But about the last thing, like about 7/10 atheists i've seen were fucking arrogant assholes stupidly mocking what they dont understand (from the last post it seems you are one of those 7) and trough the internet grown a strong hatered for your kind, but here you just make it more obvious
Do I? Because if you try to read my post and dissect every single clause, there's really nothing in there that flips off or backbites Christianity. Which is fucking excellent, because that's all the bricks I need to bridge this paragraph to the next:
you dont understand my veiwpoint in life and you hate me for my choices.
The only thing I fucking loathe is your line of reasoning. You clearly have the gall to condemn people left, right and center, so the hell else would you expect in response? And I know you're probably going to try and take a piss and retort "It's cause I'm religious uUWwWaAaaAhHhHhh~~~," but no, this has fucking nothing to do with Christianity.
You're out of focus; it's you I have a problem with.
And before I move on:
I don't need to, you're handing me all my fucking lines on a silver platter.
before poeple started worshiping the big man, mankind was like that.
I wasn't arguing anything that implicit. I was just flipping off the notion that changing one particular chunk of history where a paradigm shifted would imply that everything is bound to be fucking stuck in mud over the next few thousand years.
Because I don't trust you or anyone else to gauge the implications of a game-changing event accurately.
So yeah everyone doing what they belive its right, why not play it safe and have the rules?
Because everyone is playing by their own, and adhering to all of them will have you tippy-toe around contradictions and serious breaches of conduct even in the simplest of activities.
I'm giving stalin as an example at how we should use other sources for our own morality because it just might not turn right.
Let me stop you right there because this clause is short-circuited and a half.
You employ your morals and ethics to
determine right. Your set of morals is a self-evident module. Anything contained within it that applies to your own rules is right. It might (and probably will) not apply to other people, global and universal interests. But there's no way your principles will backlash in their own perimeters.
There's also an important distinction in "which action you take," and "what you gauge to be the right action." If you can take a clause like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and prompt oppression and mass-murders, I'm sure as hell not going to hold the principle liable, only the people that employ it to different means.
As for other sources, one of my favorite philosophies is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. Other sources is great as to reduce bias, but if I know humans we tend to let the sources that don't comply to our epiphanies fall through the cracks.
Im shure theres plenty of people who managed to find whats right on their own but many more who didnt.
I'm sure there are plenty of people with differing opinions on right and wrong.