If human life evolved without any input from a higher being, then why does human life, or any life, have value?

If we and all other forms of life arose as the product of purely naturalistic forces, with no intervention from any sort of Higher Being, then WHY should life be viewed as having any value whatsoever? If you are just the product of chemical reactions which happened without any sort of intelligent input, then why is... show more If we and all other forms of life arose as the product of purely naturalistic forces, with no intervention from any sort of Higher Being, then WHY should life be viewed as having any value whatsoever? If you are just the product of chemical reactions which happened without any sort of intelligent input, then why is it any more "wrong" to kill you than it is to snuff out a candle flame?

In fact, if we are just the result of naturalistic process, then how can ANYTHING be said to be "right" or "wrong". How would the extermination of the entire human race be "wrong" if said race is just the product of purely naturalistic occurrences? If we are just the product of a chain of chemical reactions going back to a bunch of amino acids combining for the first time, then how are we different than a cock-roach? Or the fizz from baking soda and vinegar mixing?

You cannot argue for "morality" unless you argue that human beings MATTER for some reason. With naturalistic evolution, you cannot assume that we do. All atheistic arguments for the existence of morality presuppose that human beings still MATTER, that human life is still valuable. But they never answer WHY human life should have value if said human life evolved without God.

This is not an argument for or against Evolution. This is just show that IF you accept naturalistic evolution, you must accept that there is no reason to assign human life, or any other life, any particular value. Nor to believe in any sort of morality.
Update: Mandrake: That's not how an "argument" works. If 90% of what someone says is wrong, one cannot conclude that the next thing he/she says is wrong. Each statement must be evaluated on it's own merits. But if we want to talk about wrong statements; 1. Christians believe the lives of... show more Mandrake:

That's not how an "argument" works. If 90% of what someone says is wrong, one cannot conclude that the next thing he/she says is wrong. Each statement must be evaluated on it's own merits. But if we want to talk about wrong statements;

1. Christians believe the lives of non-Christians matter so much that The One True and Living God became a human and DIED for those very non-Christians.

2. Just because what we believe doesn't agree with YOUR beliefs does not make them "wrong".
Update 2: Mandrake:
(continued)

3. Your third point does not follow logically, nor is it based upon anything other than your own prejudice.
Update 3: So, I'm getting a lot of answers along the same theme. Many of these answer boil down to, "Life has value because we SAY it has value". Well, that only works if you can prove that we are capable of conferring value on something by saying it has value. Certainly, we can create the ILLUSION of value. ... show more So, I'm getting a lot of answers along the same theme. Many of these answer boil down to, "Life has value because we SAY it has value". Well, that only works if you can prove that we are capable of conferring value on something by saying it has value. Certainly, we can create the ILLUSION of value. We can ASSUME value. But that doesn't mean there is REALLY any inherent value.

Some of you admit that. Some of you admit that this ILLUSION of value is the best we can do. At least that's honest.
Update 4: I have to admit, there were many good, honest answers from the Atheist side basically AGREEING that if we just arose through purely naturalistic means then the human race really DOESN'T have any inherent or intrinsic value. But that still begs the question as to why things like murder are "wrong".... show more I have to admit, there were many good, honest answers from the Atheist side basically AGREEING that if we just arose through purely naturalistic means then the human race really DOESN'T have any inherent or intrinsic value. But that still begs the question as to why things like murder are "wrong". Certainly we can't TOLLERATE such things in a functional society! I'm not suggesting we could. I'm speaking of Good and Evil as transcendent concepts.
Update 5: Again, thank you to so many people for your honest answers. Choosing BA is actually going to be tough, which is why I have put it off for so long.
23 answers 23