Talk:Atheists believe that everything is an accident

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
[[User:Jt|jt]] 14:58, 27 February 2011 (CST)
 
[[User:Jt|jt]] 14:58, 27 February 2011 (CST)
 +
 +
I'd focus on the idea of showing that accidents/intents require a mind. Phenomenas which occur without a sentient's intervention cannot be an accident/intended.
 +
 +
For example,
 +
-From an atheist's point of view, The direction of movement of the Andromeda galaxy is neither accidental or intentional.
 +
-From a religious point of view, believing that there's a god/sentient-mind, then Andromeda can be "intended" to collide with the Milky Way or that god/sentient mind could have made an "accident".

Revision as of 15:13, 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".

If I'm wrong, then we shouldn't include it. But I don't think that I'm wrong on this one. It's just a definition of terms. Before updating the post, think about what I'm saying. Take as much time as you need.


I see some dictionary definitions which support the intent clause, but not all of them do. I agree that if that's what the theists mean by 'accident', then it's nonsensical to accuse the atheist. The thing is, I seriously doubt they're saying:

  • "What, you think all this came about without any intention?"

I think they're saying:

  • "This is so unlikely to have happened by chance (which is one of the definitions), that you're a fool to believe it"

I'll probably address both definitions. May as well.

jt 14:58, 27 February 2011 (CST)

I'd focus on the idea of showing that accidents/intents require a mind. Phenomenas which occur without a sentient's intervention cannot be an accident/intended.

For example, -From an atheist's point of view, The direction of movement of the Andromeda galaxy is neither accidental or intentional. -From a religious point of view, believing that there's a god/sentient-mind, then Andromeda can be "intended" to collide with the Milky Way or that god/sentient mind could have made an "accident".

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox