The inherent value of life might make more sense from an atheist perspective.
If There’s no God or after life, than this current life is all we have so we’d better defend it.
Some might claim that an atheist perspective implies a complete lack of any purpose or meaning to life, so whether one lives or dies is inconsequential, objectively speaking because all there is is particles of matter randomly interacting. There is nothing like an “inherent value” based upon the physical and chemical interactions of particles of matter. The material order, according to the atheist, just is as a brute fact. No meaning, no purpose, no significance. Period.
That means what follows from atheism is whatever morality a random arrangement of chemicals happens to come up with. Hitler’s “sense of life” is as valid as Gandhi’s, since there is no inherent value to be had.
Belief in God/after life may diminish the value of life. God may have the right to end life or this life maybe regarded as second best to the next one.
So the value of life may fit better into atheism, where this only really can’t be wasted, than into religion, where life can be “justly” removed & doesn’t compare to the after life.
It isn’t a question of the value any particular “belief in God” brings to the table. It is a question of the value that God himself, if he exists as the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists, brings to the table.
The question isn’t resolved by beliefs about value, but by the underlying reality that is the foundation of existence.
What you or I believe is largely irrelevant. The value that God endows on existence is everything, whereas the value that mere matter, as a brute fact, endows is a non-starter – which is why you have to punt to “belief,” as if human belief is at all meaningful if there is nothing real behind that belief to back it up.
Monopoly money versus currency underwritten by the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient Creator of all that exists. There is no comparison with regard to relative value and what backs it up.
