Mohammod and Jesus. Would you do it?

hongi · Post by **hongi** » 2007-04-14 11:51pm

No, I would not kill them. What right do I have to take away the beliefs of other people?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-04-14 11:59pm

hongi wrote:No, I would not kill them. What right do I have to take away the beliefs of other people?

That is the worst reason for not killing someone that I've ever seen. Why is something automatically worthwhile just because it's a "belief"? Communism was a belief system. Nazism was a belief system. Human fucking sacrifice rituals too. The fact that something is a "belief" does not automatically grant it intrinsic worth.

hongi · Post by **hongi** » 2007-04-15 12:44am

The fact that something is a "belief" does not automatically grant it intrinsic worth.

When did I say beliefs have intrinsic worth? The fact is, most of the people in the world hold religious beliefs and rely on them for direction and guidance in their life. I don't respect their beliefs, but I do respect their right to hold such beliefs. And taking away other people's religious belief (for what reason?) is nothing short of tyrannical and short-minded.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2007-04-15 01:31am

One time when I was a little scrapper, one of my "let's pretend" sessions with my best friend had a scenario where we would travel back and time and kill someone who later turned out to be Jesus. We return to the present and found the world about 1500 years more advanced. Yes, we were naughty and violent little athiest thugs.

Today, however, I would not. Just the shift in genetics alone over 2000 years by eliminating Jesus (from wars not fought and not-wars now have been fought, and other effects) would basically guarantee that I would never be born. That this jives with the Quaker peace testimony is just a happy accident.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2007-04-15 02:06am

hongi wrote:When did I say beliefs have intrinsic worth?

It follows from your statement about what right you have to take away other people's belief. This has a clear negative connatation (especially give you answered no) and would only work if the beliefs has value. The fact that you apparently meant to refer to their "right to belief" rather than the belief itself, could not reasonably be inferred from your statement, ergo if that was what you were trying to say, you worded it poorly.

hongi · Post by **hongi** » 2007-04-15 03:06am

In that case, I apologise for my poor wording. But my argument still stands.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-04-15 03:33am

hongi wrote:In that case, I apologise for my poor wording. But my argument still stands.

Bullshit. Taking away the inspiration for a belief is not the same thing as taking away freedom of belief, you evasive little liar.

hongi · Post by **hongi** » 2007-04-15 06:29am

Bullshit. Taking away the inspiration for a belief is not the same thing as taking away freedom of belief, you evasive little liar.

How is it not? If you take away the inspiration for the belief (Muhammad, Jesus, Paul, Buddha etc etc) without even consulting the billions of people who rely on this belief and discussing with them, then you are taking away their ability/freedom to choose whether to abandon that belief.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2007-04-15 06:56am

hongi wrote:
Bullshit. Taking away the inspiration for a belief is not the same thing as taking away freedom of belief, you evasive little liar.
How is it not? If you take away the inspiration for the belief (Muhammad, Jesus, Paul, Buddha etc etc) without even consulting the billions of people who rely on this belief and discussing with them, then you are taking away their ability/freedom to choose whether to abandon that belief.

If you go back in time and kill Jesus, he never existed. People cannot miss or know about something that never happened. How can you take away the right to believe in nothing?

Time travel: Don't think about it too much.

hongi · Post by **hongi** » 2007-04-15 11:52am

If you go back in time and kill Jesus, he never existed. People cannot miss or know about something that never happened. How can you take away the right to believe in nothing?

Shouldn't they have a choice in the matter?

hongi · Post by **hongi** » 2007-04-15 12:04pm

Although, your argument makes perfect sense. The people cannot choose between remaining with their religion or not, since if you've already chosen for them and destroyed their religion, the people are no longer of that religion.

Blast it, time travel!

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2007-04-15 02:43pm

I wouldn't because I don't want to screw that mutch with time. Only the following should be allowed to meddle in time:

1) Time Lords and Assosiates
2) Teenagers from the 80s
3) 1800s Inventoors

And I am neither of those, so I know I will screw it up somehow.