Do you believe in guardian angels?

[beakerandburette]

I have an 2mo DD and recently I have been finding white feathers in her cot, pram, Moses basket ect. I mentioned it to my mum and she suggested it could be an angel, I'm a little sceptical but I must admit it is a little bit strange.

So do you believe and have you had any experience of this?

Do you think it is possible that there are no such things as angels?

Re "debate" - We have tried to have a debate and it hasn't happened. Do you know why? Because there have been no replies to any attempts to have a conversation. The reason why debate just doesn't happen on woo threads is that woo people don't engage in debate and instead go "Waah, you don't respect my beliefs!".

See below. No replies to any of them.

CoteDAzur Thu 05-Jun-14 21:47:29
What is the energy you think you use to heal people, Indigo?
It's not heat.
It's not electricity.
It's not nuclear (I hope).
What is it?

CoteDAzur Wed 04-Jun-14 16:55:57
I'm curious - Do you people think angels have physical wings of bird feathers? Or that angels go about plucking feathers off birds so they can leave them around for you?

CoteDAzur Wed 04-Jun-14 20:58:21
"If people were to say 'In my opinion' I would not have a problem with anything they said at all"
Do I have to say "In my opinion, unicorns don't exist"?
If not, why not?

CoteDAzur Thu 05-Jun-14 12:22:56
"a lot of people on here don't even know what energy healers actually do. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about laying on of hands or supernatural powers."
Please enlighten us. What 'energy' are we talking about here that is not supernatural?

sunshine - Do you think it is at all possible that there are no such things as angels?

Nicely phrased Cote I don't think it is possible to say absolutely definitively if angels exist or if there is no such thing, to my knowledge there is no absolute proof of their existence but that does not prove they do not exist, we can only say what we believe. People also think of angels differently; a white robed "biblical" angel with wings or a stranger who is there unexpectedly and often inexplicably in a moment of need

I think it is lovely that people get comfort from angels or the idea of angels and agree that their depiction in art is often very moving

"Why are you so sure these feathers aren't coming out of your duvet?"

"Why don't angels leave less ambiguous signs of their presence?"

"Why does this sudden interest in angels seem to coincide with the appearance on the scene of multi millionaire Doreen Virtue (she of the degree mill PhD)?

"What do you mean when you say have you used your gifts to find missing children?"

"If you really are interested in a scientific exploration of your powers, why haven't you responded to my invitation to arrange it for you?"

"I don't think it is possible to say absolutely definitively if angels exist or if there is no such thing, to my knowledge there is no absolute proof of their existence"

Good. We are getting somewhere

So, you are aware that "angels" might just be fiction and therefore that their existence is dubious.

Why would you say there is no doubt in the statements of many here?

Why don't we ever see "I hope there are angels watching over me" or " If I have a guardian angel..." etc?

I thought the below questions by headinhands would have also led to a good debate if anyone cared to answer them (nobody did in the last 3 days):

headinhands Thu 05-Jun-14 16:53:36
Do we all have guardian angels? Even child rapists?

headinhands Thu 05-Jun-14 16:52:55
What do guardian angels do? Why don't they stop child rapists? Is it the same reason god doesn't? Why are angels so bad at their job in poor countries?

Hak Just out of interest because I am genuinely curious. How would you scientifically investigate somebody's powers? Is the person asked to submit to that damned if they do and damned if they don't? Do you think "absence of proof is not proof of absence" applies here in any way?

IB says that she is an energy healer. It is perfectly possible to construct a double blind experiment which will show whether anything is actually happening. It has been done lots of times to test reiki, therapeutic touch and other therapies.

Cote Don't make me the spokesperson for woo here, I'm more of a devil's advocate myself and have no certainty but on that premise:

I agree there is no proof of angels but that does not prove definitively they don't exist. Up until recently there was no proof of various particles like the Higgs Boson but scientists believed in their existence. If somebody has a faith of some sort maybe their belief in angels is similar to that?

And, in the interests of debate. If you believe in guardian angels, maybe the child rapist has a guardian angel but chooses not to listen. Is this an example of man having free will?

How? Do you measure the energy, the quantifiable results or the perceived results?

"various particles like the Higgs Boson but scientists believed in their existence. If somebody has a faith of some sort maybe their belief in angels is similar to that?"

Scientists believed in the Higgs Boson because their experiments had shown that the was a "gap" in the pattern. "All" they had to do was find the necessary jigsaw piece. The difference between science and anti science is that scientists aren't worried about the gaps- they know that eventually discoveries will be made that explains them. Anti scientists fill the gap with "woo".

I assume a test of powers would be the same as any scientific test:

Placebo-controlled
Randomised
Double-blind

Example:

In one room there would be Indigo. In another, there would be just anyone, with no claims possessing healing "energy". About a hundred people (more, if possible) with the same symptom/condition would be sent to either Indigo or to this other person. List would be randomised, of course, so people sent to them would be totally random. They would go through exactly the same motions (Indigo would show these to the other person). In the end, the subjects would be polled to see how many claim their condition got better and to which degree. Statistical analysis would be done on results.

Then we would see if Indigo did significantly better than placebo (i.e. someone who wasn't doing energy healing at all but acting).

How? Do you measure the energy, the quantifiable results or the perceived results?

If somebody says they are a healer, then there will be some quantifiable or perceived "healing".

Scousadelic, there is a difference between scientific discovery (one if the great things about science is new things are always being discovered and if they challenge current thinking they are explored rather than ignored) and hypothesis (that we believe something must exist because of the way things work, but haven't discovered it) and just randomly believing things for which there is no evidence or scientific theory.

"Angel feathers" can be easily explained by birds. There is no need to hypothesise a creature outside all knowledge of the natural world to explain them.

Making sure, of course that the subjects did not know which was the supposed healer.

"I agree there is no proof of angels but that does not prove definitively they don't exist."

We don't have to (and really can't) prove that something doesn't exist. The onus of proof is on those who claim the exist. And they can't, because they have zero evidence.

This is what woo is - irrational belief, based on no evidence at all.

"Up until recently there was no proof of various particles like the Higgs Boson but scientists believed in their existence. If somebody has a faith of some sort maybe their belief in angels is similar to that?"

No similarity in those instances at all.

Scientists calculated the existence of the Higgs Boson - i.e. they discovered it mathematically.

Just like Paul Dirac discovered the existence of antimatter through mathematical calculations many years before it was possible to observe antiparticles.

"maybe the child rapist has a guardian angel but chooses not to listen"

I believe headinhands' question there was whether a child rapist has a supernatural creature watching out for him, helping him in his endeavours (abducting & raping children) etc. You know, if each of us have a guardian angel with their "vibration specifically aligned to their charge", as was Indigo's claim that had me in stitches.

"of course that the subjects did not know which was the supposed healer."

Yes, as I said, double-blind - i.e. not only the subjects, but also the people running the test on the ground would not know who the supposed healer is.

Sorry, cote- I just wanted to be sure people understood what "double blind" meant.

Oh I see I misinterpreted the question head had raised. I'm not very good at arguing this as I don't have strong views either way on it, like I said I'm a bit of a devil's advocate but clearly not a very good one on this subject as I admit I am not hugely well informed, must read that Doreen Virtue book!

I suppose ultimately though my position is if people want to believe in something, it makes them feel better and doesn't harm anybody else why piss on their parade?

To catch up and answer a few of the questions about the nature of angels from my perspective. I do not believe that everyone has an individual guardian angel. I believe in the biblical teachings about angels, namely that they are God's messengers and He can send them to deliver a message or help out in particular situations as needed. Whether these are very rare events or frequent ones where the angels just appear as a normal human to others and so aren't generally known about, I'm not sure. As I understand it from the biblical context and teaching, angels either appear as normal humans (so we wouldn't necessarily know whether and when they're with us), or else on very rare and special occasions (such as the birth of Christ), they appear in a very dramatic and radiant form, presumably deliberately to be known and recognised beyond doubt by the intended audience (eg. the shepherds).

So I don't believe that white feathers are angels, nor that they leave them as signs.

Of course, not all angels, or spirits, are good in my Christian understanding. And, of course, I'm sure a good percentage of claims about them are hoaxes, etc. But that's not to deny their reality from a Christian perspective as scripture does give some teachings about them.

For me, it would be very important to test any perceived message that someone said they had from an angel or other "spiritual" source against scripture. It is vital (for Chrisitians) to test and discern both hoax and evil messages from the truth as we understand it. One of the main tests for us is whether the message supports the nature of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and does it convey the love, grace, mercy and redemption message as taught by Christ. If such a message failed these basic tests and went against any of them, then it can be instantly rejected as either hoax or bad, etc.

As I say, this is how I believe and understand angels and spirits in very basic terms as a Chrisitian. If anyone was interested in particular bits of scripture to understand where those understandings come from, I'd be happy to share that.

So, hopefully that covers my own understandings

On believing in angels - the problem clearly is that angels, whilst we all think we know what they look like, are not very visible. I haven't seen one. Ever. But I do like the idea of angels.

Yet, religious history is littered with angels - all those huge religious pictures. Are they collective myth? Whose collective myth, East or West - is there a history of angels in China? Do the Australian aborigines acknowledge angels?

Some people do claim to have seen angels. I know one or two. One was clearly shocked, they hadn't really believed it possible.

So, in a discussion about something you that nobody can see, where and how can you take a position?

Many people are clear - they won't believe in something they can't see. Fair enough.

Others are a bit more fey - there's clearly more to the world than meets the eye.

I'm in this latter camp. I can't defend it, I can't explain it, I can't prove it. I don't want to prove it and I don't want to be pushed to prove it. I just want to say 'I believe in angels' and be left alone, it's a statement of my position. Of where I stand. Anyone who pushes me further than that, is attacking me.

The demand to 'prove it' means nothing to me, it isn't in my world view. I can't understand people who need proof. Possibility is enough.