Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDoes life have value?
Stripping away all religious connotations from the word, human life, to me, is 'miraculous'. - Recently however i'm left wondering if Christians are of the same mind. Three Christians in particular seem very casual about human death, with the philosophy that 'we're all going to die anyway' so what does it matter if God decides to nonchalantly wipe us ...[text shortened]... etchMyJunk/another account.
Does an atheist give more value to a mortal life than a theist?
What kind of life?
I think everyone on some level would have to assume that life has some value, unless they don't value their own life or the lives around them.
Those of faith view human life the most precious because mankind was made in the image of God. Atheists tend to be in two camps. They are either PETA advocates that don't make the distinction between human and animal and view them both as sacred lives, or there are those who simply view humans as a glorified animal to be treated as such.
And how do we treat animals? We keep them as pets, or imprison them in zoos or use them as beasts of burden, or kill and eat them. Assumingly, they then have no problem doing the same to people. These types tend to favor abortion and euthanasia.
Originally posted by whodeyYou are acting like a troll.
Does life have value?
What kind of life?
I think everyone on some level would have to assume that life has some value, unless they don't value their own life or the lives around them.
Those of faith view human life the most precious because mankind was made in the image of God. Atheists tend to be in two camps. They are either PETA advocates that d ...[text shortened]... y then have no problem doing the same to people. These types tend to favor abortion and euthanasia.
Originally posted by apathistThis coming from a person who posted this in the general forum?
You are acting like a troll.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
-Mark Twain
So what makes human life more valuable than animal life you your opinion, or is it?
I've heard arguments that human life is more valuable than animal life because humans have a greater intellectual capacity. If so, then I reckon we can enslave or kill humans who don't have a high level of intellectual capacity.
Here is an interesting quote from Darwin.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
In other words, if we killed off those who contribute to a weak gene pool, the human race would be better off. However, he then says that we have a noble nature that prevents us from doing so? Where is the science here? As he says, in the animal kingdom we have no issues with eugenics. The weak are stricken from the gene pool, yet we are suppose to allow humans to contribute to the demise of the human race by not regulating it?
What does "noble nature" have to do with science? It seems to me that this is simply an adaptation to the Christian culture from which he came, even though he rejected Christianity. However, chaps like Hitler had no problem simply embracing the science of eugenics, and hurling the anti-science aspect of having a "noble nature"
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by whodeyThose of faith view human life the most precious because mankind was made in the image of God.
Does life have value?
What kind of life?
I think everyone on some level would have to assume that life has some value, unless they don't value their own life or the lives around them.
Those of faith view human life the most precious because mankind was made in the image of God. Atheists tend to be in two camps. They are either PETA advocates tha ...[text shortened]... en have no problem doing the same to people. These types tend to favor abortion and euthanasia.
One would certainly expect that to be the case, but there is scant evidence of that coming from Sonship & co. Would death be viewed so trivially if life was indeed so precious? - I refer to 'human life' as we are now, not what supposedly comes later.
Atheists tend to be in two camps.
True perhaps sir, if you'd only ever met two atheists. Certainly none of the atheists I know would be happy in either camp. Of course there is a distinction between human and animal, and not just one of intellect. We view our 'own species' in a way we view no other. (Though this shouldn't prevent us caring for the well being of animals). We are also not 'glorified animals' but neither are we special creatures fashioned from clay in the image of the divine.
These types tend to favor abortion and euthanasia.
A pity you ended on that note.
Originally posted by whodeyThe home team. If we were squirrels, guess which animal we'd value most then.
This coming from a person who posted this in the general forum?
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
-Mark Twain
So what makes human life more valuable than animal life you your opinion, or is it?
Btw, 'pause and reflect' doesn't require one to change sides! It means take the blinders off.
Originally posted by apathistSo essentially the only difference between human and animal is that we are human, thus we value humans more.
The home team. If we were squirrels, guess which animal we'd value most then.
Btw, 'pause and reflect' doesn't require one to change sides! It means take the blinders off.
[hidden]I didn't call you a troll btw. But when you characterize atheists in ways that have already been rebutted, that seems troll-like. [/hidden]
Got it.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAnd a dog is not a cat, they are different, and a whale is not a bird, they are different, etc.
[b]Those of faith view human life the most precious because mankind was made in the image of God.
One would certainly expect that to be the case, but there is scant evidence of that coming from Sonship & co. Would death be viewed so trivially if life was indeed so precious? - I refer to 'human life' as we are now, not what supposedly comes la ...[text shortened]...
These types tend to favor abortion and euthanasia.
A pity you ended on that note.[/b]
So what makes humans different than them all?
I await your reply
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNice.
...
Atheists tend to be in two camps.
True perhaps sir, if you'd only ever met two atheists....
I wish people like whodey would go ahead and read this link; it is short, interesting and informative:
https://www.quora.com/Atheism-What-values-do-most-atheists-share
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFMaybe the ones I recall as most vocal and most polemic find themselves forced to argue against the uniqueness of humanity.
Are you telling the truth here?
Hard statistics on this I would not submit.
So the word "most" could be an exaggeration.
I'll rephrase it like this: Some of the more memorable encounters I had with atheists were with ones who argued for man not being necessarily "higher" in any sense then other animals on the evolutionary scale. He is just .... different. And no real criteria entitles us to assume a kind of bias "Specieism" to arrogantly imagine more importance to man than to other animals.
It was pointed out that the ROACH is far more likely to inherit the planet then mankind.
These kinds of atheist arguments were also put out by biologist Stephen Gould who said actually the dinosaurs were far more successful than humanity, having occupied the earth for a far longer period of time.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOf course i'm upset about the prospect of death.
"Without God I don't see why you'd be upset about the prospect of death..."
Because sir, without God there is no immortal soul. For an atheist, all we have is here and now. That is why our mortal life is precious, is miraculous. Of course i'm upset about the prospect of death. I love life!
Needn't be. Jesus lives.