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

[ben---neb]

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?

No offense but your question is ill thought out. First of all you can't lump all religions in one group, they disagree too much for that. Secondly you can't lump all athestists into one group, they also disagree too much for that. Thirdly value is compeltely subjective to the indivdual and will vary too much to make generalisations on. Fourthly most people are not in a postition to make a comparasion between the two. The people who are saying that atheists value life more are most likely atheists themselves so are not in a position to make a comparative comment on the subject.

Also I resent your abortion claim in my opinion the baby's life is of equal value as the woman's (indeed, more so because it is so entirely dependant on the woman's). It is precisly because I value the baby's life as precious that I don't think a woman has the right to end the baby's life even if she had the misfortune to be raped. Yes, I understand the trama involved with being raped and I apprecaite the difficulty if carrying the rapsit's child but it is not the baby's fault this happened.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

If I was an atheist, life would have no point...and I don't value things that don't have a point. In fact, I probably would have committed suicide a long time ago. However, we also have plenty of atheists here who say they place much value on their life, so...it's a subjective thing. Depends on the individual theist or atheist.

 

[the1ultimate]

It's no less religious, but the defining characteristic isn't the religion aspect, it's the earthly resurrection aspect.

Thing is, people rarely act reasonable to that extent. I mean, if someone believed that they has something like that to look forward to, why would they show any concern at all? The reasonable thing to do if you're religious is to behave like life is a trip to cash the winning lottery ticket. But religious people don't act that way: you're treating humans as being more rational than they are.

Yes, I think I gave the wrong impression. I didn't mean that they would sit down and reason this out. I meant that they would add it to their list of excuses. For instance, if they are unhappy with the state of the world, then they can ignore it as not relevant to them in the long term. If they are unhappy with their life, it will be better one day.

It is hope in the most negative light possible.

I'm saying that you weren't giving that as a reason initially--you were talking about loving the infinite less than the finite.

Can I assume that without this added incentive you still don't accept that infinite time to live could be viewed as better than a finite lifespan?


I should probably call it quits here before we can't see the wood for the trees.

On the flip side of the original question we still have the issue of disentangling how many Christians believe that every life is sacred, how many other religions hold what type of lives sacred, how many members of all religions take to heart what is taught by their religion, and once that has all been neatly pie-graphed we have only to contrast it with the beliefs taught by the church of atheism (and of course how many people take to heart the key teachings of atheism).

I'm calling this question impossible to reckon. Unless someone has the pie chart for me. Or some pie.

 

[Shock and Awe]

As an Agnostic Christian, I would guess an Atheist would usually value life more, due to thinking that that is all there is, but it all depends on the individual.

 

[Robert632]

atheist cos they give you the choice if you want to have a baby ornot.

 

[Flishiz]

I'll let that answer itself

 

[Spacelord]

I don't think this can be generalised this quickly. I don't really have an answer for you, since life satisfaction can never truly be measured. I can only tell you that I'm an atheist and that I'm generally having a really great time with this life business!

 

[RexoftheFord]

Ok, the question is a trick. Considering most religious people believe that life goes beyond physical presence (yes even cults) they value the longer life, namely the eternal life. Unless they're a religion that believes reincarnation, then they value each life as a part of a single cycle. Atheists value their one life that's happening right now. And even then,if you introduce suicides into the equation, you could say that none of them value life.

It's a big question with no real objective answer. Atheists will say they value life, but abortion is named that for a reason, the aborting of a life. Plus it's not sick to want a woman to find a different alternative than that of destroying a life even if rape is what conceived it. There's just too many arguments and questions for this thread to have any real depth or meaning to it.

It's not even all that philosophical. It's more of a survey of people's opinions. Philosophical would be like "Would it be worth living this life if we knew another one was just around the corner? Does Atheism take the act of living life to its full potential or does it fail, like the religious ideas that came before it?" But whatever. I'm not going to say it's one way or another.

I've met Atheists with no regard for life outside of their own what so ever, which I find as a lack of value for life. Then again, I've also met religious folks who do the same. So that's about it.

 

[Markness]

Obviously atheists do. If I was religious I'd see dying as a positive thing. Yay, heaven, everything I've ever wanted. What was all that earth messing about for anyway?

 

[RexoftheFord]

Obviously atheists do. If I was religious I'd see dying as a positive thing. Yay, heaven, everything I've ever wanted. What was all that earth messing about for anyway?

I see everyone saying this same thing. But I'll restate here with yours that it is invalid. It depends on your definition of life. If you believe in an eternal life, you will try your best to live your physical life in order to procure a better eternal life. This is a value of life, just a value of a life beyond physical life.

Atheists would value their physical life, because their definition of life is only physical life.

Sorry for picking you out out of everyone, but it's silly to argue something until the word "life" is clearly defined in the questioning. So any answer provided in this thread would be lacking in the proper background to be rational.

 

[feversk]

Easy one.

Atheists value life more. Religious people are *sure* there is a better life after this (miserable) one, so they just can't appreciate it as much as the atheists, who find it precious and unique.

Spoiler

Yes, blanket statements certainly are easy. Let's forget about the contributions of Mother Theresa and other religious people who spent most or all of their lives trying to make the physical, transitory lives of the sick and the poor just a little bit better. Obviously these were folks who couldn't appreciate the precious and unique nature of life.

Also... Abortion centers? Just throwing that out there. Since, you know, we're talking about life in general and not "intelligent" life.

Yeah, let's not forget about all the good that religion did to us.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Easy one.

Atheists value life more. Religious people are *sure* there is a better life after this (miserable) one, so they just can't appreciate it as much as the atheists, who find it precious and unique.

Spoiler

Yes, blanket statements certainly are easy. Let's forget about the contributions of Mother Theresa and other religious people who spent most or all of their lives trying to make the physical, transitory lives of the sick and the poor just a little bit better. Obviously these were folks who couldn't appreciate the precious and unique nature of life.

Also... Abortion centers? Just throwing that out there. Since, you know, we're talking about life in general and not "intelligent" life.

Yeah, let's not forget about all the good that religion did to us.

I find it interesting that you would post the twin towers as your propaganda for why all religions are bad things. Seems like you're so equally religious in your anti-religion that you will use a minority population of the religious community to argue the entire religious community's terrible nature. I don't believe I need to mention Stalin though. Lets completely overlook Stalin when we attack the religious.

See, it goes both ways. Sorry I had to shoot you with this post.

 

[Alias42]

I really thinks that it depends on the person in question. Atheists can be suicidal while religious people like buddhists can appreciate life more then anyone on the planet. But when it goes between atheists and christians, I would have to go with athiests by a nose.

By the way: Stalin wasn't JUST an atheist. You see, the pope (for example) represents the Roman Catholic religion, but Stalin wasn't the pope of atheism, and there never has been one. Stalin was, however, the "pope" of something else: stalinism. This is a form of communism, and communism is by definition atheistic.

 

[RexoftheFord]

I really thinks that it depends on the person in question. Atheists can be suicidal while religious people like buddhists can appreciate life more then anyone on the planet. But when it goes between atheists and christians, I would have to go with athiests by a nose.

By the way: Stalin wasn't JUST an atheist. You see, the pope (for example) represents the Roman Catholic religion, but Stalin wasn't the pope of atheism, and there never has been one. Stalin was, however, the "pope" of something else: stalinism. This is a form of communism, and communism is by definition atheistic.

My point was to show how a minority population of an ideology could be used to blanket the entire ideology as terrible murdering bastards with no regard for life whatsoever. As the person using the minority of the religious idea of Islam that want to destroy all non-Islamics as a blanket for how all religions are bad.

I've got plenty of other Atheist names if you want them. But that would be pointless and would end up in a pissing match I don't feel like having.

 

[JoshGod]

athiest, as we dont believe in another life so value it more
kinda

Saying that atheists care more about life because they believe it's the only one they have is like saying that parents who only have one child care more about that child than other parents do about their individual children.

so true!
this guy knows how it goes down!
XD

also why im only ever gunna have either 1 or 0 children
i can see some ramification from saying that though lol

(im not saying religion is bad just that like everything else it can be)

 

[The Austin]

Well, considering most people I know who are athiest want to join the army and plan on being shot before their hair turns grey, I will go with...........

Uhhh.......


Actually, I dont know.

 

[JoshGod]

heres an idea why dot us athiests and thiests respectfully disagree and leave eachother alone?
i mean its not like we are accomplishing anything
nope didnt see it happening
DIE
wheres ur god now muahhahaha
lol

FLAME SHIELD ACTIVATED

 

[feversk]

Easy one.

Atheists value life more. Religious people are *sure* there is a better life after this (miserable) one, so they just can't appreciate it as much as the atheists, who find it precious and unique.

Spoiler

Yes, blanket statements certainly are easy. Let's forget about the contributions of Mother Theresa and other religious people who spent most or all of their lives trying to make the physical, transitory lives of the sick and the poor just a little bit better. Obviously these were folks who couldn't appreciate the precious and unique nature of life.

Also... Abortion centers? Just throwing that out there. Since, you know, we're talking about life in general and not "intelligent" life.

Yeah, let's not forget about all the good that religion did to us.

I find it interesting that you would post the twin towers as your propaganda for why all religions are bad things. Seems like you're so equally religious in your anti-religion that you will use a minority population of the religious community to argue the entire religious community's terrible nature. I don't believe I need to mention Stalin though. Lets completely overlook Stalin when we attack the religious.

See, it goes both ways. Sorry I had to shoot you with this post.

Ahem. I don't remember any communist propaganda that said anything about atheism. Stalin did what he did not because of a (non)religion, but because he could.

Extremist religionists, on the other hand...

 

[Pimppeter2]

It depends on the person. I mean we've all met atheist misanthropes.

(Ohh and its good to remember that not all Christian are against abortions)