Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

These are not compelling arguments. They are really scare tactics: "you must have blind faith or you'll go to hell."

allingeneral wrote: Would you rather take the chance and believe with the possibility of being accepted into Heaven upon your death, or live a life not believing and risk certain damnation if you're wrong?

Yes, I would rather take a chance and live my life without being a believer.

Do you think that you have to believe to be a good person? So just because I didn't believe, but I lived my life with the same morals that a believer has, does that mean that I don't get into heaven? What kind of system is that?

allingeneral wrote: What if you're wrong?

I'd blame God for being so obtuse.



BTW, my comments are submitted respectively. I have a strong scientific background, which means that I want to see facts, and I try to exercise critical thinking and skepticism. That doesn't exclude religion, but religion has never meet these criteria for me. At the same time, I retain an open mind and respect all viewpoints. Believe it or not, I once had a friend who was a minister =:)

dorminWS wrote:
You go off half-cocked, much?

No, not much......but when the aforementioned phrase is typically proffered, it is usually in the vein which I descibed, and I responded as such.

If that's not how you meant it, I sincerily apologize. There's been so many tools on the internet, that I've admittedly become jaded and cynical.

So I probably shouldn't even ask where people stand on gay couples adopting children,then

dorminWS wrote:@mamabearCali:

Take my advice; accede to dontreadonme's superior expertise on this subject.

If you can't think of something intelligent thing to say, you sarcastically accuse someone of being arrogant?

Brilliant.

dontreadonme wrote:

dorminWS wrote:
You go off half-cocked, much?

No, not much......but when the aforementioned phrase is typically proffered, it is usually in the vein which I descibed, and I responded as such.

If that's not how you meant it, I sincerily apologize. There's been so many tools on the internet, that I'm admittedly become jaded and cynical.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Apology not necessary. Glad you are no longer offended. Communicating here via strictly the written word with an occasional cryptic emoticon and without benefit of facial expression, hand gestures and vocal inflection does make misunderstandings easy. But I am confused. What was the "aforementioned phrase" that gave offense?

trailrunner wrote:

dorminWS wrote:@mamabearCali:

Take my advice; accede to dontreadonme's superior expertise on this subject.

If you can't think of something intelligent thing to say, you sarcastically accuse someone of being arrogant?

Brilliant.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I must not be as brilliant as you, because I truly DO NOT understand what could possibly have been construed as either sarcastic or arrogant about that comment. Please explain it to me. I'm serious. I want to know how and why this offended anybody.

Kreutz wrote: No one has ever seen an atom(or a photon or an electron etc.); their existence is inferred.

Eh, sort of. If by seeing, you mean with our naked eyes, then you may be technically correct for two out of three of the items on your list*. However, these are concepts that have created a self-consistent system that is also consistent with observations -- both past and future observations, which is a key component of verification -- and that have been vetted with healthy doses of skepticism and critical thinking.

* Our eyes see photons.

dorminWS wrote:Apology not necessary.

Thank you.

Communicating here via strictly the written word with an occasional cryptic emoticon and without benefit of facial expression, hand gestures and vocal inflection does make misunderstandings easy. But I am confused. What was the "aforementioned phrase" that gave offense?

I wholeheartedly agree with that. The phrase in question was "accede to dontreadonme's superior expertise on this subject." When I've encountered this in the past, in disagreement with a point of view, it's been employed as a personal attack in lieu of civil discourse. Sort of a "oh, so you think you're so damn smart don't you" type of response.

Again...I've got to continually check myself against immediately jumping to the negative perception. It's not intentional, but can certainly start to get reflexive.

dorminWS wrote:

trailrunner wrote:

dorminWS wrote:@mamabearCali:

Take my advice; accede to dontreadonme's superior expertise on this subject.

If you can't think of something intelligent thing to say, you sarcastically accuse someone of being arrogant?

Brilliant.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I must not be as brilliant as you, because I truly DO NOT understand what could possibly have been construed as either sarcastic or arrogant about that comment. Please explain it to me. I'm serious. I want to know how and why this offended anybody.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments, but that makes two of us now.

It's rare that a third party (you) would tell someone else (mamabear) to concede to someone else (donttreadonme) because they (donttreadonme) "have superior expertise." That makes it sounds like mamabear should just give up the fight because donttreadonme has already won. Since that's so odd, I figured you were being sarcastic.

dontreadonme wrote:

dorminWS wrote:Apology not necessary.

Thank you.

Communicating here via strictly the written word with an occasional cryptic emoticon and without benefit of facial expression, hand gestures and vocal inflection does make misunderstandings easy. But I am confused. What was the "aforementioned phrase" that gave offense?

I wholeheartedly agree with that. The phrase in question was "accede to dontreadonme's superior expertise on this subject." When I've encountered this in the past, in disagreement with a point of view, it's been employed as a personal attack in lieu of civil discourse. Sort of a "oh, so you think you're so damn smart don't you" type of response.

Again...I've got to continually check myself against immediately jumping to the negative perception. It's not intentional, but can certainly start to get reflexive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You're new on this forum, I think. I reckon it would be a true statement that we very seldom get seriously adverse with one another here. Just a little of the kind of mild smartassedness and tomfoolery that friends deal out amongst each other in the normal course; usually all in good fun. Welcome to the forum. You can let your guard down and relax here.

trailrunner wrote: Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments, but that makes two of us now.

It's rare that a third party (you) would tell someone else (mamabear) to concede to someone else (donttreadonme) because they (donttreadonme) "have superior expertise." That makes it sounds like mamabear should just give up the fight because donttreadonme has already won. Since that's so odd, I figured you were being sarcastic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Interesting. The message was "mammabearCali, you're wrong and he's right". I said it because I didn't think mammabearCali would want to keep beating that horse if she realized it was dead. And I expressed it the way I did so as to spare mammabearCali's feelings. The "superior expertise" was directed (obliquely, I thought) at the fact that mammabearCali, being so obviously an upright and godly woman, was indeed naïve about the subject (and I'd bet she's proud to be). Never dreamed anyone else would take offense.

Then again, maybe I'm odd............or at least a little peculiar.

I am naive and unsurprised that I am especially on such a graphic topic. I simply don't think about those things. I have never had the occasion to look up the definition of sodomy before. So I went with the common definition I had. Oh well, I can be wrong.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

mamabearCali wrote:I am naive and unsurprised that I am especially on such a graphic topic. I simply don't think about those things. I have never had the occasion to look up the definition of sodomy before. So I went with the common definition I had. Oh well, I can be wrong.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Y'see there, fellers? A southern gentleman is obligated to rescue damsels, and help them out of awkward situations when they don't need a full rescue. That really is all I was doing.

I appreciate it DormisWS!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

dorminWS wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

No one has ever seen an atom(or a photon or an electron etc.); their existence is inferred.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I pretend to absolutely no knowledge of this, but I thought I'd read somewhere that atoms have been imaged using electron scanning microscopes. In fact, didn't IBM write "IBM" in atoms quite a while ago?

It's a bit of a trick:

http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.com/201 ... -atom.html

A scanning tunneling microscope does not have an eyepiece lens like typical light microscopes do. Each frame in the film is a computer-synthesized image that measures where the needle feels a “bump” of carbon monoxide on top of the tightly honeycombed copper surface – magnified about 100 million times.

It's roughly analogous to a needle reading a phonograph connected to a computer making an image based on what it thinks the sound "looks" like.

I'm not crapping on this, but technically no one has truly seen an atom with their own eye; only via experiments with scanning tunneling microscopes and supercolliders.

Not an actual photograph; just an inference from the location of the atoms.

trailrunner wrote:* Our eyes see photons.

Stop being simplistic.

Tell me then; do they behave like particles or waves? Let's stare at the sun together for awhile and compare findings.

Edit:

Disclaimer: I haven't really sat down with a pure physics book in over 10 years so much of my info is outdated despite my efforts to stay current via articles read over a bowl of cereal.

dorminWS wrote:Just a little of the kind of mild smartassedness and tomfoolery that friends deal out amongst each other in the normal course; usually all in good fun. Welcome to the forum. You can let your guard down and relax here.

Thank you, truly. I've been in sore need of a place where I can relax, and being generally a mild smartass, I'll hopefully fit right in!

I support Phil

Michelle Malkin nailed it in one of her columns........

"The A&E network (Atheists & Elitists)"

Wish I'da thunk of that.

Why is it that religious threads so reliably bring out the azzholes in our nature? Why do these threads always end up in a state of rhetorical sodomy?

To anyone who has read more than one of these threads, it is no wonder that the worst human carnage throughout history has been caused either by wars of religion or wars against religion (the latter for those who refuse to accept that militant atheism is a religion).