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!)