Talk:Atheists believe that everything is an accident

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 15: Line 15:
  
  
The dichotomy is "Results from a sentient mind" vs "results not from a sentient mind. Accidents and intents all under the "results from a sentient mind".
+
The dichotomy is "Results from a sentient mind" vs "results not from a sentient mind". Accidents and intents fall under the "results from a sentient mind".

Revision as of 15:50, 27 February 2011

To whoever re-wrote my original article, I do commend the person on expanding on the idea and adding more points, but I think he/she missed my point. My point was that an "accident" requires a mind. Without minds, then there are no accidents or intents. Therefore an atheist doesn't believe that "everything is an accident". Something that happens without a thought is neither an accident or intentional.

The person wrote + ---- - ///Using the word "accident" implies that the phenomenon in question otherwise shouldn't happen//// + - But using the word accident implies a sentient being with a thought that did something which was not planned. A phenomenon would not be an accident or intentional. Try to think of an accident that can happen without a mind. Whatever your answer is would not be an "accident". It would be an event which happened due to other factors and probability.


I read that, and I didn't include it because it didn't make any sense to me. What does a mind have to do with accidents? You claim there's a connection, but I don't see it.

That being said, I'm not opposed to integrating that take on it too.

jt 14:45, 27 February 2011 (CST)


The dichotomy is "Results from a sentient mind" vs "results not from a sentient mind". Accidents and intents fall under the "results from a sentient mind".

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox