Do you believe in God?

[aburr]

Atheist here.

hmmm, does that also make you religious?

How do you figure?

I'm asking the questions!

[KEmperor]

Atheist here.

hmmm, does that also make you religious?

How do you figure?

I'm asking the questions!

Then how come my response had a question mark, and yours had an exclamation point?  

[aburr]

Atheist here.

hmmm, does that also make you religious?

How do you figure?

I'm asking the questions!

Then how come my response had a question mark, and yours had an exclamation point?  

You must worship the exclamation point, and I must worship the question mark...make sense?

[KEmperor]

Not really, but thats ok.

[MAS117]

i put im not sure

[7,052,770]

I do believe in God, but I'm not overly religious.

[PD]

Yes, definitely.

[M]

I believe in G-d, and a basic good and evil in the world. Moral relativism was proved to be a lie that masks great horrors by the holocaust, if no where wlse, and modern third world totalitarianism continues to prove the existence of evil in the world. And where there is evil, there must be good, or evil is meaningless. I.e., Hitler is w/o question evil. So Churchill, for all his flaws, is good.

[aburr]

I believe in G-d, and a basic good and evil in the world. Moral relativism was proved to be a lie that masks great horrors by the holocaust, if no where wlse, and modern third world totalitarianism continues to prove the existence of evil in the world. And where there is evil, there must be good, or evil is meaningless. I.e., Hitler is w/o question evil. So Churchill, for all his flaws, is good.

Never fear my brother, the time will come when every single one of those cursed moral relativists burn slowly in the hottest parts hell!

[12th Doctor]

I should certainly hope that there is no ambiguity as to where I stand on the subject.

[aburr]

never fear my brother....all you need is love!

[KEmperor]

I believe in G-d, and a basic good and evil in the world. Moral relativism was proved to be a lie that masks great horrors by the holocaust, if no where wlse, and modern third world totalitarianism continues to prove the existence of evil in the world. And where there is evil, there must be good, or evil is meaningless. I.e., Hitler is w/o question evil. So Churchill, for all his flaws, is good.

I completely agree with you on moral relativism.  There is a clear right and wrong.  This has nothing to do with any gods for me though.

[kenhd]

Isn't the question more like: Do you believe in God, and if so, the God religions boast and assert or the undefinable, indescribable, unimaginable, can't begin to speak for Him because we can't begin to comprehend His Being let alone His Full Meaning Omnipotent one?

[dunn]

You don't have to be religous to believe in god. I believe

[aburr]

You don't have to be religous to believe in god. I believe

religious- belief in divine being or beings. To devoutly practice one's faith. Strict in performance; conscientious.

I agree completely, the reality is that most people don't really practice what they preach! In other words, they are not religious...just frauds.

[Nation]

-ist is a noun suffix, therefore it has NOTHING to do with "i before e" rule.

This is your first post outside the 2004 board! And what a post...

yeah, rather profound, wasn't it?  I thought about explaining that if the e had been silent it could have been dropped...as in "true" + "ism" = "truism".

But, then I would ruin my native-houstonian-christian-fundamentalist-know-nothing image.  

damn, I completely forgot about noun suffixes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I completely forgot about noun suffixes.

ignoring the i before e rule applies to any affix (prefix or suffix), not just to noun suffix

Here is a cute little poem:

"I" Before "E" Except After "C"

By Duncan McKenzie
 
It's a rule that is simple, concise and efficeint.
For all speceis of spelling it's more than sufficeint.
Against words wild and wierd, it's one law that shines bright
Blazing out like a beacon upon a great hieght,

It gives guidance impartial, sceintific and fair
In this language, this tongue to which we are all hier.
'Gainst the glaceirs of ignorance that icily frown,
This great precept gives warmth, like a thick iederdown.

Now, a few in soceity choose to deride,
To cast DOUBT on this anceint and venerable guide;
They unwittingly follow a foriegn agenda,
A plot hatched, I am sure, in some vile haceinda.

In our work and our liesure, our homes and our schools,
Let us follow our consceince, sieze proudly our rules!
Will I dilute my standards, make them vaguer and blither?
I say NO, I will not! I trust you will not iether.

[Gustaf]

I completely forgot about noun suffixes.

ignoring the i before e rule applies to any affix (prefix or suffix), not just to noun suffix

Here is a cute little poem:

"I" Before "E" Except After "C"

By Duncan McKenzie
 
It's a rule that is simple, concise and efficeint.
For all speceis of spelling it's more than sufficeint.
Against words wild and wierd, it's one law that shines bright
Blazing out like a beacon upon a great hieght,

It gives guidance impartial, sceintific and fair
In this language, this tongue to which we are all hier.
'Gainst the glaceirs of ignorance that icily frown,
This great precept gives warmth, like a thick iederdown.

Now, a few in soceity choose to deride,
To cast DOUBT on this anceint and venerable guide;
They unwittingly follow a foriegn agenda,
A plot hatched, I am sure, in some vile haceinda.

In our work and our liesure, our homes and our schools,
Let us follow our consceince, sieze proudly our rules!
Will I dilute my standards, make them vaguer and blither?
I say NO, I will not! I trust you will not iether.

Lol, good one...I wasn't aware of this rule actually...I will add a little poem of my own, I don't remember who wrote it, as soon as I can find it. I remember the beginning though...it was written by an English teacer in Holland, I believe, and it illustrates the problems with learning English...

'Dearest creature in creation,
Studying English pronounciation,
I will teach you in my verse,
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
Tears in eye, your dress you'll tear,
So shall I, oh hear my prayer!'

To be continued...

[Michael Z]

I believe in G-d, and a basic good and evil in the world. Moral relativism was proved to be a lie that masks great horrors by the holocaust, if no where wlse, and modern third world totalitarianism continues to prove the existence of evil in the world. And where there is evil, there must be good, or evil is meaningless. I.e., Hitler is w/o question evil. So Churchill, for all his flaws, is good.

I completely agree with you on moral relativism.  There is a clear right and wrong.  This has nothing to do with any gods for me though.

I personally find moral determinsim far more dangerous. Good and Evil are human constructs; the majority of humanity believes that Hitler was an evil man due to the process of socialisation which teaches us that certain things are bad and certain things are evil. Does this mean that morality is a worthless concept? Of course not. It is only in our interest to define Good and Evil, otherwise we cannot possibly hope to co-exist with each other. Morality is the code that makes life bearable. But it would be foolish to suggest that morality is anything other than a social construct.

Besides, there is a danger. What if one person or group, say, I dunno, the Nazis, state their subjective belief that it's good to, say, murder people based on race? What if they impose it on the rest of the population with the claim that that group's subjective beliefs hold a universal truth? It's precisely such a scenario where moral determinism (the belief that Good and Evil are God-given concepts that cannot be altered, as opposed to relativism) can prove extremely dangerous. Thus, paradoxically, moral relativism works precisely to stop people like Hitler, or at least that's what it's designed for.

[Gustaf]

I believe in G-d, and a basic good and evil in the world. Moral relativism was proved to be a lie that masks great horrors by the holocaust, if no where wlse, and modern third world totalitarianism continues to prove the existence of evil in the world. And where there is evil, there must be good, or evil is meaningless. I.e., Hitler is w/o question evil. So Churchill, for all his flaws, is good.

I completely agree with you on moral relativism.  There is a clear right and wrong.  This has nothing to do with any gods for me though.

I personally find moral determinsim far more dangerous. Good and Evil are human constructs; the majority of humanity believes that Hitler was an evil man due to the process of socialisation which teaches us that certain things are bad and certain things are evil. Does this mean that morality is a worthless concept? Of course not. It is only in our interest to define Good and Evil, otherwise we cannot possibly hope to co-exist with each other. Morality is the code that makes life bearable. But it would be foolish to suggest that morality is anything other than a social construct.

Besides, there is a danger. What if one person or group, say, I dunno, the Nazis, state their subjective belief that it's good to, say, murder people based on race? What if they impose it on the rest of the population with the claim that that group's subjective beliefs hold a universal truth? It's precisely such a scenario where moral determinism (the belief that Good and Evil are God-given concepts that cannot be altered, as opposed to relativism) can prove extremely dangerous. Thus, paradoxically, moral relativism works precisely to stop people like Hitler, or at least that's what it's designed for.

It all depends on who determines morality...your argument only works for moral relativists, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense...

[Michael Z]

It all depends on who determines morality...your argument only works for moral relativists, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense...

Not necessarily, since all moral relativists really do is acknowledge that good and evil are subjective (Hitler thought he was a good guy, QED) whereas determinists believe that the concept of morality is universal.

[Gustaf]

I believe in G-d, and a basic good and evil in the world. Moral relativism was proved to be a lie that masks great horrors by the holocaust, if no where wlse, and modern third world totalitarianism continues to prove the existence of evil in the world. And where there is evil, there must be good, or evil is meaningless. I.e., Hitler is w/o question evil. So Churchill, for all his flaws, is good.

I completely agree with you on moral relativism.  There is a clear right and wrong.  This has nothing to do with any gods for me though.

I personally find moral determinsim far more dangerous. Good and Evil are human constructs; the majority of humanity believes that Hitler was an evil man due to the process of socialisation which teaches us that certain things are bad and certain things are evil. Does this mean that morality is a worthless concept? Of course not. It is only in our interest to define Good and Evil, otherwise we cannot possibly hope to co-exist with each other. Morality is the code that makes life bearable. But it would be foolish to suggest that morality is anything other than a social construct.

Besides, there is a danger. What if one person or group, say, I dunno, the Nazis, state their subjective belief that it's good to, say, murder people based on race? What if they impose it on the rest of the population with the claim that that group's subjective beliefs hold a universal truth? It's precisely such a scenario where moral determinism (the belief that Good and Evil are God-given concepts that cannot be altered, as opposed to relativism) can prove extremely dangerous. Thus, paradoxically, moral relativism works precisely to stop people like Hitler, or at least that's what it's designed for.

It all depends on who determines morality...your argument only works for moral relativists, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense...

No, because all moral relativists do is acknowledge that good and evil are subjective (Hitler thought he was a good guy, QED) whereas determinists believe that the concept of morality is universal.

My point was that a moral determinist will wimply say that Hitler was evil and that his understanding of morality is irrelevant, PRECISELY b/c morals are determined...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

option 3

now that was easy  

I don't understand how someone could not know if he/she believes something.

[© tweed]

option 3

now that was easy  

I don't understand how someone could not know if he/she believes something.

Because there is really no way to know if there is a god.  I can understand why someone would be indecisive.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Because there is really no way to know if there is a god.  I can understand why someone would be indecisive.

Someone could reasonably be indecisive IF they expected more info to be forthcoming.  So, until the expected info arrives, the decision is "null".

But, once it becomes clear that all the available info has ALREADY been given - as it is in this case - anything other than "I do believe" is exactly the same as not believing.