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

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I'm going to say equal. An athiest would value life because "It's a one time thing" while a religious person would value life because they don't want to face the consequences of breaking their creed.

 

[Silbena]

It is possible to value life equally between an atheist and a religious person, depending on which religion you belong to and which values of said religion you keep closest to your heart - or vice versa, if you happen to be an atheist.

 

[King of the N00bs]

i domt know personally im agnostic of the unknown life force but really i sometimes think that i am merely living to please those around me so i may please myself in their trust and love of which i have earned. i do not value life but its like a personal item that you cannot let go of. but i have now decided that that is my meaning of life...thank you. i will strive to earn the trust,friendship and love of those around me...thank you very much for the epiphany. yet it feels ever inadiquate

 

[Booze Zombie]

Tell me, who values life more, the guy who thinks this is the one life you get or the guy who thinks he's going to a dimension of peace and pleasure and that people who don't think like him will burn forever and ever in a dimension of pain and fire because they're unworthy sinners?
I know, not everyone thinks like that on both sides, but let's use popular images, yes?

Quite frankly, religion doesn't equal morals, religious extremists should be all the evidence you need for this to be confirmed.

To be quite honest, I haven't read the rest of this thread, but my $0.02: I've never heard of an atheist blowing himself up to kill people of different (or any) religions.

Now you have. Well maybe not blowing up, but going on a shooting spree and then turning the gun on himself...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Perpetrator_of_Finnish_school_shooting_dies_in_hospital

A self-rightious dick is a self-rightious dick no matter what beliefs he or she uses to back up being as such.

 

[Lord Thodin]

Id say the atheist. The religious person would be more concerned with what goodies they get in the afterlife so a atheist who thinks this is it, would value his/her own life far more. In my opinion of course

 

[cuddly_tomato]

...Your ignorance is profound...
...your personal beliefs...
...atheism taken to this extreme goes beyond religion into something more like Scientology...
...your religious beliefs, as much as any religious extremist...
...a religious-atheist...
...atheist attrocities...
...try critical thinking...
...it doesn't take religion to be a bigoted fundamentalist...
..complete refusal to be respectful of those who think differently...

Just, please... PLEASE, stop.

Living.

Right now.

Are you so ignorant, or just a troll?

I know exactly what atheism means, and you are not an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Not someone who runs around screaming at other cultures and creeds that they are evil and responsible for all the worlds problems - thats a fundamentalist zealot.

I demonstrate to you exactly how atheism can be just as bad as religion when it is taken too extremes, I point out to you why you are being a bigoted fundamentalist towards those who think differently, and your response is to tell me to stop living?

And you really can't see the utter irony in that statement?

You want me to stop living? What are you going to do? Strap a bomb to yourself and run over to me for a hug? Because you certainly seem devout enough in your blind faith.

To be quite honest, I haven't read the rest of this thread, but my $0.02: I've never heard of an atheist blowing himself up to kill people of different (or any) religions.

Now you have. Well maybe not blowing up, but going on a shooting spree and then turning the gun on himself...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Perpetrator_of_Finnish_school_shooting_dies_in_hospital

A self-rightious dick is a self-rightious dick no matter what beliefs he or she uses to back up being as such.

Exactly. It doesn't take religion to be an extremist, an anachronism to society, and out of tune with morality. There are religious nutters, atheist nutters, car nutters, PS3 and Xbox360 nutters...

 

[lenin_117]

That entirely depends on the person, not the belief.

An atheist might value life because an atheist probably believes that once you kill something, that's it, nothing more, the end, they're just gone. And so, life should not be taken away because you've taken everything from that person. An atheist may believe that life is worthless, though, as there's no divine/metaphysical justification for it, so it's as meaningless as a random rock you may pick up off the ground.

A religious person may think life is valuable because God gave it to them and having been given by God it is sacred and not to be destroyed. Or, in the case of Buddah, because this is effectively the only life we have (in the next reincarnation we will not remember this one, so it doesn't much matter after we die). A religious person might think life worthless/of little worth because it's the afterlife that counts.

And then there's the whole question of the life of the individual versus life as an idea. Does an anti-abortionist oppose it because of the sanctity of life (i.e. on principle), or because they specifically have in mind the life of the unborn? Does an atheist value the individual human, or humanity?

It doesn't really have anything to do with religion/atheism. It's about the person. Religion/atheism do have a say, yes, but you'll probably find similar numbers (by proportion) on both sides.

That was a thought out and well constructed answer. We need more people like this one. To the factory!

 

[Julianking93]

An atheist. Atheists (such as myself) believe that this is all the life we get, so we try to make the most of it. I live everyday to the best I can. Religious people, on the other hand, don't. They believe that this life is a test to get into Heaven or Hell and spend it worshiping a fictional character. They don't make the most of this life. I remember watching the movie Jesus Camp (a documentery about an Evangelical children's summer camp. Very cool and informative and basically anti religion.) and being absolutely shocked when they said we should use up this planet for all its worth because the rapture is coming and it wont make a difference. They obviously don't value much except themselves.

 

[feversk]

I know exactly what atheism means, and you are not an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Not someone who runs around screaming at other cultures and creeds that they are evil and responsible for all the worlds problems - thats a fundamentalist zealot.
I demonstrate to you exactly how atheism can be just as bad as religion when it is taken too extremes, I point out to you why you are being a bigoted fundamentalist towards those who think differently, and your response is to tell me to stop living?
And you really can't see the utter irony in that statement?
You want me to stop living? What are you going to do? Strap a bomb to yourself and run over to me for a hug? Because you certainly seem devout enough in your blind faith.

By the way, I stopped being serious in the last post, because I realized that there is no point in arguing with a person like you and out of my utter disbelief of what I was reading (which continues through your last post).

And by the way, you really don't know what an atheist is. And you also have no idea who I am. But you certainly like jumping to conclusions.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I know exactly what atheism means, and you are not an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Not someone who runs around screaming at other cultures and creeds that they are evil and responsible for all the worlds problems - thats a fundamentalist zealot.
I demonstrate to you exactly how atheism can be just as bad as religion when it is taken too extremes, I point out to you why you are being a bigoted fundamentalist towards those who think differently, and your response is to tell me to stop living?
And you really can't see the utter irony in that statement?
You want me to stop living? What are you going to do? Strap a bomb to yourself and run over to me for a hug? Because you certainly seem devout enough in your blind faith.

By the way, I stopped being serious in the last post, because I realized that there is no point in arguing with a person like you and out of my utter disbelief of what I was reading (which continues through your last post).

And by the way, you really don't know what an atheist is. And you also have no idea who I am. But you certainly like jumping to conclusions.

I know what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. That is all. An atheist is not someone who hates all religions or hates religious people, and your comments in this thread have led me to that conclusion, not made me jump too it. If you think an atheist is someone who is anti-religious then you are the one who has no real clue.

I never really expected you to actually learn from what I was saying or see how foolish you looked, but there is always hope.

 

[Littaly]

Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in the afterlife. Atheism is denying the existence of any form of god, not religion and not necessarily the afterlife.

On top of that you're question is much more complicated than you make it out to be. Religious people are not one big like-minded group, different religions tend to view life differently. Even so, a different view on life doesn't mean you value it less. Non-religious people and religious people alike value life very highly, then you can look into the details, but I'm not going to do that here (partially because I do not have the knowledge to do so).

 

[the1ultimate]

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.

I'd say the question is whether that is the question: is this 'do you think X is true about the people alive today' or 'do you think a hypothetical person is capable of...' or something. I took it more as a question about how people, all other things being equal, would behave.

How can you say that when the OP uses both abortion (sanctity of life) and belief in resurrection (expectation of continuing life) as examples?

 

[dududf]

IMO Atheists.

We know what once you're dead. you're dead.

Mind you atheism isn't exactly a religion with a code of how to think... so I could just be speaking for myself :3

 

[Misaek]

I think atheists do because while it is the theists that protest abortion theists are usually the first ones to defend the death penalty and hings along those lines though thats only on standard beliefs of said group, most of those beliefs are left to the individual.

 

[feversk]

I know what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. That is all. An atheist is not someone who hates all religions or hates religious people, and your comments in this thread have led me to that conclusion, not made me jump too it. If you think an atheist is someone who is anti-religious then you are the one who has no real clue.

As I said, you don't know what "an atheist" means. And you, again, assumed something about me that isn't true. By the way, I don't like pointless arguing over the internet, so I think I won't answer any more.

To make it clear: Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deity. What you described is only a strong form of atheism, which is a faith-based position (belief that gods don't exist). Most atheists are not strong atheists, but so-called weak atheist, which is a position not based on faith and includes no religious dogma. I am not a strong atheist, nor do I believe that atheist is "someone who is anti-religious", which you somehow falsely concluded from my posts. I am, however, personally anti-religious. But I'm not closed-minded at all, quite the opposite.

Next time when you are arguing with someone, don't assume anything about others and stop accusing people of false things. You only make yourself look ignorant and egoist. But I don't know why I'm even bothering to write this... Judging from this, you are the one that needs education and an open mind:

Your ignorance is profound, almost Zen-like in it's quality and depth. You have completely disregarded all fact and science in pursuit of your personal beliefs, then ironically denounced all other beliefs as ridiculous for that exact reason. It is quite incredible really. Indeed, atheism taken to this extreme goes beyond religion into something more like Scientology.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

--snip--

That was in response to this legend...

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.

Which I conclusively proved to be false. You then responded not by admitting that was an error, but by quoting scripture Dawkins. This is not the action of a so called "free thinker", or of someone who is capable of critical thinking. This is the action of someone whos mind is already made up, and will, in his own mind, adjust the facts to suit himself, not adjust his own position so it tallies with the facts.

Your excessive theophobia has been pointed out by more people than just myself. You really need to find a way to overcome your hatred.

 

[Rokar333]

Fever, look I'm going to level with you. We know that cuddly_tomato can go a bit overboard at times, but you may want to revise your arguments based on the two really good links he posted, which will be used against you in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/books/03beliefs.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

New York Times:
So why is the new wave of books on atheism getting such a drubbing? The criticism is not primarily, it should be pointed out, from the pious, which would hardly be noteworthy, but from avowed atheists as well as scientists and philosophers writing in publications like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, not known as cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy.

The mother of these reviews was published last October in The London Review of Books, when Terry Eagleton, better known as a Marxist literary scholar than as a defender of faith, took on "The God Delusion."

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds," Mr. Eagleton wrote, "and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." That was only the first sentence.

and the one on the letter to Staltin on the previous page. He didn't make those up, those are real sources. Your argument needs to improve and evolve, otherwise you appear close-minded. The fact is, there are other atheists who think Dawkins is full of shit, just because they don't believe he is knowledgeable enough on the subject to write about it.

I'm politely trying to appeal to your since of reason, even if you ignore most of his post at least take those two links into consideration.

 

[jonnosferatu]

The Atheist.

This is a pretty basic one. Who do you think is going to value life more for its own sake, the guy who thinks it's the end when he dies, or the guy who thinks there's something afterward? Any particularly religious individual, regardless of how much they value their life, will be doing so largely on the basis that they believe it'll net them something better later. At best, they're even, but even then it's statistically more likely for it to come out with the Atheist in a random sample.

 

[feversk]

...Which I conclusively proved to be false. You then responded not by admitting that was an error, but by quoting scripture Dawkins. This is not the action of a so called "free thinker", or of someone who is capable of critical thinking. This is the action of someone whos mind is already made up, and will, in his own mind, adjust the facts to suit himself, not adjust his own position so it tallies with the facts.
Your excessive theophobia has been pointed out by more people than just myself. You really need to find a way to overcome your hatred.

I can't respond to your arguments. All I do is just refute all the false assumptions you make... Am I too vague in my posts? First off, I didn't "admit I made an error, but by quoting Dawkins". I tried to paraphrase Dawkins a scientist, you disagreed, so I pointed out it wasn't actually my own argument.

I do not consider books of Richard Dawkins to be "the word of god". They are scientific, I've read some of them and I found them very interesting and educative. I quoted him the same way you quoted New York Times, and I didn't accuse you of blind belief in everything written in that source. But you did.

About my "theophobia" (maybe the first time I even hear this word): Yes, I am strongly against religion. What you call hatred I call activism. I try to at least change the public opinion on religion and blind faith. But not violently. By using logical arugments, science and reason. Because I value human life (yay me trying to get back to the topic and only sounding pretentious). It is my opinion, which can be changed by reasonable arguments. So far I've heard none.

To respond to your arguments against my first post in this thread: I gave the OP a generalised answer. There are, of course, people like Mother Theresa (who happened to be religious) and people like Stalin (who happened to be an atheist, influenced by marxist philosophy I reckon).

Fever, look I'm going to level with you. We know that cuddly_tomato can go a bit overboard at times, but you may want to revise your arguments based on the two really good links he posted, which will be used against you in the future. He didn't make those up, those are real sources. Your argument needs to improve and evolve, otherwise you appear close-minded.

The point is, I was not arguing against those sources he cited. My whole posts was just me trying to defend against his foregone conclusions about me... Don't worry, I'm not some brainwashed [religious] person who, when confronted with evidence against his faith, just doesn't listen.

The fact is, there are other atheists who think Dawkins is full of shit, just because they don't believe he is knowledgeable enough on the subject to write about it. I'm politely trying to appeal to your sense of reason, even if you ignore most of his post at least take those two links into consideration.

There are also other atheists who believe in UFO... There are also many people who claim that Dawkins is aggressive, hating and ignorant. If you actually read his books or just watch some interviews with him, you'll find that this is not the case. Truth be told, when I first heard about him and was presented with his ideas, I thought he was "full of shit", too. But I'm not in a position to defend his credibility, I was just referencing a scientific source. Show me another which contradicts it and I will take it into consideration. Thanks for being polite and reasonable with me.

By the way, I'm a little uncomfortable at continuing this horribly derailed discussion... And I hate doing the whole "someone's WRONG on the Internet" thing...