I ignored your argument because it is based on your ignorance. Just because you have not ever encountered a secular argument for valuing human life does not mean that they do not exist. Go read about secular humanism as a starting point.
I can't help but find it ironic that you criticize me for being ignorant, yet this ad hominem is based on your own ignorance of me.
You're presupposing that, since I don't agree with the idea that value for human life can exist outside of religion, that I must have never heard of such an idea--that anyone who understands such an idea must agree with it. That's obviously a fallacy. And rather than arguing, you're simply asserting that you're right and I'm wrong.
And you are lying - that would be bearing false witness. I said that when I called this an example of the Christian version of Sharia law that I was crediting the idea that they are not equivalent. You now insist that I am playing semantic games, despite my clearly explaining the difference. you just choose to ignore it because it is inconvenient for you.
I didn't ignore it--I disagree with it. You have not explained HOW they are different, you simply assert that they are. You have not "clearly explain[ed] the difference" whatsoever. In spite of your claiming that they are different, you're using your assertion of their similarity as support for your argument. From one side of your mouth you say they are, for the sake of argument, the same, but from the other side of your mouth you say they are different. You are being intellectually dishonest. You're saying, "Sharia law is bad, and Christian law is like Sharia law, so it's bad too. But no, they aren't THE SAME." But you're using their similarity to support your argument--that's the entire point. Yet you have neglected to explain HOW they are alike (other than that they are both related to religion), nor have you explained HOW they are different.
The worst part is that you have neglected to address my point, which is that our laws are already based upon religious values; and that if you insist upon having no religious influence upon our laws whatsoever, then an evolutionary ethicist or evolutionary naturalist who believes in "survival of the fittest" should have the right to commit murder--because if you stop him from doing so, you're forcing religious beliefs upon him.
If you disagree with that, then you must explain HOW one can value human life apart from religion; and by "value" I mean assigning equal value to all human life, because without such equal value, one could still justify murder.
I will give you a non-religious example of why you are wrong:
OSX is Apple's version of an operating system. Windows is Microsoft's version of an operating system. They are not equivalent, they are simply two things that serve the same general purpose, but they are not the same and are in fact very different.
Apples and oranges; this proves nothing. You're dodging the real argument.
Christian law and Sharia law are two things that attempt to perform roughly the same purpose (have religious beliefs shape secular law) but they go about them in different ways and enact different laws. Both seek to force others who do not share those beliefs live by them.
Now I'm going to call you out on this: there is no such thing as "Christian law." This is simply a strawman you have made. Sharia law, on the other hand, actually exists. Every time you make this comparison, you're comparing something real with something made up. It doesn't prove anything. Your only option here is to explain in detail what you mean by "Christian law."
On top of that, you're anthropomorphizing ideas. Ideas do not enact laws, nor do laws enact other laws. Laws do not desire anything.
Finally, the Christianity recorded in the Bible does not advocate imposing any beliefs or behaviors upon anyone--on the contrary, it recognizes individual free will and responsibility, and advocates submission to governments and laws. On the other hand, Islam explicitly advocates forced submission and conversion. You must address this point or you have no argument to begin with.
You are not worth arguing with. You do not seem to possess an education sufficient for this to be an argument, as demonstrated by your insistence that only religion can yield a foundation for valuing human life. You do not seem to possess critical thinking skills or the ability to understand nuance, as demonstrated by your inability to understand the difference i pointed out between Christian law and Sharia law. Arguing with you would be pointless because, lacking those things, you don't have the capacity to actually make an argument based on anything but your own ignorance and logical missteps.
Good grief, the irony and hypocrisy are killing me! You know nothing about me save that I disagree with you. You are insisting that if I disagree with you, I must be uneducated. You haven't backed up your assertions, and when I challenge them, you call me ignorant and uneducated. You say I have no critical thinking skills, yet you fail to recognize your own fallacies, assumptions, and presuppositions. You keep saying that you've pointed out the difference between "Christian law" and Sharia law--but you haven't done so, you've merely asserted that they are different. Finally, after all that, you say that I am the one who is unable to argue logically, and that I am the one not worth arguing with.
I know and respect many people who are deeply religious. Most of the professors I liked best in university were men of the cloth - 2 were Jesuits, one was an episcopalian cleric, 2 were rabbis (one reformed, one orthodox) and several more were deacons or the equivalent in their respective churches. They were educated, they were intelligent, and they had principles and conviction. In fact, it was actually one of the Jesuits who first introduced me to many of the non-theistic philosophical arguments for ethical behavior that you insist do not exist.
I haven't said that such arguments don't exist--I'm saying they are wrong. But you say that I'm the one who is unable to understand nuance.
You are nothing like any of those people. I do not want you, for a minute, thinking that the reason I am no longer responding to you at this point is because you have somehow persuaded me or caused me to run out of arguments for my point of view. I am leaving this because you, and people like you, are exactly why many people who prize rationalism look at religion as a refuge for the ignorant and stupid, and I simply will not bother arguing with someone like you when there are a great number of people who don't do the disservice you do to religious thought to argue with instead.
You don't know anything about me. I have, so far, argued much more rationally than you have--you have refused to even defend your assertions. Instead you rely on unsubstantiated ad hominems.
You should be ashamed of yourself, and you should want to be more educated, because your "argument" just makes it so much easier for people to dismiss you and all religious people as uneducated morons.
Again, you have no idea how educated I am. You're just making assumptions and personal attacks. But you claim I'm the ignorant, uneducated, irrational one who can't argue logically. You're killing me here.