Humour

The Parable of The Angry Fundamentalist New-Agey Cafeteria Christian

Posted on February 25, 2014. Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Original Sin, Personal, Politics, Religion, Science, Social Justice |

Or Why I Don’t Think Your “Angry Fudamentalist Atheist” Exists, Any More Than I Think A Cogent Argument Exists In Your Article

“I believe that science offers solid evidence for God,” she said- eyes peering over her hot cup of coffee.
Was she engaging me because she knows I’m an atheist blogger, I wondered?

"Coffee Talk"-Image by John LeMasney via lemasney.com

“Coffee Talk”-Image by John LeMasney via lemasney.com

Wendy was the wife of a close friend, who had done me a solid the week before. To express my gratitude, I was treating her to coffee at one of those swanky $10 latte joints. Was she trying to be argumentative? I didn’t want an argument. I flashed a coy smile. “Well, I’m not here to judge your personally held beliefs,” I said, “but for the record, the God you believe in is probably so vague that it is immaterial for us to argue the point,” I was trying to diffuse any hostility and maybe open a dialogue about her confused cafeteria Christianity, since she brought it up. She was having none of it.

“No,” she said leaning forward, “I still believe in the biblical God” her words loud enough to push me back in my chair. I tried to pacify her. “I’m not interested in shadowboxing a vaguely effective but specifically affected triune God. You can self-identify how you please ” I said, trying to avoid the inevitable.

“I believe in all of it!” She was becoming increasingly hostile. I was unsure how to respond. Her husband also identified as Christian, but we’d had a great discussion about skepticism as well as relationships, friends and past experiences on a road trip all the way from Toronto to New York City. As I was parsing a reply she cut me off before I could drop a syllable, “I think science and philosophy prove the Christian God.”

Should I tell her I that science can not and will not vindicate personal faith? That the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which infers a more dynamic universe than we previously imagined, doesn’t mean what Deepak Chopra thinks it means? That even the loosest allegorical reading of the Bible is entirely inconsistent with what we understand from evolutionary biology and geology, that there is no place for anything more than the most uninterested of Gods as the artistic author of creation- like the man who first created the first rectangular wooden frame taking credit for the Mona Lisa? It seemed she was more interested in contorting her faith into an abstract forgery of science that might look science-y if you tilted your head and squinted really hard from 100 yards. I wondered if she had ever read a peer-reviewed article in her life. I tried my best to explain.

“You know,” I sighed, “There have been so many discoveries in biology and physics in the past hundred and fifty years, it’s a shame that they haven’t been understood by the informed general public. They talk as though we’re still talking about large gaps in knowledge that could as easily be filled by God as by curiosity. Anything more specific than a ‘Prime Mover’ requires increasingly intricate apologetics that render the biblical Word impotent at best and demonstrably false at worst, leaving someone arguing for the bible as The Word Of God–a God who is like a puppeteer pulling strings, controlling the progression of life, saying, ‘I shall redeem you of Original Sin through faith in Me’- without anything more than naked faith in Bronze Age mythology. That’s nutty. That’s not an open mind, that’s creating religious fan fiction”

She broke in. “But God is an awesome God who used scientific laws to bring forth His Creation!”

“Let’s roll with that idea for now,” I interjected, hoping that my concession might stop her from bottling up, “but you must have some immutable traits of the God you believe in. Everyone does, and many Christians have the same concept of what makes their God uniquely Christian. That He felt His creation was perfect. That He created man in His likeness. That we are cursed by His anger. That He is perfectly moral and just- that salvation can come only through belief in Him.  That He performed and continues to perform miracles big and small. Those facts are definitional to your God. If you claim to be a Christian you must choose to ‘believe’ your God possesses these attributes. Yet all of these premises are logically incompatible with each other- and are equally incompatible with what science has shown us.  Imagine what it would be like if you simultaneously agreed that you were a virgin and the mother of your children, and yet that’s exactly the inconsistency of your epistemology!” I chuckled, knowing that she would immediately get the inside joke. I thought the analogy was apt, that it might make her ask more questions. It didn’t.

“The Bible is as much allegorical as literal” she quipped. “I believe that no inconsistencies exist between facts and the Word of God . I told you: I believe that science proves Christianity!” She rhymed off an incoherent word salad of Deepak Chopra buzzwords. She was becoming increasingly agitated. She started to talk about the very personal experiences she had that made her certain of God. I listened. She raised the holocaust as an example of atheism inspired nihilism, along with some horrors that she thought proved Free Will.

I obliged. “I agree there are horrible people in the world.”

“It’s not just people, it’s the wages of sin. But with such a world, how could you deny we need salvation?” she asked. It was an honestly asked but dishonestly pondered question.

I still proceeded as though I was talking to a liberal thinker, open to discussion. I knew her to be quite liberal on other issues, such as politics and sex. So I took a swig of my Venti fair trade Peruvian dark roast and plunged in, “You know, I think I have something insightful to say about this,” I offered. “If a religion is going to take root and spread- it has to have some explanatory value to the people who adopt it.  If a religion said ‘people are always benevolent’ then you could imagine how worthless that religion might be to people seeking an explanation for observed phenomena.  Religions start the same way science does- with an interesting and perplexing question.  The difference is the process used to provide an answer.  Science tests a hypothesis, religion dictates an answer.  We ‘appear’ to be sinful not because we fell from perfection but because we are risen from instinct.”

“I already told you, I think God is necessary for science to work- Who created the laws of nature and physics?” she interrupted. In her head Laws were created for man, man was not a creation of the laws . I stopped. I wanted to ask what she thought science really said about spirituality, the appropriation and perversion of physics, the hijacking of great thinkers like Einstein and Bohm, who would never have imagined their complicated work being obfuscated to lend credibility to the dubious claims of touchy-feely New Age Mystics. I wanted to, but I didn’t because I realized she didn’t want to engage with the questions; she already knew all the answers. She wasn’t interested in an informed and honest discussion. That’s when I realized….

I was talking to a fundamentalist. What I was saying threatened her very identity and construct of life. My coffee shop companion knew that God existed, and by God the knowns are going to fit the narrative whether they require reshaping or not. Most people adjust their beliefs to new evidence, she just makes the evidence sound something like her belief. Where I would adjust my narrative, she would adjust the knowns. I remembered being told that her mother died a few years ago. Clearly she had wrapped that faith around her like a security blanket.

This was not my first time trying to discuss science with a fundamentalist, but every other time they were Young Earth Creationists or Climate Deniers. The whole conversation seemed eerily similar. I was talking to someone who claimed to know exactly how ‘it’ is, who believed in a flexible, infinite, and compassionate universe that was designed to nurture them (despite every available fact in biology, astronomy and physics) and believed it with a kind of pseudoscientific cognitive dissonance as dogmatic as Biblical literalism.

A fundamentalist is not willing to consider the unsettling possibility that the universe is governed by immutable, explainable, and observable rules that require no intervention in order to function.  A fundamentalist will systematically disabuse themselves any part of a fact that might contradict his/her epistemology or faith, be it carbon dating or theoretical physics. A fundamentalist does not want to examine specifics and presuppositions, or really study and understand concepts, scientific or philosophical, that otherwise could be twisted into ignorant half-truths–similar to the bumper sticker slogan of Biblical literalists, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  The new fundamentalists say “God said it, I wan’t so badly to believe it- that I’ll make the facts agree with it.”

When did Liberal Christians become the new fundamentalists? I have known many Liberal Christians beginning with the Pastor of my past church, who passionately defended the difference between knowledge and faith. But this new breed is different: pompous, unmoved, and belligerent, insistent that science owes them absolution from the sin of blind faith.   These people feel that fundamentalism is the opposite of what they profess, because they have staked out the middle ground. There is no virtue in the middle ground when you are discussing facts- any more than I might call you open minded because I want gays to have equal rights, someone else thinks they should have no rights- and you want to compromise that science recently suggested that “gay” might not even exist. My mind is not blown.  I’m nonplussed. And do you need to be so angry?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

The Venus Project: Everything Wrong With Utopian Fantasy In 108 Simple Questions.

Posted on February 24, 2014. Filed under: Astrology and Related Bunk, Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Politics, Science, Social Justice |

Climate change denial.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Creationism.
Birthers.

We spend an inordinate amount of time as liberals making fun of the teabagging wingnut nutjobs and their seriously delusional conspiracies.  It makes us feel superior.  It makes us feel smart.  It makes us feel gratified, justified, and warm inside.
But it also helps us ignore the fact that there are some liberals with some very ignorant and intellectually lazy ideas.

Anti- GMO.
Anti-Vax.
Alternative medicine.

We don’t have a monopoly on rational thought.  In fact, if “Rational Thought” was a game of Monopoly, some of us would still be trying to unfold the board with the thimble up our nose.  People believe lots of silly stuff because it is epistemologically expedient.  Liberals trend toward anti-corporatism, so Big Agra and Big Pharma must be nefarious.  Natural is always better.

So it doesn’t surprise me that so many of my liberal friends fall head over heels in love with The Venus Project.  It is as though someone sat down to write liberal porn inspired by a crack bender they once had with Karl Marx while watching a Star Trek marathon. It’s an intoxicating, confusing, and entertaining  pile of escapism.

If you don’t want to read through my enlightening FAQ and just want the tl;dr- there are three main facts that I think cannot be disputed when discussing the Venus Project:

  1. The Venus Project is a cult.  Every person who knows anything about the Venus Project knows that the ideas,
    Image from wikipedia

    Image from wikipedia

    mission, and credit belong to one person.  You can’t navigate a page on their website or magazine without seeing the name Jacque Fresco.  Even when he is spectacularly wrong, his acolytes can’t muster more than tepid deference. The only argument you can make against this is that a cult traditionally has a charismatic leader, and Jacques Fresco has all the personality of Joe Leiberman on Unisom.

  2. The Venus Project is naive scientism.  Science is not going to solve all the worlds problems, it’s just not.  It’s not going to make human dynamics less complicated and it’s not a panacea to every imaginable problem.  Sometimes problems require more than just an invention or technology.  Even if Jacque Fresco could invent a machine to bring Nikola Tesla back to life- it still wouldn’t solve all our problems.  Well, most of them.  But not all.
  3. Jacque Fresco knows how to design a building.  Jacque Fresco does not know how to design a society or an economy.  He certainly doesn’t know anything about sociology, psychology or economics.  He is a futurist- but unless technology can make humans behave like algorithms- he is just blowing smoke.

The rest of this post will be my attempt to answer the FAQ on The Venus Project website.  Are my answers flippant?  Sure.  I would argue they are no more flippant (and far more honest) than what you will find on their site.  Each question is linked to the FAQ page of The Venus Project website, and I invite readers to click through and see the answers provided there- which in many cases are more evasive and more comical than my own.

Frequently Asked Questions (With Answers)

1.What is The Venus Project?

The Venus Project is the reason Jacque Fresco is awesome.  In fact, Jacque Fresco is so awesome, he is the Jacque Fresco of Jacque Frescos.  The Venus Project is an organization created by Jacque Fresco to reshape our human existence by plagiarizing 1950′s Sci-Fi drawings and selling them back to you as an ideal future.   The Venus project is the Jacque Fresco of Utopian Sci-Fi organizations.
From the 19th century until the 1950′s, science fiction authors and artists imagined the planet Venus as a warm, habitable world filled with lush vegetation, new discoveries and boundless wonder- until science came along and spoiled all their fun by proving Venus to be a brutally unlivable hell-hole where it rains sulfuric acid.  From a distance, the planet appears to be great but on closer inspection it is unfit for human habitation.  In this way, the Venus Project is apparently quite aptly named.

2.What is a Resource-Based Economy?

A resource-based economy is one where we continue to use resources but stop using money to represent the ownership of those resources.  It’s so awesome, some people say it’s the Jacque Fresco of economic systems.
I know what you’re thinking- it’s going to be hard to fit three T-bone steaks and a pound of lentils in the pocket of your jeans when you want to buy the new Zeitgeist documentary on Blu-Ray.  That’s okay, because you won’t have to! You just go and pick it up at the store- because resources are all shared.  And by shared I mean rationed, because you can’t just get whatever you want. We call it “sharing” because we won’t have to ration because you are only ever going to ask for what you need because we are all totally unselfish. Get it? It’s kind of like communism but this is not communism because it’s called a resource-based economy. It’s totally different because it has a different name.
If you want to learn more about a resource-based economy, just send a cheque or money order (sorry, we do not accept resources) to The Venus Project for their fantastic book on the subject- The Best That Money Can’t Buy.

3.Why do you feel that an approach as revolutionary as The Venus Project is necessary?

Our current system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit.  Therefor, we have to tear the whole thing down and start all over from scratch- because Jacque Fresco is the world’s most awesomist inventor but he can’t figure out how to work within a monetary paradigm.  He’s the Jacque Fresco of visionaries.

4.Isn’t it just decent people that we need in government?

We don’t need government.  We need benevolent plutocrats making all the important decisions.  Nothing could possibly go wrong with expecting a privileged few people to always choose the best possible policy for the use and distribution of resources.  It will be like a fiefdom, except that all the things you hate about fiefdoms will be different.

5.Elaborate a bit, if you will, on your views regarding money.

Are you going to buy one of my books or DVDs?  Are you going to tour our headquarters?
I guess what I’m asking is “Is this a trick question?”

6.What are some of the detrimental effects of The Monetary System?

It forces me to ask you for money, so there’s that.

7.You mentioned economic collapse in your book. Do you believe this is the only way our society can escape a monetary economy?

Yes.  Incidentally, waiting for an economic collapse allows me to continue to collect donations without having to, you know, do anything.
It’s a win-win.

8.Wouldn’t there be Resistance of the Rich and Powerful?

No.  People in the future will love giving up all their wealth. Because in the future, science is magic!

9.In the idea of future, do you think that the regional differences will still have the greatest influence as they do today? Or will these differences disappear?

In the idea of the future, I think that regional differences no will longer have the as great influences.  Like spambots will talk similar to others. This question makes super quality, and to help others to understand the qualities better.

10.What types of pressures would be alleviated in The Venus Project’s designs?

Why?  Do you feel pressured?  Come and lie down in this building shapes like some boobs.

11.What is the single most important aspect of the project?

Collecting donations for The Venus Project.

12.What is the Plan?

The plan has four phases:

  1. Build a place in Florida for Jacque Fresco to live.  Ask people to pay lots of money to see it. This step is done.
  2. Make a movie.  Ask people to pay lots of money to buy it on DVD.
  3. Build an experimental city.  Ask people to pay lots of money to have it built.
  4. Build a theme park.  Ask people to pay lots of money for admission.  Interactive displays will explain why if you give us more money, some day you won’t have to use money to get into theme parks.

13.How do you see the collapse of the present system occurring?

With your eyes.
See what I did there?

14.How do we get from here to there?

By adding a “t”.
See what I did there?

15.What are the first steps taken toward a global resource based economy?

Step 1: Wait for the economy to collapse.
In the meantime, you are welcome to make all donations payable to The Venus Project.

16.What can be “the turning point” of the future? Do you have any idea about it?

I have lots of ideas.

17.How would you describe the recent economic crisis? Can it be a lesson in today’s society?

I would describe it as a crisis.  A crisis of the economic sort.
The lesson is “I told you so.”

18.By the way, what do you think about the “New World Civilization”?

Is that like the “New World Order”?  Because I understand people don’t like that.
So it’s nothing like that.

19.You couldn’t just plop the first city down and expect people to respect it…. you would need to slowly develop the cities as it becomes harmonized with the evolving social consciousness. What are some of the steps to accomplish this?

  1. Send us money.
  2. We will use the money to inform people why it is a good idea.
  3. Send us more money.
  4. We will use the money to make a DVD that costs $30
  5. Send us more money
  6. We will build a city once the economy collapses.
    Any questions?

20.What is, and what do you think about it, the relationship between habitat and place of living? Which variables do you consider in conceiving architecture, or even a city?

Are you the same guy who wrote question #9?  Also, that’s a great porn site linked to your comment, too bad it’s in Cyrillic.

21.I noticed a certain nearness between your thinking and the French architect Le Doux about the concept of ideal city: do you believe that the eighteenth century idea of ideal city could apply also to a future city?

Le Doux is the Jacque Fresco of Eighteenth Century architecture.
In other words, he’s awesome.

22.What would you consider to be the most difficult technological hurdle to overcome before building the Circular City?

I don’t understand.  Building a Circular City is as easy as Pi.

23.Many of your designs seem to reflect retro-mod trends. What was your thinking behind the shapes and the black/white façades of the structures?

I’m old.
My conception of the future was cemented in 1952.

24.What would be done with the old cities?

Rebel bases for people who think having no choices is dystopian.

25.What main concepts do you keep in mind whenever you design structures or transportation?

WWJVD?  What Would Jules Verne Do?

26.Can you briefly describe the process you used in designing the Circular City? What factors were most important?

I started by making a circle.  Then I placed buildings in the circle.  It was important to make it circular since I wanted to call it the Circular City.
In the first draft it was shaped like a rhombus.  This made it hard to call it the Circular City.

27.What kind of change do you expect in architecture?

In the future, architecture changes you.

28.How would one choose a home?

In the future, home chooses you.

29.Is everything going to be easier than today regarding the materials we use at home, for example, white goods, furniture, etc.? Then, how is it going to be changed?

Science will make everything easy.  They will be changed to be more science-y.
Also, you need to, you know, possibly try to, just, maybe, lay off the use of so many commas.

30.In your project new social mentality is introduced. What novelties in architectural forms and constructions does the Venus project offer?

Civilization is going to collapse.  We are going to enter a period of unprecedented social disorder.  Our economy is going to tank and billions of humans are going to be systematically displaced by the unrest.
So by all means, let’s talk about how cool it will be to live in a geodesic dome.

31.What kind of change do you expect in health equipment?

Health equipment will be better because science.

32.What kind of change do you expect in communication?

Communication will be better because, well, science.

33.What kind of change do you expect in transport?

Transportation will be worse.
Just kidding!
Science!

34.Is it possible to see flight cars in the near future?

Will giving you a flying car distract you from the fact that none of this is plausible?
It will?
Then yessss…..

35.What kind of change do you expect in urban development?

See questions 31 through 33.

36.From a technological point of view – is the Venus project real?

No.

37.Are there necessary materials, technologies of constructing and maintenance of eco-cities nowadays?

Nowadays we are pretty close. Tomorrowadays, anything is possible.

38.What present-day materials, technologies can be used in constructing the Venus project?

Imagination.

39.What scientific developments (materials, technologies) should be done to realize your project?

We need to create a machine that takes hopeless pipe dreams and converts them into reality.  I expect such an invention in the next few years.

40.How do you imagine the building processes of the projects – standard, using prefabricated units or some other technologies?

I imagine. That’s a good way of putting it.

41.Is there a preliminary cost of this kind of the complex? Is it cheaper or not?

It should be cheaper because nobody gets paid to build things in the future.

42.In your opinion, when will such towns be constructed?

There are already towns like this.  Since they weren’t built by Jacque Fresco we don’t talk about them.

43.Is there any one field of discipline you find most promising right now, as far as technological advancement? Architecture? Material science, perhaps?

Whichever discipline Jacque Fresco is using at the given moment.

44.Could individuals live outside the cities?

They won’t want to because the cities were created by Jacque Fresco.

45.But, what if someone wanted to go out into a remote area, far from the cities?

Why would you want to be far away from the genius of Jacque Fresco?  This question makes no sense.

46.I was trying to think of an intermediate/bridging solution to the problem of automobile collisions. I’m curious as to his thoughts about such a common problem. 6,289,000 occur every year.

We need to wait for the economy to collapse so I can give you flying cars.  Problem solved.

47.Why is this concept superior to other intentional community projects?

Jacque Fresco.

48.How are Resources Distributed Equitably?

Rationing.  Except I will call it something else because that sounds bad.

49.What is the role of the family?

To distract you from the fact that you have limited choices, exactly like today.

50.What is the approach to professionals running this new society?

We will be getting rid of many professions.  Like lawyers because there will be no crime or disagreements.  And bankers because there will be no money.

51.Will there be a government?

Eventually computers will replace governments because they make better decisions than you can.  You can’t be involved in decisions.

52.What is the role of Cybernation as Decision Makers?

Your robot overlords will always look out for your best interests.  You have nothing to worry about.

53.How do you evaluate the robot conception in the future? As in the science fiction movies, everything is going to be done by robots. Is everything going to be different or will humans be the most effective factor?

Are you that guy from question #9 and #20 again?
I evaluate that conceived robots in future will be awesome. Human effective factors will be different so everything conceived robots factor to be more of an affect.  Science fiction makes robot affects to human factors conceived for evaluation.

I hope this answers your query.

54.Is this what Karl Marx advocated?

No.  Karl Marx didn’t have robots or science.

55.How does The Venus Project Compare with Communism?

It has a cooler name and it is more like Star Trek.

56.How does this system differ from Marxism, besides the technological use?

Because this system was created by Jacque Fresco, and Marxism was created by not Jacque Fresco.

57.How does this differ from Communism?

It has robots, flying cars, and retro-mod architecture.  Will nothing make you happy?

58.Could you respond to the 1949 essay I sent you from Albert Einstein regarding his views on socialism?

He’s a fucking idiot.

59.How can the use of Laws be eliminated?

In the future people won’t do anything wrong.  This makes total sense if you stop thinking about it.

60.In all your books, but most of all in The Best That Money Can’t Buy, you deal among other subjects (as the need to rethink the set of priorities of society, to suppress crime and war, to take care of our planet’s health…) also with the need to understand the close bond that man entertains with nature: which are the properties of the world (planet-society) that have to change to re-establish this bond?

Has this question rally been asked “frequently”? Really?  Worded like this? Why do people keep sending me such poorly worded questions?  This question is barely in English.

61.Wouldn’t change come about through a reasonable and logical progression?

No, change is inherently unreasonable and illogical.  In fact, the change will likely come before the process taken to effect it.  Because logic.

62.What Guarantees People The Right Of Participation?

As long as by “participation” you don’t mean “political participation” or “democratic participation”, then no worries.

63.What do you consider a “high standard of living”, which everyone in the world is entitled to? And who is the one to decide this?

A resource based economy means that the economy has a finite value based on available resources.  Every single person will have the same standard of living regardless of where they live.  This means that the total available resources divided by the number of people on earth will equal the value of your fixed standard of living.
You will have an equal share, but it might be wise to keep any large boxes handy- just in case we have a resource shortfall and you need, you know, a place to sleep or something.

64.Who makes the decisions in a resource based economy?

Your robot overlords. We already discussed this.

65.Will people all be alike?

No. Some people will be happy being housepets to their robot overlords, others might think that there must be a better way.  The latter people will, of course, be wrong- because the robots say so.

66.Will people who do more work, such as doctors, demand more resources than someone like an artist?

Who says doctors do more work?  Who says artists do little work?
Just fucking with you.  They might demand more resources, but the robot overlords will fix them.

67.Inventors and designers are constantly improving methods and technology, yet can like-minded people work towards goals similar to the ones you presented in your book, while still operating within a monetary system? How do you suggest we keep ideas and technology from contributing to the cycle (away from military hands, etc.)?

My goals cannot be reached in a monetary system.  You got that?  Sheesh.  Things will never change in a monetary system.  We have had a monetary system for thousands of years and not a single new political idea, scientific advancement, or cultural shift was ever achieved in this period.
Look it up.  (but seriously, don’t look that up)

68.What are the safeguards against abuse of power in the society you envision?

Robots don’t crave power.  Have you not read Issac Asimov?  (again- seriously, don’t)

69.Do we have enough energy to eliminate scarcity?

As soon as someone figures out how to convert pure energy into arable farmland and water, yes.

70.In a system where everything is available without a price tag, would this eliminate incentive?

No.  It will put the company that makes price tags out of business though.

71.Would people lose their incentive?

If they don’t need to work, why would they need an incentive?

72.Why the emphasis on the cybernated approach to the social operation?

Because if people operated the economy then they would have power over those that didn’t make the decisions.  And since I’m guessing you are a communist and don’t like class-based economic systems, I thought I could solve it with robots.

73.The world you describe requires the planetary resources of legions of engineers, artists and craftspeople to design, fabricate, assemble and calibrate. What happens three or ten generations later when the back-up systems are breaking down and the population has only poets and theoretical physicists?

We will write epic poems about our love of string theory.  Duh.

74.History shows that advanced technologies and skills have been lost within generations and a fully automated cybernetically managed economy/ecology/society would be vulnerable to system decay, malfunction and collapse in a way that would render humanity helpless and then destitute with neither the technical skills nor the emotional maturity to resolve the resulting crises.

Hey smartypants, that’s not a question- is it?

75.So why not plan on simple modular self-sufficient economies, or inter-dependant low tech economies that advance sustainable technologies and skills within each community?

Because if I did that I would have to do something useful with your donations instead of hoarding donations till the economy collapses.  Why would anyone do such a thing?

76.Could you describe the distribution of food and/or other objects of desire, like telephones, computers, or books?

If you are hungry, you will go to a distribution center to get food.  If they are out of food, you could try eating other objects of desire, like telephones, computers, or books.

77.What will people do?

Stuff.

78.You place great emphasis on human behavior as opposed to human nature. Would you define both?

Human behaviour is defined as how humans behave.  Human nature is defined as how humans nate.
Got it?

79.Isn’t this against Human Nature?

No. Deflecting serious questions and being evasive is totally natural for humans.

80.How do “Restless Teenagers” fit into the system? Or rather, what is available for them to do?

Perhaps they could watch “The Young and The Restless”?

81.Would The Venus Project be for deviants?

There will be no deviants, because science!

82.What would be done with that percentage of society that would be agitators or malcontent such as Timothy McVeigh who were brought up with a normal upbringing?

There will be no agitators or malcontents, because science!

83.What about crimes of jealousy?

People won’t be jealous.  Just because.

84.For reasons best known to geneticists, some people inherit different colored eyes from those of other people around them. In a grand overall vision of social and economic reform such as The Venus Project, what about those few who will always exhibit aberrant behavior under any system?

Programming.  But we won’t call it that- we will call it “better education”.

85.Do you advocate killing people with aberrant behavior?

No, but I said I don’t think people in the future will exhibit aberrant behaviour- because “better education”.  Checkmate, rationalists.

86.Isn’t technology very often detrimental to people and the cause of many of our problems?

Tell that to your new robot overlords…….

87.In this new culture, do you propose to utilize a technical elite that would decide the direction for society?

No.  the technical elite will program the robots that will decide the direction for society.  Huge difference.

88.How does one solve the problem of excess (say a person or people wanting more than is available)?

“Better Education”.  Which is totally not like “programming”.

89.How will people get along in the Middle East? How will the question of religion be resolved?

Ignore them, leave them tot heir own devices, let God sort them out.
Unless they want to stop- then your question is irrelevant.

90.What about religion?

Many people in the future will worship Jacque Fresco.  If some people want to continue to give all the credit to Jesus or Allah- then I can’t really stop them.

91.Many people claim that when spirituality fails in bringing up social changes, the use of violence is rationalized. Do you agree with this opinion?

Do I agree that there is a dichotomy between spiritualism and violence?  I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

92.What can you tell us about The Venus Project’s approach to education?

We plan on educating people.

93.What would the education be like?

It would be like education now, but better.

94.How are Learning, Cooperation, and Gaining Health, Built into the System?

Again- I have to ask- exactly how does a question like this get asked “frequently”?
Really?

95.What about food? Would people eat meat?

Bacon for everybody!  (Unless your not into that kind of thing…)

96.What about drug addicts and alcoholics?

No more drugs.  Because science!

97.Is The Venus Project interested/capable of co-ordinating with other groups, intentional communities, individuals, to organize a resource based society distributed throughout the current society? Put another way, is TVP organizing the transition itself? Or just providing an example of what is possible with the intention of society as a whole enacting the switch over?

The Venus Project is just waiting for the economy to collapse, then for the military dictatorships to take over. This is when we think it will be easiest to broker change.  This totally makes sense if you don’t think about it.

98.How do you think people react to your proposals, that I would label “virtual proposals”, about the future of the world, and what is your relationship with them? How important is fulfilment in terms of credibility and concrete experience?

People react poorly to many of my ideas.  This is because I’m right and they are wrong.
Look it up. (Seriously though, don’t look it up.)

99.Is The Venus Project a Utopian society?

Yes, but I’ll never cop to it.

100.Future plans? What are you going to do now? What are you going to do next?

Next I’ll need you to buy my complete lectures on DVD.  Then I’ll need you to donate money.  After that, we just need to wait for the economy to collapse.

101.More than a few people would say they are fed up with living in a money-driven society, and wish to live a more self-fulfilling life. What advice would you give these people?

Turn your dreams into a reality by giving me your money.

102.Do we have enough time to see all of these changes?

No.  But I’m not going to tell you that.

103.If you had to choose one idea that would describe the essence of this new society, what would it be? Unity? Discovery?

Jacque Fresco.

104.What about the use of drugs in the future?

Once people have taken enough drugs to think my ideas make sense, there will be no need for drugs.

105.What is your take regarding Sexuality?

I’m all for it.

106.What is your take regarding the separation from the Zeitgeist Movement as the activist arm of The Venus Project?

There are two main problems that led to the decision to dissociate The Venus Project from the Zeitgeist Movement:

  1. Those guys are friggin’ nuts
  2. Too much 9/11 denial, not enough Jacque Fresco worship.

107.What is your take regarding overpopulation?

There are finite resources and an infinite potential for population growth.  Given these two facts, I have decided that overpopulation is a myth.

108.What is TVP’s stance on personal possessions?

You currently possess money.  We would like to free you of that burden as soon as possible.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

On Marriage, Part 1: Whereby a Father Explains Marriage To His Son In A Conservative Dystopia

Posted on April 13, 2013. Filed under: Atheism, Forward Thinking, Humour, Parenting, Personal, Religion |

This is Part 1 of my two part contribution to the Forward Thinking project  on this months topic “What Does Marriage Mean To You?”  The Forward Thinking Project is an amazing online community project started by Libby Anne of Love, Joy, Feminism and Daniel Finke of Camels With Hammers.  For more information or how you can contribute click on the links above.

Part 1 is a satirical imagined conversation between a father and son regarding the meaning of marriage.  For my personal feelings on what marriage means to me, please check out Part 2.

Forward-Thinking-3-1024x253

Son:  Dad, What is Marriage?

Father: Oh boy.  Is it really that time already?  I’ve been dreading “the talk” since the day you were born…..

Son: Really Dad?  You are aware that I am seventeen, right?  I mean, I thought that “the talk” was about sex and stuff- we never had that talk either……

Father:  And we never will, son; we never will.  Sex is a conversation you need to have after an awkward and humiliating honeymoon with your equally clueless wife.  It’s the way God intended.

Son: I did hear a bit about it from friends at school.  Well, the ones who got permission from their parents to attend the “Commitment Classes” that the Priest came in for.  Why didn’t I get permission to go to that again?

Father: He was Catholic and I didn’t want you to start questioning the degree of your depravity, I thought we went over this.  Can we get back to marriage?

Son: Sure.

Father: You see, son, as we all know- the government owns a woman’s vagina.  One day, when you are older and ready to breed, you are going to meet a woman who makes you want to pray a little harder to Jesus for the strength to overcome sexual sin- and this is the time you are going to contemplate marriage.  When you are ready, you will complete a three way transaction between the woman’s father (her owner), the government (the owner of her vagina), and yourself (the prospective owner and lessee).  Essentially you are seeking a licence from the government to transfer ownership from her father to yourself as well as secure a lease of the woman’s vagina from the government.  My wedding was beautiful…..

Son:  That doesn’t sound all that beautiful, dad.

Father: But it is, son, it is!  There is nothing better than a wedding- it’s one of those “milestone moments” in your life- like showing off your first muscle car to your buddies.  You wax her all up, get’er real shiny, then burn rubber around the neighbourhood to let everyone know who’s got a new set of wheels….

Son: Are you talking about Mom?

Father: Sorry, got carried away.  Did I ever tell you I had a ’74 Charger with a 318? God I loved that car…….

Son:  Don’t people get married for love?

Father:  No! Who told you that?  Love has nothing to do with marriage.  Just think about it- if you could just marry ANYTHING you loved, then men would just go around marrying their favourite dog, or their mom, or even another man!  Heck, I’d be married to a ’74 Charger.    Love is just a pleasant bonus in a marriage, like finding a $10 bill in a pair of jeans you bought at the Goodwill.

Son: So you didn’t love mom when you married her?

Father:  Is she in the room right now? ….Yes, of course I did.  Love can be something to consider when you get married- I’m just saying it isn’t definitional to a marriage.  People who don’t love each other get married all the time.

Son: Then why do they read 1Corinthians at weddings?

Father:First, Paul wasn’t writing that about marriage.  Second, you remember when you were a kid and you had a dental appointment that you didn’t want to go to, so I told you there was candy in the car so that you would go with me- and then I bought you a Blizzard afterwards because I felt guilty for lying to you?   It’s kind of like that.  And by “kind of like that” I mean it’s exactly like that.

Son:  This is all quite confusing and depressing, Dad.  I don’t think I want to get married…

Father: I know son.  I blame the liberals.  Do you want to see pictures of me with my ’74 Charger?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Satire, Sarcasm, and Irony- Why can’t the Conservative Right do it intentionally?

Posted on July 12, 2012. Filed under: Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Irony in the Title, Personal, Politics, Religion, Social Justice |

Or….

Meta-Irony and my Infinite Gladness

So this graphic popped up on my Facebook feed today:

I commented on the irony of it all, which prompted one of my conservative friends to ask me if I couldn’t recognize satire.  Oh, I recognize satire alright.  Only, this isn’t it.

See, satire is supposed to be ridiculing an opposing position.  It is supposed to make the plain reading of the text absurd.  I don’t get that here.  I get that it is supposed to be sarcastic (clue:  a reference to “gay ideology”)- I also think it misses the mark.  There is nothing particularly absurd about telling Christian kids that their bible based views are not sacrosanct.

In this case the author of this graphic attempted to use sarcasm as a tool to ridicule people who refuse to give special privilege to ideas because they stem from fundamental Christianity. They attempted to use satire by mocking the It Gets Better campaign launched by Dan Savage.  It may seem to be sarcastic (and satire) to a fundamentalist Christian, but it strikes me as a form of meta-irony, where the sarcasm actually paints a relatively positive spin on the very issue (s)he was trying to skewer.  So if it is satire, it is horribly ineffective.  Even as sarcasm it misses the mark to a non-myopic audience.

It is ironic because the author meant to use sarcasm and instead ended up coming up with a pretty good idea.  It is probably in the interests of everyone to educate young Christians that once they exit the bubble of a public school system that walks on egg shells and a social circle their parents have some control over- they will be mocked, vilified, marginalized and ridiculed.  It would be positive for all of us if they went into the world understanding that religion is no excuse for sloppy logic, gross generalizations, and Bronze-Age morality.

But I only said ‘God doesn’t suffer a woman to teach’!- I’m just following the bible“- is not going to cut it in the real world.  “Any man who lies with a man as he does with a woman is an abomination and should be put to death” – is totes fine if you happen to be with your fellow Christian brothers, but it won’t win you brownie points in the office staff room.  The real world is waiting.  The rational world is waiting…..

Maybe we ought to think about telling them that “It Gets Worse”

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )

An Open Letter to The Tone Troll

Posted on June 22, 2012. Filed under: Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Internet Etiquette, Personal, Religion, Social Justice, Trolls, You're Not Helping |

Hi there!

     I bet you’re wondering why I’m writing you this letter.  You might even be wondering why people are all so mad at you right now- and why they are calling you mean names.  I know, I know- you were only trying to help, right?  You just wanted to see a little decorum, a little civility- and everyone is just amplifying the very thing you are trying to help them discard.  It must be frustrating.  It must feel as though you are experiencing the cruel effects of tribalism- a sort of “internet xenophobia”, if you will.  You are a mere missionary preaching the gospel of civil discourse and the lynch mob stands with torches and pitchforks waiting for you at the county line.

Amirite?

Here is the thing.  Those people you were trying to help?  They are having a conversation.  That conversation has a topic.  That topic is important to them.  It is important enough that they are wearing their gut reactions on their sleeves.  So when you come waltzing in, and you say “Guys- hey, guys- Y U mad, bro?” they are more than likely going to turn on you.

Why, you ask?  You’re only trying to let cooler heads prevail, right? I totally get what you’re feeling right now.  I understand.

What you need to understand is that the reason they are mad is right in front of you.  It’s right there- in the post you are reading.  Heck, it may even be summed up pretty succinctly in the title of the post.  Yet here you are, telling these people that you don’t understand what could possibly have them up in arms.  This, to them, is the problem.

Imagine you find yourself in a hotel burning to the ground.  You see a number of people frantically yelling to wake the guests up- pounding on doors and shouting.  You have that mental image yet? Don’t worry, I’ll wait….. (more…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 9 so far )

Defending The Ignorant

Posted on May 26, 2012. Filed under: Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Personal, Politics, Religion, Social Justice |

This video has been all over the atheist/liberal blogosphere in the last few days.  It’s a peach.  We all by now have heard about Pastor Charles “Create a Rainbow Zoo” Worley.  If you missed it, here is the good Pastor showing the love:

The depth of ignorance in that clip is astounding.  It’s not just that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry- it appears that to at least some Christians don’t think gays should be treated as human beings.  If you are a Christian, and you wonder why people assume that your stand on gay marriage is an extension of hateful bigotry- thank good Christian folk like Pastor Charles “At least I said we would feed them” Worley. 

I don’t want to argue against people like Pastor “Weed n’ Feed” Worley. It’s too easy.  It’s like shooting Christians in an electric enclosure after dropping Pineapple Ham for dinner.  If they aren’t injured, they are lethargic.  It’s just not fair.  Besides, most Christians don’t see themselves when they watch Pastor “Stop letting them reproduce” Worley.  Of the few that do, most would giggle under their breath and say “That’s wrong….funny…but wrong.” 

For Gays, It Get’s Better…..for Christians, It Get’s Worse

So later, when one of Pastor “Auschlisp” Worley’s flock agreed to appear on Anderson Cooper 360 to defend her pastor, I was both thankful and hopeful that someone was going to clear the air and explain that her Pastor just got too little sleep that night, or got drunk on rhetoric- maybe had too much crack with his rent-boy- some reasonable excuse for being a gigantic class “A” asshole.

The interview was a clusterfuck.  A clusterfuck on top of a disaster.  A clusterfuck on top of a disaster drenched in WTF sauce.  It could have been worse….but that would have taken divine intervention.  Unless you’re living off the grid waiting for the pending apocalypse, you have probably witnessed the train wreck for yourself. 

Judge not lest ye be judged for yourself:

There are times you deeply and genuinely disagree with someone- yet feel totally sorry for them.  I feel sorry for this lady.  I want to jump in front the camera and save her.  This lady is somehow managing to make matters worse. 

Starting a conversation with “Yes, he said that- but you people are going to repeat verbatim what he said- and that’s not fair.” is a really bad starting point.  Trying to rephrase it as “Can’t we just drop this?  We all know that a Free range Fag Fence is just not economically feasible- it’s never going to happen.  End of discussion.”  is even worse. 

Then it really goes downhill.  Someone was probably going to bring up the “They Can’t Reproduce” line from the sermon….but I didn’t think it would be Stacey “Stop being so literal unless we’re talking about the Bible” Pritchard. I assume that Stacey and the good Pastor think queers occasionally have straight sex in order to promulgate the species.  Straight sex, of course, that we must put an end to by putting them in sex specific cages. 

“We Keep Talking About Cages- That’s Not What This Is About”

I want to jump in front of the camera and explain it how it really is:

 The Pastor got out of hand, he is human.  An asshole of a human, more like quasi-sub-human but human none the less.  I think we can all agree that he’s a fantastically bigoted hateful prick.  Sometimes, guys like him can’t help but let that spill over into their job.  I mean, have you ever gone to The Gap?  Those guys are total fuckwads.  It’s like they only hire people who tell them to f*ck off during the interview.  Only like 1 in 5 pastors is that big a dick- so really, it speaks to God’s power to transform the heart. 

 We can all agree that gays shouldn’t be put in cages.  I believe this because I know it to be horribly wrong, Pastor Worley believes it because he understands that Big Government spending is morally wrong- and cages don’t come free.  Not to mention the cost of feeding them.

  So really, he was out of line.  Some Christians can’t apologize for this because they feel that conceding that gays shouldn’t be caged is like saying that they totally love the gay lifestyle.  Either you put them in Gitmo or you start carrying a man-purse and shopping at Bed, Bath, and Beyond.  There is no middle ground for these people.

  The question people keep asking is whether this is Jesus-like.  WWJD? as they pretentiously use for shorthand.  Well, I’ll tell you what: Jesus talked all the time in parables.  The parable of the prodigal son. The parable of the good Samaritan.  This is just like that! For example, there was no literal “good Samaritan”- those guys were total fucking pricks. It’s a story to get a point across.  Think of it like the parable of the mustard seed- except instead of a mustard seed, it’s a giant electrified fence and instead of tending to it till it is a tree- we drop food on them till they die.  See?  The Kingdom is not literally a mustard seed, and there won’t literally be an electrified fence.  But if you tend the “seed”, it becomes a big tree and bears a reward.  If you keep feeding the homos behind the fence- and maybe let them watch old Judy Garland films or have Ani DiFranco concerts or something- then we can all feel better about being hateful bigots.  Jesus couldn’t have explained it better. 

This is really not how most Christians think.  I hope not. 

 Yet this is what “othering” allows us to do to minority groups.  It allows us to take them as “almost equal” and insert a giant fucking  electrified fence between “almost” and “equal”. 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Getting Our Priorities In Order & Coming Out On Facebook

Posted on March 28, 2012. Filed under: Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Internet Etiquette, Personal, Politics, Social Justice |

I love this conversation.

Here is a guy who comes out of the closet on Facebook and gets the best ever reaction.  His friends are rightly indignant and critical of his choice. 

 

Thanks to HSSE on Facebook for the link!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Getting Skeptical About Woo Juice Part 1:For The Credulous Asshole Troll- Neil C. Reinhardt

Posted on September 2, 2011. Filed under: Astrology and Related Bunk, Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Internet Etiquette, Personal, Science, Trolls |

Last week I wrote a eulogy to one of my personal heroes who died of cancer.  Regardless of the political views of my readers and Canadians in general, most people are happy to agree that Jack Layton was a very special human being- someone worthy of a fond farewell.

I would like to point out that I have more than a few readers who hold political views in diametric opposition to Jack’s vision- and each and every one of those people had the courtesy to let my post stand as a testament to someone they knew I respected deeply.  I might have even tolerated a right wing diatribe about how my “pinko socialist” hero was plotting to ruin Modern Western Civilization.  Jack would have liked that.  Being accused of being “unrealistic”, “utopian”, and “socialist” would have made him proud.

Meet The Troll

Enter Neil C. Reinhardt- a professional atheist troll who spouts pathetic and misguided conspiracy theories because people don’t believe that he has stumbled across a MLM (Multi Level Marketing- aka Pyramid scheme) product that cures every single ailment known to man.  He rails against “skeptics” for not making the effort to credulously accept that his “miracle tropical beverage”  can cure any and every known disease and symptom.  Skepticism is to be lauded until it bumps heads with his faith in fruit juice. Fruit juice that apparently tastes like licking testicle sweat off of a turd. (That is how you know it works- why else would people ingest such foul tasting swill?)

Neil apparently thinks that a very personal post about a very personal subject is the perfect place to insert his delusional ramblings about how the medical establishment are covering up the cure-all effects of ingesting and topically applying the fruit juice equivalent of equine effluent.  Apparently I’m to assume that his 15 year foray into faith-healing is supposed to make me run out and buy his snake oil.  Here is the blathering, disjointed ramblings deposited in the comment section of my post: (more…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 134 so far )

Why William Lane Craig Is A Vacuous Tit, Part 2: Craig Considers Abortion A “Loving Act”, Feels For The Poor Abortion Doctors Who Do God’s Good Work.

Posted on June 4, 2011. Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Religion |

Us atheists hate William Lane Craig.  He’s such a paragon of bullet-proof logic.  I find myself having

Dr. Death shows his fangs in this file photo.

to re-think everything I’ve ever assumed based on his biting critique of my worldview.

God has certainly blessed this man. (fair warning, that link takes you to la-la land)

He almost had me rushing down to the river for a baptism, ready to drown in The Spirit- until I found out that he is not just Pro Choice, a stand I completely agree with….but Pro Abortion.  As in it is the best possible thing for a mother to do.  As in it is preferred to letting fetus’ go full term.

William Lane Craig thinks killing babies is the Christian thing to do.  I can’t possibly condone the senseless murder of children just to save their precious little souls.  I guess I’ll have to remain an atheist.

Quoting Dr. Death himself:

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.  We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.  Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So Dr. Death Craig is making it perfectly clear that the murder of infants actually constitutes their salvation.  My own un-Christian worldview has me tied too firmly to my earthly, naturalistic perspective.  Shame on me for putting earthly value on these poor little souls.  I should be ashamed of myself, I guess.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites?  Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement.  Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.  So who is wronged?  Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves.  Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children?  The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

This is where Dr. Death Craig is pleading for Christians to show compassion and

In this photo, Dr. Craig contemplates how he might undermine his own arguments.

mercy to the poor abortion doctors, who are just assisting in the salvation of infants.  Shame on you for being so judgmental!

But then, again, we’re thinking of this from a Christianized, Western standpoint.  For people in the ancient world, life was already brutal.  Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East.  Evidence of this fact is that the people who told these stories apparently thought nothing of what the Israeli soldiers were commanded to do (especially if these are founding legends of the nation).  No one was wringing his hands over the soldiers’ having to kill the Canaanites; those who did so were national heroes.

That last part dovetails nicely with Dr. Death Craig’s  statements in several debates that morality is objective.  I believe it is.  Dr. Death wants you to know that it isn’t really.  If you lived in  the Bronze Age Middle East, it is entirely relevant to remember and give weight to the moral compass of the time.  Since an eminent and well respected Christian Apologist has told us that proper interpretation of the bible is that morality is relative, and since he concedes along with me that morality is objective, he is de facto telling me that the bible is not to be trusted.

Or maybe he is not to be trusted….

Regardless, William Lane Craig is a Vacuous Tit.

Thanks to Café Witteveen for the heads up.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 98 so far )

A Three Sentance Book Review Of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Posted on April 30, 2011. Filed under: Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Canadian Politics, Humour, Random |

This is the best thing I have read on the internet ever!

 There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

From the comments on this site (originally attributed to John Rogers- thanks be to Mary for the correction…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 367 other followers