Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Criptfeind]

That sounds a bit... Uh. Weird. You'd just tell them you don't have a favorite hockey team, you don't care about hockey. The same way, say, an atheist would say they don't have a god, they don't believe in religion. The only difference is that there's a specific word for atheist, because having a religion is considered the default position in this world and generally thought of as more important then hockey, but it's otherwise the same idea.

Just because there's a word for an idea it doesn't mean the idea is different, if hockey was a very widespread default interest and considered important we could probably would have a word the equivalent of apuckeist that people who didn't care could use as shorthand.

[Max™]

Just because it is seen as a default by some, doesn't mean it has to be.

Don't mark "none of the above", fold the test into a paper airplane and chuck it out a window. You don't need to answer the question, why agree to be sorted into those categories if they don't apply at all?

Being an atheist means you felt it deserved an answer, what purpose does it serve to legitimize the question if you claim to disagree with the options?

[Criptfeind]

I think your metaphor starts to fall apart a bit at this point. The most common time you're asked about your faith isn't on a test or something like that, but a conversation. If someone asks you casually what your faith is and you say "I REJECT YOUR QUESTION! YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT I HAVE ANY OPINION ON THIS EXTREMELY COMMON ASPECT OF LIFE OFFENDS ME! OUT THE WINDOW WITH YOU!" you'll look absolutely insane (and will be). Especially since "no answer" is already a commonly accepted thing that people know by a specific word.

In an actual conversation your "no answer" is the "no answer" option on the test.

[Frumple]

Really, that just sounds like some variation of apatheism. General view that for whatever reason(s) the religious question(s) don't matter.

_{Don't worry folks, people have been talking this shit long enough there's probably some sort of label for you even if you think you don't want it.}

[Loud Whispers]

I think your metaphor starts to fall apart a bit at this point. The most common time you're asked about your faith isn't on a test or something like that, but a conversation. If someone asks you casually what your faith is and you say "I REJECT YOUR QUESTION! YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT I HAVE ANY OPINION ON THIS EXTREMELY COMMON ASPECT OF LIFE OFFENDS ME! OUT THE WINDOW WITH YOU!" you'll look absolutely insane (and will be). Especially since "no answer" is already a commonly accepted thing that people know by a specific word.

In an actual conversation your "no answer" is the "no answer" option on the test.

'So are you like spiritual or religious?'
'The universe is a yawning chasm filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience. Why should you deserve special consideration within it, above all else?'

_{I'm referencing Eternal Darkness's Ulyaoth btw. Great game, a rare gem really}

[Hanslanda]

I think your metaphor starts to fall apart a bit at this point. The most common time you're asked about your faith isn't on a test or something like that, but a conversation. If someone asks you casually what your faith is and you say "I REJECT YOUR QUESTION! YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT I HAVE ANY OPINION ON THIS EXTREMELY COMMON ASPECT OF LIFE OFFENDS ME! OUT THE WINDOW WITH YOU!" you'll look absolutely insane (and will be). Especially since "no answer" is already a commonly accepted thing that people know by a specific word.

In an actual conversation your "no answer" is the "no answer" option on the test.

'So are you like spiritual or religious?'
'The universe is a yawning chasm filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience. Why should you deserve special consideration within it, above all else?'

_{I'm referencing Eternal Darkness's Ulyaoth btw. Great game, a rare gem really}

That is a great quote.

[Max™]

The actual response would be mu, indicating that the question should be unasked.

It doesn't matter if it seems absurd to some that I specifically address the action of asking the question rather than the content, if I did give an answer of any sort it would be a lie. Accordingly, someone declaring my actions to count as some sort of response to the "what do you believe in" question is easily determined to be false from the start. You're welcome to define the terms within which you choose to respond to a question or not, and you can be certain that I'm not going to try to force your statements to conform to my definitions and axioms. Do me the same favor?

[Loud Whispers]

The actual response would be mu, indicating that the question should be unasked.

It doesn't matter if it seems absurd to some that I specifically address the action of asking the question rather than the content, if I did give an answer of any sort it would be a lie. Accordingly, someone declaring my actions to count as some sort of response to the "what do you believe in" question is easily determined to be false from the start. You're welcome to define the terms within which you choose to respond to a question or not, and you can be certain that I'm not going to try to force your statements to conform to my definitions and axioms. Do me the same favor?

The important question is do you have time to talk about Armok?

[smjjames]

Question to you oh pious christians, does the Vatican have walls? https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/423609-trump-suggests-vatican-proves-border-wall-is-moral (he also claims that it's bigger than the Great Wall of China) *facedesks*

In all seriousness, there probably are walls from medieval times, but the function of those is not what Trump thinks.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Not a Christian, but the walls do exist and surround most of the grounds--however, they have an open border policy with Italy so it is as easy as walking in and walking back out again (I think).

[hector13]

I did a tour of the Vatican (or bits of it anyway) when I was in Rome via a tour group, which allowed me to skip the lines of people waiting.

Would be wary of suggesting that just because a religious authority does it that it’s moral *glances at Pope Alexander VI*

[smjjames]

Yeah, it was just some sarcasm because Trump invoked the Vatican. I figured there would be old city walls from back when such fortifications were actually useful, not whatever Trump thinks they have. Just goes to show how he is just spouting BS and has no understanding of the difference between medieval fortifications vs what amounts to a row of steel spears.

I did a tour of the Vatican (or bits of it anyway) when I was in Rome via a tour group, which allowed me to skip the lines of people waiting.

Would be wary of suggesting that just because a religious authority does it that it’s moral *glances at Pope Alexander VI*

It's Trump who said that, not me.

[hector13]

I know, just generally commenting, but I’m rather distasteful of organized religion.

[Teneb]

I know, just generally commenting, but I’m rather distasteful of organized religion.

But what is your stace on disorganized religion?

[Trekkin]

Question to you oh pious christians, does the Vatican have walls?

Yes. That said, the Leonine Wall was built in 846 and the Janiculum in 1643, and both served legitimate military purposes; the Janiculum in particular was essentially a work of urban renewal (pun intended) since the Aurelian wall was falling apart.

That said, they don't actually restrict travel into the Vatican.