Human beings have virtually no value if they are just machines

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

That doesn't seem to be the case, and I don't know why that would change on the basis of whether or not we're "just biological machines". Some people do like books or bikes or computers more than they like their families, though, and some of them have already have every reason for it.

[Chad32]

I still don't find that very appealing. Just stagnating forever. But to each its own.

[Amarok]

I still don't find that very appealing. Just stagnating forever. But to each its own.

Indeed i would much rather have and ending to my story .

[DLJ]

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.

[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...?

[brewer]

JFC, here we go again. Not even going to play (or play much) this time.

There is little picture and big picture. In the little picture I have value to those in my little circle. That value will extend probably a generation after I die, maybe two if I'm lucky. Big picture, I seriously doubt I'll have value. Not going to be a great contributor to society that will extend through lifetimes. 

After my death, some value hopefully to those not in my little circle. Organ donation (maybe if I haven't trashed them all) then body to medical science. Hopefully fertilizer at the ultimate end. That will be enough afterlife for me.

[Edwardo Piet]

In what way does living forever make things meaningful when they otherwise wouldn't be?  People have limited attention spans.  If you haven't shared time with someone in 1,000 years or 1,000,000 years, of what special significance is that time spent.  At each moment, our pasts are finite.  This is the case whether you live an eternity, or merely 100 years.  How does an infinite life span add meaning in a way that is categorically different than what 100 years does?

I actually have the complete opposite extreme viewpoint to him. To me, time doesn't matter at all, only the acute intensity of peak experiences.

[Banned]

In what way does living forever make things meaningful when they otherwise wouldn't be?  People have limited attention spans.  If you haven't shared time with someone in 1,000 years or 1,000,000 years, of what special significance is that time spent.  At each moment, our pasts are finite.  This is the case whether you live an eternity, or merely 100 years.  How does an infinite life span add meaning in a way that is categorically different than what 100 years does?

Are you saying that there is nothing more special than the moment - which is the time we live in, we can't live in the past or future...

but if we no longer exist, then the alternative of living forever is really special isn't it?

We can imagine that a life from the past to be significant, because of memory, but how does the memory help the deceased? And how will that be of any value when those with the memories die?

---

... Something being finite and rare is what gives it value.

To whom? to the dead or the living?
And when the living die, then that life is less than nothing.

[henryp]

First off, there are two forms of value.  The first type would be the type of value that materialistic things have such as looking at a fancy television or having a fancy shaver.  This type of value, although it is something that can be cherished and appreciated, is virtually nothing in comparison to the higher value that a loved one would have in your life such as your mother.  Your mother is something so much more than just some fancy shaver or television.  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.  Since we are truly insignificant and nothing special in this universe which is something that is often said by skeptics such as the likes of Lawrence Krauss, then this means that 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.  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.  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.

Isn't this how it is already?  And isn't it working fine (for those of us with money)?  Isn't valuing things over 99.999999%+ of humans on earth par for the course for nearly everybody?

[Banned]

... As long as I am happy, having fun, and enjoying my life, then I would want to live like that for perhaps trillions of years or maybe even forever.  But as long as I have to live a life of depression, misery, and unhappiness, then that is no way to live for me and it is a life of no value.  The fact of the matter is, if I grew tired of living a happy and fun life after 60 or so years, then I would find much value and worth in this life being finite.  But I don't grow tired of a happy, fun life and the fact that this life isn't a happy life that lasts for perhaps trillions of years means that it isn't as valuable of a life to me.

That's absolutely true - if you were perfectly happy, even after living a trillion years, you wouldn't want to die, and if you died that would be a tremendous tragedy. 
And it doesn't matter if you only lived for five minutes, the tragedy is the same.