My experience in fundogelicalism was that I was taught two contradictory things:

1. God rewards the good and punishes the bad, and
2. God allows shit to happen to the good and bad alike.

These were reconciled with the idea that the "rewards" might be delivered in the afterlife rather than the temporal one.
My recent post Religious Attitudes Poll

I agree. No one should get a free pass. I can support atheist activism without approving of all of its expressions.
My recent post Religious Attitudes Poll

I wish I could say "un-fucking-believable," but I can't. It's all too believable.
My recent post Un-Newsworthy News

This year's Republican candidates have been either crackpots or manipulators. The voters who have to narrow down this field to one nominee that is "electable" don't have an easy task. Not that I feel the least bit sorry for them. The Republicans are reaping what they've sown.
My recent post Un-Newsworthy News

According to One News Now :

The Evangelical community still holds a divergent opinion on who the nominee should be,” Rick Tyler, senior advisor to Winning Our Future PAC, a pro-Gingrich group, told OneNewsNow.com. “Rick Santorum won a straw poll that had a questionable methodology.”

Of the 150 registered attendees, only 114 voted in the final paper ballot - Santorum received 85 of those votes...

As I see it, the evangelicals are still pretty badly divided. For whatever that's worth.
My recent post McCain Endorses Romney…

Poor John Elway. It must kill him to watch Tebow make such a hash of the position he once held.

I love the Steve Young clip. Young - with his lengthy list of NFL accomplishments - is a guy whose opinion has to be taken seriously. And that clip of Tebow's passing motion is priceless.

Maybe his god doesn't care for a sweet, tomato-based KC sauce.

Maybe his taste runs more toward Carolina-style BBQ.

The Christian is seemingly incapable of realizing his comments are offensive...

That may be true in some, maybe even most, cases. But I know that at least some fervent evangelicals intentionally set out to offend those who disagree with them. These zealots - Major Army Barmy is one example - don't mind offending people if such offense will prompt them to accept Jesus as their savior. In fact, they take pride in being offensive if it yields another saved soul.

...the objection is really only an objection due to a belief in a supreme god.... the objection to humans as supreme beings is because it's blasphemous to a believer, a direct challenge to their god's supremacy

Right - the "challenge" only exists in believers' minds. Atheists don't waste time and energy "challenging" imaginary beings. The "challenge" notion is a theistic attempt to fit atheism into the pigeonhole of their worldview, which only allows for two possibilities - either acceptance of their deities (and acceptance of their claims about said deities) or rebellion against those beings (and believers' claims about them). Their worldview doesn't have room for the actual atheist position, which is simply rejection of believers' claims re: the existence of deities and their knowledge of deities' natures and desires. We're not challenging anyone for supremacy. What we're doing is refusing to accept unwarranted claims, period. Yes, humankind dominates the planet at the moment. Dinosaurs had their moment too.