Semester3383

The core assumption here is that our definition of good is the same as any god's definition of good. What if this god has a definition of good that seems evil to us? What if god enjoys and approves of genocide, of earthquakes that kill thousands, or volcanic eruptions that cause crops to fail and mass starvations for the next two years?

Why assume that any god would have our best interests in their heart? Why not see god as someone that's a Warhammer 40K enthusiast, someone that enjoys pitting enormous armies against each other in wholesale slaughter?

Finland first, New Zealand second. Both have gun rights. Finland has a lot of empty space in the north, and Finns are, in general, not super interested in being highly social, despite historically having pretty solid social safety nets (although I hear the right is rising there, and that may not last). The largest barrier is that Suomi is a very difficult language to learn.

So, what you're saying is that the Book of Job disproves the divinity of a god?

This idea rests on the notion that the human ideas of good and evil are universal, and apply to a god. Why should that be the case? What if god has decided that murder is good, and will reward everyone that commits murder with a spot in heaven?

Any sitcom or comedy.

Arrive to raids [...] out of uniform.

...This is already happening.

The beauty of such subtle magic is that you would be happy to be changed in such a way. :)

I've read history books that aren't full-blown propaganda. If you had read any, you would know that oppression and violence is the foundation of ALL western countries, and most non-western ones as well. The difference being that countries in the EU are more comfortable forgetting that their wealth was built on things like the exploitation of the Congo, the British East India Company, et al.

The founding document of the US though, which is what I was clearly referring to, established certain civil rights that the gov't isn't supposed to infringe. Religious liberty is one of those. This is notably not a right in most non-US countries; many EU countries have state-funded religions, and citizens are often taxes by the gov'ts to pay for those religions.

I'm an atheist and a Satanist. I agree that these people are, by the measure of what the Jesus Christ of the Christian Bible is claimed to have said, hypocrites. At best. And yes, Jesus said that you should pray in private, and that people who pray in public so that they can be seen to pray have already received their reward. (Matthew 6:5 - "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.")

But it's still a foundational civil right.

Yeah, no. That was never the intent of 1A. Individuals, or groups, are more than welcome to pray in government buildings, as long as they aren't forcing that religious expression on unwilling people, using it as a religious test, or something similar that would amount to the establishment of a state-sponsored religion.

Students can pray in schools; teachers can pray in schools. Teachers can not compel students to participate in prayers, nor are teachers supposed to lead students in prayer (as that's implied compulsion).

Constitutional freedoms--including religion--are a foundation for our country. If that's not what you want, feel free to repeal the constitution, or move to a country that has a state religion instead.

Perhaps what the potion really does is changes you when you make it so that you become the person that your object of desire will love.