A question regarding proof

[StatCrux]

And yet all evidence seems to suggest that we are machines. Wonderful, fantastic, incredibly sophisticated...but in the end, machines.
(amusingly I was seeking a major in mechanical engineering)

That seems to be our major philosophical difference (Atheists and Theists) Atheists are determined to reduce humanity to deterministic machines, Theists see us as much more than mere machines. This is why an atheistic worldview can easily accept the notion of "self destruction" as an option when the machine is not "fully functional" where the theist values all life as "sacred" because it goes beyond merely mechanistic views of humanity.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not determined to, I can't justify the alternative. The narratives of heavenly reward , and absolute (just) moral authority, being an intended outcome of a divine plan, all very seductive to me. I just haven't seen any evidence that they actually exist. Nonetheless, I see life as sacred, I simply use a different justification for it. Why is it that atheists are always characterized as bitter people with a lack of respect for human life? Do you have any idea of the physical toll my body has taken (or the shit that my memories and mind are filled with) in trying to defend others, no, you don't.

[StatCrux]

Nonetheless, I see life as sacred,

Can you define sacred from an atheistic standpoint?

[Fred]

All very emotional instances, but the problem still remains, observation of mind is not possible, only observation of behavior, physical activity and subjective experience. A very simple analogy is a broken radio, if you can't hear the radio station is it correct to assume it is no longer there?

When the brain itself is the transmitter, yes.

Yeah, but that question is far from nailed down. Why nobody is willing to step up and answer how a guy with no brain can get a math degree is, well, a no-brainer. That's a pretty big white crow right there, wouldn't ya say? I have no idea how this is possible, but it blows me away every time I think about it. I don't know how I'd be talking myself through that one if I was on your team.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can define it from my own viewpoint, can't speak for everyone.

Beyond judgements of value or worth, recieving every defense you can provide without thought for why you would defend it. Obviously whats sacred to me may not be sacred to everyone.

[StatCrux]

I can define it from my own viewpoint, can't speak for everyone.

Beyond judgements of value or worth, recieving every defense you can provide without thought for why you would defend it. Obviously whats sacred to me may not be sacred to everyone.

So from that definition, how do you apply that to euthanasia or abortion? If human life is "beyond judgements of value or worth" how do you justify suicide or murder of unborn children? forgive me if i've made any assumptions here but generally in my experience atheists support suicide and murder of unborn children as individual choice is more important than "sacred" views of life.

[The Grand Nudger]

A guy with no brain, forgive me if I chuckle all the way out of lala land.

[fr0d0]

Fred referenced this case many posts ago. I'm surprised if you don't recall that Rhythm.

2nd paragraph: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/44...xtract.jpg

It appears that with very little brain, humans can divert functions to what little resources there are.

A case of no brain at all?:

One related case that has received more exposure than most is that of Andrew Vandal, who was born on 12th July 1984. In the early stages of his development in the womb a cyst appeared on the stem of his brain. Known as an atelencephic aprosencephaly, this destructive event left the boy with a cranium containing nothing but fluid. In some cases, it can even leave victims with no detectible brain at all - a condition known as anencephaly or 'brainlessness'.
Cases like Andrew's are again usually terminated before birth, but in this instance the subject was born and then put up for adoption. He was adopted by a paediatric nurse, Kaye Vandal, from Wallingford, Connecticut, US, who, when last asked about Andrew's welfare, stated that she remained devoted to 'giving him the best quality life for however long he lives.'
At the same time, Kaye stated that, against doctors' predictions, Andrew was able to laugh, giggle and smile and, has a 'glowing, outgoing, bubbly personality'. Kaye also stated that her young charge was able to respond to stimulus and was maturing mentally; both of which doctors believed to be impossible, considering his complete absence of brain matter.
Andrew was, however, unable to speak, and was cortically blind; that is, he could see images, but was unable unable to interpret them. Andrew was also incapable of walking, but did manage to drag himself along on his back.

source

[Fred]

I've said this in another one of Freds threads (hell, might have been this one). It may be that faeries make cars move, but combustion is an explanation that addresses why engines operate, and even if there were no fairies, we have no reason to assume that combustion would not work. Now, if someone was arguing for fairies over combustion, how would you treat that argument?

I'm beginning to understand Freds frustration now, the combustion engine is an entirely different proposition, we understand how it functions and it generates motion. Human beings do not simply exist and function, we have our existance

You can stop right there with "have our existence" and the difference becomes crystal clear. An engine exists, but it doesn't have it's existence. It just exists. We exist, but we are also aware of that existence, and the explanations of the how of that do not touch the why at all.

When you ask how an engine does something or why and engine does something, it's essentially the same question and the answer can be discovered by objective means. You don't have ask the engine why it's doing something or how it's feeling to find out what's wrong with it.

When the why and the how of something are the same, like a combustion engine, the objective pov is good as gold, the right tool for the right job, built to last, never wear out.

But when the why and the how of something are not the same, objective science alone is insufficient because it can't get at the data simply by observing.

It has to ask for it.

As soon as you have to ask an object to provide you with data you've left objective airspace and entered inter-subjective territory.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do I have to ask a human being if she has aids, or can I just run a test? Your argument seems to hinge upon assuming that because we can't currently figure everything about human beings out by objective means, that we never will be able to, I assume no such thing. How could I? I dont assume that human beings arent machines for example, especially in light of all of the evidence that easily describes us as such. A machine different from a combustion engine, sure, but a machine nonetheless. Why is the why and how of a combustion engine the same thing, but the why and how of a human being different? What evidence do you have to support such a conclusion?

As far as how I deal with abortion or euthenasia Crux...I don't. These aren't things I support, but I can't go so far as to take a life lightly to prevent them from happening, and that's what I would have to do, isn't it, at the end of the day (mind you I am a human being and I can't promise that there isn't a situation where I wouldn't violate my own sense of right and wrong and take a life without sufficient cause...hope I wouldn't, but there's no telling is there?). If I helped to make them illegal, people would still seek these things out, causing even greater harm to the life which I feel to be so sacred ( and thats avoiding the issue of whether or not I can make decisions for other human beings). I don't have any easy answers, I don't get to refer to a holy text, know what I mean? I tend to go with whatever I imagine will do the least amount of harm.

Any issue regarding life is bound to be a sticky one, I'm just as likely as any other human being to act irrationally, and just because something is sacred to me doesn't mean that it is right. If life came with a manual this would all be easier wouldn't it? I don't believe that it does. We do the best we can with what we have.