this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)

Atheist Memes

6861 readers
771 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Erasmus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

“Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.”

If you aren’t familiar with the quote it is a classic one from 40k pointing out the virtues of ignorance and blind faith.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I only praise the omni messiah the rest are false gods!

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Stay where you are. The Imperium knows your location and someone will be with you shortly.

[–] snekmuffin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"An open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded."

probably my favorite unit quote from DoW1

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Except Educated shouldn't be in quotes.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To people like that it is. They think education begins and ends with their preferred holy book. It's not limited to christians.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But even then the fastest way start questioning the Bible is by actually reading it. They probably don’t encourage that either through.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's why they do it as a group, keeps people from thinking too much when they're afraid of disappointing each other by not believing the right way.

"They believe the bible is the exact word of God - Then they change the bible! Pretty presumptuous, hu huh? "I think what God meant to say..."

Bill Hicks

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

Actually, the more educated we've become, the further we've moved from the dark ages.

[–] dumbass@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Fart her? I barely know her!

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

A good case for the kids skipping "Sunday School". They should be outside, playing.

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

What is this, the definition of "god of the gaps"?

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Science is magic to those who don't understand it

[–] 30p87@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago
[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's pretty funny they (technically incorrectly) used "farther" instead of "further" while saying education is bad.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe education physically moves god farther away?

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

God used to be close enough that us just building a big tower was a threat. Now we look billions of light years into space and don't see God anywhere. Soon there will be no place left to hide.

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can we please start addressing that this one specific sect of religion is killing our society and do something?

[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's the people behind it. Religions are just over-glorified fairy tales.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what point they think they're making. Maybe that "education is bad"?

[–] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

They’re saying facts don’t support their bullshit

[–] thagoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is the exact same ideology of the GOP

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Religion and Authoritarians have a lot of overlap I've certainly noticed.

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Almost like one invented the other

[–] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 weeks ago

The quotation marks surround the wrong word.

[–] Pencilnoob@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

What baffles me is how truly compatible science and religious faith could be, only in that religion attempts to provide answers that science cannot. But rather than pushing hard to only provide those answers, and reading the texts in the context of the time, these religious leaders get unbelievably bent out of shape and decide to die on hills that are just trivially and demonstrably false.

Like evolution, the age of the earth, heck a few years ago even a heliocentric solar system. It does not matter at all if this is a heliocentric solar system, and yet folks were happy to die on that hill (even killing others who just point out the truth) turning away everyone who won't submit. That's what finally got me, the constant claims to seek truth, and yet inevitably ignoring it completely when it slaps you in the face.

It's so close-minded and completely misses the point. If all they did was say "here's some moral teachings on how to be better to each other" at least I could get on board with that. But no, it's somehow required to buy into all the false teachings too.

It feels like a dead sea effect, where the only people left are those who comply when they see red plate and the leaders tell them to call it blue. To me that's not about seeking truth or trying to live a more moral life, but rather about control and power.

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Religion and science are not compatiable. Science cares about truth, religion demands lies.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Well, they could be compatible under philosophy of Non-overlapping magisteria.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem is that science overlaps religious claims, and will continue to do so as we learn more about the universe.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, certain faiths overlap, but I could imagine a religion based in deism. That could be compatible for a little while longer. Yes, I do recognise this is just God of the gaps.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

If you had a religion that, as part of it's core system, explicitly yielded to science as it progresses... or a religion that explicitly framed all of its claims in such a way as to avoid all possible future contradictions with scientific discovery.. sure. I'm not a "religion expert" or anything but I'm not aware of any such religions. It sounds like a hypothetical, philosophical proposal.

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, that's way too full of jargon for me to understand,

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 0 points 2 weeks ago

It basically posits that there are two universes, the world of God and the world of nature and science and never the twain shall meet and affect each other.

[–] Pencilnoob@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

Indeed, you have restated my position in fewer words.

[–] wischi@programming.dev -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Most sciences don't care about "truth" but care about models that predict the outcome of experiments. Even a model that works perfectly doesn't mean that this model is how the universe works. The universe could work completely different but the model happens to be very accurate anyway. Think about Newtowns laws of motion. They do not describe how the universe really works but the model is still pretty accurate and useful in many situations.

Even if we some day find a theory of everything, that still doesn't mean we know anything about the true nature of the universe. Just that everything we can observe is described by the model we developed.

[–] wendigolibre@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The current model is always defined as, "to the best of our current knowledge," not, "this is the answer." Often, a discovery is made that furthers our understanding of the rules of one tiny part of our existence, and through that knowledge come many other breakthroughs.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem there is that a religious text loses its authority if it’s full of demonstrably incorrect statements. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Once you’ve decided that you can just ignore anything that looks wrong, the Bible stops being a source of truth and becomes a Rorschach ink blot for you to see whatever you want in it.

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's almost like religion isn't actually meant to be a source of truth, or even faith or purpose, and is actually just a tool to control the poor who's every positive trait is a function to that end

[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago

God of the gaps, only the gaps get smaller and smaller as time goes on.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

If you're baffled then you are not educated. Surely that's a plus, and makes you closer to God, according to this article. /s

[–] nulluser@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

...religion attempts to provide answers that science cannot. But rather than pushing hard to only provide those answers...

Nobody should be attempting to provide answers that aren't backed by evidence or testable. "Trust me, bro" is not a credential.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Like evolution, the age of the earth, heck a few years ago even a heliocentric solar system.

I think the thing about the "age of the world being roughly 6000 years" is that it isn't actually about the age of the Earth (planet), but instead about the age of humanity. Which, if you consider the earliest cultures, could be said to be roughly 6000 years. I think this is a bit like calling your girlfriend "your entire world" (idk if y'all do this). It's a figure of speech to say "you're so important to me, nothing else in the world matters". And saying that "humanity is the entire world" means "humanity is so important, we don't care about anything else that might have happened prior". It's just that some people take "world is 6000 years old" too literally and that causes a misunderstanding.

heliocentric solar system

That's a funny one because i've been reading up on the early modern age (about 1500) quite a bit recently (after a friend sent me a youtube video starting my journey down a rabbit hole). And the church in Rome initially was very interested in the findings of Galilei and his proposal that the sun was the center of movement, not the Earth, even considering it a "great finding if only there was definite proof for it", because at that time, there was insignificant proof for it, it was mostly a guess. Source: german Wikipedia, translation below

Trotz der turbulenten Zeit, in der es der Kirche mithilfe der Dominikaner- und Jesuitenorden gerade erst gelungen war, ihren Einfluss in Italien im Kampf gegen die Reformation wieder zu festigen, gab es in der Kirche bedeutende Personen, die den neuen Erkenntnissen der Wissenschaften sehr offen gegenüberstanden und sie sogar förderten. Für Galileo war insbesondere Kardinal Maffeo Barberini wichtig, der Galileos Leistungen in einem Gedicht pries und als späterer Papst Urban VIII. seinen Freund mit Privataudienzen, Renten und Orden ehrte. Galileo selbst bezog sich als frommer Katholik auf das Urteil wichtiger Kirchenväter wie Origenes, Basilius und Augustinus, die der Bibel keine Autorität in „Streitfragen über Naturelemente“ zubilligten.[55] Dies wurde auch von mächtigen kirchlichen Stimmen, die eine wörtliche Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift ablehnten mit der Argumentation, dass Glauben und Wissenschaft getrennte Sphären seien, offensiv vertreten. So schrieb Kardinal Bellarmin, dass man, läge ein wirklicher Beweis für das heliozentrische System vor, bei der Auslegung der heiligen Schrift in der Tat vorsichtig vorgehen müsse.[56] Ausdruck des zunächst vorhandenen kirchlichen Wohlwollens ihm gegenüber ist die recht milde Ermahnung von 1616, Galilei sei im „Irrtum des Glaubens“ und möge darum „von einer Verbreitung des kopernikanischen Weltbildes absehen“.

Erst nachdem Galilei 1632 mit dem Dialogo, für den er von Papst Urban VIII. persönlich grünes Licht bekommen hatte unter der Bedingung, die damals noch nicht beweisbare Theorie (es existierten andere konkurrierende Theorien wie das tychonische Weltmodell) als solche zu bezeichnen, sich dieser Weisung (nach Meinung der Einflüsterer des Papstes) vermeintlich widersetzt hatte und wieder für das kopernikanische Weltbild als gesichertes Faktum eingetreten war (und die ersten Exemplare provokant an seine erklärten Gegner wie z. B. den Inquisitor Serristori geschickt hatte), wurde ein formales Verfahren gegen ihn eröffnet. Auch jetzt noch war das Klima, verglichen mit anderen Häresieprozessen, freundlich und das Urteil milde. Nachdem Galilei geschworen hatte, „stets geglaubt zu haben, gegenwärtig zu glauben und in Zukunft mit Gottes Hilfe glauben zu wollen alles das, was die katholische und apostolische Kirche für wahr hält, predigt und lehret“, erhielt er lediglich Kerkerhaft, die bereits am nächsten Tag in Hausarrest umgewandelt wurde. In einem Kerker hat Galilei nie eingesessen.

Translation:

Despite the turbulent time in which the Church—having only just succeeded, with the help of the Dominican and Jesuit orders, in restoring its influence in Italy in the struggle against the Reformation—there were significant figures within it who were very open to the new findings of the sciences and even promoted them. For Galileo, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini was particularly important; he praised Galileo’s achievements in a poem and, as the later Pope Urban VIII, honored his friend with private audiences, pensions, and orders. Galileo himself, as a devout Catholic, referred to the judgment of important Church Fathers such as Origen, Basil, and Augustine, who did not grant the Bible authority in “disputes about the elements of nature.” This view was also strongly advocated by powerful church voices who rejected a literal interpretation of Holy Scripture, arguing that faith and science were separate spheres. Thus Cardinal Bellarmine wrote that if genuine proof of the heliocentric system were to be found, one would indeed have to proceed cautiously in interpreting Holy Scripture.

An expression of the initially benevolent attitude of the Church toward him is the rather mild admonition of 1616, stating that Galileo was “in error regarding the faith” and should therefore “refrain from disseminating the Copernican worldview.”

Only after Galileo, in 1632, with the Dialogo—for which he had personally received the green light from Pope Urban VIII on the condition that he present the then unproven theory (since other competing theories, such as Tycho Brahe’s world model, still existed) explicitly as such—had (in the view of the pope’s advisors) allegedly disobeyed this instruction and once again advocated the Copernican worldview as established fact (and had provocatively sent the first copies to his declared opponents, such as the inquisitor Serristori), was a formal trial opened against him. Even then, compared to other heresy trials, the climate remained friendly and the verdict mild. After Galileo swore that he had “always believed, believes now, and with God’s help wishes to believe in the future all that the Catholic and Apostolic Church holds as true, preaches, and teaches,” he received only imprisonment, which was converted to house arrest the very next day. Galileo never actually spent time in a prison cell.

I'm not actually sure why the church was later perceived as being anti-science. It'd be great if somebody could shed some light on this question?

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

The first cities date to around 12000 years ago. Civilization is much older.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

That first bit is a truly unique take! Never even heard that hinted at. Much love, going to think on that.