I Pity The Foo' Who Can't Think of a Better Title
Jebus Christ!
Wow. Conservapedia. CreationWiki. How utterly ghey can the conservative brigade get?
Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Maybe I'm just biased against CreationWiki because I think the idea that God created everything is plain stupid. I mean, come on, EVERYONE knows Chuck Norris created Oblivion Jesus who created Obi-Wan Kenobi who created Mr. T who created everything(except, of course, for duct tape. I claim credit for that.)!
But Conservapedia(interesting piece on it)...I haven't laughed that hard since 5 seconds ago, when I was reading some UnNews.
(By the way, here's the Uncyclopedia page on Conservapedia)
Seriously, though, beyond wasting space and unloading a bunch of Uncyclopedia links, I actually did have stuff to say about Conservapedia and CreationWiki.
It's always come as something of a shock to me to see people actually believing things just because they're told to. I'm not immune to it myself, but I'm hypocritical enough to find it odd. As a scholarly work, the Bible is (like most - if not all - religious texts), IMO, effectively raped. Where're their sources? How can the data be verified? Who actually collected the information in the first place? Where/What are his/her credentials?
I'm not saying that I don't believe in God(heh), just that I've always found organized religion a little, how do I put it, incredible. Not "incredible" as in, "Hey! In the sky! It's Mr. Incredible!", but more "incredible" as in "not credible". God isn't the same as religion. And assuming creationism is, indeed, a more viable theory than evolution(not saying it is), whose version? I mean, there're as many versions of creationism as there are foo's that Mr. T pities; who's right? Who decides? More importantly, how do you decide? Choosing from one of the many "holy books" out there would mean accepting one religious gospel as more true than the others. On what basis do you do that, since all of them (Scientology does not count) claim to come directly from the G-man(or some equivalent) himself?
Guy 1: "My holy book says this version must be true."
Guy 2: "Yeah, well, mine says otherwise."
Guy 1: "Well, mine's right from the lips of God."
Guy 2: "No, mine is!"
Guy 1: "No, mine!"
Guy 2: "No, mine!"
*Hearing this, mine workers go on strike*
(Repeat for a few hundred years. Throw in a couple Crusades when you start to get bored. Keep repeating.)
After a few thousand years...
Guy 1: "No, mine!"
Guy 2: "No, mine!"
*BOOM*
Mr. T: "Ah pity the foo' that don't agree it's mine!"
*The Mice proceed to take over everyone and start laughing at how badly these foo's just got pitied*
The Mice: "Neep neep! Neep neep! PwNd j00 n()()b, l0lz0rz!!shift+1!!111 oMg KtHx !one!one!11!"
This, more or less, is what has already happened and is happening as a result of people trying to decide whose book is right. I dunno about you, but I'd rather not get PwNd like a n()()b by a six-foot-tall invisible wizard and pitied by Mr. T like the foo' I am.
Not that I espouse Atheism; in its own way, it's as bereft of hard evidence as religion is. What proof is there that there is no God? The lack of proof that there is a God can't really qualify as such; that's like saying "I have not seen the RIAA do anything good; therefore, they must've done nothing good". Hmm. Maybe that's not the best example. But I think you get my point.
Arguing that a lack of hard evidence for is evidence against is an argument that is ridden with fallacies. "I have no hard evidence that HD-DVD's really exist. I mean, I haven't seen them for myself. Sure, I've read lots of stuff about them, I've heard other people talk about them, but I haven't seen them myself." While not a perfect analogy, I think it conveys my meaning: the moment one begins to buy into that argument(lack of hard evidence for is evidence against, and vice versa), the very foundation of absolutely everything (INCLUDING science) becomes suspect. How do I know muons are not fictional entities? Have I seen any hard evidence for them? Or that the Earth is really revolving around the Sun; again, how do I know? I've only seen evidence that other people have presented over the years. How do I know it isn't suspect? How do I know that the mathematics they've used isn't an elaborate hoax?
I don't have any answers to the question of God's existence or lack thereof. I don't even know if there are answers to be found. But I still think Conservapedia and CreationWiki are teh ghey. PWNED!
(Jesus H Christ! 18 links in this post! All but 4 of them to Uncyclopedia! Yes! 19!)
8 comments:
Yes, I get what you're trying to say: absense of proof is not proof of absence. However, that is hardly the only argument that atheists provide. One argument which I find particularly effective is the one that uses the definitition of God to refute claims of His existence.
1. Universally, God is defined as the ultimate authority - the Alpha, Omega, all-powerful, all-knowing - omnipresent, omniscient, yada yada yada...
2. Universally, God is defined as the Good side - against evil, against sin, stands for good and all sorts of moralistic stuff...
Going by 1. and 2., it stands to reason that an all-powerful, all-knowing force who is against everything evil and bad, would have no problems getting rid of such things (since He's all-knowing, He'd know about everything evil that goes on, and He'd know how to get rid of it, and since He's all-powerful, He'd be able to implement any measures whatsoever to do so).
However, this is not the case in the real world. Shit happens. Horrible things happen to plenty of people. Children - babies - that couldn't possibly have DONE anything bad or evil - are born in places like Somalia, Ethiopia... unimaginable hell-holes. Genocidal maniacs kill millions of innocent people. The forces of nature - the forces of "God" - claim thousands of lives in disasters - and unleash unimaginable pain and suffering.
So obviously, we must conclude that God does not exist. Or that, if He exists, He is
A. ignorant
B. impotent
C. both
- in which case, why should anybody worship Him? I mean, you could worship me, if those are the requirements.
Heh. Was sorta waiting for someone to bring that point up. Although the second point of your definition thing is highly debatable ("God", after all, is not limited to the Judaeo-Christian interpretation. Loki and Set are Gods, but one could hardly call them "the Good side"), let's assume the first assumption holds good.
Knowledge and power bring with them (a) different perspective(s). Kids think that eating all the ice cream they want is good (case in point - my sister), and from their limited perspective, that's how it stands. But from an adults POV, that's not really a good thing. This, as with most of my analogies, probably isn't the best parallel, so I'll draw another one.
Imagine a colony of ants. Imagine that they believe in the existence of superior being who could crush them with nary a thought. Beings who could do as they wished with these puny ants. They call these beings Gods. Now, could we not be these very "Gods" the ants believe in? We have what they (from their limited perspective) would consider "ultimate power", and yet we don't make everything better for them. We let them go through whatever shit it is that they go through, even though as far as they're concerned, we could stop it and take them all to Shangri-La. So why don't we?
Now imagine that *we're* the ants. We believe in the existence of almighty beings who could fix everything for us. So why don't they/Him/Her?
Even if God or Gods do exist, why the heck should they bother about beings as (relatively) puny as ourselves? They'd have their own concerns. And besides, from our limited perspectives, a "God" may no more be a "God" than we would be to ants. Maybe they'd have their own Gods. Who knows? And that's the point. Who, indeed, *knows*? The possibilities are virtually endless. All I'm saying is that choosing one over the others on the basis of what (extremely) limited information we have seems pretty stupid to me.
If ants worship us, that's their choice. And if Gods have a different perspective, which therefore justifies allowing pain, misery and suffering, then there's no point to their existence, as far as I'm concerned - just as it won't make much difference to ants whether humans do or do not exist. They'll go through whatever shit it is they go through either way.
As for kids wanting ice cream... let's put it this way: if a kid were inexplicably hurt/killed/put through pain, misery and suffering, it's parent would sure have a lot of explaining to do. And if s/he still got away with it, s/he wouldn't make much of a parent now, would s/he?
If it's just that God has a different perspective, which we can't understand, then trying to do anything in an effort to please/appease/satisfy/piss-off God is just completely pointless because we don't understand a thing about Him anyway. It's like Ants trying to please us by offering us the fungus they cultivate in their colony.
And ants do, indeed, leave offerings of fungus at the altar of the almighty "Stompers", but that's an inane rant for another time.
Religion, and possibly worshippping "God" could be a waste of time, but that doesn't say squat about God's existence or lack thereof. Like I said, religion isn't the same as God, and vice versa. But if Gods have a different perspective, who's to say it isn't worthwhile to them?
Parents, however, take the responsibility of protecting their kids upon themselves. Most parents, at least. I think. But has/have God/the Gods done the same? I dunno. But attributing motives and duties to beings on levels of existence far beyond our own seems a tad arrogant to me. Assuming they even exist in the first place, that is.
If God has a different perspective, one beyond our understanding, who's to say it is or isn't a waste of time? Worshipping Him is, like you said, our choice. It might even be a waste of time as far as currying favor goes. But if it makes someone feel better, then why not let him do it? And if it pisses someone off, why force her to do it?
My main bone of contention with pages like Conservapedia or CreationWiki is that (especially with regard to the former) their "articles" are plain shitty, and it would be a travesty to call that "the truth". Descartes lived in an oven? Please. And with regard to the latter, what are their sources? By and large, they seem to be following the "absence of proof against is proof for" argument, and haven't got very many sources I'd call reliable. Every time they hit upon something that can't be explained by *what we know of science today*, they jump up and shout "Creationism!" (...or something equally weird). That, and they seem to overwhelmingly prefer the Judaeo-Christian "Creation" story. And finally, I think the names "Conservapedia"(are they trying to conserver something?) and "CreationWiki"(omgzorz! they created a wiki!) are just plain ghey.
Was this rant directed towards me, by any chance?
Or rather, against me?
Well, it's always interesting to know what the opposition thinks, no matter how much of sense it doesn't make.
;)
Er....no, not at all! *looks around shiftily*
It's just me ranting. At conservapedia and creationwiki, mostly. But for a purely nominal fee, I could include you on that list as well, y'know...
Hmm. Well I am neither for nor against. Your argument is that there's no concluding whether God does or does not exist, since there's not enough evidence to prove either case. That is not being contested. My question, simply stated, is: if God does indeed exist, does His existence make any difference whatsoever, to the rest of us mere mortals? If so, how?
With that question answered, the debate can be taken forward from there.
Whether and how God's existence would matter or not would depend on the nature of this "God". But this is a question that can only be answered once the first question (existence) is answered, and even then, it'd most likely run into the same roadblock (lack of conclusive proof). Instead, look at it this way: whether or not God - or the concept of God - makes any difference to the rest of us depends on how much of a difference we're willing to let it make.
I know you meant your question in a "divine-intervention" sense, and that that last bit is more of a "spend-time-at-church-as-a-result" sense, but I think that these debates (both existence and difference made) can and probably will go one forever, if only because a conclusive answer is all but impossible to find.
Post a Comment