Social media has become a breeding ground for memes that address pop culture, politics, religious, etc… I’m exposed to a ton of religiously motivated memes from both Christian and atheistic camps. Admittedly, I’ve seen some funny ones over the years but I’ve also seen some grossly misleading ones. Christians aren’t innocent of partaking in the spreading of ridiculous memes and I feel they should be held accountable when they spread nonsense via meme over social media. However, I’m devoting this article to addressing some popular atheistic memes that won’t seem to go away. In my opinion, these are memes that are completely undeserving of the recognition they’ve received. I have selected five memes (there are many more) that seem to have gained a lot of traction among popular atheistic social media sites.
The reason for me addressing this particular topic is because I’ve personally observed skeptics who find these meme-arguments to be top-notch. This type of lazy thinking doesn’t benefit anyone and the tone that it sets is destructive for those who genuinely desire to have a constructive dialogue. Some may think that I’m taking these memes too seriously, and I would be inclined to agree. These memes are undeserving of any serious consideration most of the time. However, what about those who are young in their faith and are not equipped to thoroughly respond to these memes that are written to appear pseudo-sophisticated? It’s important for those that are persuaded by these atheistic meme-arguments and those that truly feel challenged by them to understand that these memes largely fail when attempting to advance arguments that challenge the opposing position. Some people, like myself, take these little memes with a grain of salt but others unfortunately become influenced by them.
We should let the meme-content speak for itself and not dismiss it because it’s merely a meme; that would be a fallacy. With that being said, let’s give these memes some serious thought and judge them on the basis of their own merits…
1.
The irony of this meme is obvious once you begin to assess the wording and apply the same standard to atheism. If you replace ‘god’ with ‘the universe’ in this meme you’ll have the following sentence…. “The belief that there was nothing and then suddenly the universe appeared out of nowhere and that made everything after that.” This sentence is precisely what atheists are required to believe to loyally adhere to atheism. Atheism and materialism are bedfellows that strictly prohibit anything from being explained outside of material causes. So, does the universe popping into existence out of nothing make ‘perfect sense’? Not to me and not to most people. There have been no scientific observations made that support the claim that material has the power to cause its own existence.
This meme also makes a false presupposition from the get-go; it assumes that God began to exist and then subsequently created everything. The very nature of God is an eternal being without a beginning. The notion of a finite god doesn’t meet the definition of God. If there is a God, the existence of the universe and everything within it would be contingent upon Him, the Creator.
The last statement, “and hates gays” is just ridiculous. This is the poorly articulated ridicule that shuts down substantive dialogue.
2.
The author of this meme is attempting to claim that fine-tuning doesn’t exist by attempting to make a parallel between the elements of fine-tuning observed in our universe and water forming to the shape of the pond. However, does this seemingly clever little parallel hold water? The answer is no. As much as the author wants to attribute all of the fine-tuning for the existence of habitable universe and intelligent life-forms to mere physical necessity (i.e. it couldn’t have been any other way), the reality is that the universe could be much different. In fact, the existence of the universe being uninhabitable is incomprehensively greater than observing a universe that is habitable for intelligent life.
Below is a video that effectively describes the fine-tuning argument:
After viewing the video, the analogy used in the meme falls apart. The universe couldn’t ‘shape’ life if the constants and quantities weren’t precisely tuned to allow for living organisms to exist. Given the vast number of constants and quantities that had to fall within a very narrow life-permitting range, the likelihood of chance or physical necessity being the most probable explanation is nearly impossible.
3.
To dismiss the entire idea of intelligent design on the basis of perceived natural flaws is like saying that Disney World is a product of random chance because Splash Mountain was closed due to mechanical difficulties. There are lots of examples that illustrate the absurdity of this meme’s message. Are vehicles not designed when it is discovered they have engineering flaws? Are paintings not painted by artists when imperfections are discovered? Are books without authors if a letter is misspelled? Reality evidences the fact that designs do not require perfection in order to be designed. This meme is about as evidentially valid as saying that Mt. Rushmore was the product of wind and erosion.
4.
I’m assuming the intention of the meme is to compare Jesus to other mythological gods by assuming that Jesus was developed on a fictitious basis and was eventually deified on a global scale. Unlike Zeus and his band of mythological brothers, the historical narrative of Jesus is firmly rooted in historical evidence. What the meme conveniently fails to mention is the fact that a persuasive historical case can be made for the resurrection of Christ. On the whole, the vast majority of modern New Testament scholarship (including popular Biblical scholar and skeptic Bart Erhman) openly accepts that Jesus was a historical individual and that his life and ministry was chronicled reliably. While not all New Testament scholars accept the resurrection as a historical reality, they concede that much can be known about the historical Jesus because of the abundant amount of reliable sources about his life and ministry. The historical evidence is what separates Jesus from any figure of mythology.
5.
The “God” page has almost two million ‘likes’ on Facebook. Wow… In brief summary, this page is a mockery of the Biblical God. If one were to skim through the page, it would soon be clear that the page is designed to invoke humor at God’s expense. While the humor may be lighthearted at times, I’ve observed posts that are directly pointed at God/theists in a negative way; like the picture above.
When I see comments like this, I ask myself a couple different questions. 1) Are you familiar with 20th century history? And 2) How can you make an objective moral judgment without the existence of a transcendent moral standard that can only be provided by a moral law giver? In the video below, Ravi Zacharias beautifully answers both of these questions together…
After viewing this short video addressing these questions, does the meme have the same rhetorical impact? Clearly not. Regardless of which method one chooses to murder, atheistic dictatorships have been responsible for more killing in the 20th century than the total amount of deaths from all religious actions combined. It was Fyodor Dostoyevsky who said, “If God is not, everything is permitted.” When these atheistic dictators loyally adhered to their worldviews, history has proven that atheism is a much more dangerous worldview due to the lack of objective moral prohibitions.
It may be considered trendy to make these types of comments when ISIS beheadings are frequently happening in the Middle East in an attempt to portray atheism as being morally superior. This attempt at moral superiority is vain. Trying to portray the atheistic worldview in a morally superior light isn’t supported by historical evidence or philosophical reasoning.
Conclusion
My goal with this post is to challenge people to think beyond the common meme arguments that are used by many internet infidels online. I cannot comprehend why anyone would advance an argument through a meme but since they are becoming increasingly prevalent in social media, I felt it was worth a post to address the more common memes I’ve seen.
I know atheists are not the only guilty parties in the war of the memes on social media. I discourage all Christians from posting fallacious memes that advance poorly articulated thoughts and arguments. This is not a way to advance the Word. As we’ve seen above, simply because it may sound clever on the surface doesn’t mean that it’s a good argument for your position.
Lastly, if you can’t help yourself…post a cute meme of a puppy or something. Everyone loves puppies.
Worldview of Jesus 
This is a reasonable response to those folish memes on the internet! 🙂 😉
This argument falsely equates human design with the concept of divine or intelligent design in nature, ignoring critical distinctions. Human-designed objects (like vehicles, paintings, or books) are demonstrably the products of intelligent agents because we can directly observe their creation processes. Nature, however, does not provide comparable evidence for intentional design—it operates through observable natural processes like evolution, which can account for complexity without invoking an intelligent designer.
Additionally, the analogy fails because it assumes the existence of a designer while ignoring what such a designer would imply. If the designer is claimed to be omnipotent and omniscient, the presence of natural flaws (e.g., genetic disorders or poorly optimized structures) raises questions about either the designer’s competence or intent. This undermines the claim of a perfect, purposeful creator, as natural imperfections are more consistent with undirected processes than with intelligent, intentional design.
I guess the atheistic meme is not wrong after all then.
Your comment contains the underlying materialistic presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. Given this is the materialistic presupposition that you’re using to guide your comment, your answer is unsurprising. A materialist cannot allow for the possibility of a supernatural designer to exist because it would undermine atheistic materialism. You appeal to nature to explain the existence and design of nature. You assert that nature can account for the fine-tuned qualities that exist within it; however, the amount of faith that you’d have to place in nature’s ability to create itself from nothing is far greater than a Christian’s faith in a Creator.
Secondly, your second paragraph is not an argument against God. It’s a complaint about God based on your misunderstanding of God. To assume that you have a better idea than God about how to create the universe from nothing is not only presumptuous but also arrogant.
Thnaks for your reply! However, you misrepresent my argument and shift the burden of proof, a common step taken by theistic debaters.
First, addressing the claim of “materialistic presupposition”: the argument does not start with the assumption that nothing supernatural exists; it critiques the evidence (or lack thereof) for supernatural claims. Materialism is grounded in observable, testable phenomena, and invoking the supernatural without evidence sidesteps this standard. It is not “faith” to rely on evidence-based reasoning—it is the foundation of science.
Second, the analogy between “faith in nature” and “faith in a creator” is flawed and it is getting quite old as well. Scientific models of the universe, such as the Big Bang and evolution, are supported by extensive evidence and do not assert “nature created itself from nothing.” Rather, these models describe processes based on evidence and make falsifiable predictions. Faith in a creator, however, relies on unverifiable assumptions and invokes gaps in knowledge as evidence (arguments of igorance or personal incredulity).
Finally, the claim that critiquing natural flaws reflects “arrogance” or a “misunderstanding of God” sidesteps the issue. If the claim is that God is omniscient and omnipotent (do you claim that?), then natural flaws challenge this assertion. Critiquing these contradictions is not arrogance—it is a reasoned response to reconcile observable reality with the claims of divine perfection.
On the contrary, isn’t it quite arrogant, quite self-centered, even solipsistic to assert that all these galaxies, all these planets, all these creatures have been “created” with just YOU in mind? You say that the problem is my “misunderstanding of God”, implying that you do know what God wants and thinks. It doesn’t get more arrogant than that.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your perspective and want to address some of the points you raised.
Firstly, regarding materialism, I understand your emphasis on evidence-based reasoning. However, I believe that while science excels at explaining natural phenomena, it does not adequately capture metaphysical realities. This is where I find value in integrating both scientific and theological perspectives, seeing them as complementary rather than contradictory.
Regarding the analogy between “faith in nature” and “faith in a creator,” I recognize the strength of evidence supporting scientific models. My view is that the Big Bang and evolutionary theories can coexist with the creation narrative, offering a broader understanding of existence.
On the topic of natural flaws and divine attributes, I acknowledge this is a complex issue. My belief in God’s omniscience and omnipotence does not negate these challenges but invites deeper theological exploration beyond what science alone can address.
My intention is to engage in meaningful dialogue, respecting both scientific inquiry and theological insights.
I hope this response helps you understand my perspective.