And if we add the agnostics and irreligious to that number, we get about 15%, which is comparable to the aprox. 30% of Christianity, 20%-25% of Islam, 15% of Hindus, 20%-25% of Eastern religions (which is basically Buddhism practiced in syncretysm with others, such as Taoism-Confucianism and folk-religion [in China], Shinto [in Japan], animism and shamanism [in Mongolia], etc).

Besides, isn’t it the *broad* way that leadeth to destruction, and *many* those that walk therein?

He proved impervious to rational thought more then 300 posts ago. Stop banging already.

There are ‘reasons” to be an Islamic jihadist suicide bomber. And they have a lot of comrades. But I think the pink unicorn followers are a better lot then those guys.

Are you going to keep pushing this losing argument? Eventually we will stop banging our head against the wall shooting it down, but don’t think for a minute you ‘won”.

As for bloodletting, it worked in many cases. A leech, for example, helps to reduce tissue congestion where arterial input is maintained. Leech therapy is finding its way into numerous reconstructive surgeries such as digit and limb reattachment, skin graft procedures, scalp avulsions, breast surgeries, and even into the effective treatment of periorbital hematomas.

So thanks for proving my point. If a lot of people believe something, then it is probably because there were reasons for doing so. And if there are reasons it puts that belief into a different category than your unicorn.

How are you so certain that that particular cult does not exist? There have been cults that have fervently believed much sillier things.

You’re still using the argument ad populem. “Most people believe it, therefore it’s true.” Well, most people used to believe in a geocentric universe, but that didn’t make it true. And most people in Europe used to believe that bleeding a sick person was usually beneficial. That wasn’t true either. I think I’d prefer to figure out truth for myself, and not just follow the herd.

I think I’ll go pray at the Church of Google now. Google is as close to omnipresent and omniscient as you are likey to get in something that demonstably exists. Google always answers prayers, even when you don’t realize that your search is actually a prayer. Better track record than any of the “real gods” out there.

But it does indicate that there are a lot of reasons and evidence that they see which you are pretending does not exist. And that is the reason the cult of the pink unicorn does not exist. Pretending they are equivalent doesn’t do your argument service.

(ER said): “But for Christ’s sweet sake, quit trying to cram me and God and Christ into boxes that you yourself have rejected. I don’t let fundies put me in their boxes; I for damn sure will not let ex-fundies put me in their discarded boxes.”

(Quester said): ER, would that be the box labelled, “perceptibly different from box without a god”? You, your God, and your Christ are succeeding in not fitting in that discarded box.

I am failing to fit — “succeeding in not fitting” — in the box you have discarded as a decon? Good. But I’m not sure what you meant to say, actually. Bottom line: If you insist on lumping all Christians — fundies, flakes, fakes, moderates, libs and all — into the same box, that is, you think all of us complete fools — then, well, OK.

Who’s being obtuse? Why does it matter if millions see that difference? That has nothing to do with it being true or correct. You’re wielding the logical fallacy without naming it by name. Good show of sophistication.

I’m not using it as an argument other than to press you to be consistent to your own stated theory.

“Slippery slope.”

It can hardly be a slippery slope fallacy when it is a simple fact that people steal wallets every single day to increase their own comfort.

“So you are making moral arguments out of a desire to be comfortable. Just like everyone else.”

It doesn’t have to be about comfort vs non-comfort. Moral relativism can lead *ANYWHERE*. Anybody with any opinion at all can find the world going somewhere they disagree with strongly. That’s why I said any thinking person should care, because only unthinking people have no beliefs.

“Why not? It works for Christianity. “Believe and make Jesus your Lord or go to hell.”

That’s a characture of what it is.

“If God gets His morals from Himself, then He is a moral relativist. If God is a moral relativist and we are to be like Him in character, then we can be moral relativists as well.”

That’s like saying if God can make gravity go up, then so can I. It’s not actually true though. And God can’t be a relativist, because there is no other God his beliefs can be relative to.

“Which Old Testament commands are we supposed to follow and which ones have gone the way of the moral dodo (so to speak)? Which ones? The ones you like? The ones that our culture values? Which ones? How the hell do we decide?”

God decides, via the church.

“If there are moral absolutes, where does God get them from?”

It doesn’t matter.

“If your god is restricted in its behavior by a moral code then the moral code is actually your God because it is the greater thing.”

God is only restricted by his own character, and that is not something outside himself.

You are the one who introduced the whole intrinsic issue. I’m not shifting ground at all, I stand by what I said way up in this thread which is that without God there is “no objective value” to human life. There is no objective value, because to assign value requires a world view on what human beings are and everyone has a different world view, ranging from Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa, with similarly variable values for human life.

“it would remain a valid question as to why a person should value all human life in the same way God does, just because God does.”

For the same reason that if I drop a ball it should fall to the ground just as surely as when you do. God makes the rules of right and wrong just like he makes the rules of gravity. If you say “balls should fall up instead of down”, it doesn’t have the same validity.

“What you have not offered is an argument that God’s supposed standard is a good one.”

Nor do I intend to offer such an argument, any more than I should offer an argument why gravity falling down is superior to if it falls up.