this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
1280 points (98.7% liked)

Atheist Memes

6591 readers
304 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Apocalypteroid@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You know who I blame? Jesus. Going round teaching people to care about one another regardless of creed and colour. His toxic empathy has really ruined Christianity.

[–] HenryDorsett@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

There is the biblical Christ, then there is alt-right Christ. One may, or may not, have existed as some weird combination of avatar/son/whatever of God. Then there is corruption and propaganda on the other side.

I'm not a Christian, by any stretch of the imagination, but I was raised in the south and my grandma taught Sunday school. I had read the bible cover to cover before most other chapter books, though against my will. Grandma also believed in the corrective powers of The Switch. So, yeah.

The biblical Christ would, if he were still entombed, be rolling in his grave over what the current GoP party is espousing as Christianity.

Of course, this post involves suspension of disbelief, so its all in the hypothetical sense.

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

teaching

This

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 138 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials:

“In my work with the defendants, I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Did he conclude whether those people started without empathy or just lost it due to the things they did?

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago

I think a good number of them have it educated out of them, by growing up in an environment where empathy is actively discouraged and portrayed as a negative trait.

There's also conditional empathy, where you're taught that there are certain groups to whom empathy doesn't apply (or that empathy only applies to your group), or applies to a lesser extent (e.g., your pet dog deserves empathy — unlike the neighbours' —, but that empathy only extends to taking it behind the shed and shooting it, not to paying for a veterinarian to take care of the minor problem it's suffering from).

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 53 points 3 days ago (9 children)

It's frustrating to read Christians trying to distinguish themselves from one another based on interpretations of a book while also all believing in a magical creature that lives in the clouds who will both condemn someone to an eternity of torture and provide unconditional love and acceptance.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 30 points 3 days ago (13 children)

The idea that anything anyone could ever do warrants an infinite amount of suffering is crazy.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 22 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

unconditional* love

* terms and conditions apply

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Brutticus@midwest.social 15 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Is there a slur for christians?

[–] offspec@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Botzo@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

These sorts? Absolutely.

My favorites:

  • y'all qaeda
  • talibangelicals
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Christofascist is arguably both a slur and a precise, factual description

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BiteSizedZeitGeist@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (4 children)

So, this is controversial, but when I hear "toxic masculinity" I understand that it means that not all masculinity is toxic, but masculinity can have toxic forms. In the interest of using precise language, I do believe that, in the realm of all possibilities, there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.

Now, I don't think that left/progressive ideals are toxic in general, and certainly aren't toxic when they're based in empathy and compassion. And I realize that the "side" that coined the phrase "toxic empathy" is also the side that thinks "toxic masculinity" is an absolute phrase. So it would make sense that right/conservative people would think "oh we'll call ideals we don't like toxic, like the libs do with masculinity" without any deeper understanding.

Just want to be pedantic to try to keep the capital-D Discourse on the nature of empathy from becoming black-and-white polarized.

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

The only toxic empathy I can think of is Stockholm syndrome.

[–] splendoruranium 10 points 2 days ago (5 children)

In the interest of using precise language, I do believe that, in the realm of all possibilities, there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.

Which situations can you conceive that would be made worse by all involved parties understanding each others feelings?

[–] BiteSizedZeitGeist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There's a form of empathy I, and I think some of my friends, experience by being raised by selfish parents. We're hyper-aware of others' feelings, dread upsetting anyone, and take personal responsibility for other peoples' unhappiness (all of it, even if we didn't have any influence).

There's another form, that's kind of like a complement to retribution and revenge. A person goes overboard trying to soothe their own empathy-inspired unhappiness that they to go absurd ends to address the source of unhappiness. Maybe like PETA, or people experiencing moral panic.

Another form that comes to mind is the mother from Requiem for a Dream - enablers. She knows her son is an addict, she knows that he's constantly stealing her TV to sell for drug money, but she dutifully buys her TV back from the pawn shop every time, because she can't say no to her son.

I suppose, taking drastic action to soothe one's own empathy, and not addressing the real source of unhappiness, can be pretty toxic, especially when used to manipulate, coerce and sway others.

[–] UniversalBasicJustice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you have a misguided sense of what empathy entails. Empathy is the ability to recognize another person's feelings and to understand how their life circumstances and experiences influence those feelings. Acting out of empathy is selfless, is motivated by a desire to help someone else. Empathy is not self-preservation or self-soothing, though there is nothing inherently wrong with preservation or soothing as motivations.

Your first example is an anxious response rooted in past trauma; you are hyperaware of the other person's feelings, yes, but you aren't taking their perspective into account. You're still in your own shoes (albeit children's shoes) and exhibiting a trained response to other's emotions designed to de-escalate a situation you read as dangerous. That is an act of self-preservation and is motivated by a desire to redirect and defuse emotions you feel threatened by, to ensure your own safety.I don't fault nor judge you or anyone for acting this way but those actions do not stem from empathy.

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret 'empathy-inspired unhappiness.' I think I'm familiar with the concept you're aiming for; I feel a sense of injustice and unhappiness when seeing people who have been failed by society, with homeless people and their children as the most apparent example. The action I have taken to improve the lives of those who have fallen between the cracks that I perceive as motivated by empathy has been to share food with them. I don't have much money myself and I recognize that money (in some cases) may be used to enable behaviors that are ultimately damaging to the individual, but everyone needs to eat.

The examples you gave, however, read as reactions designed to assuage personal guilt (PETA) and fear (moral panic), not as responses driven by an understanding of others feelings and history. That leads into 'action to [self-]soothe' - this is a selfishly motivated reaction as well. Coercion and manipulation are inherently self-serving tactics of influencing the emotions of others as well. Empathetic actions stem from desire to improve another person's circumstances, not from a need to feel better about yourself. The mother buying her TV back from the pawn shop is a little closer to the mark, I think. While her motivations come from a place of love, however, her actions are misguided and ultimately only serve to mitigate conflict rather than improve her son's real circumstances. The addict's mother, the PETA fanatic, even the person reacting to a perceived fraying of morality are not (necessarily) devoid of empathy but their actions are not motivated by empathy, either. Self-preservation is instinctual, a reaction engrained by millenia of evolution and is not an inherently bad or negative emotion. Empathy requires overcoming that instinct in order to act in a way that improves the circumstances of other people.

You are not bad for trying to de-escalate or appease those around you; those reactions were taught and reinforced by people who were utterly unconcerned with anyone's well-being but their own. Their actions lacked consideration for their victim's feelings or the circumstances leading their victims to those feelings. Their actions were borne entirely from a selfish desire to get ahead at the expense of those around them.

Empathy tends to require some form of self-sacrifice and always requires you to (briefly) hold someone else's interests above your own. Empathy is acting to improve someone else's life. I refuse to believe that actions motivated by a desire to actually help those around us, even and especially at the expense of our own comfort, is toxic. Those proclaiming the toxicity of empathy have likely never experienced actual selfless empathy and those who shout the loudest against it almost always have self-interest as their core motivation.

My experience with empathy is that empathy isn't an act, it's an emotion. Your descriptions track more closely with charity, heroism and justice - behaviors that are certainly closely linked with empathy. But I'm confident that the best definition of empathy explicitly does not include behaviors.

On a tangent, it's incredibly self-destructive to take ownership of others' feelings, especially negative ones. To support my statement, it's predicated on empathy, but exhibits non-constructive behaviors.

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah exactly, I don't get it either.

With "Toxic Masculinity" it's pretty clear how masculinity - which is not a problem in itself - can become over-applied to the point where it's damaging both to oneself and to others.

But toxic empathy? Is it really possible to care about others too much? To try and see things from someone else's perspective too much? I feel like it really isn't, because there can never be enough of that in the world.

Which means "toxic empathy" is genuinely nothing more than a nonsense phrase for people who don't wish to see or hear about any viewpoint except their own.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dariusj18@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Some people use the terms empathy and sympathy as two levels of understanding. Sympathy as the ability to understand how someone feels and empathy as the ability to feel the way someone else feels. In that context, empathy can be crippling and a negative trait to possess.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A hypothetical "toxic empathy" could be our evolved hunting technique. We would run down prey with endurance hunting. If we lost them, we could use empathy to put ourselves in their mindset, and so predict their movements.

Even this would be "venomous empathy". Toxic masculinity is partially defined by the way it hurts the man doing it. It's toxic to the host. It's misused enough however to muddy that, considerably.

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Toxic empathy is when you bite them and feel bad. Venomous empathy is when they bite you and you feel bad.

[–] forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.

certainly aren't toxic when they're based in empathy and compassion

Pick a lane? I mean no offense, but I did kinda feel like I had a stroke trying to follow your argument.

The way I see it, "toxic empathy" is self contradicting, which is a regular tactic of fascist propaganda. The whole point is to interfere with the listeners' ability to approach their argument with reason and logic, leaving them more vulnerable to emotional manipulation.

Anyway, I'll just go ahead and say it: no, there is no such thing as "toxic empathy". It's a meaningless word salad to dress their appeal to emotion up to look like some kinda of reasoned argument (but only if you don't look to close, which of course a radical will do everything to avoid).

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Toxic empathy is when you try to see the good in people when there's no conceivable good to be found. For example, the fools who think Nazis can still be brought around to reason instead of culled.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They're SO DAMN CLOSE TO ACTUALLY BEING SELF AWARE

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 95 points 3 days ago (2 children)

People like this are eating the same glue that Elon does.

Anyone thinking that empathy is a liability rather than an advantage are fucking stupid.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Empathy is a liability. It's also what makes human connection and love possible.

People who lack empathy are the broken ones.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think I found the author.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Religion. The only mental illness not in the DSM.

[–] mondomon@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (11 children)

Don't forget to add the fascism subtype.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 33 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Sadly, this is a thing.

(Note: I am not encouraging one to read the link.)

Witnessing to Liberals by Ron Rhodes

God’s primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness, judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.

The writing spends a lot of time arguing against the "mischaracterizations of evangelicals", while mischaracterizing "liberal Christians".

Such a horrible out world view.

(I don't care to find out what this detestable person has to say about Atheists.)

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.

Hell isn't a scriptural concept, it was taken and evolved from Hellenism. While I'm deconstructed, I know several "leftist Christians" that reject most modern evangelical dogma as "unscriptural." I agree with them, but there is no ethical justification for things like "God told the Israelites to genocide an entire people, including babies." At the end of the day, even if you agree with Jesus' humanist teaching, the Bible is full to the brim with "God" ostensibly telling people to do horrible, unjust, repugnant things.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The hell everyone thinks of was basically just biblical fan fiction.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Most people’s understanding of Satan and Hell is more from Milton and Dante than from the Bible. With the “Rapture”, it’s all Tim LaHeye, Hal Lindsey and basement church videos regurgitation of John Darby.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] LethargicPuppy14@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Against my best judgement, I read the whole thing. (You practically begged me to!) He's just offering incredibly disingenuous "talking points" for "liberal Christians" that are actually things you might say to an atheist. The whole thing just exists to characterize non-conservative Christians as fake Christians.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unconsequential@slrpnk.net 41 points 3 days ago

Ah “toxic empathy” this is the “I need to protect my mental health— I can’t be bothered with seeing homeless people or caring about genocide. It hurts me to care, so I just won’t.” crowd. And every last one of them is a “magical empath” with more empathy than anyone ever had ever. They’re the mostest empathetic and don’t question it!

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would say that empathy should be a basic requirement for any political office in a democracy. Anyone who lacks empathy is simply unsuitable, because you have to be able to put yourself in the voters' shoes in order to fulfill your mandate as an elected representative of the people.

Empathy would also be highly desirable in business leaders, as the purpose of the economy is to serve society and distribute goods at least somewhat fairly.

In our dark times, however, when politics and business mainly serve to maintain the power of those who are already powerful, it is hardly surprising that someone who is interested in doing just that propagates such idiotic ideas as "toxic empathy."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] protist@mander.xyz 26 points 3 days ago

I'm old enough to remember in 2009 when Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, mentioning empathy as one of the characteristics he valued in her, and the right melted down

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Toxic empathy can only harm the person who has it. In truth you have to be a little selfish. The trouble with anyone who thinks empathy is really toxic are the ones who are too selfish.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›