use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
Help victims of the Aurora shootings
Help victims of the Sikh shootings
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
Truer words have never been spoken... (imgur.com)
submitted 3 months ago by Bunniescreed
[–]Alifib 1 point2 points3 points 3 months ago
So what about atheists that used to be religious? Were they not actually religious? Isn't that buying into the no true Scotsman fallacy? Or did they become atheists for irrational reasons? Your quote is bad and you should feel bad.
[–]biodrones -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago
The message House is trying to convey (which you seem to have overlooked) is that there would have been religious people in the past, but they would be gone by now if they could be reasoned with.
[–]Alifib -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago
I took him to mean that it's impossible to reason with religious people, which given the demographics of this subreddit is patently untrue. The quote as written is false. Where do you get the idea that he's talking about the past? What indicates that?
[–]Bunniescreed[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago
Well, the word "could" gives some indication that it's in the past...
[–]Alifib 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Right, it's technically a past conditional. But the conditional seems the more important part. The statement seems closer in meaning to something like "If I could understand quantum mechanics..." or "If I could fly...". Those are past conditionals, but I'm not really talking about the past.
[–]biodrones 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
I admire your energy in attempting a grammar lesson to a fictitious character in order to correct a phrase everyone else has no trouble understanding, but your efforts are misguided and, frankly, silly.
Personally I think it's a stupid, arrogant, and false quote just like this one. But it's pro atheist so everyone will like it. So it goes.
I mean, are you denying that the quote is incorrect? Do you think it is impossible to reason with religious people?
[–]LaVieZomb -1 points0 points1 point 3 months ago
the irony of this conversation is so rich!
[–]Philile 0 points1 point2 points 3 months ago
Sorry, did you just point out the irony in his accusation of stupidity and arrogance with smugness? Truly, this conversation is an exercise in smug satisfaction. (I'm super meta.)
The quote is self-gratifying and facetious and I'm tired of seeing it everywhere. It's nowhere near a profound as you believe it to be.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]Alifib 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]biodrones -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Alifib -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Bunniescreed[S] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Alifib 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]biodrones 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Alifib -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]LaVieZomb -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Philile 0 points1 point2 points ago