this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
188 points (97.5% liked)

Atheist Memes

6926 readers
2 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
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
fkn@lemmy.world
friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
Donjuanme@lemmy.world
Not2Dopey@sh.itjust.works
188
Check mate, atheists. (media.piefed.world)
submitted 3 weeks ago by FenrirIII@lemmy.world to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/post/746489

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 29 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It is very funny and quite disturbing how many Christians have no idea about how the Bible was created...

I am not even talking about who wrote the texts, that is a whole other mess, I am simply talking about how the Bible was created.

Many people treat it as the word of God, but it isn't, it is a collection of texts written by many different authors.

The texts that makes up the Bible were selected by a committee.

Just imagine you being part of a committee at work to create the companies next big product, this was a similar process.

The committee members all had their own agendas and motives for selecting specific texts that supported their own politics and their own views.

In the end we ended up with a weirdly written, contradictory work open to interpretation that is supposed to be treated as fact.

If you think about it logically, it proves nothing more than the existence of a vivid imagination and a thriving fan community.

It doesn't disprove the existence of a god, but it clearly does not prove it either.

[–] notabot@piefed.social 10 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, you see, all those authors, translators, editors, and indeed committee members were influenced and guided by god to ensure the true word of god was passed down. The fact that different versions don't agree with each other is neither here nor there.

In the end we ended up with a weirdly written, contradictory work open to interpretation that is supposed to be treated as fact.

Ah, um, it's... yes, it's all part of god's plan. God works in mysterious ways, you know. Yes, that's bound to be it..part of the plan, mysterious ways, etc.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Many know all that. They simply say god guided their hand.

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yup. They always have that one, thought-terminating cliche to pull out. If you reject their claim then it's always shifting the burden of proof onto you to "prove them wrong" when they have yet to even prove themselves correct.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

There was once a group who staked out a particular section of city street and would just approach people and repeatedly shout “JESUS!” at them, as if to glitch them into converting. I did wonder what their success rate was.

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago

Proselytizing has an abysmal success rate and it's almost by design. The purpose of the church pushing people to do so isn't to try and convert new members but to get the one doing so to feel isolated from their community so they endear themselves into the church community as a replacement.

The one proselytizing begins to become disheartened that their efforts—which, in their eyes, they believe to be "just trying to help people"—are being met with derision. They begin to see their community as nothing but vitriolic people who get angry at "being helped" and run back to the church to commiserate on how "godless" the outside world it. It creates an in-group/out-group dynamic.

It's incredibly nefarious when you view it from a systemic perspective.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

pretty sure these types are just looking for some physical altercation, someone is filming em from nearby to either sue the shit out of you or otherwise have video for some ragebait narrative they're selling somewhere

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

Unfortunately, this is just projection that assumes the intent of the other because you can't conceptualize any other reason you would find "legitimate" why they would behave like that.

Really, they are brainwashed individuals who legitimately do not see an issue with their behavior. They have convinced themselves through faulty logic that somehow they are simply "just trying to help others see the light and denouncing 'evil' in the world". Sure, any logical person knows that this is bullshit but the religious are not people who understand logic.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Date and I drove past a spray painted sign in the country that merely said, "JESUS".

"What is that sign supposed to do? Jesus! My homeboy! Forgot all about him!"

She was cracking up and now I think that every time I pass that sign.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I used to have a friend who was extremely skilled at this technique. He would put together an argument so nonsensical that despite being obviously false, nobody could possibly even begin to know how to start refuting any of it. If you challenged one point, he would use three other false yet logical statements to defend it.

[–] EmpatheticTeddyBear@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's when I would interrupt the person with, "stop, you've made your claims, now it is my turn to talk and address each point you made." And if they refuse to stop, I go with this: "Since you refuse to let me speak, this conversation is over." And I walk away.

They also don't like it when I start taking notes on their key points and start calling them out on contradictions.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But if you walk away, you lose.

[–] EmpatheticTeddyBear@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No. Having a debate requires both parties to actually listen to each other's arguments/talking points. When one party refuses to listen, it is no longer a debate. By constantly interrupting, they demonstrate they were never there to have a debate/conversation, but were only there to preach.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Oh no, it was never a debate. It was a game, and he only did it to shut people up.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 weeks ago

This tactic is known as a Gish Gallop

[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 3 weeks ago

I can't even imagine how this kind of conversation would go in real life.