The question Do angels really have physical bodies? was asked at the Quora site and a certain Martin Danesik, “Former Electrical Engineer” replied
Do Charlie Brown, Huckleberry Fin, and Spider-Man have physical bodies? Angels are just as physical as any other fictional character.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
That’s a merely assertion of a positive affirmation.
Do you do that because you’re literally incapable of arguing to a conclusion rather than begging with a conclusion which you merely assert as a positive affirmation?
Should we believe you merely because thus saith Martin?
Martin Danesik
As Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence (angels) can be dismissed without evidence.
Ken Ammi
Oh, okay, I see, it’s not thus saith Martin rather, it’s thus saith Hitchens—because thus saith Martin.
Well, I don’t accept a mere assertion that you merely parroted in an uncritical manner.
Did you not discern that he merely asserted which and you followed up by merely asserting that? That’s just dogmatheism.
The very first step that you should have demanded from Hitchens, and this also applies to you, is to justify your demand for evidence, on your worldview.
Martin Danesik
It’s not me that’s asserting the existence of angels or gods, that is the OP and you. If you make an assertion, provide the physical evidence. Without any available evidence I simply don’t have to accept your claim or your fantasy.
Ken Ammi
I’m starting to understand why you merely accepted Hitchens uncritically and parroted his fallacy.
You aren’t taking the very first step and I’m starting to see that it’s because you’re incapable—and I actually know that due to common sense and my experience with having similar discussions with hundreds of Atheist.
I mean, that you follow “The very first step that you should have demanded from Hitchens, and this also applies to you, is to justify your demand for evidence, on your worldview” with “provide the physical evidence” is an incoherent doubling down on beginning with a conclusion.
So, we’re not as far into this as you make it seem: we’re still at step zero and are awaiting you to take the very first step.
As for “OP” did you mean “BP”? If so, there’s no such thing on your worldview so, just as with evidence, the first step is for you to justify demanding proof (you jumped from evidence to proof) on your worldview.
Martin Danesik
Ok then. I’ll accept existence of angels (or golem or leprechauns) if you can present physical evidence or direct me to published peer reviewed scientific papers that demonstrate the existence of such things. I’ll wait…
Ken Ammi
Friend, again (and again [and again]) you appear to be wholly unaware as to how to even think about such issues much less discuss them—even when I’ve been tutoring you as to how to do it repeatedly already.
You, one again (and again [and again]) begin by demanding evidence without taking the very first step, step one, #1: do you ever ponder that you’re worldview is such a collapsed failure that you can’t do something as simple as justifying demanding evidence?
I thought that as an Atheist you were more evolved then the average accidentally existing ape, that you were enlightened to THE only real truth about reality, that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, that you have facts, evidence, logic, philosophy, proof, science, etc., etc., etc., on your side.
Why then are you literally incapable of just taking the little step in the direction of systematic critical thinking?
FYI: I already gave you the answer to that and a best practice is to take it out on your worldview, not on me who is just showing you how your worldview is a collapsed failure.
So, today’s lesson is, that you began with the merely asserted conclusion—rather than being systemic about it—we should only believe in things for which there’s, “physical evidence or…published peer reviewed scientific papers that demonstrate the existence of” but you neglected THE most important part: the why of it all.
To save you some time, since your worldview is a collapsed failure (as you clearly know) THE only reply you’ll be able to offer is that because thus saith Martin. I will then reply that your self-appointed authority is impotent. You will then heap personal insults upon me. I will then note that such is THE only thing your worldview has left for you to do: be an angry jerk. You will then heap personal insults upon me and run away. You will then pick on another Christian and hope they miss your modus operandi.
Martin Danesik
That’s a huge word salad. I’m still waiting for the evidence.
Ken Ammi
“word salad”: Atheist-speak for, “I’m literally incapable of dealing with the issue that I, myself, brought up but I feel an emotion so must lash out!”
As for, “I’m still waiting for the evidence”: you’re doubling down (or to whatever number we are by now) since the very first step, step one, #1 is, as aforementioned, “justify your demand for evidence, on your worldview.”
Martin Danesik
I am not the one asserting the existence of fantastic magical beings. I can simply observe that without any real world physical evidence to support these fantastic claims, I can dismiss them. There is no obligation for me to justify anything. Present evidence or proof, otherwise you simply have no argument, only your personal belief or faith. I’m under no obligation to accept your unsubstantiated beliefs. Step #1, present evidence.
Ken Ammi
That’s not how it works, you don’t get to conveniently bypass systematic critical thinking by just inventing subjectively arbitrary qualifiers.
But then again, you’re an Atheist so you get to do whatever you want including being illogical with impunity.
So, you are once again beginning with conclusions (further and constantly proving Ammi’s Law: Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time) by merely jumping to, “without any real world physical evidence to support these fantastic claims, I can dismiss them” which is actually hypocritically contradictory and an obvious non-standard that you don’t even believe since you do not only believe in things for which there is “real world physical evidence.”
Likewise with, “Present evidence or proof…present evidence” I realize that your worldview is such a collapsed failure that you can’t even do something as simple, basic, foundational, 101 level, as justifying your demand for evidence but you just keep proving that your worldview is a collapsed failure every time you double, triple, quadruple (whatever number you’re on) down on your inability.
It seems that you are merely asserting that all of humanity is beholden to, there’s a universal imperative, to do what you say because you say it.
Is that how electrical engineering works: doeth it thusly because thus saith Martin?
Martin Danesik
you can sure stack up a lot of $5 words that sound intelligent but your arguments have no value. You throw around the word “logic” but ignore the rules of logic. One cannot prove a negative, and therefore while it may be logically incorrect for an atheist to state “there is no god,” there’s no obligation to accept the existence of a fantastical being like a god or a magic unicorn, without any evidence. It is up to the person making a claim to provide the evidence supporting their claim. Ancient texts or deeply held beliefs are just further claims, not evidence.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you’re clearly desperate to avoid issues that are devastating to your worldview.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with proving a negative, it has to do with step one being for you to justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.
If you cannot take that very first basic step then you disqualify yourself from expecting it, demanding it, complaining about it, etc.
As for, “One cannot prove a negative”: you seem to be merely parroting things you heard since that’s an Atheism 101 talking point that, it would seem, you never actually thought about. “One cannot prove a negative” is a claim to have proven a negative, namely that, “One cannot prove a negative.” Also, of course we can prove negatives: a foot doesn’t exist at the end of my arm.
So, I guess that the answer is yes, you did/do electrical engineering by merely declaring, “Doeth it thusly because thus saith Martin.” You must have owned your own business since I know lot of engineers, electrical and otherwise, and that wouldn’t fly with any of them.
Martin Danesik
At this point I assume you’re a chatGPT bot, since you keep stringing together words, stitch together phrases that sound like complex thoughts, but really have no logic or substance behind them. Starting at your “step 1.” Bot conversations are unproductive, I’ve got actual work to do.
Ken Ammi
Do you think this is my first rodeo? I’ve had similar discussions with literally hundreds of Atheists and none of you are capable of taking the very first step, just step one, that’s #1, and that’s because you adhere to a collapsed failure of a worldview.
A best practice would be to give it up rather than to keep attacking people who dare to disagree with you and dare to ask you to take one single little step.
Do you ever ponder why you’re literally incapable of doing anything but angrily attacking?
Martin Danesik
Asking for evidence is not an attack.
And you keep on about me needing to justify my demand for evidence for me to believe the claim of any religious huckster or any delusional fantasy. And if I don’t justify the need for evidence then what? I’m obliged to believe in angels, or Shiva, or the tooth fairy? Sir, I’m not obligated to believe in anything without compelling evidence from someone asserting a fantastical claim.
You are free to believe whatever you want and I am free to not believe it. I’m also free to point out things that make no sense without evidence to back it up. You are free to believe things without proof if that is what makes you happy.
Ken Ammi
So the answer is “no” then, you never ponder why you’re literally incapable of doing anything but angrily attacking.
Now, I starting to see why you’re literally incapable besides that your worldview is a collapsed failure: you don’t seem to discern the flow of a contextual discussion so you say, “Asking for evidence is not an attack” which is incoherent since my reference to your attacks was a reference to your attacks.
Now you’re just digging yourself an ever deeper hole since rather than just taking one single little first step, you merely run away again by pointing out, “And you keep on about me needing to justify my demand for evidence” yeah, so please get around to it since this discussion has been #1,001 for me that are just the Atheist running around all over the place in order to avoid the demonstrable fact that you can’t even justify demanding evidence so that means you can’t complain about not being presented any.
But then again, that assumes you’re consistent but there’s no universal imperative to be consistent on your worldview (just like you keep providing that there’s no universal imperative to demand nor produce evidence) which is why you’ll only ever be consistently inconsistent.
“religious huckster or any delusional fantasy”: generically vague emotively subjective assertions that appear to imply that there’d be something wrong with that as a hidden assumption but only as a jump to a conclusion since you, again, neglected THE most important part: the why of it all.
You also wrote a non-sequitur by asking “if I don’t justify the need for evidence then what” followed by “I’m obliged to believe in angels, or Shiva, or the tooth fairy?” no, that’s incoherent, where do you come up with this stuff. Again, it means you can’t complain about not having evidence and you should reject your collapsed failure of a worldview.
You then merely double (triple, quadruple, quintuple, etc., etc., etc.) on merely beginning with a conclusion of demanding evidence along with an hidden assumption of an implication that we ought to only believe in things for which we have evidence when you, again, merely assert, “I’m not obligated to believe in anything without compelling evidence from someone asserting a fantastical claim.” Well, the lesson to you should be that I’m not obligated to ask, “How high?” when you demand, “Jump!” and that on your worldview sure, you can believe in anything without compelling evidence: you seem to keep missing your worldview’s point.
It’s fascinating that you keep running away from the fact that a hard science such as electrical engineering would kick you out the door in about 1 second if your MO was, “Doeth what I saith because Thus saith Martin” but when it comes to your anti-scientific worldview, you think your say so is all you need.
Why do you love and also hate your worldview so very much in both directions?
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.