Talk:Atheists believe that everything is an accident

From Iron Chariots Wiki
Revision as of 11:41, 2 March 2011 by Raby760 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Accident" infers lack of intent, which requires a mind

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. --Raby760

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".
Another example:
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.
I understand that take on intention:accident, but I don't see a point in making it the primary focus.
I get that intention is the primary understanding of "accident", but I doubt that's how they're using it. Otherwise, the discussion would be like this:
  • Theist: Do you believe in a entity that intentionally creates the universe?
  • Atheist: No, I'm an atheist.
  • Theist: You don't believe that the universe was created intentionally?
  • Atheist: ... Again, I'm an atheist. I don't think there's any being to intentionally do anything on the topic.
It's possible, but it's more likely they'd be addressing the probabilities of events, not whether there's intention or not. Intention is part of it, but once god is removed from the equation, so is the aspect of intention. They think that without the intended purposeful guidance of an entity, the likeliness of these events happening on their own is nearly impossible - and that's what they're asking - if we really believe that these nearly impossible events happened.
Asking whether we believe an event happened "by accident" is equivalent to asking whether it happened by "chance".
jt 15:32, 27 February 2011 (CST)
I agree that the word "accident" infers that there is a mind involved.
However, when an apologist says "accident", I think he means to convey that he thinks we believe everything came into being through a series of random events, each of which was so unlikely as to render the complete series impossibly unlikely (or, at least, less likely than their particular reading of bronze age Jewish myths being true).
In my opinion, this is the primary point that needs to be addressed.
However, I wouldn't be against including a subsection on how their choice of words infers the existence of some sort of being.
Also, Raby760, please sign your comments on talk pages. And everyone ought to take a look at the formatting for replies, so we can all tell who's replying to what point.
--Jaban 13:43, 27 February 2011 (PST)
Raby760: I second Jaban's recommendation that you sign your comments: just add two dashes and four tildes at the end, or simply use the signature button in the toolbar above the edit window.
Secondly, you write "whoever re-wrote my original article". You can find out who did this on the edit history page.
Thirdly, you may want to use the "Show preview" and/or "Show changes" buttons before adding changes. I find that doing so helps me find and fix typos before committing the change. --Arensb 17:48, 27 February 2011 (CST)

Thanks. I'll definitely try to log in to the talk pages again. I tried before, but I encountered problems. I might have to create a different login. - Raby

Personal tools
wiki navigation