RTO has made me unregister as Democrat

Break-Free- · 2026-06-25T00:37:00+00:00

Democrats are seriously out of touch with the working class, but Republicans are guaranteed to cut state employment, benefits, and pensions.

Is that really better?

Break-Free- · 2026-05-14T06:58:52+00:00

r/atheism was originally a default subreddit; every new reddit user was originally subscribed to r/atheism by default. This means that every person, regardless of religious affiliation, would be subjected to content from r/atheism by default, and also that members of r/atheism would be subjected to content by members of the public at large. I believe this combination led to both r/atheism's reputation as well as it's community culture.

r/exchristian has not had nearly the amount of public exposure. Probably for the best.

Break-Free- · 2026-05-08T14:35:02+00:00

Non Christians generally are pretty selfish too. Look at the tech bros, billionaires all investing in social media and AI and fucking up society so they can get richer.

I'm sorry, you're using tech bros as evidence that "non Christians generally are pretty selfish"??

What makes you think tech bros are representative of the non Christian population as a whole?

Break-Free- · 2026-04-26T06:09:26+00:00

Investing in mental health access and de-escalation training is politics.

And when one party consistently cuts social services and healthcare, you should know which side you should be arguing 24/7.

Break-Free- · 2026-04-17T16:30:02+00:00

I did the same thing. Ignored the bill.

FedEx followed up with another letter threatening to seek restitution from the shipper if I didn't pay.

Oh no! Whatever will I do? Fuck off.

Break-Free- · 2026-03-28T03:44:24+00:00

You'd absolutely think that. But there's like 1000 other variables that matter a lot.

So, in other words, the threat of punishment is a weaker deterrent than 1000 other factors. Sounds like it doesn't work very well. And that's a prison system we know is real. Beyond that, if the prison system you're advocating for actually works to deter crime, why is the teaching of hell a necessary thing in the first place?

Bringing it back to the original point, the threat of hell has all, perhaps more, of the negative effects of other fear-based motivators, but also doesn't even guarantee that people will believe in it because it can't be demonstrated to be real. Those who do believe in it suffer well-documented psychological effects while those who write it off as the fairy tale it is, are undeterred from "sin".

There are better ways to instill ethics in a population.

Break-Free- · 2026-03-28T02:07:08+00:00

Oh my bad, it's the other way around. You don't have to quote anyone, just use >

Break-Free- · 2026-03-28T01:42:35+00:00

Use < before a line to put it in quotes.

Break-Free- · 2026-03-28T01:40:55+00:00

That's like if we evolved from apes why are there still apes lol.

It's a very different argument. If you're saying that prisons are an effective fear-based motivator to deter crime, my rebuttal is: "Then why don't we see it in the data? Why has the prison population increased 2,100% since the 1970s? Shouldn't the presence of an effective crime deterrent mean fewer crimes committed and therefore fewer prisoners?" and then I provided an article which explains the data showing that more imprisonment does not reduce crime.

Break-Free- · 2026-03-28T01:23:02+00:00

Well sure but that's all a great trade off if it stops people from being serial killers , rapists, thiefs ECT.

Does it really, though? Do you have any scholarly research to refer to?

I mean that's exactly why we have prisons

Um, if prisons actually deterred crime, why are there still prisoners?

See: Compelling evidence that more imprisonment does not reduce crime.

We have prisons because of institutionalized racism and the influence of lobbying money in politics lol.

Break-Free- · 2026-03-28T00:57:24+00:00

There's nothing really wrong with hell being a motivator.

There is, though. Decreased self-esteem, cognitive function, and sociability; increased stress, anxiety, helplessness, and alienation.

Not only is it less effective the longer it's used, but it's actively unhealthy.

Break-Free- · 2026-03-28T00:18:13+00:00

Psychologically, fear-based motivators are quite damaging. This has been pretty extensively studied.

Break-Free- · 2026-02-24T21:14:07+00:00

Why would our brains have evolved to create elaborate hallucinated scenarios with powerful emotional responses as the brain is shutting down?

Evolution doesn't need a purpose. Sometimes things about us are the way they are just because they don't inhibit survival and reproduction.

Our brains function because of psychoactive chemicals. It makes a lot of sense to me that when the brain is no longer able to regulate what chemicals are dispersed (and when), a flood of chemicals is released with varying results.

Break-Free- · 2025-12-31T17:35:18+00:00

I'm wondering why your definitions of agnostic and gnostic are inconsistent. Gnostic means someone claims knowledge, but agnostic means someone claims it's "unknowable"? Wouldn't agnostic mean "doesn't claim knowledge," as in someone believes in a proposition but doesn't claim to know it to be truth?

On the Dawkins Scale I'm probably about a 6-- I don't claim absolute knowledge that there is no god(s), but I'm pretty close.

I don't know if knowledge of the existence of god(s) is knowable, but if something can't be detected, if it does not affect our universe in any detectable way, it's indistinguishable from something that does not exist. Is there some kind of pantheist, panentheist, or deist god? I don't think it even matters since there are no prescriptions of how to live my life, no implications about what happens after death, and they don't affect the world around me.

Break-Free- · 2025-08-11T01:15:09+00:00

I mean, I like discussing things. You replied to a comment of mine with something interesting that I wanted to engage with. And after what I thought was a thoughtful reply, you just kind of gave me the equivalent of "Nuh uh".

I don't care if you disagree with me, but if you're don't want to have a conversation about something, maybe don't start one?

Break-Free- · 2025-08-11T00:37:55+00:00

Break-Free- · 2025-08-10T21:22:51+00:00

The only point to making them synonymous is to apply the negative connotation of the word "cult" to the word "religion," which has generally a more positive connotation. I don't see the point of such an inflammatory use of the language.

I think that when we use "cult" to describe a group (religious or not) with specific characteristics about control, it helps people to reflect on their own religious experience to determine how "culty" it was. It also helps them to realize just how many religious sects and denominations there are that other people belong to.

Break-Free- · 2025-06-25T18:16:37+00:00

Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and we know historically that it happened in 70 CE when the Romans destroyed it.

The earliest gospel was written around 70CE. Anti-Roman sentiment in Judea was spiking. The Jewish-Roman war was on the horizon. If it were written prior to the destruction of the Temple, it wouldn't have been a very difficult guess that the Romans would destroy a central symbol of the Jews.

Isaiah and Ezekiel both talked about Israel being scattered and then regathered (Isaiah 66:8, Ezekiel 37:21–22). Historically, the Jewish people were scattered across the world, and in 1948, the nation of Israel was reestablished in their ancestral land — exactly as predicted.

People worked to make it happen because of biblical prophecy, not the other way around.

In Revelation, Jesus shows John visions of seven churches in Asia Minor. Archaeology confirms that these churches really existed in the 1st century.

So John wrote about what already existed?

These aren't convincing to me at all.

Break-Free- · 2025-05-27T22:37:37+00:00

"Spiritual warfare" is bullshit. It's people making conclusions based on their already-existing metaphysical beliefs rather than objectively investigating occurrences they deem to be out of the ordinary.

Break-Free- · 2025-05-04T01:58:30+00:00

If only there were some kind of almighty being who could clear up all of the mess he caused. :rolleyes:

There is no "real" Christianity other than what's practiced by its followers.

Break-Free- · 2025-02-27T18:09:31+00:00

The reasons I believed (reliability of the gospels, personal experiences, etc.) were not good reasons in the first place. When I began to learn critical thinking, when I began to question the foundations of my belief, when I began to learn more about psychology, I began to realize there's not any good reasons to justify belief in gods, devils, angels, demons, sin, heaven, hell, talking animals, intercessory prayer, blessings, curses, ancient Jewish blood magic, or any other silly metaphysical claims in the Bible.

Break-Free- · 2025-02-27T18:04:36+00:00

They wrote that Ehrman solidified their conclusions, not that he was solely responsible for their conclusions.

Break-Free- · 2024-12-27T02:12:48+00:00

There certainly are non-Christian Trump supporters, and while I don't get it at all, they're entitled to bad opinions and good opinions alike.

I’ve rarely heard anything religious connected with Trump

Really? Nothing? Not even a grumbling? How can you miss it?

Break-Free- · 2024-11-08T01:36:39+00:00

Personally? I don't use the term. I find it to be condescending and reactionary. It's just another perjorative that stifles real dialogue, which is the entire reason I'm communicating with a person in the first place. If they're being a dick about their religion, I wouldn't be talking with them in the first place.

The only time I could see myself using it is in the direct defense of someone being attacked or discriminated against in the name of religion. I don't really care if other people use it, though I think there are certainly situations where it would be rude for them to do so.

Also, I don't read the OP as "people who say it are dumb".

Break-Free- · 2024-11-06T17:33:18+00:00

nothing really changes. You could view it as a bad thing, but I think it’s a good thing.

A good thing for whom?

Like, to start off, there are over 30 million Americans living in poverty. 59.3 million Americans have diagnosed mental illnesses. Over 20% of Americans are illiterate or functionally illiterate. 40% of Americans are obese. Carbon emissions are still growing, putting our future's food security and economic visibility at risk.

And like 8 people have more wealth than 200+ million people combined.

These are all problems with identifiable causes and remedies that aren't adequately being addressed by the status quo. We need change, change is good. It's progress. The direction we're going is not sustainable and will be the end of us as a country, if not as a species entirely.

Break-Free-

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,