The way to simplify the immigration process, other than background checks, is to have incoming signs at border posts that relay that no entitlement services will be available upon entrance and then only the productive will be on the procession rolls.

That's a nice one. Can america and NATO just destroy ISIS? Coz ISIS is an obvious evil. Same way they destroyed Saddam's regime and Gaddafi's regime? Or they just don't want to?

Autonomous vehicles are going to lay waste to employment of drivers very soon. As more and more jobs are eliminated by automation we are left with higher unemployment. If humanity doesn't evolve to the point where jobs are no longer a necessity for survival, we will soon find ourselves with a largely underemployed population with no means to support itself and no alternative plan to address this trend.

He is the only cartoonist to survive the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It might be very difficult for him to continue with Charlie Hebdo. I think he want to put everything behind him and move on with something else. We should respect and support his decision. Anyway... I just hope that the Islamic State will leave him alone.

Are you calling the activists who claim they are atheists trolls?

Somebody who knows about Islam or Christianity, and from these believes that God exists, but doesn't follow any of the formal religions devotedly, but rather, simply says that he believes in God, and then goes on with his daily life without considering the finer aspects of either religion, he probably is not a religious person regarding these religions.

It has to do with the extent or devotion.

Some folks in this forum adamantly proclaim that they are atheists and that Christians or Muslims are nut jobs. These people seem pretty devoted to atheism. Perhaps it is a religion for them while not for others.

Wrong. They are not religion when they don't fit the dictionary definitions of the word "religion." When they do, they are.

If God stops the U.N., He will do it in righteousness. Chances are that the divil will stop the U.N. if people don't do it first.

Again, God only does righteousness. If there is fault in Jesus taking his time, then the fault is ours, not His.

If a person had never heard of trigonometry, then picked up a book that briefly talked about trig, he might be a believer in a religious sense, because he saw how trig could exist, yet had very little personal experience with it After the person learned trig and used it, he wouldn't have to be a believer, because then he knew about trig.

Any strong atheist who is a believer without knowing that atheism is full of holes regarding its truth, is really religious in his belief. If he knew about the holes, he might come away from strong belief in atheism, and atheism might become a philosophy to him.

Incorrect, it would still be omnipotent.  You're making an incredibly common (holy shit is it common) but incredibly subtle (holy shit is it subtle) mistake.  The resolution comes from an understanding of logical structure.

Logic is self-referential.  Logic says, "sound logic is sound because sound logic says so."

Let's look at that self-relational statement and break it down:

"Sound logic (subject) is sound (object) because [the subject] says so."

What we have here is a relational statement whereby the subject has the capacity to objectify something else.  This means that logic operates at two levels, and this interplay is present at all times in every rational statement that can possibly be made.

First, we have the 'syntax' level of the subject, and the 'object' level of the object.  The syntax level is objective and absolute relative to the object-level, but the object level is only relative to the syntax level.

I'll try to model this with an example:
-  First. imagine that you have a thought.  This thought is merely a mental object.
-  Second, you have a thought about that thought, "I had a thought about an apple."  Here, you are using logical syntax to describe a logical object.
-  Third, you have another thought about the thought you just had, "I was thinking about a thought about an apple."  Note what happens here -- the thought of the apple, which was originally at the syntax or descriptive level, was just thrust down into the object level, and now it, too, is being objectified and described by another syntax-level thought.

This is why remaining logically consistent with paradoxes is so hard.  You need to be very careful about the way that the things you attempt to describe shift between these levels as you describe them.  

The point of this is that every time you find an apparently irreconcilable contradiction with the idea of omnipotence, you can always reintroduce omnipotence at the syntax level as an objective descriptor.  

More generally, the point of this is to highlight that "absolute" and "omnipotent" are still inherently relational to something else, and could be isomorphically limited by higher levels of syntax such that they are both absolute and relative, omnipotent and constrained, etc. at the same time.

That's precisely why atheism is a religion. There is no proof that God does not exist. There is ample evidence that could be attributed to the existence of God. Atheism as a belief is just that, a belief. It is not fact. And it is not very close to fact. Yet there are many people who hold to their belief in atheism very strongly. It is a bare-bones religion

At best, atheism is a philosophy.

Yes. It is time to stop such. But how? Whoever has the strength to stop the U.N. from doing its evil, is simply someone who will do greater evil sometime, right?

We look for the return of Jesus. Then the evil will be stopped by One Who is righteous, and Who has the power to control everything.

No, omnipotence precludes this invalidation precisely because enabling contradictions or paradoxes to exist would necessarily be within the abilities of an omnipotent entity.  There is no reason why an omnipotent entity can't also be constrained; the constraints are topological and they could be removed.

I would agree that ambiguous definitions are not the best. But that is what we have. If one doesn't like the definitions of his particular religion, perhaps he should change the name of it to something that is less ambiguous. For example. Tis not "atheism," but rather tis "atheism - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." However, rather a long "word," right?

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon itself such that it is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.  If omnipotence is the defining characteristic, then adding constraints via that omnipotence in no way changes its identity.

Omnipotence paradoxes are necessarily self-resolving.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

It is not the illegality, but the level of enforcement of those laws which creates high prices.

For example I once say a whole row of tables - maybe 25 - right across the street from the courthouse in Capestown, S Africa.  I asked one of the guys selling weed - "Dakka" was it legal.  He laughed and said "Oh, no, man.  But the police are busy with important things like murder and rape.  They don't care."

This would not have been a case where the "fact of illegality" affected price.  Or maybe just to the degree that some payoffs were involved.

Apparently not. It's Poland's 4th biggest city, it doesn't have a significant German minority and people living there have no interest in becoming a part of Germany.

If we discuss moving the borders and giving everyone back what was taken we'll face a big problem: the restoration point (date).
Your example - Poland fits here perfectly because in 1939 a large part of today's Ukraine and Belarus belonged to them, so you'd have to give back to the Germans but take from someone else.