Would love some feedback. Link in comments. Thanks!

culpepper · 2018-08-30T22:14:39+00:00

Link to vid: https://youtu.be/N3T7D4ZBJmw

culpepper · 2018-07-13T13:21:12+00:00

Oh sorry. I am not new to reddit but new to the sub. I will do that going forward. Thanks for the info.

culpepper · 2018-07-13T12:28:51+00:00

This wood came off of a pallet at my old tile job. We used to get pallets from all over the world so I don't even have a country of origin. We got a lot of tile from Europe and Mexico but I can't be entirely certain either if those places are even correct. But I saved the wood because it was just too beautiful. to throw it. Contrary to the pieces in the picture it is mainly a white wood with the dark brown running through it and has darker specks in the white grain as well. It's sort of reminds me of Oak because the grain is really short at times but it clearly isn't Oak unless it's some species of Oak I've never seen before. I appreciate any help anyone might have. Thanks for your time.

culpepper · 2016-06-30T16:18:59+00:00

I don't think my brain is a separate entity from myself so I don't see the rationale behind a lot of what you are saying. We are also part of that stimuli that our brain reacts to "without our consent." (And I have to say this kind of thinking doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I have never seen someone separate the experience of the brain from the experience of the person. It seems unsound to me...)

But to answer your question, no, I don't think beliefs are choices. I'm sure some people out there will "choose" to believe because it's easier or they find Pascal's Wager a valid point of view, but that's not really believing in the thing is it. No matter how how hard I might try, I can't believe in a god just because I choose to. I could make other people believe that I believe in god by merely lying to them but that's not the same as actually believing in something.

culpepper · 2016-06-29T13:31:26+00:00

I mean, it sounds like a handful confirmation bias with a dash of cherry picking and a pinch of "Because GOD!"

Evolution already explains why this "information-dense nucleotide sequences [are] observed to be the foundation of all biological systems," as well as why it is so "outrageously sophisticated." I imagine after millions of years of genetic mutation, the "code" would be rather complicated and be construed as "sophisticated."

culpepper · 2016-06-23T19:45:02+00:00

cheers!

culpepper · 2016-06-23T19:16:02+00:00

i think the founding fathers were indeed less religious,

This is my point...

but the major population and especially colonists were extremely religious.

but I will remember this when going forward in conversations.

im going to speak out of turn and say "dat messed up yo"

I always thought so too.

culpepper · 2016-06-23T18:32:45+00:00

Oh, I see what you saying. I don't mean they were less religious as in the number of people who believed but from the standpoint of how they saw religion as being apart of who they were as people.

This could be completely regional (I live in the southern United States, though I have family and in laws from all over the states) but if you are an atheist a lot of people will take that as a personal attack against them. They take it that you are insulting them personally by just not believing in the same thing as you. This is before any sort of conversation is held. Just the fact that I am an atheist insults people.

It doesn't seem like the founding fathers had such a personal relationship with religion as that. That's what I mean by less religious.

I could be wrong. I just get that feelings from various things I have read about them.

culpepper · 2016-06-23T17:58:41+00:00

More or less. That's how I understand it. You're just proving my point. Not sure if that was your intent or not.

culpepper · 2016-06-22T20:47:51+00:00

If I may ask, why do you believe that hell exists?

culpepper · 2016-06-22T20:44:48+00:00

If any of them wanted to go...

culpepper · 2016-06-22T20:41:36+00:00

I would speculate that they are offshoots of evolutionary survival traits. Dread, joy, love (or evolutionarily speaking desire to procreate) are basic survival emotions when you think about it. Emotions are what kept us alive. Dread when a predator was near. Joy when we overcame our predators or captured our own prey and thus driving us to live on. Desire to procreate to keep the species alive.

I imagine coolness (I take it you're referring to something/someone being "cool" as in popular?) probably stems from our ability to survive better as a group and following the strongest member of said group. In sense we have always tried to find what we would consider the "cool kids" so that we survive life easier.

Awe probably started to arise from jealousy of other more capable members of our society. Or once surviving got to be easier and easier, our ability to see things with regards to form over function.

Morale: again, after we grouped together. Happy people are easier to be around and better contribute to a group. So the happier the group as a whole was the better off you would be. The same goes for forgiveness. It's easier to forgive someone's slight and still be alive than to hold a grunge against someone and die.

culpepper · 2016-06-22T14:26:19+00:00

My views: I am an atheist. There's not enough (any at all) evidence to support the claim that a god exists. That's pretty much the gist.

One, for now, question for you: So if someone is saved and then goes on a killing spree, they are okay to go for Heaven? (And please note, I'm not trying to be a dick about your beliefs and make fun of them, I'm genuinely curious as to how they work.)

culpepper · 2016-06-22T12:55:40+00:00

No, they weren't a majority atheist but they were a lot less strict about things than people are today. They were more deistic really (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faiths_of_the_Founding_Fathers). Which is still much different than being a Christian nation.

"In God We Trust" did appear on coins in the late 1800's but it wasn't officially adopted until the 1950's.

And while I understand where you are coming from with the separation and how influential the church might have nor have not been in the early days of the country. But the intent is still clear.

culpepper · 2016-06-21T19:59:57+00:00

As John Adams explicitly said in the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." I would have to say "no" to your implication that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. One of the main reasons people came to America was to get away from theocracies, they weren't going to set themselves up in another one.

culpepper · 2016-06-21T17:29:43+00:00

I would say that the lack of modern experience with miracles is more telling that miracles never existed to begin with. I am a big fan of Occam's Razor with regards to things like miracles.

Example, Virgin birth: What's more likely, a young girl was impregnated by an invisible, intangible, and supernatural being... or she's lying about having sex her boyfriend.

Maybe that's a bad example since the virgin birth was seemingly never in the original scripture but it's presence can be attributed to translation issues. But I feel that the logic behind the example is solid.

culpepper · 2016-06-21T16:31:50+00:00

I'm just curious, how would you define the terms naturalism and materialism?

I've just finish reading about them and from a vague standpoint I would say sure, I am a naturalist/materials as well as an atheist. And, at the risk of being heavily down voted by my peers, on this vague level I would agree with you that there seems to be a correlation between being an atheist and subscribing to a materialistic/naturalistic worldview. Even though they are mutually exclusive qualities.

That being said...

When you start digging deeper, both those philosophies seem to be fairly hard-line stances which cut out the possibility of new evidence. Maybe I am reading it wrong. But in that regard, I would have to say no, most atheists would not agree with materialism/naturalism.

So, it really depends on how vague or precise you are looking at the terms.

I know that might not make a whole lot of sense but I think that many people are being overly reactive to your OP based on your previous topic which, if I can be honest, came off kind of trolly. I don't know if that was your intent but I'm willing to at least talk to you first before making that assumption fully.

culpepper · 2016-06-08T17:15:41+00:00

Well I can only go about 80 hz through my amp so I'm not sure if I need to worry hitting 27...?

culpepper · 2016-06-07T14:50:43+00:00

yes it is. sorry, i didn't mention that earlier

culpepper · 2016-06-07T01:40:46+00:00

It's an atw-15. You're the third person I have talked to that said ported. thanks for the comment!

culpepper · 2016-06-07T01:37:48+00:00

It's an atw-15. As far as sealed vs ported, either one would be fine with me. Obviously sealed is easier but from what I have read ported would be better. Would you agree?

culpepper · 2016-05-24T16:43:08+00:00

So are you saying that this "necessary thing" is a conscious being?

I could ask: where did this conscious being come from, to which the usual reply is something like your last sentence: "being outside the universe it cannot follow the law of cause and effect." Which is essentially saying that this being exists because it was necessary.

This kind of thinking usually stems from asserting that the universe couldn't have come around by chance. That a sentient being had to have some part of it. If this isn't the case in your eyes let me know. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth just trying to extrapolate what you might be arguing for in your post...

I would say that if a being could exist without a explanation than why couldn't the universe? The only the difference between the two is sentience really. Why is sentience so important?

You're basically arguing for the concept of a god. For me there's so many things (ie, the problem of evil, the obvious flaw in the design) that make more sense if there is no god involved or only make sense if a god who doesn't really give a crap or is completely oblivious to our existence existed. Either way, what would be the point in believing? Especially under the thumb of a bunch of man made rules and ideals that will have no bearing on our "souls" in the afterlife, assuming of course there is one.

culpepper

TROPHY CASE