given information from a logic and reason machine as they presently ignore their smarter brethren.

Do you think it better to be ruled by liars like Trump and Pope Francis or by a computer that cannot and will not lie.

I can take the truth. Can you?

Regards
DL

James Statter — James Statter

I have no doubt that a barter system will always have some few people who will have things to trade. Kajijjy does that.

If I am a farmer, what could a car salesman possibly have that I would want when I already have a truck?

If a barter system worked for anything like the masjority, your food would be delivered by a farmer and not some store, I have been in sales all my life and would thumbs down bartering systems.

Regards
DL

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

It happens that I have a little test that show irrefutably that we do have a free will.

If you or Henri would like to take it, I am here for you.

Regards
DL

100

I think this is a purely mathematical question with a mathematical resolve. I, for one, do not have the motivation to resolve the issue mathematically. — Josh Alfred

You do not have to as it is easily visualized.

Have a look at this and just imagine the benefits if a brick or two, a really small amount of cash, was moved from the extreme right side of the graph to the extreme left.

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Regards
DL

James Statter — James Statter

Barter is what we do now with cash.

It would be impossible for most who produce a product to have to carry their product with them when shopping.

Our trade is too complex for barter and that is likely why so little bartering is done these days.

Regards
DL

Nort Fragrant — Nort Fragrant

I agree that we are short sighted and not too bright in how we carry on business and look to the poor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpkGvk1rQBI

Regards
DL

And I agree with what you were suggesting in your subsequent post. Nothing wrong with havng rich people at all.

But it makes no sense for a nation with as much as we have...to have people who are poor. Fact is, in a world with as much wealth as we now have on planet Earth...is makes no sense for ANYONE to be poor.

Everyone should have sufficient for a reasonable, comfortable life. — Frank Apisa

I agree. The world is getting more moral but we still have a ways to go.

Regards
DL

So unless you can can see a way to remove the obscenely wealthy and powerful. Things will carry on just the way they are. — Nort Fragrant

I like that we have rich people.
I dislike that we are letting them impose poverty on our rich nations.

Regards
DL

On the other hand, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. The case has been made that providing everyone with a guaranteed minimum income would actually be cheaper than the current welfare system. It would certainly be less complicated. If that's true, I would consider supporting the idea. — T Clark

I am all in for that.

Regards
DL

The problem is distribution.

We can work that out...and we insult ourselves by not having already done so. — Frank Apisa

I agree.

Look at the resistance that even suggesting a new way of thinking brings.

Regards
DL

Moral of the story: There are not enough rich people to pay the government's $4T annual tab. — fishfry

I agree and that is why billionaires should create a lot more millionaires.

It is immoral to subject a population to poverty when the country and it's people are so rich.

Regards
DL

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop
I don't really feel like going into it right now but certainly, it's far, far, far less to resolve all poverty in America than just stealing all the .1% wealth. Such extremes aren't necessary, people just wrongly believe poverty is a character flaw and that redistribution isn't even fair but I believe things will change, eventually. It is more of a cultural problem than a logistical problem though. — Judaka

We are not talking all of the riche's cash. We are talking crumbs from their table.

We are talking of systems used by the rich to impose poverty onto our population.

We are talking a fair taxing system instead of the one we now have that favors the rich at the expense of the poor.

Regards
DL

Your thinking is sound, but better to ask our friend who used numbers for his test, and let him answer for it.

My test does not have numbers and it has the subject actually give up his free will to do my bidding.

His test, to me, has one stage while mine has two and that makes a difference.

Regards
DL

Choose is the operative word. The future can see what you chose. It cannot see why you decided to chose, unless it can follow your reasoning right to birth.

Regards
DL

There you go buddy. I add a bit more logic and reason to my test but it is as KIS as yours.

Regards
DL

The O.P.'s premise that we have no free will is demonstrably false.

I have a little test that irrefutably shows that we do have a free will whose only limits are physics and nature. We cannot choose to fly but can chose anything within our natural limitations.

If anyone really believes they have no free will to choose between alternatives, my test will show you that you do. It is quick and simple.

Come one come all.

Regards
DL

My God told me that there was no such thing as a supernatural God.

My God is always right.

Regards
DL

No the math is correct. You just have to look on it as consecutive rolls not individual rolls — Thesailor123

Right over my head.

What are you replying to? Quote it please. I took a quick backwards loo and did not see anything.

Regards
DL

The math is right, the premise is wrong.

Roll a dice. What are your chances or rolling a 6? 1 in 6. Right?

Roll it again. What are your chances of rolling a 6? 1 in 6. Right?

Roll it again. What are your chances? 1 in 6. Right?

Regards
DL

Genocide must at some point make the people seem less than human. — hachit

Indeed. People become food for the fires.

On self defence and suicide. I have no problem with killing.

I do not think all killing is wrong.
Neither did Jesus' and his most trusted disciple, Judas. He, like me, would assist a friend to suicide.

In law, I do not believe in the death penalty. A nation cannot be seen as venerating life by taking it.

Have you ever seen They Shoot Horses don't they?

Would you pull that trigger?

Regards
DL

We're you get that idea. — hachit

From the fact that Yahweh uses it often.

Christians also define genocide as good because they say God is good when he uses it.

Regards
DL

It's not my view, but it's a pretty standard view for Christians. — Terrapin Station

I agree. Same response. They are fools.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

We can not have real free will without allowing for the prospect that some of those choices will be evil. — Rank Amateur

I agree. Conversely, we cannot say that we have a free will that might not sin since we have no examples of people who have not or will not sin.

Here is a short version of something I wrote. I have a longer version if you do not quite see what I mean.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature, then the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

The second kind (my insert, evil) is natural disasters etc, not acts of man. — Rank Amateur

I do not class natural disasters as evil.
To be evil or an evil sin, which is analogous to illegal in a court, it would have to fail, or pass men's rea, depending how you read the explanation of that legal term which speaks of having an evil intent, there is no crime or sin. Natural disasters do not have an evil intent, just like white lies, and are therefore not evil or sins or crimes. An example of this in a court would be insanity where the defendant might be have done an evil or illegal act but would not be held culpable for it.

As to the God question.

You are correct if the only way you define God is based on the supernatural.

As a Gnostic Christian, I hold no supernatural beliefs. I do think the world has more than we can see though due to my apotheosis. I have no proof to show though so asking would be fruitless. It is all in how we name our God. Mine is I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL

Do you believe that literalist fool?

Regards
DL

where we don't (and I think it typically goes that we could not) understand, since we're not gods, — Terrapin Station

The bible does not agree with you, in terms of us knowing good and evil the way God does.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

We have the same morals as God which is likely why Christianity preaches that we are to take on the Christ consciousness.

This also explains why secular law is so much better than God's laws. We have collectively grown away from ancient immoralities and poor laws, while Christians and Muslims hang on to their foul laws and views of morality.

Regards
DL

God loves us as a father, he want us to be content not happy.

Is that the best that you want for your children?

I want more for mine. I am happy and want all people to be.
— hachit

God defines love differently than you do. — hachit

For sure, as well as genocide. He defines that as good while I define it as evil.

Regards
DL

Wouldn't part of god's perfection be the laws he's set forth? — Terrapin Station

Indeed.

If perfect, then he should not break them any more than we should.

That is not the case, which would make God less moral than moral people.

For instance, he is shown as a genocidal and infantasidal God and most people would not ever follow his lead to those immoral extremes.

How Christians end in adoring such a prick I cannot fathom. How they can set their moral sense aside for their tribalism is beyond me. It also happens in politics. We have a perfect example of this when the Republicans publicly held their noses when voting for truth-less Trump.

Regards
DL