So basically my idea doesn’t deserve to be classified as a religious idea because a large portion of the world doesn’t believe it, that’s what your argument boils down to, and that’s quite disappointing and discriminatory towards the minority, an excellent example of democracy being misused.
You know what’s fun, though? Nobody even managed to decently criticize my idea. Sure, somebody did point out that my claim was without evidence, and I admitted to that, but so are almost all religious claims. Nobody managed to find a flaw in my reasoning and the data I provided so far supports my idea.
But then again, if the only reason my thread was moved to Rant is because I’m the only one holding that belief then nobody should even be allowed to present an original idea in the religious section. And, AFAIK, people DO present original ideas in the religious section, even when they’re the only ones who believe in them.
So, if it’s not the fact that my theory is inherently more absurd than any other and therefore unworthy of being a religious idea (as I think you’ve conceded, if you haven’t, I’d like to explain what exactly is it about the idea of a virgin born son of god walking on water that makes it so much better that my idea isn’t even allowed to be presented in comparison). And if it isn’t the fact that it’s only believed in by me (or are you willing to argue that any idea which is believed in by only 1 person is undeserving and goes to The Rant House), what else is the reason to throw my thread in Rant?
That if offends people? So if an idea offends a group of people it’s justified to reject it immediately just on the grounds that it’s offensive? What if I told you that men are, on average, stronger than women? That’s a fact, but it’s bound to insult a lot of women.
IMO the real reason it got moved is because it offends people, which I hold to be an insufficient reason. And the reason it offends people is that it makes fun of religious reasoning and makes religious people use normal (atheistic) reasoning to disprove my theory (such as pointing out that my theory lacks evidence), but they’re afraid to use normal reasoning because they know it can easily backfire and I can point out that their beliefs are held without evidence too. Basically, whatever argument they might have against my theory I can use against their beliefs too, so they’re powerless. And the fact that it lowers their belief to the level of something they consider ridiculous (a penis antenna) and they can’t give a good argument against it is what hurts the most.
What I did in that thread is just a minor version of Flying Spaghetti Monster. It uses religious people’s own reasoning against them. They put forward the ontological argument, you point out how glad you are that they proved the existence of the Noodly One, for who is Greater than His Noodliness? And please note that this is not pure mockery, this points out a relevant problem with the argument by making fun of it (in this case, if you haven’t figured out, it points out the problem with defining greatness).