Do you think it is accurate or inaccurate?
Why or why not?
Do you think the same characterization could be applied to theists that believe God "just always was" with no cause?
Why or why not?
Answer by DedpnDbtr (Disliker of Twilight)
I would debate the word "accident" because an accident means something that wasn't intended or that went awry, both of which indicate active intelligence (i.e. a designer...)
Answer by Mr.Samsa
It is inaccurate, and a flawed strawman argument, because atheists don't actually necessarily believe that.
Natural causes are not the same as "accidents".
Answer by Glee
"Accident" implies intent. There is no intent.
FAIL
Answer by ~*AwesoM♥lly {Chocolate Eyes}*~
I agree w/ Mr.Samsa.
We don't believe it was an "accident". Nobody can really tell for sure exactly how it was created.
And besides. You might come back with all the carefully designed chemicals and whatnot, but a sign of a brain activity is thinking "If that HAD happened, maybe there would be some other form of intelligent life--not necessarily humans, but just a different species in this awesome universe."
Another argument: Well, doesn't EVERYTHING have to have a designer?
Me: OK, so who created God?
Besides, I think the happening-by-chance is a lot more likely than this spirit guy up in the clouds who chanted a magic spell of some sort in a week.
Answer by Robert R
Inaccurate, because an accident implies failed intent.
Answer by vorenhutz
I think what they really mean is that atheists don't believe that an intelligent entity caused it. surely they realise that something like a solar eclipse is not uncaused, it's a matter of gravity and orbital mechanics. If an atheist were to say that no god caused that, I wonder if they would say it's an accident then. but for things like the origin of life and the universe, we're talking about more or less unknown causes. an unknown cause is not the same as no cause, but I guess that's too subtle for some people.
Answer by P M
Usually I ignore them, since the nature of the claim demonstrates that they lack even a rudimentary understanding of the subject, and attempting to educate them would most likely be a futile endeavour. I lump them in with the people who claim that for evolution to be true, cats should give birth to cows.
Answer by Cheesesof Nazerath
Accident? I'm not sure we could call it that. By chance maybe, but then we'd be looking at how much of a chance. Then once it got going chance comes into play, but is steered by selection.
I might point out that we all come about by accident of chance. If your parents hadn't copulated when they did, probably to the millisecond, if your Dad had been a fraction to the left or right when he squirted his baby juice then you wouldn't be here. Maybe another sperm would have made it and someone else, a proto-sibling would have been here, or maybe no one. Now if you can accept the random chance in you, as an individual existing in the way you do then why not life?
God sufferers from infinite regression. Who created the creator? The always was argument doesn't fix very much, and most atheists would laugh at it.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Orignal From: What is your response to someone that claims atheists believe everything came about from an accident?
Post a Comment