Do you believe in God?

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

The "i before e" rule can be a little confusing for people who aren't sticklers for grammar, like myself. It's essentially the "when you want to say -ee-, it's i before e except after c" but there are exceptions to the rule. Also fits in with words that sound like "ay" like neighbor and weigh.

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

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

-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.  

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

Long answer: other than hearsay there is no concrete physical proof for a God, and therefore until such evidence manifests there is no reason to conclude that such a thing exists.

What kind of "physical proof" are you expecting from a God who is an invisible spirit?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Also, if we look at this in terms of a logical switch either being on or off, there is no intermediate state.  In other words, a person starts off as an unbeliever and remains an unbeliever until such time they choose to believe.

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

Why can't he expect more info? Like a revelation or something...

True (and a pretty good catch).  But he is still an unbeliever until he becomes a believer.

In other words,  the question was "Do you believe in God" or to put in another way: "Is your belief state 'on'?"