Human beings have virtually no value if they are just machines

[The Valkyrie]

I notice this post is in the 'Atheism' section... perhaps it's yet another example of confusing/conflating atheism with nihilism?

I'll answer as though it had been posted in the Philosophy section.

First off, there are two forms of value. 
...

Correct.  Noun and verb.

Or to put it another way ... quantitative and qualitative.

You seem to be using the former throughout.

...
Your mother is something so much more than just some fancy shaver or television. 
...

My mother... yes.  Your mother... no.  Your mother holds zero value for me. Nothing personal.  

...
But if we as human beings are nothing more than biological machines who have only this one life to live, then that reduces us to nothing more than materialistic things. 
...

We are biological machines; that's just a fact.

But you seem to be discounting the value placed upon the emergent properties of these biological machines.  The 'value' of my house or car (if I owned such, which I don't) is greater than the 'worth' of said house or car (to me; not necessarily to a future buyer).

... the type of value we as human beings have would be reduced to nothing more than the type of value that materialistic things have.  We would be nothing more than insignificant biological machines and that is the lesser value we would have.  There is nothing warranting a higher value attributed to us as human beings if we are just biological machines living this one and only life.  The way I see it, the only thing that can bestow us this higher value would be the very notion of us being special in this universe.
...

You and your mother "being special in this universe" or all lifeforms?

Thing is, almost everyone on this planet is unknown to you.  They exist as population quantities.  How much did you value the lady who died in China last night?

Even as you walk to work you are assessing the people you pass as objects, not subjects.

Do I objectify women?  Of course I do.  A female of the right proportions catches my eye and I assess her as a reproduction-agent.

Thing is, I have objectified the majority of people (of all genders) I have seen today.  In fact, they are not even people until I have projected my sentience-simulation onto them... until I have 'subjectified' them.

Up to then they are obstacles, potential enablers (with potential utility), potential threats or assets or just neutral (and I will have no recollection of having seen them).  

We don't dehumanise others ... we omit to humanise.

...
  That is, us being eternal souls who get to live on in the afterlife where we greet deceased loved ones, live happy forever after, etc. 
...

Nice idea but that's all it is... an idea.  And wishful, at that.

...
  If we are just biological machines living this one and only life, then we instead have every reason to treat our family and other people in this world as insignificant, materialistic things such as a shaver, book, bike, computer, etc.

Which explains Paul Ryan's view on health-care, right?  Notice how he describes 'people' as 'the market'.

Face it, if you treat all the "other people in this world" (including all the ones you have never met and will never meet) as sentient agents, you are the only one who does.

Depends on the individual and what you intend to use them for.

Strong male slaves for constructions are inherently more valuable than other slaves for the same task, but have a lower inherent values as sex slaves.
...

THAT'S SEXIST!!! !!

A female slave owner would appreciate the inherent value of a strong male slave.

Me?

Sexist?

Where did we put those rubber hoses...?