UnScripts:Theory of Continual Idiocy
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
The Theory of Continual Idiocy is a recurring theme in scientifically oriented films and scientific society models. The "theory" postulates that it is nearly impossible for a so-called stupid person to believe things that are (supposedly) demonstrably true, because one or more belief systems, described as "patently absurd", have effectively severed the nerve channels responsible for temperate rationality.
The theory in action
Scholarly consensus holds that this theory is so well supported by common daily interactions with (allegedly) stupid people that providing empirical evidence is for the most part unnecessary. After all, one encounters frequent and unambiguous affirmations of Continual Idiocy in all aspects of life. Striking up a conversation with a random stranger on the street is practically proof positive. Here's a classic example:
- Stupid person: It's the Sabbath day. You're obligated to.
- Rational thinker: I personally do not believe, but--
- Rational thinker: All right then, let me ask you something. How do you think it's possible for so many people who claim to have a direct channel to God to interpret his will with such wildly different lenses? Surely a single conscious entity can't be so schizophrenic?
- Stupid person: The false prophets have been blinded by His evil counterpart, Satan, who binds the poor deluded souls to eternal damnation. Evil is everything that would contradict God's absolute standard of morality.
- Rational thinker: But if God created Satan, wouldn't he be defying himself? Rather senseless, don't you think?
- Rational thinker: So he couldn't have foreseen the betrayal and spared us puny humans a lot of needless sin and suffering? And another thing, if God's plan is so clearly superior for our own welfare, why do so many people follow Satan?
- Stupid person: Because they believe serving Satan is more fun.
- Rational thinker: But that's likening everyone who's not, say, Pat Robertson to being willing servitors of evil, just for the transitory earthly perks. That's an awfully dim view of humanity, and after speaking with you, I can't say mine is getting any brighter.
- Rational thinker: It did.
- Stupid person: Okay, so what went bang?
- Rational thinker: Essentially, a little infinitely compacted, dense ball of massive... everything.
- Stupid person: Uh-huh, so how exactly did this ball of everything get there in the first place?
- Rational thinker: I don't know.
- Stupid person: Maybe someone put it there? Like God?
- Rational thinker: Doesn't it make even less sense to have another uncreated creator before the first creation for which we can't identify a prime cause? An uncreated creator, moreover, that would not only have to be much more complex than his creation, but that would necessitate inventing an entire realm outside space-time to frame his creation in a way that even begins to make sense? And what's to say that god is your god, anyway?
- Stupid person: Scripture. That's what.
The two participants in any such debate will inevitably come to the point wherein they will be forced to "agree to disagree," even though the stupid person has not adequately parried the opposing points or indeed explored the implications of his own position. That is because he is stupid, and must remain stupid in order to regard himself as not stupid. The principle carries over to all species of moron[racism detected], especially those species which rely solely on feel-good vibes, empowering messages of ultimate cosmic significance, and other generally reassuring nonsense to inform their opinions. This applies to all New Age philosophies and most brainwashing cults, such as anti-vaccinationism, Moonies, and the Mickey Mouse League.
The Presentation Corollary
A popular corollary to the Theory of Continual Idiocy states that a given stupid person will never believe anything demonstrably true so long as it is presented in an intelligent manner. If the line of reasoning is facetious or downright silly, however, the stupid person is that much more likely to take it to heart. The following example demonstrates this.
- Presentation: "Hitler was unquestionably evil, and he was a Darwinist; ergo, Darwinism is evil."
Now contrast the effective appeal with this more reasonable one.
- Presentation: "While Hitler may indeed have believed in so-called 'Darwinism,' that no more invalidates evolution as observed fact than a rapist's firm belief in gravity would invalidate Newtonian physics. As for whether or not belief in evolution necessarily leads towards eugenics, observing a praying mantis engage naturally in cannibalism doesn't make us hunger for other humans, does it?"
Footnotes by a not-so-scientific person
- ↑ Someone who doesn't believe in science
- ↑ Or in other words, accepted amongst the scientific community
- ↑ I.e. conflicting with scientific consensus
- ↑ Means here: ability to understand science
- ↑ On the other hand, scientists vehemently demand empirical proof for the existence of God before renouncing their atheism. Talk about Hypocrites.
- ↑ Or so the scientists would have you believe
- ↑ Or at least according to scientific standards, basically meaning "someone who adheres to the ruling paradigm of science"
- ↑ If you haven't figured it out yet, scientists think all religious people are stupid.
- ↑ Or rather, in reality, to disprove this "theory"
- ↑ There usually are some amateur scientists to be found there. Obnoxious twats.
- ↑ Yes this again. You've read footnote 8 already, right?
- ↑ See note 7
- ↑ This is actually quite true, if we take "stupid person" to mean "supporter of science".
- ↑ Again, this applies very closely to scientists themselves.
- ↑ Again we can see how scientists generalize all non-scientific world views as moronic. Also interesting to note is how a scientific world view apparently reduces "ultimate cosmic significance" to "nonsense".
- ↑ And don't forget Scientism.
- ↑ Short and simple, just the way an argument ought to be.
- ↑ Indeed. Why haven't you?
- ↑ Scientists typically make their arguments long and needlessly complicated, with the objective of being so boring, people will lose their attention and just accept whatever it is they're saying.
- ↑ Short and simple, just the way a counter-argument ought to be.