Does any version of atheism include belief that there is a spiritual realm? Thanks.

[WaltL1]

But if you couldn’t even find Atlanta, that doesn’t mean Atlanta doesn’t exist.

Sure. My only point is there can be factual elements to a completely made up story.
For example the Bible undoubtably contains some facts. Those facts dont make the entire Bible "true". Same with any other book or story.

 

[Spotlite]

Sure. My only point is there can be factual elements to a completely made up story.
For example the Bible undoubtably contains some facts. Those facts dont make the entire Bible "true". Same with any other book or story.

To you and bullet, I agree.

There are things written the Bible that are facts that can be proven, of course I believe all are accurate but I’m looking from different lenses - sone can only be accomplished by a source we can’t grasp its abilities and limitations.

Ultimately these lead into God…… there or not. Although there are facts written, the actual proof of God takes place within an individual when they get that revelation. That’s why I always say I don’t believe in God just because the story is there.

 

[WaltL1]

To you and bullet, I agree.

There are things written the Bible that are facts that can be proven, of course I believe all are accurate but I’m looking from different lenses - sone can only be accomplished by a source we can’t grasp its abilities and limitations.

Ultimately these lead into God…… there or not. Although there are facts written, the actual proof of God takes place within an individual when they get that revelation. That’s why I always say I don’t believe in God just because the story is there.

the actual proof of God takes place within an individual

Yep, for now, thats all there is.

 

[Mean Bone]

oldfella1962 thanks for the links. Found them interesting.

Regarding camels in the Genesis account being anachronistic. The study you referred to was addressing domesticated camels in Canaan. The Genesis account is referring to Mesopotamia which most likely had domesticated camels during that time period.

LINK: Did Camels Exist In Biblical Times?

I found no major conflict with Drs. Cargill and Osborne in your other two links. In fact, I like Dr. Osborne's definition for Biblical Archeology: “the use of modern archaeological methods to study the material remains of sites and civilizations related to the biblical text, with an intent to understand how those findings interact with the biblical record.”

As noted by Dr. Osborne, archeology can only confirm, not prove, the Bible.

I'll stand by my statement that the Bible, both New and Old Testaments, has no reason to hide from reputable archeological discoveries. It can reliably stand along side other ancient writings.

 

[Mean Bone]

Im not sure having factual places or people lends a whole lot of credibility to a story. . . .
The leaping tall buildings part doesnt become credible because of that.

Agreed. That would only confirm the location.

Leaping tall buildings? You would need a reliable witness for that.

 

[oldfella1962]

Agreed. That would only confirm the location.

Leaping tall buildings? You would need a reliable witness for that.

But what if you really, really believe the stories you hear from a bunch of guys who knew other guys who knew other guys who could totally vouch for the first guys who read about the building leaping but then lost the reports?

 

[oldfella1962]

oldfella1962 thanks for the links. Found them interesting.

Regarding camels in the Genesis account being anachronistic. The study you referred to was addressing domesticated camels in Canaan. The Genesis account is referring to Mesopotamia which most likely had domesticated camels during that time period.

LINK: Did Camels Exist In Biblical Times?

I found no major conflict with Drs. Cargill and Osborne in your other two links. In fact, I like Dr. Osborne's definition for Biblical Archeology: “the use of modern archaeological methods to study the material remains of sites and civilizations related to the biblical text, with an intent to understand how those findings interact with the biblical record.”

As noted by Dr. Osborne, archeology can only confirm, not prove, the Bible.

I'll stand by my statement that the Bible, both New and Old Testaments, has no reason to hide from reputable archeological discoveries. It can reliably stand along side other ancient writings.

This article might shed more light on not just camels, but other likely inaccuracies. It's not just about camels despite the title!
It turns out REALITY/FACTS weren't as important to ancient cultures as they are now. It's all about CREATIVE IMAGINATION!
The general emotional gist of the story takes precedent. So even if camels weren't in specific areas during specific times when specific people existed, it wouldn't matter. If a story has King Boomshackalacka riding a Brontosaurus (and mating with it) and taking on Moses in a freestyle rap battle that's just the way story tellers rolled back in the old days! Style over substance was entertaining back then, just like it is now.

There Were No Camels During Time of Biblical Patriarchs, Study Says | Time

 

[oldfella1962]

Yep, for now, thats all there is.

So, one aspect of "faith" could be wanting to believe that something is true so badly that if your belief is strong enough it can warp the very fabric of reality (but only you and other believers can see the "true" reality) because what you believe in has the actual ability to do so.

 

[Mean Bone]

This article might shed more light on not just camels, but other likely inaccuracies. It's not just about camels despite the title!

Actually, it didn't.

Instead of shedding light, it's more like covering up the archeological evidence.

The author, Elizabeth Dias, referenced the same study you did which referred to camels in Canaan not Mesopotamia. Thus, the whole title of her article is wrong. There were no "Phantom Camels."

Leads me to question her other statements.

 

[oldfella1962]

Actually, it didn't.

Instead of shedding light, it's more like covering up the archeological evidence.

The author, Elizabeth Dias, referenced the same study you did which referred to camels in Canaan not Mesopotamia. Thus, the whole title of her article is wrong. There were no "Phantom Camels."

Leads me to question her other statements.

Small world, after giving other examples of biblical time/location inaccuracies - and explaining how facts aren't as important as is telling a good story - it leads me to question everything in the Bible, not just the fantastical stories! To be fair, it's not just the Bible stories, it's pretty much all religious/mythical/legendary stories. Why should the Bible get a pass on being either straight-up fiction or "based on true story" (sort of) fiction?

 

[bullethead]

Small world, after giving other examples of biblical time/location inaccuracies - and explaining how facts aren't as important as is telling a good story - it leads me to question everything in the Bible, not just the fantastical stories! To be fair, it's not just the Bible stories, it's pretty much all religious/mythical/legendary stories. Why should the Bible get a pass on being either straight-up fiction or "based on true story" (sort of) fiction?

The biblical truth is the truth, the fiction is metaphors, the inaccuracies are accurate if you can suspend belief and the things that are not as they say are because we have not waited long enough for them to be discovered even though we've looked for them right where we were told they would be. It is quite the system.

 

[oldfella1962]

The biblical truth is the truth, the fiction is metaphors, the inaccuracies are accurate if you can suspend belief and the things that are not as they say are because we have not waited long enough for them to be discovered even though we've looked for them right where we were told they would be. It is quite the system.

I totally agree - it's bulletproof! You could keep this gravy train on the track forever.

 

[WaltL1]

Agreed. That would only confirm the location.

Leaping tall buildings? You would need a reliable witness for that.

For such an extraordinary claim I would much prefer to see it for myself.
Witnesses are rarely 100% reliable but in alot of cases thats the best we've got.

 

[WaltL1]

So, one aspect of "faith" could be wanting to believe that something is true so badly that if your belief is strong enough it can warp the very fabric of reality (but only you and other believers can see the "true" reality) because what you believe in has the actual ability to do so.

Sure.
But to be honest I think the same thing applies to a multitude of subjects. However, God/gods/religion does seem to be at the top of the list of things alot of people "want to be true so badly".

 

[RegularJoe]

It was posited earlier that some Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence
enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?

 

[oldfella1962]

It was posited earlier that some Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence
enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?

Not at all, because there could be a spiritual realm that no human has ever imagined, conceived of, or conceptualized yet. Nobody would need evidence for something that hasn't been defined yet, or its existence discussed. But once that newly discovered realm is presented as fact, a healthy skepticism should be in order.

 

[oldfella1962]

Sure.
But to be honest I think the same thing applies to a multitude of subjects. However, God/gods/religion does seem to be at the top of the list of things alot of people "want to be true so badly".

I think this is because humans see all the amazing & complicated behaviors and activities of nature and specifically the behavior of their fellow humans and can't stop wondering "why/how" things happen and since they can't get answers, they imagine that something beyond their senses must be pulling the strings.

 

[WaltL1]

I think this is because humans see all the amazing & complicated behaviors and activities of nature and specifically the behavior of their fellow humans and can't stop wondering "why/how" things happen and since they can't get answers, they imagine that something beyond their senses must be pulling the strings.

Agreed.
We (humans) dont deal well with just leaving it at "I dont know".
So we come up with answers that make us feel better.

 

[660griz]

It was posited earlier that some Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence
enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?

I think it was posited that some atheist COULD accept the existence of a spiritual realm since atheism by definition is just the disbelief in God(s).
I am pretty sure you would have to present that question to an Atheist that accepts the existence of a 'spiritual realm'. I suspect one is going to be hard to find.

 

[WaltL1]

It was posited earlier that some Atheists do accept / are 'okay' with the existence of a 'spiritual realm' (re: original post) ...
would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence
enabling them to conclude that the spiritual realm is something that is for real?

Something to consider -
A spiritual realm is a "concept". Not defined.
God has been defined ad nauseum from what he thinks, wants, does, says, had for breakfast etc etc.
Either should require evidence of existence but one of them is going to require a whole lot more evidence because a whole lot more claims have been made.

would those Atheists likely have hard tangible measurable type evidence

If they do, I'd be interested to hear what it is.