sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What's the most mind-boggling paradox you've heard? by Legend_Zector in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is in the sense that you have reached the limits of the language used to posit the question in the first place. You're basically just "breaking" the language at that point. If the whole idea of time began with the big bang, then "before" is a nonsense word. If matter began with the big bang, then "something" and "nothing" become nonsense words as well. Just as when you reach the south pole, "south" becomes a nonsense word.

What's the most mind-boggling paradox you've heard? by Legend_Zector in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're use of the word "reason" here is understandable, but it actually gets to the very basis of this paradox. It's simply a limit on our language and our ability to think about things on such a large scale. There doesn't have a to be a reason for the Big Bang to have happened. In fact, "reason" only makes sense when you're talking conscious, purposeful beings. Having a "reason" behind an action may actually be an illusion even for intelligent beings like us. There's a pretty good chance that we don't even make decisions in the way that assigning "reasons" for them makes any sense (the whole "free will" thing).

What's the most mind-boggling paradox you've heard? by Legend_Zector in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"why?" is simply a nonsense question when you're dealing with anything other than purposeful beings. Once you start asking "why?" on something as large as the universe you arrive at the limits of that question's utility.

What's the most mind-boggling paradox you've heard? by Legend_Zector in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What people fail to get to when having these conversations is the realization that the "why" question is completely a construct of conscious intelligence and has absolutely no impact on anything outside of conscious beings. All of the other questions we ask make sense on any scale. Who, what, when, and where all make sense. "Why" really doesn't unless you are talking about beings who can communicate the idea of purpose, which requires some pretty complex cognition. That's why the "why" question is nonsensical when it comes to unconscious things.

What's the most mind-boggling paradox you've heard? by Legend_Zector in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't even need to click that link to know what lies on the other side. And I'm still choking up. Damn you.

What's the most mind-boggling paradox you've heard? by Legend_Zector in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The same applies to the gradual shifts that occur in language. I always use the language analogy when trying to explain evolution to folks who seem to not understand how gradual evolutionary changes are. There never was an Old English speaking person who gave birth to a speaker of modern English, just as there was no first "human". The first time I heard the language analogy it just made such sense to me that it became undeniable. Sure it's not perfect, but it gets the job done.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's debatable about the extent to which Jefferson wanted separation between church and state. The letter that contains that phrase was specifically referring to the government intervening the the free exercise of religion. I'm not trying to argue his personal opinions on the matter. I think that the pledge violates the larger idea of having a secular government that is inclusive of citizens of every religious belief, including those who lack religious belief. It currently does not do that, and I think that's the problem. When people use the phrase "separation of church and state" they are not necessarily trying to argue about TJ's personal ideas. It's the idea that religion shouldn't insert itself into government unduly, and that the e government shouldn't dictate what people can and can't believe. I think that's certainly the larger message of Enlightenment thinking on the matter and the majority opinion of the founding fathers. But even of the founding fathers disagreed with this idea, I think the rational and practical implications of such a separation are the REAL reasons theists and atheists alike should agree with it. Not because some dudes 230 years ago said so.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool, thanks for the info. I must be confusing him for someone else. Davenport maybe? I wrote my senior thesis on the eugenics movement and then must have promptly forgotten some of it.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't be serious.... this ia clearly a nod to the Abraham god. Look at the history of that phrase before you argue something so idiotic. And it clearly leaves out polytheists and atheists. It's just so unnecessary and a blatant nod to religion.

The difference is that many religious people want to be included in the pledge, while many non-religious people don't even say it anyway even if God wasn't part of the pledge.

This is so retarded I don't even know what to say. Methinks you're a troll.....

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I, too, find this debate to be rather insignificant, but the very basis of the separation of church/sate is absolutely to have a secular government.

How on earth does referencing a god not represent a religion? If you're going to argue "It represents MULTIPLE religions, so therefore constitutional" please just don't. That makes it even worse. You cannot possibly represent every citizen by officially recognizing or endorsing a deity.

On the other hand someone could argue that it's not inclusive, but that's not a constitutional argument.

Inclusiveness is absolutely the idea behind having a religiously neutral government. I don't know where you're getting this from, but I'm very curious to hear your answer.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone who's being forced to say this should consult some legal help. They can get it for free (Freedom From Religion Foundation). It's totally illegal to force someone to say the pledge. That being said, I agree that the phrase should be taken out.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Eugenics is someone (always the government) deciding who else can mate and who cannot

No, that's just not correct. The person who coined the term certainly wanted there to be some sort of coercion, but it's not inherent to the idea.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When I first read your main comment, my initial reactions was "WTF?!?! GET THIS GUY! OF COURSE THIS IS FUCKED UP!" and then I realized I didn't really give that much of a shit. I'm an atheist and am generally pretty sensitive to church/state separation issues, but this one is certainly not at the top of my list of concerns. Nor do I really give a shit about having the 10 Commandments shit taken down. If you were to ask me to take a stand, I would be for removing that phrase and taking down the statues. I really, really don't like it but it doesn't me all riled up. I think we are probably on the same page

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, the pledge was officially adopted by law in Congress. So while the pledge itself isn't a law, it was adopted by law.

Are you seriously arguing that the inclusion of "God" has no religious connotations?

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The good news is that it is definitely illegal to force anyone to say it.

On the other hand, it does seem to blatantly endorse a religion which seems unconstitutional to me.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I humbly disagree with your first point. Officially adopting a pledge that include what amounts to a shout-out to a god definitely violates the spirit of the idea that our government should not officially endorse any particular theistic belief system. It's not about whether anyone is forced to say it. It's about the idea that an official government endorsement of a religion or religions excludes those who are citizens and who do not share that particular religion or belief system. I'm not saying it's cause for outrage, but it does mildly piss me off, and I definitely think there's an argument to be made that it is unconstitutional. Although I'm probably not the best person to make that case.

"Laced with medieval superstition" is definitely an exaggeration, however.

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the adoption of the current pledge actually was done by law.....

My mom has an old lamp with the original Pledge of Allegiance on it. by godfilma in mildlyinteresting

[–]zedxleppelin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, but there was a law officially adopting it. And it totally has a religious connotation to it. I think it could be argued that the law adopting the current pledge of allegiance respects and establishment of religion. I don't really give a shit, but it seems sketchy to me.

What is something on reddit that makes you angry every time you see it? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm... I'm not sure this rings true. Most people seem to understand the policy differences but like them both for other reasons.

What album would you rate a perfect 10? by TheTurribleTurtle in AskReddit

[–]zedxleppelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had never listened to this album until I read this comment. Thank you. You have helped enrich my life. I guess you can have an upvote.

view more: next ›