Do You Believe In Angels?

That's the point, she's putting all of her responsibility in the hands of god, as if he will come down and save her family.

I was using the movie as an example that everyone could draw on. I don't use movies as truth.

Priests pick and choose too.

very, very, very true.

i don't believe in fairies or tori amos either

I don't believe in the Beatles.

I just believe in Yoko & me.

That's reality.

The dream is over.

Time for Carlin again:

Kind of strange to see that some people find it easier to believe in god than in angels, considering that angelic-like figures are far more common in world religions than monotheistic dieties are. A belief in angels is really just an adapted version of pantheism & polytheism, not to mention that they're usually not considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, completely benevolent or any of the other things that usually lead to paradoxical characteristics (such as god being all-loving and all-powerful, yet allowing evil to exist).

I don't believe in either angels or god, but I think it's lame to compare religious beliefs to things like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. There are brain dead faithful and there are brain dead atheists. A good way of being the latter is to ignore the difference between an allegorical childhood story figure and a genuine search for meaning and hope.

The fact that someone may need something doesn't automatically make them a fucking moron.

I love Class Clown, but I've found a lot of his other stuff to be insufferable. The "State Prison Farms" thing is just dumb.

I would like to.

Not for working class heroes.

My mum is an author and writes books about angels. With all her heart she believes in them. She is not Christain in any way, and I'm not either, but I've seen the good she has done talking to other people about her beliefs. I woud like to think that we are looked after by SOMETHING, whether it's angels or not, who knows. If believing in something gives you inner peace, happiness and you pass it on to everyone else around you, who are we to rubbish people's beliefs?

Not really. For no real reason other than I don't.

I'm an Aerobeetarian.

We're ancient enemies.

only when its jon

Soooooooo, does that mean that the altar candles don't go up my ass?

I believe in nawsing lebowski.

don't forget some form of fire, lighter, matches, etc. How else are you going to light that smoke after you get drunk and diddle yourself silly?

Here's what I never understood - if god is omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning he/she/it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants.... then what the fuck does it need angels for in the first place?


As to the original question, I'm sorry, but logic and rationality dictate that the burden of proof always lies on the individual making the claim. To say that "there is neither proof for nor against so I'm undecided" just that you're choosing to ignore logic. If you want to be illogical in your beliefs, then by all means, go ahead and believe in whatever you like. But I choose to try and be as logical and rational as possible, so I don't believe anything until some evidence has been offered.

It works in every aspect of existence, so I fail to see why this should constitute some sort of special case.

Playing devil's advocate here (in full awareness of the irony), there are three challenges to this from a religious, specifically Judeo-Christian, standpoint. First, if god is omnipotent, he is not bound by logic; that would allow him to endow his creations with the ability to violate the same. Second, this stance assumes that the spiritual world operates according to the same laws as the physical world, at least as far as logic is concerned, and that proofs of existence would be similar in both.

The most substantial challenge would be the third: that proof eliminates the most vital aspect of religious feeling, that being faith. Accordingly, god would not provide proof of his existence, or that of his angels, since it is antithetical to the nature of religion.

When the second challenge is considered the fence-sitting standpoint at least appears to be a valid one. It simply allows for the possibility that the spiritual world exists -- something that we may or may not be able to establish empirically or logically, regardless of the matter in fact.

Your argument for that stance being one of ignoring logic is a bit weak, tho, isn't it? The people making that statement aren't advancing a claim, so there is no burden of proof. It simply alleges that there is insufficient data to support either a claim for or a claim against. At best, it flies in the face of empiricism and Occam's Razor... but is it actually illogical?