Bolder-dash writes:
... what exactly makes any natural form any more valuable than another?
The question presumes a system of valuation -- a basis for attributing value to the things you refer to as "natural forms." This in turn entails physical entities with some degree of awareness or consciousness of their surroundings, together with some behavioral repertoire by which they demonstrate a preference or avoidance of particular things or events in their surroundings.
For bees, flowers are more valuable than rocks, and so are other bees. For birds, seeds are more valuable than rocks, and so are other birds. For anteaters, ants are more valuable than rocks, and so are other anteaters. For all living things that have awareness of their surroundings, their own offspring are especially more valuable than rocks, and are more valuable than other living things.
Curiously, for humans, the valuation can depend on what types of rocks we're talking about... it's fairly common for people to consider diamonds or gold more valuable than flowers, seeds, ants, bees, birds, anteaters and other living things. But, not so curiously, it's pretty rare for humans to value even these kinds of rocks more than their own offspring. (Not impossible, of course, but rare -- it's in the nature of random variations within a population that some individuals will have unusual characteristics.)
Obviously, human systems of valuation are tremendously complex, to the point that most individuals (regardless of their cultural/intellectual/spiritual upbringing) can find themselves perplexed, confused, and unable to decide on a "right" response to particular situations. Moral dilemmas are not uncommon, and a clever investigator can readily pose scenarios and questions that thinking people find very hard to answer. Dogmatic people -- even those raised in a common cultural/spiritual environment -- may answer such puzzles quickly and with certainty, but in incompatible ways (another consequence of random variations within a population).
Do things "deserve" to live?
Again, the question depends on a valuation system, but of a slightly different sort. The notion of "deserving" entails having a sense of purpose: entities whose existence and behavior are consistent with / supportive of a specified purpose will "deserve" some appropriate benefit that is associated with achieving that purpose. Conversely, those that actively antagonize said purpose will "deserve" some appropriate punishment. These valuations apply most often (and most intensely) when the behaviors can be viewed as "intentional" or "deliberate", i.e. reflecting a conscious choice.
In the absence of such a system, nothing deserves anything -- the notion of "deserving" is undefined. Viewed from the perspective of the physical universe in general, an individual does not "deserve" to live, life in general does not "deserve" to propagate, the earth does not "deserve" to exist, etc. A large meteor impact could wipe out most or all life on our planet, and the notion of "deserving" would have no relevance at all to that event, regardless of the qualities of the species that were exterminated (the opinions of bigots like the "reverend" Pat Robertson notwithstanding).
It's important to understand that the presence/absence of purpose is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the universe as a whole, there doesn't appear to be any purpose that humans can conceptualize with any accuracy or reliability; we have no basis for comprehending it. From the perspective of other living things, we probably don't understand them well enough yet to assert anything about a sense of purpose from their PoV.
From the perspective of humans, there must be purpose. It's a natural entailment of how we evolved as a social species capable of manipulating abstract symbols, propositional logic, and intricate relationships of cause and effect. Ultimately, we must work out for ourselves (individually and as a population) what that purpose is: maybe propagation of our species is sufficient, or maybe there's something more (and all atheists are open to the latter possibility, regardless of what you would probably assume).
One thing is certain (at least to atheists): asserting that the earth and all living things, and even the universe as a whole, exist for the purpose of fostering mankind is a ludicrous expression of hubris.
Why would smashing apart a rock be any different than smashing out a life, when in fact they are just different versions of the same thing?
Ah, the old strawman approach, but alas, a pretty clumsy example: "Atheists believe that rocks and life forms are different versions of the same thing (whereas theists do not abide such ridiculous ideas)." As others in this thread have said... EPIC FAIL. Actually, that's being too generous. This is just a tiresome, worn-out, worthless fail; it's also insulting, and leads others to take a dim view of your intelligence. Do yourself a favor and leave it behind.
I gather from many of your posts here that you are unwilling or unable to handle complex, nuanced explanations for complicated interactions among complicated physical entities. This condition certainly limits you in terms of understanding science, but it's also a problem for any sort of honest approach to theism (to the extent that theism is compatible with honesty).
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added "cause & effect relationships" to explanation for human perspective of purpose.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
(1)