A bit of a philosophical type of question....(2 cents welcome)

[the1ultimate]

But the religious person is not alive for an infinite amount of days--if a religious person dies before an atheist, they actually have to love *less* days in order to love all the days of their life.

Maybe they will wind up loving the days of their *afterlife* less, but, that wasn't the question ;-D

Suffice it to say I was thinking of a religion which promises resurrection to Earth and eternal life thereafter.

I don't see how that would change anything. In that case you're just talking about an extension of life: the question could just as easily be 'would an atheist Cylon with their resurrection technology appreciate life less than an atheist human who does not have access to that technology?'

In other words, at that point, being religious is indistinguishable from believing in an advanced enough form of technology.

I don't see what you mean by your example either. The scenario I'm describing is no less religious despite the fact you can draw comparisons to science fiction (By the way, what is this "Cylon" of which you speak?).

I have heard religious people show less concern than they otherwise would for life in current circumstances because they believed that they had something better to look forward to. I feel that it is likely that an attitude like this would reflect into other parts of their life.
It is not hard to imagine someone reasoning that if the future they have been promised is better, then they don't have to strive for anything now.

Religion doesn't just promise an extension to existence, but that the extended existence will be better than their current life. Are you arguing that human nature wouldn't be to make the comparison and assign less value to the part that isn't as good?

 

[DayDark]

They do, however, cease to be parents, and people value being a parent.

Not as much as existence they don't. They can become parents again, and the one with two kids, never seizes to be a parent, even if they lose a child. Now lets say that you could only become a parent once, ever.

You can be attached by all three. You are only necessarily attached by existence, but remember, the OP is asking about valuing life.

Will you? Will you actually value it, or will you just try and keep it safe?

I can see you're point, this is not really about life, but what is value, and the difference between being dependent on something, actually appreciating it.

I'd say that if someone values life, that if they are an atheist, they will appreciate that value more, because of it's frailty, the fact that there are no other lives, that it is the ONLY life you have.

The same way a man eating his last meal, will appreciate it more, than a man know he will get many more meals.

Anyways, with the whole value thing in context, I think it too relative, for Faith/Nonfaith to be a variable. You can be a christian and hate life, the same way you can be any other faith, or non faith, and still hold little value of life.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Exactly--it's about whether something that is not yet a person should get protected as if it's a person. I don't see why it would anymore than I would consider it assault to punch a corpse. It should still be treated differently than a petri dish of random bacteria just like a dead body shouldn't be treated like a side of beef, but, to give it full human rights?

Yeah, but first of all, there are some problems with your comparisons. A corpse is gradually becoming less sentient, less human, while a fetus is gradually becoming more so. Besides, while YOU wouldn't consider it assault to punch a corpse, I'm pretty sure the family would charge you with SOMETHING if you did punch one.

Likewise, I suspect that, even with the mother's permission, families would have a problem with you cracking one of their deceased family member's heads open and sucking their brain matter out with some vacuum-type device. I'd have to look it up, but corpses may have more rights that fetuses (feti?) do. I mean, most of the time you're not allowed to mess with them at all unless you're a doctor and are determining the cause of death.

 

[Sethzard]

Atheists, they belive we only have one life, plus how many terorist attacks or wars were in the name of atheism

 

[Clyde]

One has God as the highest priority, the other has people, so I'd go with athiest.

Then again, does an athiest with low self-esteem value life?

 

[captainwillies]

also saying "religious" is kind of a blanket statement. has anyone done research on the extremes "Jainism" goes to to preserve life (they don't even kill fly's or mosquito's).

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

The atheist probably, but then again it depends on the individual obviously.

I think we'd be more loathe to waste lives over dumb shit, given historical precedent.

 

[Madkipz]

Neither value life more than the other, because the value of life is subject to the individual. Take me for example. Im an atheist and a single persons life is worth nothing to me.

It is what you do with the life you have that defines your value and most of us are worth as much as the maggots feasting upon the flesh of our grandfathers. If i die my family would care enough to get me a burial.

If anyone of you die, id laugh and ask what kind of loot you dropped.

Ok so im not as good with analogies as jesus but you get the point.

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

I would say Atheists, as we (generally) don't believe in a life after this one. Religious folk, on the other hand, believe in a world far greater than this one (apart from those who believe reincarnation).

A poll for this thread wouldn't go unnoticed, either

 

[Lordpils]

A question just popped into my head that i can't quite answer. Who values a life more, an atheist or a person with religious belief? I have no idea, because on the one hand, religious people are usually the ones who go out and protest against abortion (which is messed up btw, cause forcing a woman to have a kid after she's been raped is insult to injury on the highest level) but on the other hand, an atheist believes that this is it, and once you're gone, you're gone. At least thats from what i've come to understand anyway, any thoughts on this?

Once you're gone you're gone, means quite a bit. It means once you're gone you won't be able to live your life, you won't get to try any new things anymore, you won't ever see your friends or your family again. When a friend dies you won't ever see them again, life becomes more valuable when you recognize that life has an ending.

That's my perspective though I know atheists who believe in reincarnation and atheists who believe in ghosts keep in mind not all atheists have the exact same view of death.

 

[Lemon Of Life]

An athiest. Don't let the Fundamentalists lie to you. We value life far more than anyone who believe in eternal life. FAR MORE.

Yeah, this

 

[No One Jones]

Both "demographics" are too broad and differing in opinion. Hard to consider atheists united in anyway because the unification around a LACK of a belief is a logical fallacy. Reactionary atheists seem to be the only ones who get together to do anything. We all know the types,(I hope) those blaspheme at every given opportunity, start arguments with everyone with a metaphysical belief types. People like Christopher Hitchens is especially guilty of this. The best way to discredit something you don't BELIEVE in is to actually ignore it. Sometimes they are intrusive to nth degree, sometimes worse than even the most vociferous fundy.

But I digress. Who values life more? Unanswerable really. Nihilistic atheists seem to not give a shit about life. At least where talking about it counts anyway. Moralist atheists like Rothbard, Penn and Teller, and Hitchens seem to think morality and ethics are still important somehow, so that lends some value to life. Personally speaking, I probably value life less than the average atheist or religious person due to how easily lost and utterly meaningless it is. The inevitability of death seems to take the value away from something. I tend not to value things I will eventually lose. Not to say I'm suicidal or anything, I still retain my survival instinct, but on, what I believe to be, a purely genetically programmed level.

 

[Deleted]

Professor Frink: No, you can't play with it, you won't enjoy it on as many levels as I do.

It doesn't matter how someone views life because its their existence not yours. And 'religious people' is kinda broad, Buddhists value life the most in my opinion, and atheists believe that life has no purpose. See I can generalize too.

BTW I think everyone values their life the same just some people contemplate it more.

 

[Inco]

Well, based on the popular religious idea of creation, human life is created by God as a sacred, valuable, and important thing. On the other hand, based on evolution, human life is nothing more than a random occurrence with no more value than the cells from which we came: I have been specifically and clearly told many times that due to this, life has no value whatsoever and the only reason not to just kill at will is for societal structure.

So you tell me who values life more.

Damn it, i went through the entire thing with this idea in mind. Well, i am surprised it was not said sooner.

To be honest, it is unfair to say that religion and valuing life are connected. It all is based on the personal perspective of an individual, not the group in themselves, yes there can be influences, but it doesn't completely dominate this perspective.

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

Thats a totally different theory than mine; which is more of a genetic memory thing, its EXACTLY THE SAME BODY with EXACTLY THE SAME BRAIN BUILDUP, the cosentiences would merge instanteneously... I think.

Well yeah i suppose, but then again its not you is it? Its a clone of you with your memories. Your consciousness would die and your clone would live... Only a quasi immortality if you ask me...

Youre forgetting that all you are, all you know, is your memories.

can i ask you what memories are? are they images? sounds? if so these memories must be collected. then by your logic what would happen if someone was born without any of there senses? they would not be able to collect new experinces but at the same time may display a personalty all to there own. Its not just your memories...its your imagination as well.

two of my favourite quotes:

It is often said that men are ruled by their imaginations; but it would be truer to say they are governed by the weakness of their imaginations.
Walter Bagehot (1826-77), English economist, critic. The English Constitution, ch. 2 (1867).

Obviously the facts are never just coming at you but are incorporated by an imagination that is formed by your previous experience. internal Memories of the past are not memories of facts but memories of your imaginings of the facts.
Philip Roth (b. 1933), U.S. novelist. The Facts, opening letter to Zuckerman (1988).

I consider your 'imagination' part of it as well, even though ones imagination is based on their memories. (Any thought you have ever had is recorded in your brain and influences future decisions)

 

[Iampringles]

I would have thought that people who believe in eternal life wouldn't care if a baby was aborted, as that baby is then rewarded with eternal paradise.

In that sense, it would appear that theists value human life less, as it is eternal anyway.

 

[amazinglettera]

Two cents! *clink clink*

Mankind doesn't value life. Nature doesn't value life. I see it as the dichotomy of life and death. One cannot exist without the other, so neither holds more sway over the other. Life will always thrive, finding new means to extend itself, but death always wins. In reality, no theocratic group has ever truly valued life. War and all that. But then again, hedonistic atheists don't give a whole to life either. One shouldn't ponder these questions and live for the moment. OMG! Look, a squirrel! Oooo...and there's a shiny thing! AWESOME!

 

[dudeman0001]

At its most basic level, I think atheists value life more, while the religious value the afterlife more. Still, that doesn't stop a few of them from working to make this world a better place to live in, along with the atheists.

Yeah, but everyones gonna say atheists out of a personal bias. Also, not everyone getting an abortion is a rape victim. Not that i'm agaibst abortion, but I really hate when people make it sound that black and white. It sickens me how often some women get abortions. But I guess they wouldn't have been fit moms to begin with.