Snake Oil & Fake Cures: Thread Closed

I’m honestly just sitting here scratching my head—what even is going on?
See, I actually went into this thinking those religious messages and all those old-school methods might actually hold some weight, so I figured I'd take a crack at applying them to the people who spend their entire lives so graciously, and let's be honest, quite condescendingly, preaching them to everyone else.

Are you guys trying to tell me that these religious approaches and sermons are totally useless? Or is there some other convoluted excuse coming my way to try and shut down what I'm saying? 🙂

ps.
If nobody can figure out which specific thread on the Religion board I'm talking about, I can lay it all out for you if you really need me to. Just say the word. 🙂

Alright, I’m opening this thread as a bit of a sarcastic response to the existing One Moral Question for Atheists discussion. Honestly, using a hypothetical scenario involving "pre-pubescent children and assault" is definitely crossing a line.

Brenda Cook4 said:Okay, look, this whole thread was meant to be an ironic take on that other thread, One Moral Question for Atheists, but using a hypothetical involving "pre-pubescent kids and sexual assault" is definitely crossing a line.

But here’s the thing—I laid out options for how or if that crime should happen because I had to start with something heavy enough to stick, something that would force the religious crowd—those self-appointed guardians of morality—to face the fact that they commit horrific atrocities too. It’s not like they can't find a way to justify those acts within their own twisted logic. And honestly, what better starting point than a classic >?

So, we're talking about one side of the moral coin here, and I still haven't heard a single decent explanation as to why my topic is banned just because I used an analogy based on a massive social taboo. This is a space removed from real-life consequences, which usually makes it easier to have a grounded, realistic conversation about topics that overlap with the whole > mess.
But apparently, this isn't "over the line"; it's treated like some sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered the second anyone shows a hint of outrage.

So, seriously, why shouldn't I be allowed to spark a debate on religious morality by using a >?
I’m not buying the "over the line" label unless you actually provide a real reason instead of just making a flat assertion.