Mostly a lurker. Abandoned Reddit before it was cool

  • 1 Post
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle




  • The trick is that you don’t actually need to do it, as we already have the functional equivalent analogue – the development of countless different religions in the past, in different regions of the globe – as evidence. If at least one of these religions were right, you would’ve expected it to show up in at least more than one region in the past, but we can clearly trace all similar religions to patterns of human migration, which strongly suggests humans created all of them out of their cultural beliefs at the time


  • While the quote presents a correct conclusion, it’s also problematic in that it makes a slip of logic and paints a target for fallacious rebuttal.

    1. The slip of logic: one cannot conclude that no gods exist because all religions are clearly wrong – all that tells us is that none of the specific gods depicted by these religions exist. The path to disprove the existence of ALL gods must go through philosophy instead;
    2. Painted target: by juxtaposing science and religion, he invites the religious nuts to perceive and treat both things as belonging to the same class of intellectual activity, i.e. the “you have your opinion and I have mine” crowd.













  • From the very source you provided:

    […] by Late Latin normālis had also come to mean “according to a rule”, from which modern English senses of the word derive: in the 1800s, as people began to quantitatively study things like height and weight and blood pressure, the usual or most common values came to be referred to as “normal”, and by extension values regarded as healthy or desirable came to be called “normal” regardless of their usuality.

    I don’t think anyone of sane mind would argue against the notion that it’s more desirable, and by definition healthier, to be born neurotypical than neurodivergent.