Idiosyncrasy - “... To those people who feel they have actually seen an angel, there is no debate...”
I don't doubt it since there is often no debating with idiots.
What? - 'Idiots', I hear you cry!
Yes, idiots. I can't really bring myself to call people who claim to have seen angels by any other name. Of course, I could be more polite but quite frankly, I see no reason to be. They are idiots. Why? Well, let's just speculate for a minute shall we?
Let's assume a religious person has a 'near-death-experience' [NDE]. They 'see' something or maybe 'feel' something that leads them to think that they've met a humanoid entity that exists outside of our physical reality. How many religious people do you think would rationally analyse their experience before automatically allowing their religious beliefs to kick in and proclaim angels to be things that actually and for all practical purposes, exist? I would suggest that the likelihood of such a thing would be 100% or so close as to make no practical difference.
However, let's also assume that an atheist as the same NDE and experiences the same 'vision'. How many of them do you think would reach the same conclusion as the religious person? I would suggest very, very few or so close as to make no practical difference.
Same visions, different conclusions. So what's more likely to be really happening? Is it likely that creatures we call angels which (most) religious people believe exist in a very real sense actually exist and do so in an after-death realm that we magically get transported to after we drop dead on earth? Or is it more likely that the 'experience' is caused by one or more the following factors which we know to happen close to or at the point of death:
1. hallucinations caused by oxygen starvation of the brain;
2. hallucinations caused by methylenedioxyamphetamine (or its natural equivalent);
3. Hallucinations caused by dimethyltryptamine (or its natural equivalent).
All of the above physical chemicals (or lack of them in the case of oxygen) can and do result in altered mental states resulting in hallucinations. Hallucinations are false realities.
So what's more likely? Angels actually exist or that some people put their own religious spin on their NDE's or other experiences?
I think you can probably guess where I'd place my bet. And this post doesn't even touch on the fact that different people from different cultures and religions have their own unique interpretations of 'angels'. Nor does it touch on the fact that some people lie through their teeth in order to influence others, to sell books, and/or to just be listened to.
The bottom line is that the whole argument as to whether angels actually exist is akin to the argument about whether or not leprechauns actually exit. Neither do and those who believe otherwise are morons. The fact that grown men of supposed intellect are debating the nuances of an angel's 'physical' appearance just goes to prove that there is nothing more stupid than religion and those who practice it.