Wednesday, August 22, 2012

My Ringing Endorsement

What I object to is not Romney supporters, but Romney supporters who really think he'll be anything but the very slightest improvement upon Obama - maybe. At least Obama is clear about who he is and what he wants to do. Romney isn't. He is an utterly dishonest man who cannot be trusted for a moment. We are fools to put our faith in him. We may not be fools to defeat Obama, but we are fools to elect Romney. Vote for him if you must as the lesser evil, but don't tell me I'm wrong when I say this man has no business being our president.

Watch this and tell me if you've ever seen anyone defend abortion with such zeal and with such haughty disdain for pro-lifers. Watch this and tell me he's anything but the lesser of two evils - and only marginally so.    And this is our choice in November.  God have mercy on us all.


17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good ol' delusional Catholics, still voting on abortion as if anyone actually wants to end it. Look, if you make less than $250,000 you have absolutely no business voting for this prick. You'll be paying more taxes based on his tax plan and the economy will get much, much worse if these economic know-nothings are seriously planning on cutting government spending right now. Personally, I don't think they're stupid enough to do so, but you never know. Never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for the Republican party to sucker people into voting against their interests. Drop the delusions about your invisible sky-man and I promise you that you'll start making better decisions. You probably won't be as miserable either.

Kevin O'Brien said...

I agree we're better off and happier without our delusions.

The problem is my invisible sky-man came down to earth and became a very visible sign of contradiction walking among us. And once I realized this, I have been rejecting all of my remaining delusions with gusto ever since.

But I love atheists who, like I was when I was an atheist, abhor illusion and hunger for the truth.

I'm with you entirely, brother. Seek and ye shall find. Because if invisible sky-man is in fact the delusion I thought he was, and you claim he is, then let's burn all the churches.

God or no God, we are men and we should never serve a lie.

Red Cardigan said...

Good heavens, Kevin, that video is stomach-turning.

More and more I think the pledge I took never to vote for a Republican again was the smartest thing I've ever done.

Oh, but I won't vote for Democrats, either. They don't even play the hypocrisy game on abortion: they're for chopping up the unborn, and would probably hand RU-486 to eight-year-olds in the schools if they could get away with it.

DQ3-2012! And beyond!

Kevin O'Brien said...

DQ3? Dan Quayle the Third? Dairy Queen cubed?

Kevin O'Brien said...

I've been thinking. The term "invisible sky-man" implies that things that are not visible are risible; and that a sky-man is an anthropomorphic projection.

The latter may be the case, but the former?

Are atheists really just materialists these days? Do they really think that the only things that exist are visible things? Did germs not exist before the microscope allowed us to see them? Is love an illusion? It's certainly not visible.

The answer, at least for the atheists I know, is yes, they are frank materialists.

Atheism has a kind of lonely nobility to it. Materialism is nothing but a dressed-up turd. Which can be proven simply by seeing that if only matter exists, and if invisible things are non-existent, then it's pointless to argue about anything.

So, Anonymous, man up and chuck your materialism, if that's what you indeed believe. Then I'll be convinced you're really interested in the truth.

Until then, there is no truth, only matter in motion; consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of chemistry and life is utterly meaningless. Fine. But then stop saying you're all for truth - for truth, like my sky-god, is invisible.

Kevin O'Brien said...

... and immaterial.

As is your allusion to my invisible sky-man.

Anonymous said...

Good ol' delusional anti-religious extremists who will stop at no means: constitution breaking, name calling, murdering, to end religion because it tells them they can't do what they want. Sit for some time, and I dare you to tell me what came BEFORE the Big Bang and you will return that there must be a god(s).

Joe K said...

Is it possible that his stance and beliefs on the subject have evolved? Didn't we hear another politician recently claim that his belief on homosexual marriage evolved?

Kevin O'Brien said...

Joe K, watch the video and tell me you think his position on abortion has evolved. Watch the video.

Anonymous said...

" Sit for some time, and I dare you to tell me what came BEFORE the Big Bang and you will return that there must be a god(s)."

This is so idiotic I shouldn't even respond, but the question you're asking is the same as asking "What is North of the North Pole?" There was no before the big bang. Time itself starts at that moment. Before that our universe was a small sea of quantum uncertainty. You should ask yourself why 99% of the physicists who study the big bang are atheists. It isn't because they are stupid and haven't considered the implications and weaknesses of their theory.

Anonymous said...

And yes, call me crazy, but I only believe in matter and energy. Sorry. It explains literally everything we see. With new developments in cosmology, it has been proven that the universe could have started from nothing. We have empirically observed particles of matter randomly appear from nothing dude to quantum fluctuations and tunneling in a lab setting. We know for a fact that you can start with no space, no time, no matter, and no energy and end up with a universe. That is just a scientific fact. You can still believe in God if you'd like, but science has made the concept of a necessary God completely obsolete. You can disagree with that position, but you are putting yourself outside of modern mainstream science and philosophy.

Materialism does not do away with meaning or truth. It just maintains that these are human conceptions, just like God and love are human conceptions. They do not have an objective basis outside of the human brain. However, it is not pointless for humans to debate things, as we are all humans and can understand these concepts. It would, however, be pointless to debate these concepts with an alien or some other non-human intelligent life.

As for consciousness, only a complete fool can believe that it doesn't arise from material matter. To my mind, this has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by neurology. Remove a certain part of the brain and a certain part of your subjective consciousness goes away. Every subjective experience that humans have ever had can be explained by neurons, blood flow, electricity, and chemistry. This isn't conjecture, it's backed by everything we know about the brain.

We know beyond any doubt that humans were not always here and also that we will not be here much longer. We will either evolve into new species or (what is 10000 times more likely) destroy ourselves. With the amount of nuclear weapons and the truly terrifying amount of CO2 that's going to be in the atmosphere in a few years, the human race doesn't have much of a future if you ask me.

Look, the reason I'm an atheist is that when I look at the universe, it looks much more like a universe designed by natural principles than supernatural ones. Materialism explains just about everything except for pointless non-questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" and "why does the universe exist?"Religion makes people believe that gay sex is evil, contraception will break Jesus' heart, and that human beings are the most special thing in the entire universe. None of those positions are even remotely compatible with what we know about the universe.

Anonymous said...

And as for the germ comment, you're making my point for me. Disease used to be thought of as being caused by bad spirits and sin. It wasn't until we found the real cause that medicine as a real field of science developed. Time and time again, science replaces religious superstition with material explanations that actually work. The only thing that I am 100% sure of is that we aren't even close to knowing everything. In the future, science will make new discoveries that destroy current theology, just as it has been doing for centuries. Some of what science assumes now will be shown to be incorrect, which is a good thing. It means that we aren't delusional enough to believe in perfection or objective truth and that we accept our limited human abilities. You are correct, there are clearly invisible things that are real. However, I personally believe there are no non-material things that are real. This is not the position of all atheists; there are many (quine and putnam, to name some philosophers) who believe in abstract entities (usually numbers).

Anonymous said...

And if there is nothing before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang could not happened because there MUST be a trigger.

Anonymous said...

Why? Have you ever even looked at quantum mechanics? The normal laws of causation break down. The start of the universe is theorized to have been as small as it's possible to be and then expanded. This is necessarily a quantum event. Therefore, the laws of quantum physics, not classical mechanics, apply. If you aren't familiar with the science, the book /The Fabric of the Cosmos/ by Brian Green is an excellent way to learn basic cosmology. He does a great job of explaining and answering the usual, "That makes no sense" responses to modern physics.

Anonymous said...

And it makes no sense because there must have been a trigger. That quantum moment must have had a force applied to it. Because of how forces work, there must have been immense amounts of energy injected into the system on the order of 10^50 or more.

Joey Higgins said...

Can the anonymous posters note that they are "anonymous1" in the post or something so that the conversation can flow a little better? I wasn't 100% sure who was talking - pretty sure - but it'd be easier to read.

At least Obama is clear about who he is and what he wants to do.

I haven't been surprised by anything he has done. However, if I were to listen to what he said he would do and what he has done - he would not be clear at all - I will provide details if necessary.

Vote for him if you must as the lesser evil, but don't tell me I'm wrong when I say this man has no business being our president.

I agree. The only "good" is that I believe Romney would restore the conscience clause, allow for churches/businesses to opt out of HHS birth control/abortion requirement, and maybe remove the foreign funding for reproductive health.

Anonymous said...

Kevin,

I am VERY sorry to see this video, but am quite happy to have found your blog and website. Cheers.

John M.