The Burden of Proof

I have heard the arguments by the Religious and the Atheist, back and fourth, but what amuses me in these contest of who is right and who is wrong, is when the Religious steps up with the brilliant statement...

“Prove God does not Exist!”

This is strikes as rather stupid, not to step on toes here, but the burden must always lay with the believer, not the doubter.

You want me to prove that cars do not exist, I'll fail.

You want me to prove that the sky is not blue, I will fail.

But when you ask me to prove that god is not real, I don't have to.. the burden of his existence falls on the challenger.

I can't see, touch, smell, or feel a God.

Supposedly, there are people who have talked with God, seen them, walked with them. But with no witnesses or physical proof beyond their words.

Then, we have Books, books written by men for men to teach men.... but they do not prove anything other than... Some people wanted other people to do good.

That's all the bible is to me, a manual on how we might treat each other, how we might be a bit nicer and I do like that.

But it is not proof of a God.

There was Mr. Bastard!

And he really needs to explain some things, some may be profane and annoying to you. If you are easily offended by profanity, honesty, ninja, people who speak their minds, even when said mind is festering with bile and rot... then what are you reading this for, you idiot?!

I might be nice on occasion, but don't expect it, nor should you expect me to agree with you in any way... Hell, I don't even know you!

But you can expect me to give my honest and unbiased opinion of things, be it in the social Darwinism that is humanity... or why McDonalds is a bane to all that's holy in this world.

seriously, you fear the Illuminati? McDonalds is global, they are in every freaking country on the planet, BK did that stupid commercial where some guy in another country didn't know what a Whopper was..... that's because BK is so far behind!

Where was I?

Oh yes, you can find me occasionally spamming 4chan for the soul purpose of seeing how stupid people can really be... and lord, can they be really stupid.

But most rants will be here... where you can read and then retch up your dinners to your hearts content... later... I'll post my likes, dislikes, and loathes...

Ciao for now, sheeple.

The Plague of Kindness

Ah, evolution. Survival of the fittest plus a bit of random mutation and life takes care of itself...until you add people. Here's the deal. The key point of natural selection is that the weak die and don't breed while the strong populate the next generation. Only the good genes move on.
Here's the suck part...compassion. Humans have two inconvenient traits slotting them for extinction, and neither one of them is greenhouse gas.
The main one is compassion. We do not let our weak members of society die. I don't mean physical weakness, either. If you are malformed, damaged, sickly or have a hereditary disease, you will be given medical help to live as long as science can keep you alive. Thank you medicine. If you are intelectually challenged or have a lazy disposition, the prosperous members of society will pay (however involuntarily) out of their own pocket for you to be provided for. Thank you welfare. If you manage both of these stunts at the same time, thank you medicare. We keep our damaged bits alive and well, rather than allowing them to weed themselves out of society.
Now for the second trait. Rich people have careers. They spend half their lives in school, refining themselves for the job market only to spend the rest of their lives owned by their jobs. These are the people we would consider prosperous. Usually (though not always) they are the ones we would consider the goal of humanity. We want people who are physically fit, intelligent, motivated, strong-willed, charismatic and attractive. All of these traits are potential keys to financial sucess, though an overabundace of almost any one can overcome any that are lacking. These are the genes we want to have carried on to future generations. Unfortunately, these people generally don't breed. Either through lack of time (work to do) or a sense of economic responsibility (the world has too many people), these individuals usually have only one or two children, while the people on welfare whom they are supporting will have four or six children because they don't want to use birth control.
So, humans can't evolve. Or, if we do, we evolve in reverse; carefully weeding out our strengths and killing them under the combined weight of all our flaws. So, when someone asks me if i think human genetic engineering is bad,I'd have to say no. One, you can't do much worse that we are currently attempting to do; and, two, perhaps genetic engineering is the only way for us to evolve in a direction we want. Perhaps, when humanity is so varied and diverse as to be alien even to itself, we will finally be able to let go of biases based on such mundane things as skin color or facial features.

The world breaking question is whether we have a RIGHT to do genetic engineering. Compassion rears it's ugly head again. It mostly boils down to whether or not you own your children. This question usually lands the argument in limbo where it eats it's own tail forever. If you own your children, lets say until their majority (18 yrs in the US), then you may do anything to them without reprisal. You have to be the owner of your child to be morally allowed to alter it without it's consent. We can add the clause that you must be doing this with the child's best interests in mind, but that can also be argued around. It's a slippery slope. On the other hand, medical decisions are made on the behalf of children all the time. So, where do we want to draw the line? If you can kill an embryo, why can't you alter it? It is a choice between nature and compassion. To evolve mankind naturally, you must shut down all of the hospitals, get rid of all homeless shelters, do away with welfare and medicare and let the weak and deformed die. I have no problem with compasson, but it is killing our species. We may be better off dead, but it does seem counterintuitive. To evolve with our compassion intact using genentic engineering we must take away the rights of our children and accept the consequences of our actions. And we bear the blood on our hands of those who suffer when we screw up or look the other way. There will be people who will abuse loopholes and there will be people who will fall through the cracks in the system. It is inevitable. But humans survive and can preserve those traits we value. Our ideals survive, even if our genes do not.

NOTE: I creitd a Dear friend for this observation, Mr.Bastard only passes the good word onto you, the public.