Talk:Atheists believe that everything is an accident
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".
A leaf got blown off of a tree from the wind. Since the wind doesn't think, then the wind couldn't have intended for it. And since the wind can't have an intent, then it can't make an accident either.
But if I had a sheet of paper on the desk and I walked by it, thereby causing the air flow to blow the paper off of the table, and it was not my intent to do so, then it was an accident.