this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
456 points (94.4% liked)

Atheist Memes

6302 readers
609 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sabin@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago (8 children)

So anything bad that ever happens to you is your own fault?

Do you just walk around through life assuming cancer patients did something awful to deserve their disease? Cause that's the only way this analogy makes any sense...

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 10 hours ago (7 children)

Everyone dies saban. Are you saying that if everyone doesn't die peacefully in their sleep, and unless no one ever gets bruised or cut or hurt or harmed in any way, it means there is no god?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (5 children)

Everyone dies saban.

sabin FTFY.
But true statement based on empirical evidence.

there is no god

Also true statement based on empirical evidence.
Why can you understand one, but not the other?

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Empiricism, as an epistemological view, argues that knowledge is based on experience and that it is tentative and probabilistic, subject to revision and falsification.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, traditionally explores mind-independent features of the world, including the nature of existence, the features all entities have in common, and their division into categories of being.

It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch. Steve Martin

That just to try and get you into a better headspace? Levity, anyone?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Also from Wikipedia on metaphysics:

Due to the abstract nature of its topic, metaphysics has received criticisms questioning the reliability of its methods and the meaningfulness of its theories.

The problem is that metaphysics isn't even meaningful.
You obviously can't say the same for science. Because science is the reason we can write together.
Metaphysics boils down to Descartes: "I think therefore I am", and that's it, it never got any further!!

And what's the point of quoting a joke?

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Metaphysics addresses "why". Like, "why are we doing science anyway?"

Can't answer that with the scientific method.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The why question is a nonsense question. For science it's obvious, because it improves our lives.
But if you are thinking along the lines of why do we exist, or why does the universe exist, those are questions that don't have a rational answer.
The questions that may have answers are based on the how not the why.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 hours ago

Because it improves our lives? Like napalm or sarin gas or nuclear bombs?

You're pulling arguments out of your hat without any empirical justification. You think because you pronounce that science is done to improve lives that makes it so?

If you want to make your case, be sure you don't get philosophical. Just prove your position using hypotheses and testing.

I don't know to discuss things with someone who decides everyone else has to justify their position while insisting their position is self evident.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)