Home Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #15 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
I'll be the first to admit I'm not a nice person, as a matter of fact I'm kind of an ******* . That being said, the reason I try to be good and nice and honourable is BECAUSE of my religion and my god.

For example, there was some Russian scientists out there, perhaps you may have heard about them, who managed to keep a severed dog head alive through use of pumps and cycled blood. You can find the video on youtube. You can ALSO find the research and equipment these scientists used on google. Now, me being the curious, scientific sort, would have absolutely no problem finding a stray animal, decapitating it, and trying to further the research...but because animals are sacred to my god, and because he says all animals are to be respected and treated with kindness, I don't do it. Simple as that. I can honestly say religion DOES make me a better person, even if it is just artificially
User avatar #37 to #15 - blewws (02/04/2013) [-]
So I'm glad you aren't going around cutting off animal's heads, but you see the problem with that, right? You're not a better person because of religion. You're just following some rules. GOOD rules, I might add. Rules like "don't decapitate animals," but your actions aren't coming from kindness or caring. You're just told to behave a certain way. There are plenty of kind Atheists and there are plenty of kind Christians... But you're not really one of them...
User avatar #42 to #37 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
As said, even though it's artificial I would still be classified as a good person (hey, their words, not mine. In truth I agree with YOU, that I'm still quite horrid). I was mearly trying to make an example of how someone can be made "good" through religion, as many Atheists believe that it only makes you do evil things (that being said. If I'm not "good" through being told to behave, than those who killed when they were told to by their god aren't evil, now are they?)
User avatar #48 to #42 - blewws (02/04/2013) [-]
Ok I get that. Maybe that's true. But, I think that most good Christians aren't good because they're Christian. I think it's because they just happen to be good people. Maybe some Atheists are ******** because they don't have a reason to follow those rules.
User avatar #55 to #48 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
Indeed, I totally agree sir. We ARE on the same page, I enjoy good and compassionate behaviour just as much as you do, and find (unnecessary) unethical and immoral behaviour reprehensible. I was mearly trying to give an example of how someone can be made kind through religion, rather than evil (which is the generally accepted stereotype)
User avatar #33 to #15 - gottdammit (02/04/2013) [-]
Also, your way of thinking just might make you slightly ******** insane.
User avatar #36 to #33 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
When scientists first split the atom, they had no idea what it was going to do, they didn't even know if it would blow up and take an entire chunk out of the universe, with them along with it....

But they did it anyways.

If you think sacrificing morality and ethics (an entirely human invention) for the sake of progress is "bat **** insane", I would hate to see what type of world would progress if everyone was like you
#54 to #36 - anonymous (02/04/2013) [-]
Provide proof of what you say, by the time of the first atom bombs einstein had already published his paper about e=mc2 over thirty years prior. These scientists were not stupid.
User avatar #58 to #54 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
Forgive me sir, but I cannot find a direct paper or link saying "Well, we had no idea what it was going to do" (that said, it's highly unlikely they ever PUT that in paper. That would scare many people. But what IS fact is that there could have been many potential outcomes of splitting an atom, including total destruction). Indeed you are correct, scientists are not stupid, were not then, and tried their very best to know exactly what was going to happen. But at the same time, science will be the first to tell you that nothing is ever 100%
#60 to #58 - anonymous (02/04/2013) [-]
Except the first atom was split in 1917, way before the bomb was built.But I must agree that most scientists will never say they know something with certainty. When they built the bomb they knew the expected yield and what it was likely to do but I digress. Even with knowing what the bomb would do it did raise many serious questions regarding morality and ethics.
User avatar #63 to #60 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
*Now. Now outlawed

Sorry about that
User avatar #62 to #60 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
I never said they put it in a bomb before splitting it. I'm saying that WHEN they split it, while they may have had firm proof that certain possibilities would come out of it, they weren't entirely SURE, and they were still willing to risk it for the sake of progress.

Indeed it did, which is why nuclear weapons are not outlawed (that's scary, isn't it? A weapon so powerful there is a world-wide agreement NOT to use them. That's astonishing)
User avatar #44 to #36 - gottdammit (02/04/2013) [-]
Are you a scientist?
Did that freakish dog-headed construct benefit our race, world or lives in any way?
And even if it did (which I doubt) there is no point in repeating, it's about progressing.

But without going into deep **** , let's just say those thought aren't really normal. It reminds me of a man who said he realized he could kill his entire family while sleeping, but he wouldn't because he loves them. Those kind of thoughts sort of sick, and that man still gave a better reason than "Well God sure wouldn't be happy with that **** ".
User avatar #50 to #44 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
No, sir. Although I'd love to be
It just may, it's one step closer to artificial immortality. If we can manage to keep a dogs head alive through false means, what else can we keep alive, perhaps love enough for it to save ANOTHER life. You misunderstand, kind sir; I'm not repeating, their work was never truly completed because people stopped funding them and boycotted their work based upon moral principles.

Well I don't like most animals, I've been bitten far too many times (and no, it was by no fault of my own. My mother would always adopt disabled, beaten, or broken animals, which were often aggressive because of the mistreatment they got, and everytime I tried to play, or be nice, I would get bitten so hard I would need stitches. I remember quite well). That being said, I'm sure you'd rather me help animals because my god says they are sacred rather than hurt them because I want to see if I can finish some research, right?
User avatar #57 to #50 - gottdammit (02/04/2013) [-]
Not really, sorry.
I mean, It's not like you would actually have an idea what you are doing. You'd probably just be randomly inserting pipes around in a decapitated head. That's not a research, that's playing with a really, really weird tamagochi.

As for that last one, I'd rather hurt one animal in the sake of science (if it would actually benefit the world, of course), than choose not to do it in order to appease a deity which maybe doesn't exist (I would like to emphasize the "maybe").

So let's just agree to disagree, I'm not in a mood for ********** today.
User avatar #61 to #57 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
Do you honestly think I would go to such lengths all-willy-nilly without actually looking up every step and procedure I would need to take in order to make it successful? That would just be stupid.

Oh, well good for you chum, I admire your zeal. Indeed I agree, it very well may not exist, but I'm happy with it, and I feel good about myself with it. The same way you feel good about yourself without it.

I don't see why we would need to, we're quite on the same page and I'm trying very hard to be as polite as possible, I DO like you. I apologize for any inconvenience
#20 to #15 - temporalguardian (02/04/2013) [-]
aint that pretty.
aint that pretty.
User avatar #26 to #20 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
I don't mean to cause a ruckus, good sir. It's just an example
User avatar #29 to #26 - temporalguardian (02/04/2013) [-]
And a nice example it was!
User avatar #19 to #15 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
That's honestly pretty pathetic.
User avatar #24 to #19 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
Oh? So you'd rather me be a honest horrible person than an artificial nice one?
User avatar #25 to #24 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
At least, yeah.
User avatar #27 to #25 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
So by that logic, you'd rather have 6 million jews die in a holocaust than Hitler be a nice person out of reverence for a god?
User avatar #28 to #27 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Hitler WAS religious.
Didn't change anything.
#41 to #28 - blewws (02/04/2013) [-]
Godwins Law... You're done.
Godwins Law... You're done.
User avatar #31 to #28 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
That's not what I'm asking. YOU said you would rather someone be honestly cruel than sweet and fake. Religion has nothing to do with it at this point

Again, I ask you, you would rather have 6 million die in a holocaust than Hitler be the type who walks old ladies across the street because his god demands it?
User avatar #34 to #31 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
I just think it's pretty pathetic how the only reason that some people are nice is because they're scared of some imaginary place they go after they die.
That is beside the point.
User avatar #38 to #34 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
Fine then, lets use Joseph Stalin. Surely you know who that is? Surely you must know he was an Atheist? There, religion is no longer an issue.

I ask again, you would rather 20 million (generally accepted figure sent to death by Stalin's hand. All worked to death, executed, killed in battle, starved, much worse than being gassed in my opinion, but I digress...) die in true evil than even one be saved in false good?
User avatar #40 to #38 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Honestly, I think that's beside the point.
If someone is as amoral as Hitler or Stalin, people should realize beforehand and prevent them from taking a position of power.
User avatar #43 to #40 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
You're avoiding the question. Now who's pathetic?
User avatar #47 to #43 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Look, I was mainly referring to average people, who should show their true colors as opposed to pretending to be a good person because they're threatened by something that may not even exist.
Then you brought up Hitler.
User avatar #52 to #47 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
Ah, so there is a LIMIT. There's a point where you WOULD prefer false good to true evil, THANK YOU sir, that's the answer I was TRYING to get. Now that we have that out of the way (which was much harder than it had to be), I ask a different question. Same scenario, but with animals, would you rather I be cruel and evil to animals, because I believe it's necessary, or would you rather I be kind and sweet to them because my "imaginary friend" tells me to be?

Eh, Hitler and Stalin were just examples
User avatar #56 to #52 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
You know what, **** you, I think it should be the responsibility of the normal people who DON'T want to torture wild animals or commit genocide to prevent those who do.
I know that's unrealistic, but so is getting everyone to give up religion simultaneously.
User avatar #59 to #56 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
And now you're getting mad because I proved my point? That's not very ****** of you.

I don't want to torture wild animals, I may not like animals but that does not mean I want to cause unnecessary pain. I simply want to see how much more I can discover for the sake of progress. I'm not GOING to, so rest in that fact, friend.
User avatar #64 to #59 - WillWalrus (02/04/2013) [-]
Yes, you proved your point that world leaders shouldn't be amoral dickwads.
#18 to #15 - anonymous (02/04/2013) [-]
But, doing that could potentially be a scientific breakthrough.
User avatar #23 to #18 - captainfuckitall (02/04/2013) [-]
Indeed, that's exactly why I want to do it
 Friends (0)