A little off topic but the irony of this story really drives home my principle objection to religious-based morality: it takes the eye off the ball. When we speak of morality, we should be talking about or obligations to one another as sentient beings, not our devotion to ancient taboos and superstitious ideas of divine will. Religion demonizes harmless activities like blasphemy, idolatry and destroying microscopic living cells in order to help people.
Religious apologists often like to discuss where we get our morals from. Religion is neither necessary nor helpful as a framework for our discussions on morality.
Religious apologists often like to discuss where we get our morals from. Religion is neither necessary nor helpful as a framework for our discussions on morality.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist