Q: What is Acentzontotochtinism?
A: The word Acentzontotochtinism is made up of the Greek prefix a-, meaning "without"; the Greek suffix -ism, indicating a doctrine or principle; and the Nahuatl word Centzontotochtin, meaning "the Four Hundred Divine Rabbits of Drunkenness." The word thus means a lack of belief in the Four Hundred Divine Rabbits of Drunkenness, and one who lacks such a belief is an Acentzontotochtinist.
Q: How can you be so sure that the Four Hundred Divine Rabbits do not exist? Isn't that arrogant?
A: When there is no evidence for the existence of something, it is both natural and reasonable to assume that it does not exist. After all, everyone is an Acentotochtinist with respect to most of the supernatural rabbits found in human literature and myth. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? In a literal Jade Rabbit living on the moon? In Roger Rabbit or Bugs Bunny? Of course not, nor would you consider anyone arrogant for dismissing such obviously silly ideas. The only thing that makes the Acentotochtinist different is that he believes in four hundred fewer supernatural rabbits than you do.
Q: So why focus on the Four Hundred Divine Rabbits then? Why don't you put up an anti-Jade Rabbit site?
A: Because believers in the Jade Rabbit — unlike certain other Rabbit-believers one might mention — don't express their beliefs by practicing human sacrifice.
Q: I've experienced drunkenness myself, so I know without any need for "evidence" that the Four Hundred Divine Rabbits are real. What do you say to that?
A: Some have compared their experience of drunkenness to tasting salt. "I can't explain in words how I know what salt tastes like," they say, "but it is nevertheless the case that I do know." — implying that their "knowledge" of the Four Hundred Divine Rabbits is similarly ineffable and similarly valid. But actually there is a big difference between the raw sensation called "saltiness" and the theory that that sensation indicates the presence of sodium chloride. The former is a direct personal experience, impossible to communicate or to contest, and to demand "evidence" for it would indeed be silly. But the latter is a theory like any other theory and does require evidence. In the same way, no Acentzontotochtinist would expect you to "prove" that you've really experienced drunkenness — but if you go on to assert that your drunkenness is caused by Four Hundred Divine Rabbits, you've left the domain of direct personal experience and entered that of theory. Theories require evidence.
Q: So if there are no Divine Rabbits, where does drunkenness come from?
A: Drunkenness is surely a real phenomenon and must be caused, but there is no reason to assume that it has precisely four hundred causes, nor that they would bear any particular resemblance to rabbits. It may sound blasphemous to put it this way, but why is it any more reasonable to assume that drunkenness is caused by Four Hundred Divine Rabbits rather than, say, Seventeen Divine Otters? The simple fact is, NO ONE knows for sure what kind of animal causes drunkenness or how many of them there are. To assume knowledge is, to return a charge commonly leveled at Acentzontotochtinists, extremely arrogant.