Do you believe in God?

[Gustaf]

It will be fun to see the votes for Lucifer dropping in...

[Gustaf]

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.

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

[Gustaf]

-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.  

Yes, good choice. I don't want my sterotypes to be questioned...

[Gustaf]

There's still no Lucifer vote... Where are you??

Opebo?

j/k...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[Gustaf]

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.

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

[Gustaf]

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'?"  

If only the 2 options 'believe' and 'don't believe' had been given, I'd agree with you, but now I would interpret the 'don't believe' option as having made up one's mind never to believe, rather than waiting for more info. Though you're obviously right that someone who doesn't yet believe would be an unbeliever.

[Gustaf]

Devout Pre-Vatican II, Latin Mass, old school Catholic here.

Lol...I didn't know that there was more than one person who actaully called it Vatican II...

[Gustaf]

Devout Pre-Vatican II, Latin Mass, old school Catholic here.

Lol...I didn't know that there was more than one person who actaully called it Vatican II...

Who's the one person?

Tom Lehrer.

[Gustaf]

I love Tom Lehrer. Elements song, the Harvard fight song...

"Fight for dear old Harvard, fight fight fight!
Won't it be peachy if we win the game?!?"

So do I. I hold your hand in mine, Lobachevsky, the Irish ballad...and of course the Vatican Rag, who prompted bringing him into the discussion.

[Gustaf]

I'm anti religious, and believe that without the world would be a better place.

Really? Have you thought about morality and stuff like that?

[Gustaf]

Morality would still succees. You don't need religion to achieve morality. If religion were condensed to the 10 commandments, the world would be stronger.

It's true that you don't have to, but I think a lot of people do need it anyway. And it has helped further a lot of ideas that are essential to modern Wesern society.

[Gustaf]

I think believing in religion is the last insanity that society tolerates.

I probably shouldn't say that because I will get numerous complaints.

That's not unlikely, no.