That's why I call myself as a humanist. I don't understand religion, it's by and large not a part of my life, and I don't want to have to measure myself up against it. It bothers me that people consider being religious to be the default setting for people and that you have to explain a lack of religion. It should be the opposite. People are not born religious, so I'm not going to define myself based on a deviation from the baseline, even if that is what the cool kids are doing.

[/rant]

Probably true, which is why I qualified the trigger.

Also, that was 'NOT all righties believe in God.'

The wife and I had some DAMN heated arguments over this very point, specifically that she wants to raise our (eventual) kids Jewish and I would rather raise our kids with a fundamental moral code divorced from religion.

Took awhile to get there, but I eventually arrived at the understanding that Judaism is as much a cultural pursuit (possibly even moreso) as it is a spiritual pursuit, and the former is of importance to the wife. I'm now cool with it, but I will very much take an active role regarding what my kids learn/are taught regarding spirituality.

So whats going to be the preview today?!

Dice currently - 174.32
Figures currently - 56.90

Hal is currently only at $4.40, which if he were to suddenly increase to $20, that would put the figures at $72.50, which considering I am giving away WL Sinestro, puts me much closer to BE point.

I don't say "leftist junk" to them if that's what you're thinking.

And I wasn't saying that all lefties are atheists.

These people are atheists and always trying to convert me or bring it up in some way.

They call themselves independent, but are really very left-leaning.

Oddly, they live in WAY more home than I would ever be comfortable with and make WAY more money than I'd ever know what to do with.

And they are very right-leaning when it comes to law enforcement, home safety, gentrification and that sort of thing, but always with a guilty apologistic PC bend.

I'm not saying there's a connection between any of these things.

My point was that I when they come at me with their agenda, I try to show the how I am not who they think I am and show them that there are subjects on which we share viewpoints. But that never seems to matter and they take the points where we share views and use it to come at me even harder.

It's like dealing with Rottweilers. You can't show any weakness or they go for the throat.

It's a type of person and a way of relating that I'm talking about. You find them in all political parties. I was just relating a personal story.

Or you feign weakness, then hit them with a baseball bat of truth when they lunge.

I've countered many an "If God is all powerful, can he create a stone too heavy for him to move?" argument in this fashion.

The answer is yes, BTW.

"If Jesus is so great, can he microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could never eat it?"

But yeah, dodging the question with violence is probably better than thinking about it.

The answer is yes? Show your work.

And so on.

And this is the point where I just walk away.

See?

It's people like Ignatz that you never hear from. And you should hear form him more. But just like he said about the "cool" faith people, it's the fact that you don't hear from him that makes him cool or it's the cool that makes him not make you hear him.

I believe in the separation of church and state. Many atheists take it WAY too far to the point of ELIMINATION of church in state.

The son of the people that I'm talking about have a son who joined Boy Scouts. The family is, understandably, taken aback by the Scout's concentration on religion: you cannot get your Eagle unless you have a defined religion.

Instead of saying "we should have done our homework better" they are planning on having the boy stay in Scouts and get his Eagle and using the Spaghetti Monster religion as his religion and suing the Scouts to allow it since it's a "recognized" religion.

Frankly, they're being dicks.

The Spaghetti Monster religion, in the first place, is childish. It's like walking into a church during services and taking a dump on the altar. The level of disrespect involved is mind-blowing to me. It's right up there with Darwin fish. Are you so insecure about your beliefs that you need to lash out people with different beliefs? Isn't that what many atheist are pissed off about in the first place?

The fish on the car is nearly as bad in the first place. (Apologies to those with fish on their car.) What does putting a fish on your car accomplish? Will people have a Jake Blues moment where they "see the light"? No. More than likely, you will do something stupid in traffic and they will associate people with fish on their cars with people who can't drive and that may make them put a Darwin fish on their car. Then they will do something stupid in traffic and someone else will put Calvin pissing on Darwin fish on their car, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.

I tryed to change the topic... So whats your guess for the preview today?

It shows people you are an avid fisherman and outdoorsman. Duh!

Red Hulk! He's a common!

Wasn't it something about a King? Hopefully Black Bolt. It would be cool if he had a sort of "concentrated nova blast." If the guy can level a city with a whisper, he deserves something cool.

CAVEAT: This is a discussion of the concept of God. I will neither confirm, deny, or engage in any conversation relating to the existence of said concept/character.

Going with the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, you've got a being that is all-powerful. He can do, create, be, and act any way he wants. There are, however, limits. Yes, limits to omnipotence.

Let's look at "Paradise Lost" (for the uninitiated, it is an epic dealing with the fall of Adam and Eve - basically Genesis expanded upon). In it, we see that God knows Satan will attempt to corrupt Adam and Eve and, worse, that he will succeed.

Now the obvious question is why God wouldn't simply neutralize the threat? The simple answer is that man must make the choice to stand or fall based on the free will with which they are endowed. God decreed that he made Adam and Eve free, and "free they must remain, until they enthrall themselves." To revoke that decree would be to invalidate free will. To invalidate free will would be to invalidate the entire point in creating humanity (per dogma), and would thereby invalidate God's entire, fundamental essence (you cannot be perfect and prone to mistakes - and, in the operative scenario, God is perfect and infallible). Invalidating his entire essence invalidates him as a creator, and thus invalidates his entire existence.

So, shortened, there are limits to God's power, specifically that if he sets a limit, he must abide by it. So, if for any reason he felt compelled to create an object that he couldn't move, he would have to abide by the rules of his creation in order to preserve the fundamental essence of who he is.

So, yeah. The answer is yes.