To the atheists: why is life sacred?

[jay gw]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?




sacred
highly valued and important

[Cosmo]

Because you, and everyone else, only get one life. As PF said...

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel.
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save.

You only have one shot to do it all. Any injustices you cause, whether to yourself or to others, will not be remedied in any fantasy afterlife, so it's vital that you treat yourself and others with the utmost respect and act to remedy, if not prevent outright those injustices.

Some would say that because Christians and other afterlife-believing theists are merely passing through this world on their way to the afterlife, they have no need to act morally or ethically. Who cares whose life you ruin if it'll just be remedied in the afterlife?

[jay gw]

Any injustices you cause, whether to yourself or to others, will not be remedied in any fantasy afterlife,

So if I avoid the people I've stepped on to get what I want, they'll hopefully die before me and I'll be off the hook.

[Cosmo]

So if I avoid the people I've stepped on to get what I want, they'll hopefully die before me and I'll be off the hook.

I'm not so sure I follow. For the atheist, it doesn't matter who dies when - the injustice has still been caused. The death of a person does not simply cause injustices committed against them to vanish.

Plus, consider that almost all people have at least some family and friends whom you will also be impacting.

[Katana]

So if I avoid the people I've stepped on to get what I want, they'll hopefully die before me and I'll be off the hook.

No. That's what someone who believes in redemption in the afterlife would think.

[Moochie]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?

sacred
highly valued and important

Define "sacred."

I, for one, don't hold any such belief.

M.

[jay gw]

Define "sacred."



Already did.

No. That's what someone who believes in redemption in the afterlife would think.

That's not why you think life is sacred.

[Flo]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

Some do, but given their behavior, I would go as far as to say that most of them only pretend they hold human life sacred, and that often for a rather restricted definition of "human" (i.e. those of the same faith, skin color, ethnicity, culture, social status, wealth, etc.)


In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?

Some do, some don't, most that I know would like a clear definition of "sacred" before answering.




sacred
highly valued and important

Realisation that here and now is all you get, you're in no hurry to give it up, and that there's a good chance others feel the same deep down, even those believing there's something else afterwards.


ETA: Your definition doesn't fit, if only because "highly valued and important" doesn't convey the idea of divine or surnatural transcendance that goes along with "sacred".

[Katana]

That's not why you think life is sacred.
You're right.

[Taffer]

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel.
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save.


What he said.

I respect my own life. There is no reason not to do the same for others.

Tell me, why do you believe in the sacredness of life?

[Moochie]

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity a tree sacred to the gods b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) a fund sacred to charity 2 a : worthy of religious veneration : HOLY b : entitled to reverence and respect3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane sacred music 4 archaic : ACCURSED5 a : UNASSAILABLE, INVIOLABLE b : highly valued and important a sacred responsibility – sacredly adverb– sacredness noun

Which of the above are you referring to?

M.

[Beerina]

So if I avoid the people I've stepped on to get what I want, they'll hopefully die before me and I'll be off the hook.

If that's the savage way you want to put it, that's fine. The same practical reasons people live peacefully together are still in play, "God" or no. There are laws against stealing in reality because it's counterproductive to an advancing, civilized society, not because some nebulous God wants it.

[Beerina]

Already did.



That's not why you think life is sacred.

If there is no god, how much more dangerous is the religious position where people do things as if they'll be rewarded in heaven -- a reward which never comes. Anthropologists have long observed religion is a tool used by those in power to maintain and gain power and wealth -- tell the people not to worry about this life, it sucks, focus on the next one where those with the money and power will be thrown into Hell and you, yes you right there! will be rewared with life in a heavenly kingdom.

[Flo]

If that's the savage way you want to put it, that's fine. The same practical reasons people live peacefully together are still in play, "God" or no. There are laws against stealing in reality because it's counterproductive to an advancing, civilized society, not because some nebulous God wants it.

There are laws (or rules, or traditions) against al kinds of "antisocial" behaviors because they are antisocial, whether a society is advanced or not, religious or not.

[Darth Rotor]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?




sacred
highly valued and important
George Carlin's remarks on the sanctity of life are rather funny. (From "the you are all diseased" tour, IIRC) He's an atheist. No, wait, he said he prays to Joe Pesci, and worships the Sun, so maybe he isn't really an atheist. :D

DR

[ponderingturtle]

So if I avoid the people I've stepped on to get what I want, they'll hopefully die before me and I'll be off the hook.

This is a classic religious approach, that all morals must stem from a higher being enforcing them. It shows a fundamentally selfish approach, that what is best for you personally is best. But if you stop being so self centered and determine what rules work best for a society, and understand that you never know which side of the rules you will be on, you get out of this self centered perspective that requires divine punishment for indiscretion

[Orangutan]

My life is sacred to me. The life of my loved ones also. I am capable of empathy so realize that everyone else feels the same way about their life and their loved ones. So it is through mutual understanding and empathy that I see life as sacred.

Edit:
That's why I try to avoid people who seem not to feel the same way. ;)

[ponderingturtle]

There are laws (or rules, or traditions) against al kinds of "antisocial" behaviors because they are antisocial, whether a society is advanced or not, religious or not.

I enterpreted this discussion to be about ethics and not laws. There are things that are illegal that I don't think are unethical and things that are unethical that are not illegal.

[Upchurch]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).
I hope you are wrong about that. I would like to think that theists would value life whether or not their religion tells them to value life.

Life is valuable for its own sake. Once it is gone, it cannot be returned. That is why I value my life.

I value other people's lives because I consider myself no better or worse than the next guy and I respect the value they have for their own lives. I do this because I want them to respect the value I have for my life.

[Taffer]

Well, at least for Buddhists, it can be considered both a religion and a philosophy. Both value life equally, so it doesn't seem to be simply because they are told to.

[Starrman]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred? sacred
highly valued and important

Take a look at my avatar - those are the two people that make my life sacred to me. I cherish every day of life because when it is gone, it is gone. Forever.

Let me ask you - if there is an afterlife, wouldn't this life be less sacred? You're going to live forever anyway?

[Morrigan]

When people say that "life is sacred", they usually imply a connection with the supernatural or the divine, not just "highly valued and important". Sacred implies something absolute, inviolable, consecrated. "Highly important" allows for exceptions, "sacred" does not.

It's easy to explain why preserving life is highly valued and important for the human race - evolutionary biology and psychology can explain it well enough. By preserving human lives as best as we can, we improve our own chances of survival as a species and our own chances to grow as a society. It serves the interests of the humans. As others said, it's highly important and precious because once it's taken away, it's lost forever. "Death is so terribly final, while life is full of possibilities." * And of course there is empathy - by valuing our own lives, we can appreciate the value of others'.

But sacred? Sorry, this atheist here doesn't believe anything is sacred **.


* A cookie to whoever recognizes the quote. Without googling.
** Except the awesomeness of Judas Priest. Specifically, 70's Priest.

[Marquis de Carabas]

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?


As for this atheist, it isn't sacred at all, and it gets less sacred all the time.

My life, of course, is a different matter.

[Belz...]

why is life sacred?

It isn't.

It's really important, though. And, no, "important" isn't a synonym.

[Flo]

I enterpreted this discussion to be about ethics and not laws. There are things that are illegal that I don't think are unethical and things that are unethical that are not illegal.


Agreed. I should have said "prohibitions" against antisocial behaviors (like in "behaviors making life in society impossible"), rather than "laws".

[Tormac]

(Assuming that sacred = highly valued and important)

I can only echo what Cosmo said in the first reply.

Life is a quality that is irreplaceable. I do not think that I, or anyone else, will get a second chance at life. As I value my own life, it is only natural that everyone else values theirs.

If I slashed someone’s tires, it is possible for me to replace the tire.
If I destroy someone’s life, I’ve done something that there is no way to repair.

The closest means of reciprocity that most societies have some up with is the forfeiture of the life of a murderer. Most people agree that this forfeiture is not really enough, as it does nothing to compensate the victim of a destroyed life, but as it is the harshest reasonable punishment that can be extracted on an individual, it is the most common.

As sure as I value my own life, it is only reasonable for me to value other’s, both as a moral or ethical stance, and as a practical stance, for fear of punishment.

[Dark Jaguar]

Tell me, if you think life is sacred "because my religion tells me so", then what logic did whatever authority (god, zeus, odin) use to decide life is sacred? Because "someone told you so" is a cop out excuse, what are THEIR reasons for it, that you would agree with them?

In other news, if I were to believe in a god, it would be Odin, because Odin is the most awesome of them all. Like this one time, some guy decided to make himself a sacrifice but he fell awkwardly and made a huge mess of himself, and when Odin showed up to collect the soul he was so mad at the sloppy sacrifice he ate the guy and then plucked out one of his eyes and ate that too so he could watch the guy being digested live. He's METAL!

[Euromutt]

I don't hold life to be "sacred" (even using that term as shorthand) per se. I believe strongly in freedom of self-determination, and if you take away someone's life, you're depriving him in the most drastic way possible of the freedom to live that life in the way he wants. That's why I consider murder to be wrong.

That said, several years back (when I was still living in the Netherlands), a friend of mine who was suffering from terminal bowel cancer opted to undergo euthanasia rather than let the disease finish him off, with all the attendant discomfort and misery. (Sure, there's painkillers, but those are of limited use when the tumor is pressing on your lungs, making it increasingly difficult to breathe.) Because it was his life, it was his call to make, and his alone. I didn't think his life should have prolonged on the basis that it was somehow "sacred."

[Jimbo07]

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?



Because I only get one shot at this. What little empathy I have extends the same thought to others.

Religion renders life ridiculous. They have it exactly backwards.

[qayak]

I think life is more sacred (or important if you wish), in general, to atheists because I think atheists are much better at self examination/critique and are less likely to fool themselves with feel good mumbo jumbo that you hear all the time from theists.

An atheist knows that they cannot pawn off their bad behaviour onto a god or religion. They have to stand up and face the music. Mostly, their lifestyle of skepticism and critical thinking makes them much better at taking responsibility for their actions than does a lifestyle of blindly following a religion that, in turn, follows a made up deity.

Honest, in depth examination of oneself automatically leads to a better understanding of others and a more open world view. Thus, in general, atheists are better human beings than theists.

[Dave1001]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?




sacred
highly valued and important

I don't think it is. The closest I can come is the idea of a social contract we all have to try to keep each other alive, solve the problem of mortality, and and solve the much greater technical challenge of ressurection of those currently "dead". We're all stakeholders in that social contract to keep each other alive and ressurect each other if we should unfortunately die. I'm not sure I really believe this could work though, cause I think the very smartest living things don't particularly need the rest of us, and unfortunately I think I'm very likely part of "the rest of us".:(

[nescafe]

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?

Because I would rather live in a society that can be modelled as a positive-sum (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pd082800e.html) infinite game (http://www.worldtrans.org/pos/infinitegames.html), and such societies demand respect for your fellow beings.

[Tanstaafl]

As others have stated, this life is valuable because it's all we have.

The Christian point of view (and many other religions) is that this life is of less importance than the next life. Hence religion tends to devalue this life, rather than add value to it.

[Morrigan]

In other news, if I were to believe in a god, it would be Odin, because Odin is the most awesome of them all. Like this one time, some guy decided to make himself a sacrifice but he fell awkwardly and made a huge mess of himself, and when Odin showed up to collect the soul he was so mad at the sloppy sacrifice he ate the guy and then plucked out one of his eyes and ate that too so he could watch the guy being digested live. He's METAL!

Will you marry me?

[CapelDodger]

I'm an atheist. I have no religion. I have no truck with the supernatural, which is work of the human imagination. By definition I hold nothing sacred. I care about human life, I care about all sentient life, I hate suffering and not just when it's me doing it. Even when I bully philosophers and believers I do it with restraint. Some people's lives should be terminated for the common good. When those guys found Saddam hiding in a hole they should have dropped a grenade in there. Best all round, really. Sanctity and other airhead notions don't enter into it.

Is that original enough for you, CoffeMan? Not even any quotes (and Mark Twain, bless 'im, has stocked me with an aresenal of them).

[CapelDodger]

Because I only get one shot at this. What little empathy I have extends the same thought to others.
If we don't have empathy, what have we got? 24-hour lock-up in our own heads. Not my idea of life, and not even being human. As has been said, to study one human is not to study a human at all. Ditto chimp, bonobo, wolves, groundhogs ... empathy is a winning evolutionary strategy, it crops up all over the place.

[Apathia]

Tivo is highly valued and important.

The Sacred doesn't truck in comparisons.

[T'ai Chi]

The Christian point of view (and many other religions) is that this life is of less importance than the next life. Hence religion tends to devalue this life, rather than add value to it.

That's frankly bogus.

Most all value this life and what they believe comes after.

[Souldweller]

I assume you are talking about the sanctity of human life, not life in general. Otherwise, we would have to surrender ourselves to bacterial diseases and predators, bcause if we killed them, we would be violating such sanctity. The mere fact of surviving would, in most cases, killing of other types of lifes.

[phildonnia]

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?

I don't.

sacred
highly valued and important
Oh, I see, we're using the word in a non-standard way. For myself, probably a combination of biological instinct, social contract, and well, I just feel like it.

Hope that helps.

[alfaniner]

A little thing called "empathy". I care because I value that person right in front of me. Not because I value the possible reward or wrath of an invisible being.

[Glen.Nogami]

6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Sacred isn't necessarily religious in subtext.

Now, response:

Life is not, in fact, sacred. Sacred implies some sort of "moral" imperative. There is, however, an evolutionary mandate to ensure that as many of your species survive as is possible. An intelligent species should tend to select for non-fratricidal behavior. Perhaps, in that context, religion is an extent of such evolution. Now that we have laws that are not associated with religion, that aspect of religion is obsolete (along with all the others).

[Ginarley]

While I know I'm supposed to use my own words, Dawkin's words are so much more eloquent:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been born here in my place but will never in fact see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.

Richard Dawkins - Unweaving the Rainbow


And incidentally I do think the word sacred is religious in connotation - but if you take it to mean "worth not wasting" then fair enough.

[Glen.Nogami]

And incidentally I do think the word sacred is religious in connotation - but if you take it to mean "worth not wasting" then fair enough.

I always found it to be religious in connotation as well, and that's probably how the OP meant it, but may as well give him benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of the OP, where is he?
Never mind, this thread was just started this morning. Don't expect him to check back obsessively

[orpheus]

I don't.

Oh, I see, we're using the word in a non-standard way. For myself, probably a combination of biological instinct, social contract, and well, I just feel like it.

Hope that helps.

Couldn't agree more and won't even attempt to try to top you in expressing it so well!

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Isn't.


I find that I have a scale. It goes from -10 to 10, inclusively. At -10 it is worthwhile for me to kill you. At 10, it is worthwhile for me to scarifice my life to preserve yours.

Most folks hover around the zero mark. At 0, I really wouldn't notice if you were to die. You're basically like any stranger on the street. I would be saddened to hear that you died, but I'd get over it quickly. I would help you if you were in trouble, but I am basically neutral towards you.

It's the way I see things...

[patchbunny]

Bill Munny: Hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have. --Unforgiven (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105695/)

The other posters have pretty well covered my answer. I don't think that life is "sacred", but it does hold value because you've got just the one. You take that life away, and that's it. All those hopes and dreams, gone. All those people who love and cherish that person, never again will they see that person, hear their voice, feel their hugs. Life has importance.

[blutoski]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

I would like to quibble with your terms, here: an atheist would not believe that life is sacred, because he would believe that there is no such thing as "sacred."

Also: I would like to dispute one of your assumptions: many Buddhists believe neither in a divine purpose nor in the sacredness of life, and are atheists by every definition.

However, most atheists are humanists (or neoKantians, like myself) and believe that human life is the ultimate 'end'. Just not 'sacred.'

The basis of humanism is that what we do know is that we don't want to die. As humans, we can reasonably assume that other humans share this value. It's pretty straightforward.

Atheists use this to assert that they regard life more valuable than those who are religious. Unlike those who are religious, atheists do not believe that death is sacred. They do not believe that our lives are a disposable 'means' to some 'greater' purpose, but are the actual purpose, and cannot be subordinated to a overarching plan whose existence cannot be confirmed (that's the Kantian in me talking.)

[Roboramma]

I value life because it's the way I am.

I don't need a good reason to do it, any more than I need a good reason to like ice-cream. Of course I think there are plenty of good reasons to value life, and many of those have been well stated in this thread.

But I don't think an atheist has any more responsibility to explain why he values life than does a theist.

[ClintonHammond]

"why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?"

Life? Don't talk to me about life.....

[Jimbo07]

If we don't have empathy, what have we got? ... empathy is a winning evolutionary strategy, it crops up all over the place.

I'd agree that if there is such a thing as empathy it probably has value in keeping a group stable. I used the word in a slightly self-deprecating manner. More altruistically,

If I had only a little empathy, my one wish would be to recognize the preciousness of other lives as much as I recognize my own.

- or -

I like the company of other people, therefore, I'm not a homicidal psychopath.

[Iamme]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s).

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?




sacred
highly valued and important

I didn't know that atheists ever thought it WAS sacred. I thought that was for the religious.

[Iamme]

"why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred?"

Life? Don't talk to me about life.....

Why not? You already dead?

[RandFan]

Bill Munny: Hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have. --Unforgiven (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105695/)
The Schofield Kid: "I guess he had it coming"
Munny: "We all have it coming kid"

[george001]

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians think human life is sacred because their religion tells them there are connections between it's creation and divine purpose(s). I would dispute the premise that religious people necessarily do hold human life to be sacred (highly important). Much of that is lip service.

Religions tend to be tribal, and hold some lives as important, and others expendable.

In your own words (no copy and paste), why does an atheist think an individual human life and life in general is sacred? Many people in this thread have discussed this very well, it is the atheist's sense of empathy, fairness, and justice.

[ClintonHammond]

Just.... re...
member that your standing
On a planet that's evolving
Revolving at nine hundred miles an hour...

[RandFan]

To the atheists: why is life sacred?

Excellent question. In a word. Evolution.

It is in human kinds best interest to find life sacred. Humans are social animals. Valuing our lives and the lives of our loved ones gives us an advantage. Now to be certain evolution didn't endow humans with the view that all human life was sacred. On the contrary, only those humans that were members of the tribe were. Eventually reason and enlightenment changed our perception and now many if not most of us see the utility in viewing human life as sacrosanct. The proof being that we reserve our harshest punishments for the taking of human life.

[RandFan]

I didn't know that atheists ever thought it WAS *sacred. I thought that was for the religious. That is because you are ignorant and willfully so.


*sacred
highly valued and important

[blutoski]

That is because you are ignorant and willfully so.


*sacred
highly valued and important

I'm going to disagree on this one. I've never heard 'sacred' used outside of a religious meaning, except by accident.

eg: from Wikipedia:
Sacred: In various religions, sacred (from Latin, sacer, "untouchable") or "holy", objects, places or concepts are believed by followers to be intimately connected with the supernatural, or divinity, and are thus greatly revered.

Related to other 'sacr' (holy) words, such as 'sacrament' or 'sacrilege'.

[RandFan]

I'm going to disagree on this one. I've never heard 'sacred' used outside of a religious meaning, except by accident. One of Websters definitions is in agreement with Mocha's definition "b : highly valued and important"
eg: from Wikipedia:

Related to other 'sacr' (holy) words, such as 'sacrament' or 'sacrilege' Two more points.

Wikipedia is hardly the most trusted and scholarly of references. Its creator has abandoned it. I use it but I use it with a grain of salt.
Arguing over definitions makes for poor argument. The Chinese use a different word all together. we could still have a debate without quibbling over terms. Dictionaries should never be the deciding factor of a debate unless you are playing scrabble. It is the meaning of the words that is important and not the words themselves.

[blutoski]

Arguing over definitions makes for poor argument.

That's my point. Somebody was using a different meaning, and you said he was 'ignorant'. I thought this was quite pedantic.

My impression is that that sacred-as-religious-meaning is a pretty common interpretation, sounds quite reasonable to me, and I provided an example from a respected resource. Wikipedia may not be the ultimate authority, but it's getting there. I wasn't quoting the National Enquirer.

The statement was hardly ignorant.

[RandFan]

That's my point. Somebody was using a different meaning, and you said he was 'ignorant'. I thought this was quite pedantic. I don't understand your point. If someone is aware that the definition allows for non-religious use of the word then why would they make such an argument?

Help me out on this one. I'm confused. Mocha defined his terms in the very first post. If Iamme understood then his argument is wrong. So I'm left with stupid or ignorant.

My impression is that that sacred-as-religious-meaning is a pretty common interpretation... This is not a valid reason for Iamme's mistake.

...sounds quite reasonable to me, and I provided an example from a respected resource. I really don't get this. I conceded that such a definition exists however that is not the definition that we are using and it isn't the only definition. If you are trying to prove that is the popular definition then you are correct but that is irrelevant to what Iamme is saying.

Wikipedia may not be the ultimate authority, but it's getting there. No it is not. I'll repeat myself in the vain attempt that you will understand. The creator has abandoned it because it is hopelessly incapable of overcoming inherent flaws.

The statement was hardly ignorant.Yes, it was ignorant. Dawkins speaks of many scientists who are both atheist and spiritual and view the universe with a spiritual sense.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein

Einstein isn't taking about Catholicism or any other organized religion. He's talking about the sense of awe and wonder a spiritual sense of viewing the universe and life. He's damn right BTW.


Atheists are quite capable of viewing human life as sacred and IMO there is great value for scientists to view human life as sacred and for atheists to be spiritual.

[jay gw]

It is in human kinds best interest to find life sacred.

Ok.

Empathy.

Is this a universal emotion? Should it be?

[blutoski]

Is this a universal emotion?

No. People without this emotion are regarded as aberrant. eg: social personality disorder (sometimes called 'sociopathy') and autism.



Should it be?

Unanswerable.

[MatterHorn]

Is this a universal emotion? Should it be?

Yes, if I run around hurting everyone else and generally being a bugger all bastard, how likely am I to find a mate? Our genes want to be spread, and if we have a ingrained desire to help those around us they are going to be more interested in keeping us around. If we are part of a large group our genes are much less likely to be wiped off the map in one fell swoop.

Edit: On a tangentially related note I had a conversation with a spiritual person recently, and she claimed that an atheist was always a worse person without the leadership of god. I brought up the point that if I saw a young person in the path of a speeding vehicle, and through self sacrifice I could save them, I would leap to their aid. I expect no direct benefit from this sacrifice, only the momentary knowledge that I have saved a part of our future. This has always seemed to me to be a less selfish approach than religions I scratch your back and I get into heaven system.

[blutoski]

I don't understand your point. If someone is aware that the definition allows for non-religious use of the word then why would they make such an argument?

In the quote I saw, they were merely asking a question.



Atheists are quite capable of viewing human life as sacred and IMO there is great value for scientists to view human life as sacred and for atheists to be spiritual.

I advise caution, though. 'atheist' and 'spiritual' as popularly employed are probably mutually exclusive terms, unless we stretch the application of either word so much that it becomes meaningless.

The concern I have is that while I do advocate an inclusive worldview, I am concerned that if atheists feel comfortable defining their worldview as 'spiritual' and life as 'sacred' without the suitable disclaimer of alternate wording such as 'very important' that there will be massive misquotings, misunderstandings, and so on. Look at how much mileage evangelists have achieved from misinterpreting your Einstein quote.

[RandFan]

In the quote I saw, they were merely asking a question. Who is "they"?

I advise caution, though. 'atheist' and 'spiritual' as popularly employed are probably mutually exclusive terms, unless we stretch the application of either word so much that it becomes meaningless. Take it up with Dawkins. Though he doesn't choose to use the word that way he understands such a usage and explains Eiensteins use of it. I'll say that many other athiests have used the word though they are always careful to explain what they mean by it. This includes folks like Pinkerton and Dennett.

The concern I have is that while I do advocate an inclusive worldview, I am concerned that if atheists feel comfortable defining their worldview as 'spiritual' and life as 'sacred' without the suitable disclaimer of alternate wording such as 'very important' that there will be massive misquotings, misunderstandings, and so on. Look at how much mileage evangelists have achieved from misinterpreting your Einstein quote.It's a fair concern. I'll grant you that.

[RandFan]

Unanswerable.I agree.

[blutoski]

Take it up with Dawkins.

I have written his organization emails, yes. Not about this, though.



Though he doesn't choose to use the word that way he understands such a usage and explains Eiensteins use of it. I'll say that many other athiests have used the word though they are always careful to explain what they mean by it. This includes folks like Pinkerton and Dennett.

I think that's where I'm coming from - the effort to convince the public that atheism is not just one more religion is complicated by adopting the religious lexicon.

Druyan is just as interested in retaining some of that emotional content, but suggests we emphasize the 'wonder and beauty' of the universe, rather than speak to something called 'spirituality'.

[blutoski]

Edit: On a tangentially related note I had a conversation with a spiritual person recently, and she claimed that an atheist was always a worse person without the leadership of god. I brought up the point that if I saw a young person in the path of a speeding vehicle, and through self sacrifice I could save them, I would leap to their aid. I expect no direct benefit from this sacrifice, only the momentary knowledge that I have saved a part of our future. This has always seemed to me to be a less selfish approach than religions I scratch your back and I get into heaven system.

I think you're conflating 'spiritual' with 'religious'. My sister, for example, is spiritual: she believes she can talk to my grandmother. She does not, however, believe in heaven or God. So, my sister isn't religious. It sounds like your friend is religious.

While it's true that atheists can claim to be more altruistic, it's not always true. Some spiritualists like my sister do not believe in heaven or rewards. Many religious people who believe in heaven may not believe that their actions can earn them a position there - this is the basic principle of Luther's objections - that we are not saved by something we do, but by Grace alone. A critique of the practice of indulgences or penance.

[Glen.Nogami]

I think you're conflating 'spiritual' with 'religious'. My sister, for example, is spiritual: she believes she can talk to my grandmother. She does not, however, believe in heaven or God. So, my sister isn't religious. It sounds like your friend is religious.

While it's true that atheists can claim to be more altruistic, it's not always true. Some spiritualists like my sister do not believe in heaven or rewards. Many religious people who believe in heaven may not believe that their actions can earn them a position there - this is the basic principle of Luther's objections - that we are not saved by something we do, but by Grace alone. A critique of the practice of indulgences or penance.

Even without heaven dangling in front of "spiritualist's" noses, altruism from them is equal at best to altruism from atheists. Also, for the derailing language debate above, sacred is religious in connotation, not always in definition. Using it is not that big of a deal, I think.

Finally, spirituality and religiosity, while not identical, are two facets of the same irrationality (faith (belief that is not based on proof)).

[CapelDodger]

The Schofield Kid: "I guess he had it coming"
Munny: "We all have it coming kid"
"She knows she's got it comin',
And I've just come to see it's what she gets."
Alimony Blues

[CapelDodger]

Empathy cuts both ways. It can make you more concerned about others, but it can also help you manipulate them. Even sociopaths (oh yeah, Jimbo, like you'd tell us if you were one :rolleyes: ) can be very empathic. They may register other people as machines but they can understand the workings.

This is by my understanding of empathy, anyway.

[fuelair]

Sorry but as atheist, I do not think of it as sacred, I do think much of it is worthwhile and interesting though. It has value to me (mine and many others) but not because some FSM, Giant Arachnid of the Multiverses or equivalent created it or has a use for it.

[CapelDodger]

I'd agree that if there is such a thing as empathy it probably has value in keeping a group stable. I used the word in a slightly self-deprecating manner. More altruistically,
Altruism is a much more specific concept. Obviously, no empathy, no altruism. At the same time, no empathy, no David Koresh - but altruism had nothing to do with his behaviour. When it comes to this "sacred nature of life" altruism is a more useful term than empathy.

If I had only a little empathy, my one wish would be to recognize the preciousness of other lives as much as I recognize my own.
I've met a few people about whom I've wondered "Why do you bother? What are you getting out of it? Seriously. When was the last time you felt a little shard of joy, about anything? Is it even in you? What would you lose if I put you down humanely right now for your own good? There are people here for whom it would be a joy to watch. And joy is good.". I don't mean disabled or terminally ill people, I mean people whose entire existence is one of disatisfaction and irritation and pathological competition. (Healthy competition gives a winner a jolt of joy, pathological competition just looks to the next challenge, the next rung on the ladder to nowhere. There's a spectrum of competition, from good to bad. I have to believe that because I'm rather competitive myself but don't want to think I'm a bad person. I empathise when I win. By empathy I can appreciate the loser's pain. Sometimes it boosts the jolt, as in "Handed you your ass, didn't I, you big-mouthed arrogant fart!". That doesn't make me a bad person)

I like the company of other people, therefore, I'm not a homicidal psychopath.
See my previous post. Some psychopaths, even homicidal ones, are very popular.

Have you ever been to a party as "guest of X" and subsequently become a regular invitee in your own right? Of course you have. Some people, well, not so much. That's the middle ground we play in.

[RandFan]

Sorry but as atheist, I do not think of it as sacred, I do think much of it is worthwhile and interesting though. It has value to me (mine and many others) but not because some FSM, Giant Arachnid of the Multiverses or equivalent created it or has a use for it. Do you think life is important enough to reserve our harshest punishment for those who take life?

If so then it would seem demonstrable that humans have decided that life is sacred. Not in the religious sense of the word but still sacred. I understand if you don't like the word but I'm guessing you are not nonchalant about someone wanting to kill you or other humans, right?

[CapelDodger]

I've had Christians try to convert me. That's not meant to be a mark of merit, anybody can share the experience, you don't even have to pay. Burrow down through Google and you'll find Christians on-call in your zip-code simply jonesing for evangelising.

Anyhoo, even those that are well aware of my ... robust? Robust is good, my robust atheism try to sell it on the terribly nice nature of a Jesus-approved world. The eyebrows go up above the blissed-out eyes, expectant pause ...

They expect me to agree that such a world would be nice. Even though I'm an atheist, and "niceness" is supposed to derive from Jesus's philosophy. I do agree that the kind of world they'd like to see would be splendid, but that's without me giving a toss about Jesus. What role, then, for Jesus?

On the one hand they want Jesus to be revolutionary, on the other hand they've crafted his message as one that anybody would respond to with "Well, duh!"

[Dorian Gray]

Stupid atheists! Clearly life is sacred because some magic sky daddy told an enlightened group of exalted holy men to tell you that it is! Geez!

So obvious.

[fuelair]

Do you think life is important enough to reserve our harshest punishment for those who take life?

If so then it would seem demonstrable that humans have decided that life is sacred. Not in the religious sense of the word but still sacred. I understand if you don't like the word but I'm guessing you are not nonchalant about someone wanting to kill you or other humans, right?

No, that is why I have weapons, knowledge of their effective use and the willingness to use them if necessary.:) But also the desire that it not become necessary.:)

[RandFan]

No, that is why I have weapons, knowledge of their effective use and the willingness to use them if necessary.:) But also the desire that it not become necessary.:) So if someone murders the little girl down the street you are ok with that?

I see the smilies but sometimes I'm just not sure how to take them. People who have weapons and know how to use them can still be killed. JFK was surrounded by men with guns that knew how to use them and he was still murdered.

But let's forget all of that for a moment. Your life is important enough to you that you have the guns, right? So your life is important to you. Would you save another who was drowning? Would you ever risk your life for others. I'm an atheist and I know I would. I care deeply about other human life and I see no reason why the fact that I'm an atheist would change that.

[saizai]

FYI I'm not an atheist; I'm a weak-agnostic.

1. Life is not "sacred". That is a religious term that has no meaning to a nontheist.

2. Life is important because we empathize with it, and empathy is one of the most powerful forces of human psychology and the one that underlies all ethics and most social behavior.

3. Those who lack empathy, i.e. sociopaths, thus have no particular value / sacredness for life.

[Taffer]

When I use "sacred" I use it with no religious underpinnings at all. Thus, I can happily say that I consider life sacred.

[RandFan]

Stupid atheists! Clearly life is sacred because some magic sky daddy told an enlightened group of exalted holy men to tell you that it is! Geez!

So obvious.Actually, life is sacred because of evolution.

[fuelair]

So if someone murders the little girl down the street you are ok with that?

I see the smilies but sometimes I'm just not sure how to take them. People who have weapons and know how to use them can still be killed. JFK was surrounded by men with guns that knew how to use them and he was still murdered.

But let's forget all of that for a moment. Your life is important enough to you that you have the guns, right? So your life is important to you. Would you save another who was drowning? Would you ever risk your life for others. I'm an atheist and I know I would. I care deeply about other human life and I see no reason why the fact that I'm an atheist would change that.Sorry for lack of clarity - No, I am not nonchalent about mine or others lives, NOT no to the statement (I paid more attention to primary words than the "right"at the end. I would be more likely to blow away a child killer - or one attempting same - than someone coming toward me (though I would have them targeted as rapidly as possible). Yes, I know I can be killed - but unless it is done with nothing that acts as a warning to me I will do my best to destroy my killer(s) before I am gone. I want to be certain that (as just one example) what happened to the two Brits watching from inside their car -Army lads - a funeral for an IRA slug does not happen to me. They were spotted , car surrounded and they were taken out and killed. Their weapons were not fired. Mine would have been empty and spare magazines also empty if possible. I am basically a happy person and I tend to like people and get along well with them. But...

[RandFan]

Sorry for lack of clarity - No, I am not nonchalent about mine or others lives...

I would be more likely to blow away a child killer - or one attempting same - than someone coming toward me (though I would have them targeted as rapidly as possible). Why would you kill a child killer? Is there something inherently important about a child? Why would you kill to defend your own life? Is there something inherently important about your life to you?

You don't appear to be consistent. You say life is not important but it is important enough for you to protect. Please to reconcile?

[Freethinker]

To me, it is more useful to ponder the question "To believers, why is life sacred?". If there is an an afterlife with harps and angels and all the other stuff, what exactly is so special about our time here on this dirty planet? This isn't the game for believers, it's just getting dressed in the locker room. To atheists, life is the game, and it's the only one.

To atheists, this is all we've got. There is no fairy kingdom in the sky. One shot and it's done. Others have the same thing, and atheists appreciate this fact, IMO, more than theists.



Apologies if my grammer is odd today. Apparently my brain is a muscle, because these muscle relaxers are having an effect on it.

[Darth Rotor]

To the atheists: why is life sacred?

I'd suggest you, the OP, consider semantics and connotations. You asked a loaded and slightly self cotradictory question.

To an atheist: why is life precious?

That question decouples the spiritual/religious connotations inherent in "sacred" from the question, and avoids the self contradiction. If you do an OED style etymological look up on sacred, rather than cherry picking one of many definitions from a dictionary, I think you'll find that the root of sacred is implicitly religious/spiritual in nature.

Of course, if you bothered to communicate clearly, contextually, and unambiguously, there would be nothing to argue and split hairs about.

Loaded questions for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

[fuelair]

Why would you kill a child killer? Is there something inherently important about a child? Why would you kill to defend your own life? Is there something inherently important about your life to you?

You don't appear to be consistent. You say life is not important but it is important enough for you to protect. Please to reconcile? We have an interesting situation/impasse here. You seem to be trying to force me to accept your definition of the word sacred as if it had no religious significance.
Problem is that it does so nothing is "sacred" to me - that doesn't preclude things being , shall we say, highly important to me. Nor does it preclude my having a little list of persons and categories of persons with attached values. I am not at the top of the list, but I am pretty high on it.

As a side note, where do I say "Life is not important" ? As opposed to life is not sacred anyway.

Just casually, if you are an xtian, you would very much likely prefer me around if you were being attacked than a Quaker, Amish person or average other xtian.

[RandFan]

We have an interesting situation/impasse here. You seem to be trying to force me to accept your definition of the word sacred as if it had no religious significance. You don't have to accept my definition of the word. Just, if the word sacred was defined as important (such a definition does exist BTW) would you then agree? Apparently yes.

Problem is that it does so nothing is "sacred" to me - that doesn't preclude things being , shall we say, highly important to me. See, that was easy. That is and was my only point. Thanks.

As a side note, where do I say "Life is not important" ? As opposed to life is not sacred anyway. It's what you seemed to me to say. I tried to clarify and asked you directly if you thought life was "important". Note that I did not use the word "sacred" and you responded with something about guns.

Just casually, if you are an xtian, you would very much likely prefer me around if you were being attacked than a Quaker, Amish person or average other xtian. I'm an atheist.

[Upchurch]

So, was Mocha Cappuccino's curiosity satisfied or what?

[Darth Rotor]

So, was Mocha Cappuccino's curiosity satisfied or what?
Rhetorical question: is a troll ever satisfied?

DR