Genesis 4:25-26 (The Living Bible)

[raven1114]

If you told me you believed that the giant spaghetti monster created the world out of pixie dust while twirling his baton. I'd say cool. If however you told me it was a fact that this is how the world was created and that there is no other possible explanation. Well then I'm going to tell you to prove it.

Fair enough and speaking of fairness, I suppose I'd run the risk of alienating you were I to pose the same type of questions which were posed to a few xtians, (who've assumed I was specifically 'targeting' xtianity with such logic as you've demonstrated)?

As long as the questions are presented in a fair, logical and polite manner then I'm all for it. I'll answer what I know and what i don't know I'll tell ya I don't know it.

[raven1114]

I happen to practice Religio Romana so I believe in multiple Deities. I however don't assume I am 100% correct nor that my interpretations are either. Could I be? sure but I could also be dead *bleep* wrong. i simply believe what I believe through faith of my own and don't try to present it as fact nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact. It's a common curtsey that a lot of people are lacking in.

A tactful forum member who religiously believes differently than 90% of the users on this forum? Wow, I like you already!

Thank you I've actually held these beliefs for close to 20 years now.

[falcon9]

As long as the questions are presented in a fair, logical and polite manner then I'm all for it. I'll answer what I know and what i don't know I'll tell ya I don't know it.

In that case, I'll endeavor to input as much politeness as possible within the logic of the questions and contentions.  The first question concerns the implicit contention of any 'deities' which are 'believed in' and is effectively the same posed to some of the xtians on d+d & off topic forums.  That is, the premise being that the concept/entity believed in is either 'real', (has direct evidence supporting such an existence), or is not "real", (to the extent that there is no plausible/direct evidence substantiating that hypothetical existence).  In that regard, the implicit contention of belief in a supernatural/undetectable entity is that such exists/is real, (whether that is explicitly claimed or not, since the logical deduction would then be that what is believed in isn't real/has no verifiable existence). 

The question derives from such a premise; do you believe in something which exists or, which you 'believe' exists?  If so, is such a matter purely one of 'faith' alone, (sans any attributions to such hypothetical entities being the 'cause' of attributed 'effects'), or does it have some other basis?

[raven1114]

As long as the questions are presented in a fair, logical and polite manner then I'm all for it. I'll answer what I know and what i don't know I'll tell ya I don't know it.

In that case, I'll endeavor to input as much politeness as possible within the logic of the questions and contentions.  The first question concerns the implicit contention of any 'deities' which are 'believed in' and is effectively the same posed to some of the xtians on d+d & off topic forums.  That is, the premise being that the concept/entity believed in is either 'real', (has direct evidence supporting such an existence), or is not "real", (to the extent that there is no plausible/direct evidence substantiating that hypothetical existence).  In that regard, the implicit contention of belief in a supernatural/undetectable entity is that such exists/is real, (whether that is explicitly claimed or not, since the logical deduction would then be that what is believed in isn't real/has no verifiable existence). 

The question derives from such a premise; do you believe in something which exists or, which you 'believe' exists?  If so, is such a matter purely one of 'faith' alone, (sans any attributions to such hypothetical entities being the 'cause' of attributed 'effects'), or does it have some other basis?

My deities exist to me simply because I believe in them. Do I contend (I think that's the right word) that I am 100% correct and that everyone should fall to their knees and begin praying to the same Gods? No I don't. I have no more proof that my Gods are real (other than personal spiritual reasons to) than I have that the rock outside is.

[falcon9]

My deities exist to me simply because I believe in them.

That sounds entirely subjective, (that is, you've described an 'existence' which cannot be objectively demonstrated). Is this a correct deduction?

Do I contend (I think that's the right word) that I am 100% correct and that everyone should fall to their knees and begin praying to the same Gods? No I don't.

Then your belief includes an awareness that what you believe in, (specifically, the Religio Romana pantheon), may not exist in any objective sense?  That is, apprehended by 'faith' alone?

I have no more proof that my Gods are real (other than personal spiritual reasons to) than I have that the rock outside is.

A physically-existing "rock" isn't quite the same as a conceptualized pantheon though, is it?  If that rock outside exists, it will have measurable mass and physical dimensions as aspects of its existence.  These aspects can be directly perceived by anyone else, (whether they 'believe in' said rock's existence or not).  Are there any aspects of the Romano pantheon which can be independently-perceived by non/disbelievers?

I didn't inquire about your "personal spiritual reasons" due to being unsure if you felt comfortable enough discussing them here.  If so, no doubt you'll let me know, (and if not, I'd understand your reluctance).

[raven1114]

My deities exist to me simply because I believe in them.

That sounds entirely subjective, (that is, you've described an 'existence' which cannot be objectively demonstrated). Is this a correct deduction?

basically yes

Do I contend (I think that's the right word) that I am 100% correct and that everyone should fall to their knees and begin praying to the same Gods? No I don't.

Then your belief includes an awareness that what you believe in, (specifically, the Religio Romana pantheon), may not exist in any objective sense?  That is, apprehended by 'faith' alone?

Exactly. Could I be right and it/they do exist? Sure i could be. I could just as easily be completely wrong. I accept this and thus don't try to force others to believe my way is the one true correct way.

I have no more proof that my Gods are real (other than personal spiritual reasons to) than I have that the rock outside is.

A physically-existing "rock" isn't quite the same as a conceptualized pantheon though, is it?  If that rock outside exists, it will have measurable mass and physical dimensions as aspects of its existence.  These aspects can be directly perceived by anyone else, (whether they 'believe in' said rock's existence or not).  Are there any aspects of the Romano pantheon which can be independently-perceived by non/disbelievers?

Yeah I actually worded that completely wrong. I was in tired and didn't even realize until I read your reply. I meant to say I have no more proof my Gods are real Gods then I have that the rock outside is a God. Does that make more sense?

I didn't inquire about your "personal spiritual reasons" due to being unsure if you felt comfortable enough discussing them here.  If so, no doubt you'll let me know, (and if not, I'd understand your reluctance).

I'll answer them the best I can. Feel free to ask me whatever questions you have.

[falcon9]

Do I contend (I think that's the right word) that I am 100% correct and that everyone should fall to their knees and begin praying to the same Gods? No I don't.

Then your belief includes an awareness that what you believe in, (specifically, the Religio Romana pantheon), may not exist in any objective sense?  That is, apprehended by 'faith' alone?

Exactly. Could I be right and it/they do exist? Sure i could be. I could just as easily be completely wrong. I accept this and thus don't try to force others to believe my way is the one true correct way.

It doesn't concern you that such a belief may be only only thing that gives what's believed in a semblance of 'existence'?  That is, do you feel that the Religio Romana pantheon would have any such 'existence' without such a belief?

I have no more proof that my Gods are real (other than personal spiritual reasons to) than I have that the rock outside is.

A physically-existing "rock" isn't quite the same as a conceptualized pantheon though, is it?  If that rock outside exists, it will have measurable mass and physical dimensions as aspects of its existence.  These aspects can be directly perceived by anyone else, (whether they 'believe in' said rock's existence or not).  Are there any aspects of the Romano pantheon which can be independently-perceived by non/disbelievers?

Yeah I actually worded that completely wrong. I was in tired and didn't even realize until I read your reply. I meant to say I have no more proof my Gods are real Gods then I have that the rock outside is a God. Does that make more sense?

Unless that rock has demonstrated any evidence of being a 'god-rock', the use of such a parallel would logically suggest the inference that any "gods" which have also not done so aren't "gods".  If the rock has demonstrated any 'god-like powers', even non-believers would be able to perceive them without having 'faith' in such a 'god-rock'.

I didn't inquire about your "personal spiritual reasons" due to being unsure if you felt comfortable enough discussing them here.  If so, no doubt you'll let me know, (and if not, I'd understand your reluctance).

I'll answer them the best I can. Feel free to ask me whatever questions you have.

Okay, thanks.  Can you describe these pesonal spiritual reasons?

[raven1114]

Do I contend (I think that's the right word) that I am 100% correct and that everyone should fall to their knees and begin praying to the same Gods? No I don't.

Then your belief includes an awareness that what you believe in, (specifically, the Religio Romana pantheon), may not exist in any objective sense?  That is, apprehended by 'faith' alone?

Exactly. Could I be right and it/they do exist? Sure i could be. I could just as easily be completely wrong. I accept this and thus don't try to force others to believe my way is the one true correct way.

It doesn't concern you that such a belief may be only only thing that gives what's believed in a semblance of 'existence'?  That is, do you feel that the Religio Romana pantheon would have any such 'existence' without such a belief?

Are you asking do I believe the Gods would still exist if 'we' didn't believe in them? If so honestly I'm not sure how I feel on that. I'll have to give it some thought.

[falcon9]

Are you asking do I believe the Gods would still exist if 'we' didn't believe in them? If so honestly I'm not sure how I feel on that.

Yep and that's fair enough.

I'll have to give it some thought.

Take all the pondering time needed, there's no rush.