Disqus - Latest Comments for nathan

Re: http://linuxtree.blogspot.com/2009/09/5-exciting-2d-graphics-design-tools-for.html

nathan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:06:15 -0000

Wow these look brilliant! Esp. the cartoony one!

Re: http://www.baphomet2013blog.info/2009/06/its-time-to-come-clean.html

nathan — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:52:16 -0000

thank you for helping i feel much clearer.. this seems to work for me.

How to ground yourself

Imagine a cord going from your tailbone to the center of the Earth. Send all energy that doesn't belong to you down the cord and into the Earth. Then, imagine a small sun above your head pouring golden energy into your body as if you are a glass, filling you up from your feet to the top of your head.

To clear even more of your space, imagine there is a sphere around your body, big enough to accommodate your arms stretched out from your body at shoulder height. Imagine there is a drain plug at the bottom of the sphere. Pull the plug and let all energy that is not yours drain out of the sphere, go down your grounding cord and into the Earth. Put the plug back in, then let that golden sun energy spill out the top of your head and run down the outside of your body to pool at your feet.

Keep filling your body with the golden energy, and as it keeps spilling out of your head and running down to your feet, it slowly fills the sphere. Keep doing this until the sphere is completely filled. Do not remove energy from your space without replacing it with your own energy. If you don't fill your space with your own energy, someone else will fill it with theirs.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2007/08/mystery-quote.html

nathan — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:11:00 -0000

I don't know but ive heard it before. Ok so this sounds pretty silly the more I think of it but for some reason it reminds me of the teacher off Willy Wonka and the Chocalate Factory. Well okay, that defitenly wasnt it now i think of it but oh well.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/02/focus-on-election.html

nathan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:04:00 -0000

After reading his comments here is what I said elsewhere on my blog...

The important national matters in your political worldview are:
- Not cursing
- Eliminating powers of the Senate that our Founders gave them
- Amendment to “protect” marriage
- Cutting taxes
- Embryonic stem cell research

Some of these may be important...but some on.

Cheers.

PS Rock Chalk Jawhawk
What part of Kansas you in?

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/02/is-this-you.html

nathan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:02:00 -0000

Hilarious!

Are you in KC? We live up in St. Joe. I grew up here...then went to KU and out to LA for grad school...and I'm back here. Ha!

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/02/is-this-you.html

nathan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:46:00 -0000

Very cool...Leawood.

Yep lots of snow...but it's more like I remember winters around here as a kid. And my parents say this is what it used to be all the time.

I've got both your blogs on my reader now...make it complicated!

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/02/are-women-human.html

nathan — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:40:00 -0000

I voted for pygmy. I was surprised who was leading. I can only guess that author must be getting people to vote for it...lol.

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/03/best-of-idol-1.html

nathan — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:59:00 -0000

I'm rooting for Jason Castro and Brooke. They are not the favorites at this point (David and Carly), but that's who I'm going for. And of course Jason has dreads...and I do! Ha!

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/03/inspirational-porter-ellett.html

nathan — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:47:00 -0000

How cool is that?!

Reminds of that high school kid hitting all those 3's and I think he is autistic.

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/03/barely-yankee.html

nathan — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:48:00 -0000

I'm 58% Dixie, barely in the Dixie category.

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/03/best-of-idol-take-2.html

nathan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:14:00 -0000

My guy Jason is in trouble.

BTW, I like David, and he did good this week, but that version of Billie Jean was already covered by Chris Cornell. look for the youtube, it's a ripoff from Chris. I had no idea until today.

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/04/sad-movies.html

nathan — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:15:00 -0000

The Notebook.

If that one doesn't bring a tear to the corner of your eye, then you're not human!

Cheers.

Re: http://www.kansasbob.com/2008/05/blue-jean-blog.html

nathan — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:44:00 -0000

I think it looks good. Strong but not distracting. Very good decision!

Cheers.

Re: http://oheliza.blogspot.com/2009/03/love-ya.html

nathan — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:56:00 -0000

thank you, I am honored!

Re: http://oheliza.blogspot.com/2009/03/movies-in-2009-twilight.html

nathan — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:05:00 -0000

I thought the movie was HILARIOUS. I would watch it again.

Re: http://oheliza.blogspot.com/2009/05/movies-in-2009-17-again.html

nathan — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:33:00 -0000

I love movies like this

Re: Dangit

nathan — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:51:00 -0000

dude, that sucks.

Re: Senior Essay

nathan — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:24:00 -0000

Guess for me the question is, "Does God always get what He wants?"

Re: Comments

nathan — Sun, 25 Jul 2004 03:58:00 -0000

This post has been removed by the author.

Re: The Power of One

nathan — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 -0000

Great post. Humorous to me personally as just a few days ago I posted about the power of one person and how it shouldn't be overlooked.

Cheers :)

Re: How Much Premier League Clubs Earn from Sponsorship Deals

nathan — Tue, 22 May 2007 12:38:00 -0000

does anyone know how these figures compare with other leagues....How much does Barcelona, Real Madrid, or AC Milan get for their deals. I would assume not as high as English teams consider the television rights.

Re: New 08/09 Blackburn Rovers Home Shirt Revealed | EPL Talk

nathan — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:59:09 -0000

I hope dave is right and this is just a quick mock up. although if they were gonna do that they could have used an 07 shirt... yet again im sure the new sponsors wouldn't be happy with the old sponsor being shown held up by the new manager. yeah the more i think about it the more i think it is actually a mock up. if they had the new shirts out, the club would be the first to announce it. I've got a feeling that they haven't said anything about the ince shirt being the new kit because they know its ugly and perhaps want to see the fans reactions to it before it goes into full production. My suggestion: stick with the red trim and letters. It pulls everything together and really finishes off the shirt nicely.

Re: New 08/09 Blackburn Rovers Away Shirt Revealed

nathan — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:57:54 -0000

Pretty nice looking. I definately prefer last seasons red and black over it. Actually i think last years kit was a huge success and they are not building on it, especially with the home shirt. It was really slick last year and from what we've seen so far of the new home shirt, it just went back to being dull and lacking that extra something. Although you could give me a blue and white halved too-too and i would gladly wear that over any other PL kit.

Re: The Return Of Joey Barton: One Touch And 3 Minutes Of Controversy | EPL Talk

nathan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:01:33 -0000

For god's sake give the lad a break

Re: Strict Types, good thing

nathan — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 01:16:12 -0000

http://www.nathanbedford.com/blog is waiting for your golden comments ;-) . You were the first person I listed on my blogroll...I think that kinda makes you my patron saint or something

Re: HELLoween: Pinhead vs Michael Myers

nathan — Sat, 06 Mar 2004 08:33:57 -0000

i think that michael vs. pinhead would suck very bad.suck suck suck

Re: OhGizmo! » Archive » Smeg High Tech Home Garden

nathan — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:49:28 -0000

Lettuce grown in the garden would therefore be a Smeghead?

Re: Grand Central Invitations Available | Creeva's World 2.0

nathan — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:13:00 -0000

http://experiencetheweb.info

nathan...>

Re: There’s something wrong with this picture

nathan — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:48:00 -0000

Interesting post. Something I have noticed especially in Stuff, there seems to be an large number of spelling misstales and typos. I generally expect better from professionals.

Re: Ames Straw Poll May See More Losers Than Winners

nathan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:27:03 -0000

Candidate Ron Paul's Growing Grassroots Popularity To whom it may concern,

I'm just wondering if you would be interested in doing a piece on Ron Paul the Republican Candidate for President.

I read an article from ABC news just after the debate there in Iowa about how Iowans are dissatisfied with their choices.

My question is, have they even heard of Ron Paul?

On the ABC news website Romney is the professed leader of the debate. With scarcely a mention of Paul. Yet if you do a bit of research (go to http://abcnews.go.co... and click on "this week debate") you will find that on their own poll Ron Paul has a staggering 42,200 votes to Romney sparce 4,600.

This following link has a collage of his remarks at the debate. Sounds like he got alot of support from the audience to me. ( http://www.youtube.c... = ) If you look at the ABC website there is hardly any coverage of Ron Paul's remarks. Here is a little better coverage of Paul's soaring online support: http://www.youtube.c...

Why the media blackout? Why so little coverage of Ron Paul? If nothing else this subject alone is newsworthy in my opinion. Especially in light of his soaring internet popularity. He is truly the ONLY grassroots TRUE ALTERNATIVE candidate in the running.

We cannot have a free and functioning Democracy if we do not have a functioning free press (see Thomas Jefferson)

Please let this Pro-Peace, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Liberty of and for We the People candidate be heard in your home town. It seems to me that Ron Paul perfectly embodies the sort of integrity and principled character that would fall on eager ears in your area.

Thank you for your time, and please let me know if come up with something!

From a very Concerned Citizen of this Great Nation,

-Nathan

PS. I am sending this email out entirely for my own reasons, and I am not directly affiliated with Ron Paul's campaign.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S . treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Taken from the following link:

www.RonPaul2008.com

Re: Live From the Iowa State Fair: Divided We Fail Republican Forum Liveblog

nathan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:40:11 -0000

Calling all Iowans!!! We need a few good countrymen to vote at the Ames Straw Poll for Our Candidate Ron Paul!

This is a plea to anyone in Iowa who may read this post:

We need you to stand up for what is right for all of your fellow countrymen in this great nation of the United States.

I firmly believe that Ron Paul is Our Last Hope to get this country back on the right track before this ship is sunk! And the fading beacon of liberty is forever snuffed out by the darkness in this world.

Freedom isn't free, it requires action!

Remember...

"All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Sincerely Hopeful,

-Nathan

Re: This Ron Paul Revolution Will Be Live-Blogged!!!

nathan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:41:50 -0000

Calling all Iowans!!! Freedom Demands Action! We need a few good countrymen to vote at the Ames Straw Poll for Our Candidate Ron Paul!

This is a plea to anyone in Iowa who may read this post:

We need you to stand up for what is right for all of your fellow countrymen in this great nation of the United States.

Freedom isn't free, it requires action!

Remember...

"All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Sincerely Hopeful,

-Nathan

Re: Rathje Tops Week’s Candidate Filing

nathan — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:49:38 -0000

Southern Iowa Repubs Retiring Republican Jeff Angelo represents District 48 and Democrat Ruth Smith of Lamoni is the only candidate who has filed papers to replace him.

Republican Cecil Dolecheck of Mt. Ayr represents District 96 and is, until further notice, running for re-election. No candidate, Dolecheck or any other Republican or Democrat, has filed yet to run in that district.

Re: Rathje Tops Week’s Candidate Filing

nathan — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:10:25 -0000

Well okay, "only" might have been too strong a word... Make that, of course, Ruth Smith is the only Democrat to file to replace him. Kim Reynolds of Osceola filed to run for the Republican nod one day before Smith filed for the Democrats.

Re: Thrown Out of the Closet

nathan — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:46:02 -0000

Unconditional Love Josh, my name is Nathan. The post you replied to was a brief conversation I had with the writer.

I'm glad you took the time to write about your experience as painful as it still may be. During most my teenage years I was nearly identical to you... crying in my room after school everyday. Mother very concerned about my depression. Suicidal thoughts and EXTREME GUILT... guilt that stressed me to the point of bleeding ulcers!

So now, I'm curious to how your mother treats/views you today, and I wish to know how well you are doing.

Your story is very moving, quite a painful experience I'm sure... but what has been the outcome? You don't speak much of where you are today. I know you're healing - but how? What of the support you have now?

As for an ending (or rather the "beginning") to my story... I'm the happiest and healthiest I've been in my entire life. The healing took many years for me, but I don't regret what I had to go through as it's created an appreciation for life, and more importantly an appreciation of myself. I LOVE who I am, and how confident, passionate, ambitious, strong and unwaivering in my own beliefs I am today. I'm also very successful in my life now and surrounded by amazing friends I'll have for life.

I've had many random glimpses back at the lives of those who are still JW's, because my mother is still one of them. Occasionally I'll run into some of them. I remember at first it used to put me at odds. I felt uncomfortable. But that was many years ago. Now it's funny to watch how they squirm and become anxious around me.

They are very stagnant and unhappy people. OHHHH THEY TRY TO PUT UP A GOOD FRONT... they want you to think they are happy. But you can see through their arrogance (and how superior they make to believe they are) how truly insecure and weak they have become. They've sold their soul. Not to a god or devil, but they've sold their soul into the control of humans. Men, who in the height of arrogance, claim to have divine insight and leadership but only wish to control them. They've become puppets to just another religion that controls it's followers with guilt and fear. And in that sense, I feel terribly sorry (with a hinge of apathy) for them.

And if you and I the only posts to this site/story on coming out day... hopefully it's enough to show any reader that no person or religion, president or politician...

NO ONE can affect your health and happiness but YOU. Unconditional love should come from us to ourselves. Don't expect it from anyone else.

Our life is ours, we chose to come into this physical experience and I believe we should make it the best one possible. That's the point in life.

JOY

- Nathan

Please feel free to contact me from my personal blog:

http://www.nathanhil...

Also, a quick link to the most beneficial teachers... who taught me everything I already knew inside. They guided me to a clear connection with my Inner Being - they guide us to self-upliftment from our total self.

http://www.abraham-h...

Re: Grand Central Invitations Available

nathan — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:13:00 -0000

http://experiencetheweb.info

nathan...>

Re: Strict Types, good thing

nathan — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 01:16:12 -0000

http://www.nathanbedford.com/blog is waiting for your golden comments ;-) . You were the first person I listed on my blogroll...I think that kinda makes you my patron saint or something

Re: A Christian Democrat?

nathan — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:47:00 -0000

I believe that until the late 1960's most "Christians" would have claimed the Democratic party.

I think Jesus would say, "vote your heart and follow me, after all it is my father who places people in authority."

I still am not sure who I would vote for. In 1992 I voted for Clinton and again in 1996. In 2000 for Bush and again in 2008.

I liked Obamma before he became a presidential canidate. He used to take stands on issues. Now, he says, "that is an issue we should discuss and allow debate." To me that is general vagueness that can possibly get him elected.

Hilary is too strong for me, At times too forceful but at least you know where she stands. Probably not vague enough to win.

McCain - Not sure how to describe him but if he puts Condelisa Rice on his ticket he may win.

So Registered Republican voted 2 Dem and 2 Rep. I guess 2008 will break the tie, for now.

So my answer, vote for who is best, with the chooses you are given. Ah ha, vague enough to get elected.

Nathan

Re: A Christian Democrat?

nathan — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:50:00 -0000

ah please forgive the 2008, should have been 2004 and chooses should have been choices.

I vote for editors!!!!!

Re: SURF THE EPIC WAVE — MIKE PARSONS - LAIRD HAMILTON

nathan — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:33:00 -0000

Hey Tony, Mike Parson's father was my Physics teacher when I was attending Saddleback College. He was one of the greatest teachers I have ever had. At least once a week we would watch a video of his son and he would talk about how he's won all kinds of medals and stuff. It was pretty cool.

Re: There’s something wrong with this picture

nathan — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:48:00 -0000

Interesting post. Something I have noticed especially in Stuff, there seems to be an large number of spelling misstales and typos. I generally expect better from professionals.

Re: NBA Live 09 soundtrack includes Public Enemy, Busta Rhymes, N.E.R.D.

nathan — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:52:50 -0000

where can i get the music?

Re: 2007 Major League Baseball Opening Day Promotions

nathan — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:42:00 -0000

You left off the Cardinals, they only won the World Series.

Re: Pictures of the girls in the Monster Limo

nathan — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:34:47 -0000

I am missing my good time. My friends are in other country. We use to have same kind of parties and stuff.

Re: Florida Frost Pictures

nathan — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:45:37 -0000

It must be really cold out there.

Re: The Shannon Twins in the Pink H2

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:49:57 -0000

I have chance to go there in November.

Re: Fan Mail: Im dumb… Really really dumb..

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:26:53 -0000

Its really hard for some folks to loose.

Re: Breckenridge Colorado Pictures

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:18:28 -0000

8)the places. It is plan incredible.

Re: Funny Picture Sunday Encore

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:40:09 -0000

The place looks so fun and entertaining.

Re: Throwback: Hot Pictures from 2008 Part II

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:59:18 -0000

Man you got everything in life.

Re: WEC, Florida Honnies, Blacc Wolf Pictures

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:19:09 -0000

I have attended this event and it was so fun.

Re: WEC Event pictures Seminole Hard Rock

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:54:01 -0000

I love this place.

Re: Pathetic Asshole

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:16:27 -0000

The new design is awesome.

Re: Michael Phelps Bong Picture Exposed

nathan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:40:04 -0000

Ashton kutcher did a right thing.

Re: Britney Spears Concert Pictures

nathan — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:15:00 -0000

LUCKY!!!!!!! i wanted to go to that concert so badly!!!!! lol
~Nathan~ from clearwater North

Re: Britney Spears Concert Pictures and Review

nathan — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:04:13 -0000

JOOHHHNNN This was like the concert that i wanted to go to!!!!! where was i when you got these tickets!!!!

Re: Kneeling to the mullahs

nathan — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:15:28 -0000

It is grotesquely unfair that the U.S. should allow Israel to have nuclear weaponry when they condemn Iran for attempting to get a nuclear bomb.
And besides Iran only wants the bomb for peaceful purposes contrary to the Israeli way of thinking.

Re: In debt? Decapitate your wife

nathan — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:52:04 -0000

You can find crime all over the world; you make it seem as though only Muslims commit crimes.

Re: Fabrizio Cacciamali

nathan — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:07:21 -0000

a stunning debut!

Re: Jake won’t go

nathan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:44:53 -0000

I liked Jake and I think it was stupid that the broncos changed QBs, for examples jake had all of the hard teams and he lost to Jay did not he had niners and cards and he still lost the game against the niners with a 16 point lead but no he does stupid palys by not taking sack and throwing it up and it gets pick off. Plus in the last game of the season the broncos had the lead when plummer was in the game and they put Jay back in and he lost the lead and blow the broncos playoff run. Cutler won't do good and the broncos made a big mistake. Manning took forever to get past the Patriots but he did it and I think Jake could have done it to if he had a few more years. But i also think that Cutler missed him up this season and I only like the broncos because of Jake and now I hate the broncose and I also hope Jay does bad and he never get to the playoffs. Good luck Jake I hope you go to the cards and retire or at least the texans to take david job.

Re: Pretty Much Amazing’s Best Albums of 2008

nathan — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:16:13 -0000

Fucking awesome list!

Thank you for not including super overrated albums like Deerhunter's and White Denim. lol

Happy 2009!

Re: No Preface Here, Just Justice and Their Remixes

nathan — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:58:28 -0000

um, D.A.N.C.E isn't a Justice remix - it's one of their own songs

Re: Weezy and, oh yeah, Yeezy: GQ’s Men of the Year.

nathan — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:54:35 -0000

I've been saying this shit a lot recently: weezy has never been, is not, nor will he ever be the greatest rapper alive. He's currently the hottest in the mainstream, because the dude drops a new song every 3 minutes. And for everyone talking about his lyrics being the best ever, I've got a suggestion: LOOK EM UP. Listening to a weezy song, you hear a line thats some clever little simile or something, and its like "damn that dude is smart". Look that shit up, though, and it doesn't fucking make any sense. Just listen to a milli and it becomes clear. As to who the best rapper alive may be, you can't make that assertion. It could be any number of people, including lupe, mos, talib, dre... i mean the shit goes on forever. So stop bickering. Weezy doesn't suck, he's a good performer. He is not, however, the greatest rapper alive.

Re: British Journalists Take On Skeptics, Liars and Incandescent Bulbs

nathan — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0000

Yeah, I know who people who rail on fluorescent bulbs but have no problem eating canned tuna, evel yellowfin.

A question, a relative of mine says that the U.S. government is phasing out incandescent bulbs and for that reason, she and her friend are hoarding them. Is this true? I´m all for the fl. bulbs, but our country is too keen on the idea that economic choice equals freedom. Not that phasing out incandescent bulbs is a great idea, but, I especially don´t see it being accepted in a country where fule economy has been stagnant for 25 years because of a distaste for regulation.

Re: Quote of the Day: Republican House Leader on Bikes and Beautification

nathan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:15:51 -0000

I think this shows the Republican party ideology pretty well. Forget if some given idea is a great one and would really help the country, if the "people" (read: people with money) don´t realize it or don´t want to see it implemented, it´s a good idea.

However, I do feel that he is telling the truth. I get the feeling that a lot of the posters here are from the West Coast and New England. Well, let me tell you something about bike riding in the midwest-- cities such as Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Dallas, even college towns in Oklahoma. In capital cities, you are going to get screamed at, passed within three fee, have beer cans thrown at you, all the while you are passing cars at the intersections and generally keeping up with the flow of traffic-- even if the speed limit is 35 or 40. I think the worst thing about Boehner´s comments is that they are mostly true. People hate bikes and what they symbolize in a large swath of the country.

I realize I´m generalizing, but I have ridden roughly ten thousand miles in the Midwest, and have had nothing but negative experiences. Dept. of Tranpo stats indicate that 48% of trips in the U.S.A. are less than 3 miles-- an easily biked distance, except for the amount of huge vehicles on the road making it dangerous, keeping in mind of course that the average vehicle weight has gone up by about 50% since 1984 (read Big Box Swindle for great stats).

Basically, a car dominated transportation system (keep in mind according to 2005-2007 u.s. census, less than 10% of people do not drive a car to work) is exactly what our government was supposed to protect against: tyranny of the majority. Because the majority chooses to transport themselves in a dangerous and inefficient way, people are not safe to transport themselves in other ways, such as cycling, biking or public transport. Come to the midwest, and I´ll show you modern cities without sidewalks, public transportation, or respect for people who refuse to drive places. I wouldn´t be surprised if Oklahoma had to reach 60% obesity before it starts realizing how stupid its way of life is.

That´s my rant agianst the most conservative state in the nation (McCain got 66%!) and my plcae of birth!

Re: Half of Americans Already Making Energy Efficiency Improvements, Few Get Out of Their Cars: New Survey Finds

nathan — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:54:09 -0000

Green Mom, you said "Get MPG or get something that actually works for your family. You can have one or the other."

According to the most recent U.S. census, the average family size in the U.S. is 3.1. Why does a family need a 7 seater vehicle for 3.1 people? I used to coach a little league team and carried all the equipment and 3 other people in a two-door lexus. It´s a farse that we need 6,000 lb vehicles to carry around maybe 500 lbs of cargo (that´s including our own bodies).

Right now I drive a 4 door civic (about 400 miles a month, another 300 per month cycling, and 200 on a city to city bus) and average about 42 mpg mixed driving. I can fit my quick-release bike IN the car, all my groceries, and two other people. I understand some people have big families, and a need for a bigger vehicle. But the majority of parents I know have 1 or 2 kids, rarely 3 or more, and still drive around monster SUVs (keep in mind, the average passenger vehicle has increased in weight by 50% over the last 50 years, while the average family size has actually decreased) .

The idea that we need 7 or 8 passenger vehicles to carry 3 people and their things is a farse.

Re: Bike Lights Reviewed in the New York Times

nathan — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:28:42 -0000

Such a sign of a car-dominated society when the first words regarding cyclists out of a major city´s transportation commisioner are, " It´s even more important that they share the roads."

Obviously, bikes need to be respectful of traffic rules (primarily because they are putting THEMSELVES in danger if they don´t). However, cars take up 12 times as much space as bicycles (that´s according to Bicycling Magazine). Car drivers-- I´m going to assume the commissioner commutes in a car-- asking bikes to share the road is akin to fat people asking skinny people to not take up so much space in the buffet line.

I follow street signs and stop signs (however, whether I´m in car or bicycle, I´m not going to make a complete stop at a stop sign if no one is coming, but then again, I go about 5 to 10 miles under the speed limit whether driving or cycling), I maintain about 18-20 mph on my bike, use turn signals, and wear very bright clothing and use bright lights. STILL, I am the victim of people running me off the road, screaming at me, and basically endangering my life.

Cars need to share the roads. They pollute our cities, destroy our infrastructure especially given that (according to DOT) the weight of the average car has increased 50% in the last 25 years, make our cities unlivable, take up an inordinate amount of public space in a country in which large parts have little or no public forum (talking about the midwest and south here) and kill between 30 and 50 thousand Americans a year (1 million people yearly according to World Health Organization).

Re: German Government Adopts Flawed CO2-Based Car Tax

nathan — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:44:21 -0000

So many people drive trucks and SUVs here in Oklahoma, and the whole country. The average family size in the country is only 3.1 according to the most recent census data. It makes me wonder what percentage of people actually use their vehicle for something more than getting them from point A to point B.

I can see the utillity of a truck, but as an Okie, let me tell you, these trucks have absolutely ballooned in size over the last few years. SUVs on the other hand... that has very little practical usage.... Still with the truck drivers, I see a lot of college kids, doctors, parents of 1 or 2 kids, choosing to drive these things out of conveneince (gas is cheap) and the false illusion of safety. SUVs are more dangerous than cars, not just for everyone else on the road, but even for the SUV drivers themselves. It´s a lose-lose situation.

Re: Bike is Obnoxiously Bright at Night

nathan — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:35:58 -0000

This is great. I did a DIY version of this, rapping my bike in reflective, self-adhesive blue tape. My sister and I arrived home the other night (she in a car with her friend) and she said I was positively glaring!

Safety first bikers. And hey, it doesn´t hurt if the safety measure makes your bike look tight too. Though I have gotten weird looks in my college town, where for some reason everyone drives SUVs just to carry a few books.... sigh

Re: Does Turning Down My Water Heater Really Make a Difference?

nathan — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:55:52 -0000

Man, some people on here are simply rude when they see a comment such as Lloyd´s. I´ve never heard of anything like that, but maybe now I can read something about it.

I keep my natural-gas-powered water heater on low all day and turn it on to medium whenever I take a shower. It works fine. Sometimes I just take cold showers, especially if I have a hangover or if it´s warm outside. In Oklahoma, we have pretty warm winters. Have had many, many days in the 50´s, 60´s, and even in the 70s during this winter.

My house is about 1500 sq ft, but I haven´t turned on the heat once this winter. Closing windows at night and opening them at the day, and using an electric heater in whatever room I´m in (I live by myself right now) has kept my gas bill to about $20 a month, and $20 or less for electric. My city utility/water bill is as much as gas plus electric, even though I use about 15 gallons of water per day.

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack "Hundreds Less" than $1,000/kWh

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:49:33 -0000

@LogicalTechGuy:

Something safer and faster? They´re called trains. Cars have killed more than 30,000 people a year since they´ve been mass produced, and they kill more than a million people worldwide each year. Despite your long commute, Department of Transportation statistics estimate that 50% of ALL TRIPS in the United States are less than 3 miles. That is a very bikeable distance and yet our bicycle ridership rate is about 1% of all trips. PATHETIC.

Also, as a dedicated bike rider, even in a small town with little traffic, a distance of 4 miles or less will be done faster on a bike-- largely because of parking time.

Furthermore, biking saves time (is therefore faster) because it combines exercise and transportation, thus making unnecessary that membership at the gym. Furthermore, that membership equals money equals time.

As far as efficiency and cars, U.S. auto suffiency has been stagant between 15 and 20 mph for the last 30 years. Also, a gallon of gasoline is about 32,000 calories, at 20 MPG (national average) you´re burning abotu 1600 calories per mile. That is EXTREMELY inefficient.

Also, you do know that GM had an electric car and was leasing it to several thousand people more than ten years ago, don´t you? They then chose to abandon it (actually had to hire a PR firm to help convince people that electric cars were a joke) and buy out the Hummer company-- probably the most dangerous, but oh so loved car out there.. There is an entire documentary about it called "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

In conclusion, there are certainly safer and more efficient modes of transportation. Within 4 miles (remember 50% of all trips in our sprawled out country are actually less than 3 miles) a bike is faster, regardless.

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack "Hundreds Less" than $1,000/kWh

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:24:12 -0000

Let me make this crystal clear: biking is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous. abotu 33% of people killed by cars in our country were walking or biking when it happened. Cyclists make bad traffic decisions, of course, but cycling is not nearly as inherently dangerous as cars, and cycling does not put other people in danger, only the cyclist-- again his own danger being primarily because of motor vehicles.

"Yes, but to bike you need:

- A bike **(Irrelevant point, you also need a car to drive, bikes are less expensive in short and long term)

- Good weather **(Empirically not true. Portland and Seattle have the highest biking rates of any major U.S. cities and the weather there is awful)

- A trip that requires you to not carry cargo OR

- Expensive cargo carrying apparatus and the fitness to haul it (a car is basically an expensive and inefficient cargo carry apparatus)

- A destination that won't mind if you're a little (or a lot) sweaty

- No passengers (Or have bikes for multiple passengers, a tandem bike, trailer, or seat on the back)

- To be in shape enough to bike there. (with a 33% obesity rate, yes, this is challenging. One of the great things about biking is that it IMPROVES YOUR FITNESS.)

- Courage to ride in the street, something we've been warned against since we were children. **(I agree wholeheartedly with this point. But the more people who choose to cycle, the more noticeable and safer it becomes)"

Look I'm not saying everyone can ride a bike. But 50% of trips are less than 3 miles people! The average car has gotten 50% heavier since 1985 (Read Big Box Swindle), a direct correlation with obesity, while effeciency has stagnated. This is inexcusable. Living in Norman, Oklahoma I'm tired of seeing college students drive Hummers, SUVs, trucks, Mustangs, to class and complaining about a lack of parking. Cars take up 12 times as much space as a bicycle and it's time that we start recliaming our cities by making them safe to cyclists.

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack "Hundreds Less" than $1,000/kWh

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:28:18 -0000

Also, I never said that GM killed the electric car. The documentary highlights the role of many groups-- including consumers and government-- that didn't push for it more. The point is, we've had electric vehicles for years and the hooplah about them now is just designed to make money.

You think it's a coincidence that GE is one of the biggest media owners and they are pushing green electricity and electric cars??? Electric cars won't make it cheaper to maintain the roads. They won't kill less people. They won't free up more space, or magically make cities pedestrian or cyclist friendly. Electric cars won't affect the obesity problem in this country. Cars are directly related to the insustainability of our way of lives (and no I don't mean that in an anti-capitalist, leftist way. On the contrary, driving is a highly government regulated activity that requires huge public investment, while bicycling is a great way to get the government out of your life and pocketbook)

Cars are killing us. Electric cars are just putting painting over a hugely expensive, deathly, polluting, and unhealthy way of life.

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack "Hundreds Less" than $1,000/kWh

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:38:47 -0000

"You mean to tell me that a woman, alone at night, should be prancing around on a bicycle? How many kids can you take to school on a bike?"

Your whole post shows an inability to break from the mold and escape tradition. Why do you think people "prance" around on bikes? If more women cycled, it would be safer for them and everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I live in the most "progressive" city of Oklahoma where the city doesn't even view it necessary to put up street lights on every street, but of course why would they when everyone is taking out his or her her car just to go down the street? Cars have headlights! Just another reason dependency on the car makes cycling dangerous.

Most recent U.S. census shows that the average American family is 3.1 PEOPLE, so that means most people have 1 or 2 kids. Are you going to tell me we need 3 and 4 ton vehicles to carry maybe 3 or 4 people? Furthermore, Susan B. Anthony wrote about the bicycle being a symbol of freedom for women.

People ARE already choosing to give up the car, so try not to use superlative language such as "No one will give it up."

Don't try to prove anything with your anecdotal evidence about your friends getting in horrible bike accidents. Biking is dangerous because of motorized vehicles.

I'm not going to say a bike would fit your lifestyle because I don't know you. (Though if all you're carrying is a laptop and some drafting tools, that's extremely easy on a bike, minus your commuting distance). But your referring to women cycling as "prancing around" and your falling back on anecdotes is not sound arguing. Also, watch Who Killed the Electric Car. I don't agree with the conspiracy theory part, but it does have some great information that I bet you didn't know.

Re: Number of the Day: More Than Half of All Vehicles' Trips to Work in US are 11 Miles or Less

nathan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:02:05 -0000

Between 6 and 10 is less than 10, not less than 11. 21%

less than 5 miles is 37%.

That´s a total of 58%, but, these two ranges do not includ trips between 5 and 6 miles. Read the verbage carefull. If this blogger is citing everything correctly, then at least 58% of trips are less than 10 miles without even counting the trips between and 5 and 6 miles.

Does anyone get what I´m saying? Read the words exactly and you´ll see they´re leaving out trips less than 6 miles but more than five, and that between 6 and 10 does not just mean less than 11 but less than 10.

Re: Honda Insight Hybrid to be Sold for $19,800

nathan — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:26:58 -0000

@Joe:

I have been pondering the same thing. I get 43-45 MPG highway and about 35 in the city driving my 2008 Honda Civic. That definitely has to do with my attemtps at "hyper-miling", but damn, 40 mpg is not anything to get excited about.

And yeah, my dad drove a two door Civic in the early 90s. He´s almost 60 now, and he´s really unimpressed by the MPG claims. The quiet engines and (probably) pollution is nice, but 40-50 MPG (and if a person is a jack rabbit on the accelerator, a hard braker, etc, he will get significantly worse than the estimated mileage) is not going to change things much.

¡Viva la bicicleta!

Re: Honda Insight Hybrid to be Sold for $19,800

nathan — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:56:06 -0000

@Joe: He said. "Our way of life revolves around our car. I'm the first to admit it. Where I work, where I live, what I do.

Requires a car."

Unfortunately, that is true. Hopefully, while we rebuild and add-on to our existing cities, we will design them in a way that encourages mass transit, bicycling, and driving.

Still, I live in Oklahoma. I see new suburbs popping up alongside the highways (but far away from the city) on my bus ride from Norman to Oklahoma City. It's quite sad, and even crazier, there is neither a lack of housing or space within 3 miles or even less of downtown. There is just a lack of people who realize that if their house/appartment is close to where they live, they don't even need a car, thus negating the effects of a higher rent.

I just wish more parts of our country would start to see how debilitating (health, pollution, city design, public space, deaths and injuries each year, economic burden) our car-based lifestyle is!! I live in Oklahoma, and I am almost car-free (down to less than 400 miles of highway driving, and no city driving, per month) If it can be done here, it can be done anywhere.

Re: The Amazing High-Tech Crosswalk Makes Pedestrians Safer

nathan — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:39:41 -0000

"Living in the MOST ungreen and nonpedestrian friendly city in the world (Tulsa) I could only dream of such things. And strangely enough we are in whats called 'green country' LMAO :)"

I think your fellow Oklahomans in Oklahoma City have you beat. It's funny though, two of the fattest cities in the country, most unfriendly to peds and cyclists, and the most dependent on the automobile== those are the lists that we top in the two major cities of Oklahoma. You all on here are talking about making cities "livable"...

Major parts of our cities have no crosswalks, no bike lanes, no respect for cyclists. Public transpo is pretty much stigmatized and people get made fun of for walking and riding bikes. Because, hey, gas is only $1.70 a gallon here. GAS TAX PLEASE

Re: Largest Solar Array by an Electric Cooperative to be Installed in New Mexico

nathan — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:05:12 -0000

When something produces "30 MW", how often does it produce 30 MW? Is it daily, weekly, monthly? Or is it more like-- this installation is always pumping out 30 MW, or in essence, always producing 30,000 KW of electricity? I´m confused about this.

I have some friends in small living situations who basically use between 10 and 20 MW a year. Yes, I think that´s disgusting, and in my 1500 sq ft house, 140 square meters for you metrics out there, I use about 1 MW a year by not using the central cooling system, using a minifridge instead of a big fridge. My roommate and I had to change our eating habits to be able to use the mini fridge-- vast majority fresh foods, no frozen entrees, no soda storage, when we buy beer we drink it all. Basically in my fridge are leftovers, milk, some jellies, orange juice and eggs, which is basically what´s in my friends 800 watt fridges, sooo wasteful..

Yes I ranted. But again. How often woud this installation be producing 30 MW?

Re: Is Public Transit "Liberal" and Cars "Conservative"?

nathan — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:17:09 -0000

@CrHilton: "I suspect that overpriced bus and local rail have chased people to cars. Running an SUV costs only around $.80 per mile while a bus might end up costing you a couple dollars per mile: That's just nuts."

80 cents per mile at 15,000 miles a year would be $12,000 per year just on your car, or about 25% of the average household income in this country

. I rely solely on public transpo and my bike and I spend less than $2,000 a year. Where in this country is public transportation more than 80 cents a mile? That's ridiculous. Even assuming the taxes we pay for public transpo wouldn't make it that expensive, especially considering the even higher taxes we pay for roads for private vehicles.

Here's a study from AAA regarding cost per mile, note its assumptions of $2.30/gallon and full coverage insurance.

http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Assets/Files/20093271039350.DrivingCosts2009.pdf

Re: Bike Lanes in Toronto Turn Into Phoney "War on Cars"

nathan — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:01:06 -0000

@Jeremy K:

Your comment implies that cars and trucks (better said the trucking industry) pay their way. At least in the United States, the vast majority of funds for the roads do not come from taxes on gas or on cars, they come in the form of income taxes. The highest combined gas tax in the U.S.A. is in Pennsylvania and doesn´t even reach 17%. The gas tax has not even kept up with inflation.

Your comment also implies that a cyclist is only a cyclist and not also a car driver. Cars (keep in mind since the early 80´s in the U.S. the weight of the average passenger vehicle has gone up 50%, partially due to government safety requirements but mostly because people are driving larger cars) damage the roads so much more than bikes, so a cyclist is saving the city money, whether he is also a car-tax payer as well.

A cyclists also saves the city money by polluting less (big cities in U.S. have higher rates of respiratory problems).

I could go on, but you can look all around this site, streetfilms.org, u.s. government sites, the American Bicycle Society (which originally as the American Wheelmen Society helped bring about the pavement of roads in our country in the early 1900s) and basically you´ll find that the argument that cyclists aren´t paying their way has ABSOLUTELY no merit. City governments should be doing as much as they can to promote cycling as a normal activity (let´s not forget that part of what´s at stake is the right to public space, and sinc ein large parts of the counry there are no community centers, no true mixed use neighborhoods, the roads are the largest public forum and can not be so specifically tailored to effectively make biking deadly or dangerous), so, generally making people pay for things, especially when they´re SAVING YOU MONEY, is extremely counter intuitive.

Re: Quote of the Day: Marion Nestle on the Elitism of Organic Food

nathan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:20:49 -0000

I'm not going to respond to your entire post, DB, and some of the specifics I agree with, especially DDT and maybe the MLK Jr. part.

However, given that you have failed to criticize industry in your comment, I feel that you need to have some nuance to your argument.

Industrial food has risen to its current height because of the Federal government-- which given the tone of your comment, I'm sure you think is some sort of boogey man, and hey, sometimes it is! Fast food is cheap because the Government subsidizes it and the transportation system that makes fast food ubiquitous (highways and individual transportation).

Although food in this country is more abundant than ever, we throw away about 16% of all calories and more than 50% of us are overweight. As food spending has gone down-- which you would probably argue is a good thing-- healthcare spending has gone up and health has gone down.

I'm rambling, but though you might think eating a mostly vegetarian diet is an elitist thing to do, disconnected from the working and middle class reality, just remember that the Government is responsible for that cheap meat and chicken and those processed food products, as it is equally responsible for expensive fruits and vegetables.

Furthermore, the agriculture policies (which support big businesses) that largely affect the American dinner table, began during the Nixon administration. Although Milton Friedman-- whom I imagine to be an idol of yours, if you are as well-read as your post implies-- loathed Nixon and considered him an enemy to the free market, I doubt you'd be willing to call Nixon a liberal elite. Still, his administration-- and the refusal of future administrations to change his policies-- set in place the policies that have largely led to cheap processed food and fat people.

Of course, there is a lot of individual responsibilty involved here, and our wasteful society (please remember that one day Republicans were against frivolous consumerism ) has done a lot to engorge itelf. Still, when you're looking at 33% OBESITY rates, there is a systemic as well as an individual problem.

Will organic food help poor people? Most likely no. Local produce is often cheaper however, even than Wal-Mart (and actually I often find that our ethnic markets and our regional supermarkets in Oklahoma have better deals on produce), but the key is that poor people and their children often cannot afford healthful food, and that is largely a result of federal policy.

Re: Would You Wear a Solar Powered Cell Phone on Your Wrist?

nathan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:15:18 -0000

I would need to have a screen of some kind for me to buy it. Otherwise, I wouldn't know who's calling, I wouldn't be able to save phone numbers, and it would basically be like a land line on my wrist. Other than that, the entire idea is pretty neat.

Re: Scorecard for Alternative Transport Energy Ranks Wind-Electric First, Ethanol In Last Place

nathan — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:40:31 -0000

What percentage of Iowans are corn farmers? I realize that more people will be influenced to vote in favor of corn than just the farmers themselves (the farmers´families and other non-farming positions within or related to agribusiness), but is the agribusiness/corn lobby such a key group? I´ve read a lot about corn subsidies, but never seen any raw numbers about how many people have a corn-based livelihood in Iowa (notwithstanding, of course, the fact that U.Sonians get about 1/4 to 1/3 of their calories from corn!)

Also, if it is true that part of the reasons we have so many corn subsidies is to win the Iowa primaries, it shows how stupid our primary system is. Furthermore, the idea that our elections are dragged out over roughly 18 months (man, just how long was Obama campaigning?) turns them into a media frenzy that converts non-issues into issues and states with small populations into disproportionately powerful ones.

Re: Bike Commuting Is On the Rise, In Toronto Anyways

nathan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:25:37 -0000

@anonymous, who said, "a fringe group deserving of not one penny more of the municipal transport budget than, let's see, 1.7%. Sounds fair to me, as long as they pay a license fee."

I feel obliged to do the typical debunking of this fallacy.

1. The vast majority of cyclists also have cars and pay all the taxes related to owning a car, except for lower fuel taxes due to their lower consumption of fuel.

2. Cyclists free up many resources of the city, less space, less pollution, less health-care costs, etc.

3. There are two practical reasons for licensing cars that do not exist for bikes: a. cars kill people. b. when cars are stolen, it is extremely financially difficult to replace it.

So, go ahead arguing all day that cyclists should pay for saving the city money. The infinitesimal amount of money spent on bike infrastructure ( and furthermore, paint on the street does not count as infrastructure) does not warrant charging cyclists for license, registration, insurance, etc.

Re: Todd McFarlane Wants DiCaprio For That Spawn Film That Never Happens

nathan — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:57:27 -0000

"The Main Character Isn’t Spawn"? The easiest way to screw up a Spawn movie is to not make it about Spawn.

It's probably better that he doesn't ever do the movie. It doesn't sound like he'd be able to make a good one.

Re: Testing a Human-Powered Lawn Mower

nathan — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:55:31 -0000

I have had a Human-Powered Lawn Mower for 2 years now. I love it, there is one negative, if you do not cut your grass often enough(which tends to happen with me), the blades are too tall for the mower and makes it a lot more difficult. Otherwise it is very easy. I have a Brill Luxus 33.

Re: Air Conditioning and Urbanism

nathan — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:20:05 -0000

I currently live in Austin, where it is 95 F for most of the summer. Sometimes my office is so freezing cold that I have to wear a hooded sweatshirt! People here have made themselves dependant on AC, but I don't consider this place inhospitable. When my home air conditioner broke I decided that I hate air conditioning, took steps to lower the temperature through other means, and didn't use it for more than a year.

Re: The Whopper by Phat Cycles

nathan — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:51:05 -0000

However, many of the more extreme "chopper" bikes are not street-legal. At least in my town, handlebars that ride higher than the shoulders of the rider are not permitted. Of course, I have never seen that be enforced.

Re: TreeHugger October Contest: "Old Faithful"

nathan — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:06:35 -0000

The photo of the stove on the right is the EXACT stove that is currently located in the house I am renting. It truly is an Old Faithful, it functions perfectly, and still looks beautiful, although it is (i believe) over fifty years old.

Re: Free Parking for Green Vehicles in Salt Lake City

nathan — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:05:06 -0000

you can't call this plan smart- it's the same sort of plan as letting SOV hybrids in to HOV lanes. This sort of incentive, while making hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles more attractive, degrades the integrity of other programs, and serves to _increase_ vehicle use, when the goal of all such programs should be to _decrease_ vehicle use (abuse) and encourage alternative transportation. Cars with good mileage don't qualify. If the mileage isn't enough of an incentive, there's no reason to degrade other proven programs to make them more attractive. The car companies don't care what kind of car they sell, they just want to move steel.

Re: Now's Your Chance to Install Linux

nathan — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:34:11 -0000

And a major computer manufacturer (Dell) is finally offering desktops and laptops without Windows pre-installed. I know most of the tech-savvy people out there build their desktops, so they don't worry about pre-existing software. But it's harder get a new bare-bones laptop.

I won't claim Dell computers are great (I haven't used them), but at least they're trying to help the open-source movement.

Open Source Desktops and Laptops:

http://linux.dell.com/desktops.shtml

And for Hazel's comment: I use Ubuntu now, and I felt this walk through was pretty good:

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/index

Re: The Car the Automakers Can – and Should – Be Making

nathan — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:27:09 -0000

I'm guessing Foosfan has part of the picture: patented technology. I'm guessing the other problem is the green. Not the good green either. Bringing all those technologies together into one vehicle probably puts it out of the "reasonable" price range for consumer America. At 20K+ tag of the Prius is too high in my opinion -- you shouldn't have to pay for all the gas you're not going to buy when you buy a fuel efficient car.

I digress, designing a car is one thing, but actually brining the technologies together is another. The integration and manufacturing could cause unforeseen problems. Someone needs to build one, show its economically viable, and then turn to Big Automotive and say, "now what?"

I think it's a great idea, but money and marketing drive the average consumer, not the environment.

Re: Plans to "Totally Eradicate" Tierra del Fuego's Invasive Beavers

nathan — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:04:37 -0000

the one fellow says "if they introduced panthers" mountain lion,catamount,cougar,puma,panther,basically exactly the same except color. Just so you know I am a conservationist,and a hunter,just like Audobon, Muir, Roosevelt. I think introducing non native species is stupid, the easiest way to eradicate these beaver is to bring north american trappers and hunters used to beaver, in to clean up the problem. But I think we should reintroduce grizzly bears to the sacramento valley, and the bay area of california,especially as they are the state bear

Re: Scorecard for Alternative Transport Energy Ranks Wind-Electric First, Ethanol In Last Place

nathan — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:40:31 -0000

Re: British Journalists Take On Skeptics, Liars and Incandescent Bulbs

nathan — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:55:41 -0000

Yeah, I know who people who rail on fluorescent bulbs but have no problem eating canned tuna, evel yellowfin.

Re: Quote of the Day: Republican House Leader on Bikes and Beautification

nathan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:15:51 -0000

That´s my rant agianst the most conservative state in the nation (McCain got 66%!) and my plcae of birth!

Re: Half of Americans Already Making Energy Efficiency Improvements, Few Get Out of Their Cars: New Survey Finds

nathan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:54:09 -0000

Green Mom, you said "Get MPG or get something that actually works for your family. You can have one or the other."

The idea that we need 7 or 8 passenger vehicles to carry 3 people and their things is a farse.

Re: Bike Lights Reviewed in the New York Times

nathan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:28:42 -0000

Such a sign of a car-dominated society when the first words regarding cyclists out of a major city´s transportation commisioner are, " It´s even more important that they share the roads."

Re: German Government Adopts Flawed CO2-Based Car Tax

nathan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:44:21 -0000

Re: Bike is Obnoxiously Bright at Night

nathan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:35:58 -0000

Re: Does Turning Down My Water Heater Really Make a Difference?

nathan — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:55:52 -0000

Man, some people on here are simply rude when they see a comment such as Lloyd´s. I´ve never heard of anything like that, but maybe now I can read something about it.

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack \"Hundreds Less\" than \$1,000/kWh

nathan — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:49:33 -0000

@LogicalTechGuy:

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack \"Hundreds Less\" than \$1,000/kWh

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:24:12 -0000

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack \"Hundreds Less\" than \$1,000/kWh

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:28:18 -0000

Cars are killing us. Electric cars are just putting painting over a hugely expensive, deathly, polluting, and unhealthy way of life.

Re: GM Fights Back: Volt Battery Pack \"Hundreds Less\" than \$1,000/kWh

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:38:47 -0000

"You mean to tell me that a woman, alone at night, should be prancing around on a bicycle? How many kids can you take to school on a bike?"

People ARE already choosing to give up the car, so try not to use superlative language such as "No one will give it up."

Don't try to prove anything with your anecdotal evidence about your friends getting in horrible bike accidents. Biking is dangerous because of motorized vehicles.

Re: Number of the Day: More Than Half of All Vehicles' Trips to Work in US are 11 Miles or Less

nathan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:02:05 -0000

Between 6 and 10 is less than 10, not less than 11. 21%

less than 5 miles is 37%.

Re: The Good Stuff my ass

nathan — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:38:00 -0000

It's like Molson's advertising execs were born without brains.... Sigh.

Re: Church lures teenagers with assault rifle giveaway - ExChristian.Net - News and Opinion

nathan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:19:00 -0000

Jesus said "I Come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword (Gun)"
I wonder if they sang Onward Christian Soldiers at this church.
Truly Scary!

Re: Fyxomatosis V3.0

nathan — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:04:52 -0000

Not sure about being "too busy" Dave, but I would definately say it looks sterile and bland. I love your work TC, but I have to agree with David. Change it back, it would be like Shifter Bikes setting up out the back of Sports Girl. It's just night right.

Re: Still Holding On - Testimonies of Ex-Christians

nathan — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:40:00 -0000

"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another God lives in us."

Could someone point me to evidence which shows historical inaccuracy of the Bible ?

I am familiar with books such as Case for Christ, which provide evidence to support historical accuracy of the New Testament, but I would like to see what has been written regarding proving that inaccuries exist in the Bible. Previous posters said "the Bible is lies" but didn't post any proof.
The New Testament is a collection of historical documents -- testimonies, letters, .etc. I would like some evidence, some deep, detailed evidence that supports proving that it is inaccurate. And PLEASE don't go showing a handful of APPARENTLY inconsistent quotes. That is about as convincing as a Christian convincing you of something with a handful of quotes. If there were real accounts given by four different people it would be natural to expect some minor differences between them. It would actually discredit them if there were identical in every regard.

Thank you.

Most Christians here discredit Christianity largely by their lack of love and their visciousness. It is embarassing. It is evident that people posting here ( those giving testimonies ) are seeking truth. What more can one ask, other than to love and to seek truth ?

Then again, many posters here, exchristian ones, discredit themselves by their closedmindedness and simplistic statements.

No side can win.

But whoever is humble maybe knows the only truth, that we don't know the truth.

So... we can choose to react to not knowing the truth in two ways:

1) Believe in a creator and acknowledge reliance on that creator.

2) Not believe in a creator

I have struggled with the same aspects of Christianity that you all have.

However, I believe that the ultimate truth involves love, freedom and humility, and I'm not convinced that true Christianity fails in these regards.

Re: I can't do it anymore - Testimonies of Ex-Christians

nathan — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:19:00 -0000

Hello Hannah

You are in with the right bunch of people. My brother and I were both barred from Sex Education by my parents. Lucky for him, my son has already taken Sex-ed. My parents went to 2 separate churches for a while, but my dad forced us to go to his church against our will. There were more kids at my mothers church. It is good to criticize Christianity, since it has more holes in it that Swiss Cheese or even a sponge.
Best of luck to you!

Re: Tell me about that hell part again? - Testimonies of Ex-Christians

nathan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:06:00 -0000

Charles

The god of the bible does not even exist. If there is a god then God is not the author of the bible.

David

I am glad that you have stopped drinking. Don't worry because Hell does not exist. The logic of biblegod is that of a homebuilder who builds houses so that he can set them on fire. Any god who creates people so that he can burn them in "Hell" deserves to burn in "Hell" himself. Christianity is a huge load of shit, and part of a 3 headed monster along with Judaism and Islam.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:06:00 -0000

Tons of questions to ask...

Would the statement "there are no moral absolutes" be an absolute?

How can you say that what Hitler was doing was wrong when you state that the measure of right and wrong is the peace of society? I am sure Hitler would argue that he was trying to bring about peace by conquering the world and destroying the Jews. How can you say that he was wrong in his assumption? Any answer you give must lead to an absolute for it to have any authority over Hitler and the Nazi's morality.

Is God good because he does what is good or because He is the essance of what is good? He is not obedient to an outside standard, he IS the standard. So, to answer your question in the most shocking of ways, Yes, if God commanded for me to kill someone, it would be morally right for me to do so. Does that make God evil or does that make Him...well, God, the supreme Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Can God do with His creation as He pleases? Is the command to wipe out a nation moral relativism or simply reckoning justice where there is no justice, as those nations overtly and systematically broke every moral code and every moral sensibility that any human might have by sacrificing children, ravaging border villages, and even practicing canabalism?

I would absolutely agree that Christians are no wiser than unbelievers at making moral decisions sometimes. It is much easier to believe in moral absolutism than to practice it, but to say that this invalidates the argument for moral absolutism would be to make the "argument against the person" fallacy of logic. I would also absolutely agree that "Christians" have even altogether ignored the commands of God to opt for doing that which was most beneficial for them, but, here again, this does not nullify or invalidate the argument.

The bottom line is that there must be moral absolutes. One cannot simply judge right from wrong based on familial or societal desires. What is "good" for society and family today might not be "good" tomorrow, but does then make yesterday evil? I believe, in your story of Corey Tin Boom, you left out the fact that her sister trusted in God's moral absolutes and told the truth to a German patrol, and the soldiers laughed at her and left the house without checking it. Kant would argue that it would not have been her that killed the Jews in her house, but rather the soldiers, and they, therefore, would have been morally wrong.

This may be rubbing salt on an old wound, but I pray right now that God will be faithful and restore your relationship with Him. You may be a moral man, but where is your foundation? I hope that Christ will be that foundation once again, someday.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:05:00 -0000

To webmaster…

Yes. I didn't say there were no absolute statements. 1+1=2, absolutely. You need the qualifier in both parts of the sentence. You should have asked "Would the statement 'there are no moral absolutes' be a moral absolute?" Obviously, asked correctly the question is silly and answers itself.

You make a good point; I did leave out a qualifier. I guess I don’t understand how the question is silly. To say that there are no moral absolutes and one should judge right and wrong on social trends is to state a moral absolute, specifically: It is morally right to do what society deems as right. Or, what society deems right is morally right. This is either always true or not true at all. Isn’t that what we are debating here, whether it is morally right to do the will of society or to do the will of God?

Yes, if God commanded for me to kill someone, it would be morally right for me to do so.

That's scary. That is a terrifying admission. And I expect I'll see you on the front page of some newspaper in the future. There are crimes committed on a regular basis by people who believe they are obeying the voice of God. They frequently end up in mental wards. Be careful.

I don’t think you have anything to be afraid of. For one, God has a specific method by which he reveals his will, namely the Bible. And, in biblical times, he chose to reveal his truth through certain men and women, and particularly in the person of Jesus Christ. If I had a voice in my head (which I do not) telling me to kill someone, I would seriously doubt that command since God’s revealed will (the Bible) tells me that I should not. But, I had to answer a Hyperbolic question with a Hyperbolic answer. God reveals himself to me through His Word. This is the standard that God has given us.

Nathan, I think you are probably talking about the vile so-called commands of God in the Old Testament to rape and murder and commit genocide as the righteous judgment of God. No doubt when parents were debased into eating their own children, that too was a good exercise of justice.

If that kind of justice had been practiced during WWII, all German citizens would have been systematically gassed and murdered and the entire nation of Japan nuked.

First of all, you need to get your facts straight on what God commanded. God did not command rape. He also commanded that wars fought outside of the land of Canaan were to be fought on terms very similar to the all-wise Geneva Convention, i.e. only soldiers were to be killed. In fact, in these cases, Israel was only to defeat the enemy and not destroy and loot. I believe you still missed the point that God can do with his creation as he pleases. The supreme being of the universe who created all things can do with his created things and command of his created things what he wishes. I am a computer engineer who is fascinated with AI. If I were to create rational agents, I would have a right to do with them as I please. I could command that they not harm one another, but does that make it wrong for me to destroy one or even use one agent to destroy another. At the same time, it would be wrong for one agent to act on his own and harm another agent. This, obviously, is a weak analogy, but it is the closest one I got.

As for the reference to “parents eating their children”, I believe you are referring to the Roman siege of Jerusalem, in which case God neither commanded Rome to attack Jerusalem or did He command parents to eat their children.

But you just said, Nathan, that there are NO MORAL ABSOLUTES! Yes you did. You said that no matter what God commands, it is good. If He commands atrocities, it is good. If He commands genocide, it is good. If He commands you to murder, you will do it, and it is good!

If whatever God commands (rather, whatever you think it is that God is commanding) then there is no possible way of determining good from evil. There is no standard at all.

God is absolute. He does not change. For God to command that justice be done on a nation is right and good. For God to command that I not act on my own desires and commit murder is right and good. His commands do not conflict because He acts rightly in each situation. What he does in each situation is the right thing to do, and I can know from what He has said in His Word what is right and good to do.

To Dano…

Yes, I work part-time for a church as a youth minister, but my full-time job is as a computer engineer developing firmware and software for multimedia devices. I don’t need the part-time job, I just believe that God has gifted me with talents to use in my church. Problem is, this is another “argument against the person” fallacy. I would not argue that one should not listen to a Professor of Philosophy or believe what he teaches because he gets paid to propagate such beliefs and it is in his best interest to do so. I must argue that his beliefs are valid or invalid based on their merits.

I am talking about God as if I know one exists in the same way that you talk about him as if he does not exist. Neither of us KNOW for sure, although I can see evidences of his existence. I talk about God as if I know he exists in the same way I would talk about an atom existing. I have never seen an atom, but I believe it exists because I see its effects. I have never seen your brain, but I believe it exists because I see the effect of it. I don’t really even know that you exist (I could just be talking to an AliceBot) but I believe you exist because I see the effects of you.

I don’t define God or the word. God defines himself, and he has stated that he is the supreme being of the universe and the creator of the world. If the God of the Bible is a supreme being, you would have to admit that He sees way more than we do, and if so, He is the only one who can judge, ultimately, whether his actions in the Bible were just or unjust. As a teenager, I thought a lot of the things that my parents did and made me do were “not fair”, and then I got older and wised up and realized that they knew a lot more about the circumstances than I did. We don’t know what God knows. We don’t know what God knew about the Amalekites or the Moabites, and therefore we are in no place to judge his actions or commands.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:09:00 -0000

I hardly see where religion is distructive, as studies have shown that religious people have less stress and live longer. Overall, Christianity has wrought morality in Europe. The Reformation was the start of the Industrial revolution and modern academia due to its belief in soul competency. Sure, there have been horrible things done in Christ's name, but as Augistine said, "one cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse." One need only look to characters like Stalin and Kim Jong Il to observe the abuses of Atheism.

Christ brings peace. Christ said "I have come that they might have abundant life." He also said, "If you abide in me, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." Freedom from the bondage of sin, freedom from the bondage of my self-distructiveness. Yes, I am addicted to Christ. Isn't that what we are all seeking, something to serve, something that will give life purpose? To use CS Lewis' argument, why would we need to find purpose if there is no purpose in life? You cannot know what does not exist. You are seeking to find purpose by depending on your own intellect and the wisdom of men. Man is your god. I find purpose by understanding that an all-powerful God created me to "glorify him and love him forever." But, we both are seeking a fix, a drug, a god.

Anyway, hey, thanks for letting me put in my two cents. I've got assignments from my wife that I have to get done or she will be dealing out some justice of her own. I have enjoyed debating. I will check back in and see how well you guys have torn me apart. Later.

Nathan

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:39:00 -0000

WM,

Yes, I understand and apologize. I suppose it was a terribly insufficient attempt to adapt a rather good argument with regards to the issue of absolute truth: "The statement that there are no absolutes is an absolute." You've had me thinking about this all day and I think the primary issue that I disagree with and I would think most Christians would disagree with is the basis for morality. Yes, I would agree that morality is situational. In other words, certain moral laws are more important or more urgent that others, and therefore, when faced with a moral delimma one should seek the most moral action. Yes, I do agree that, even with the knowledge that God has given us, it is hard to know and not always clear what is right. I think the real issue is whether morality is determined by the practice of society or by a Law Giver. My argument is, if morality is societal, then there is no standard for judgment between societies. I understand that you made the argument that Hitler was wrong because most societies agreed he was wrong. What if most societies had not voted that way, would that make it right for him to exterminate the Jews? Or, to use your own example, was slavery right for the thousands of years that it was practiced but now wrong, or was it always wrong because a law giver said "Consider yourselves lower than your neighbor" and "love your neighbor as yourself"? And, there you have my answer to your question about slavery. God established principles by which we should live: "Love your God", "love your neighbor", etc. Jesus said all of the commandments hinge on these two. In other words, you should know to do the others because of these two. If you love your neighbor you will not kill him. Also, just because the Bible records an event or an action does not mean that God thinks it is right. God said love your neighbor, I would think he would then consider slavery to be wrong.

To be honest, some of the passages you bring up stump me. I don't know why God said kill everyone in the land of Canaan. Perhaps he could see what those people would become if they hadn't, much like your question of killing baby Hitler. Sometimes, I just don't understand God, but does that mean he isn't there? Sometimes I don't understand why my wife does things that seem to be outside of her nature, but does that mean she ceases to exist? Maybe I just don't understand enough about her. The point I made about God being above us applies here. Maybe we don't understand why God does certain things because we are not God. I don't know, but that doesn't change my belief in God. In fact, it makes me want to search and understand him more.

I appreciate you being patient with me and explaining why my statement was silly. I am certainly not gifted at philisophical rethoric. The irony of all this is that I came across this site while searching for a quote by John Calvin to use in my Sunday School lesson. I suppose an atheist would say that was coencidence. I would call it providence. If nothing else, at least I have been challenged and strengthened. Thanks for your patience with me. I will check back in from time to time to see what the Athiest Bloc thinks.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:19:00 -0000

Spacemonk

I would hope no one is searching for the god that meets his or her own criteria, but rather the God that is. Its not like going to a buffet and just picking what works for you that day. Also, I never said that he did not meet my criteria, I said I do not always understand Him, just like I don't understand all there is to know about the universe. Maybe there is somewhere in space where light does not behave the way it does here on earth, but that just means there is more to know. And yes, WM, I know you are not going to accept that analogy because the universe can be observed, but you have already adopted the presupposition that God is not there and that means any evidence of Him would be explained away by your atheistic framework.

I believe in Christ because what he said about life and meaning and truth and purpose meet with reality. He said that mankind is, because of our fallen state, evil, and I can look at the world around me and see, outside of the world influenced by the Christian system, that is true. He said placing others before myself is right and good, and, by practicing that I see that this produces joy and peace in my life. He said to deal with others as I would have them deal with me, and I can see, even from recent experience, that this is productive and true. He said that in order to deal with my sins and my fallen nature I have to trust in Him and follow after him, the one person who was not fallen and did not sin, and that makes sense. He said that by trusting in him, he will bring life like I have never seen before, and I can see that now. Not that everything is perfect, but that I am content in any situation because of Him.

Christ brings meaning. Everyone seeks meaning in life. Everyone desires wonder, truth, fulfillment, and peace. Christ brings all four. What could be more awesome and wonderful than the sovereign God? Who knows more about truth than the creator of the universe? Who can make life more fulfilling than the God that created you? and who can bring more peace in your life than God?

What I was saying in the last post is that I don't always get God just like I don't always get other tangible or intangible things. No, I want to believe in God as he is, not as I desire him to be, and I believe in Christ as God because he gives purpose and meaning and gives the most reasonable answers to all of the metaphysical questions that religious people ask.

I guess some would say it is stupid to look for meaning in a world that has no meaning (after all, if all is chaos, there is no meaning to anything). But, you would have to agree that there is this universal urge to know meaning and purpose. This is evidenced by all us religious idiots, from polytheistic tribes in South America to those crazy Christians, everyone(yes, I think you would have to admit that even atheists struggle with this, hince the title "Ex-Christian") is searching for that which will give life meaning. Now, would we search for meaning if there was no meaning? Why do we search for meaning? It can't just be the politics of organized religion or political systems in general, or why would remote tribes search it out. It is something more basic, more real than anything that is affected by our influences and surroundings. It is something that nags at us.

This is why I believe in God and this is why I trust in Christ.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:13:00 -0000

I did not intend to be taken as rude. I did not say that your life was meaningless, I said that everyone searches for meaning. I said that I have found meaning in Jesus Christ. I do believe many people find meaning in various things/systems, but that ultimately, those things will let them down. I guess that is harsh and rude and arrogant, but competing ideas are that way.

I also never said that I was not starting with presuppositions. Everyone does, there is no way not to. If you presuppose nothing, there is nowhere to start, but you already know that. I was simply pointing out that you will not hear my arguments or even consider them in some cases because you presuppose that the God whom I am trying to justify is not there.

I suppose I was arguing the existance of God from the same angle that you are aguing against him, that being philosophically. Evidence-wise, I would have to say creation would be a good place to start, but apparently you already know all my answers and have rejected them. You know, order has not been observed to come from chaos (nor does it fit logically to say that it does), design requires a designer, (stop me when you get puky), the mathmetical requirement for God, Intelligence is born of Intelligence.

Personally, my favorite is the fact that in 200 years of modern science and evolutionary theory and in 25 years of AI research, no one has been able to create anything that resembles life or intelligence, but yet we assume that all the world around us was formed from chaotic or otherwise "natural" events (reminds me of the scientific belief in spontanious generation, that organic beings born out of inorganic objects, and really evolution is just a variation of that).

Also, I would say, and you probably hate this answer most although you know it well, that God did reveal himself to us as Jesus Christ. People always ask for God to just reveal himself, but yet, when he does, they wished he had done it a different way. I think that goes back to desiring to make a god they like and that fits their molds.

I would have to say that I have adopted this position after much deliberation. Yes, I grew up in the faith, but I nearly walked away in college. I became a deist because of some of the moral conundrums that you mention. After reading C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, I reformed. I am afraid I am a terrible representative for good debaters and I use their arguments horribly.

Anyway, apparently I have worn out my welcome, so God bless you.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:39:00 -0000

WM,

I am going to help you out by bringing this discussion back to where you want it to be, partly because I feel bad for having knocked it off track to start with and partly because I am interested in how you will respond to my answer.

If I were to give up Christianity today, would I still be moral?

I think there are really two questions in this: would I remain moral and would I have a reason to be moral?

To the first question, I would say, Yes, at least for a time. Mainly because one does not break years of conditioning so easily. Having grown up in the church, thinking morally and behaving with decency is almost a reflex. My parents have conditioned me from an early age, and even though the concepts of God and Christianity might change, the morality that flows out of that would not change immediately. I think you could turn this on its head and see the same thing. Absolute reprobates who are converted to Christianity do not immediately reform in all their ways. Their foundation for life has changed, but the habits and behaviors that have been ingrained have not. If I could throw in some scripture here (we Christians like to do that), I think that is exactly what Romans 7 is talking about.

In response to the second question, I would say no, I would have absolutely no reason to remain "moral" (if there really is such a word). If I believe that evolution is king, that everything is determined by the "laws" of evolution, then I would reason that the only "right" things for me to do would be to survive and to minimize pain (or maximize pleasure). So, I would be moral, in so far as it benefited me to be moral, but who's to say that is moral at all. After all, morality is the determination of right and wrong, and ultimately, if everyone is responsible to himself, then no one is right and no one is wrong. I can no more say that you are wrong for killing your neighbor to take his land than I can say that I am right for doing the same thing. The only reason Atheists have ever given for obeying a moral code is for the betterment of society and the furtherment of the species, but who cares about that? I would not. I would want to get as much pleasure and endure as little pain as possible in those 80 or 90 years that I have, and I might even check out early to avoid the bad years.

I would say that the animal kingdom is a good example of these evolutionary principles. A lion cares only for his cubs in so far as they do not interfere with him. In fact, the lioness has to take the cubs away so the lion won't eat them. No one lion is concerned for the furtherment of the species. If Cimba had it his way, he would be the only lion around so that he could have all the wildabeasts. Why would I do any different? I might get along with my neighbors as long as it benefited me, but the moment it did not, watch out! John Locke ultimately concluded the same thing. But, I don't think we have to look to the animal kingdom, we can look at our own kind. There are three evidences of this:

1. The selfish behavior of Communist ideologues in the USSR. Have you ever read the non-propagandist Russian literature of the cold-war era, like Mayakovsky? Most of it points out the utter selfishness and disrespect for human dignity that the aristocratic class had in those days. And why not be that way?
2. The completely violent tendency of cultures not given to monotheistic systems. The Aztecs, Mayans, the Apaches, and so on and so forth. I could go on. You will object that Christian, Muslim, and Jewish cultures have been violent, but that is not what I am arguing. These cultures, although they have done terrible things, did not have principles and mores based on violence but rather on peace. However, even the great, enlightened greeks were HORRIBLY violent within their culture. Another Bible reference: you might remember that God destroyed the Earth with a flood because the cultures were so violent. No law giver leads to hedonism which produces selfishness, and the ultimate product of selfishness is murder and violence.

3. The ultimately hedonistic lifestyles of well known atheistic philosophers. Tempelton, Nietzsche, Freud, and so many more. They have concluded that ultimately, hedonism is the only logical outcome of atheism.

And, I would conclude the same. I would remind you that even the enlightened deistic Founders of our country, whom you admire (and I too), said that inalienable rights were "endowed by their creator". Such men as Thomas Jefferson and Old Ben knew that there was no such thing as rights if there is not a Creator that establishes those rights, and I would say "Amen" to that.

I hope this brings you back to your original discussion. Maybe this will at least give you a Christian response to beat up on. I eagerly await your diatribe.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:10:00 -0000

WM,

"Really, doesn't that make a whole more sense than a magical deity in the sky?"

It would make a lot more sense if it met with reality. I have a 16 month old daughter (lots of fun, as I am sure you know) that I am, at this moment, trying to teach not to take things from other children, not to hit, not to bight, not to be mean. Now, why do I have to do that if it is within her genetics to do so. By your reasoning, we would not have to teach our children to get along, they would just do it naturally. We would not have to teach morality, it would be there. But, like you said, if a child is not "raised right" then they do not act right. (I think this, and the point I am about to make, were the point of the book, Lord of the Flys)

Also, I think you ignore the fact that primitive tribes do not behave within this code. I would agree, they get along, but it is a hedonistic need to get along, which is really what you are arguing. I do something because it benefits me, not because it is inheritly right to do such a thing. And, therefore, it can be right to murder one day and wrong to murder the next. Society is just a reflection of the behavior of the individual. I don't want to hurt anyone because I don't want to be hurt. But, what if I (speaking from a primitive point) have the need to expand my fledgling goat herd, but my neighbor won't cooperate and let me use part of his land or share with his herd. Well, then I kill him to save my skin. This was the way of primitive man. I think it is obvious from history that this was the rule of society: a personal, familial, and social hedonism. But who can stand judge and say that one man was right for attacking another man, or one family another, or one city state attacking another? No one! All are acting by a hedonistic morality. That is why people say, "you have to earn my trust." Nobody naturally trusts anyone. If I met you on the street, I wouldn't hand my daughter to you and ask you to hold her for a moment (I probably would now, although I can't tell exactly what you look like from that small pic). We assume the worst of people, why? Because we know our own hearts. Because we know that people, left without a good raising, left without a moral raising, and sometime even with that, do horrible things.

Then, religion was interjected. In particularly, a monotheistic system. Paganism existed in these city-states, but only for the sake of justifying the actions of the state. Pagan gods were more like team mascots than sovereign judges. They reflected more of their human subjects than an eternal being. But, in these cultures where monotheistic systems emerged, particularly (or rather uniquely) with Abraham and Zoaster, there appeared these LAWS. And no longer was it the will of the Alpha male (the king), but rather the will of an outside source, a sovereign judge that would judge even the king for his dealings. Was it man evolving to a point of recognizing the need for laws and making up an outside source to give reason for them or was there actually an outside source that communicated his will to a fallen creation to keep them from falling further and further? If you think it is the former, then you have to ask, "Why would there be that need if everyone already had a genetic predisposition to obey laws, to get along with each other? Why would we even need to say it?" I suppose you would answer, "because some people just aren't raised right." And we are back where we started.

Re: Morality and ethics without absolutes - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:31:00 -0000

Dano and WM,

My final thoughts (and I know Dano, you think Christians don't actually have thoughts, so you can call them the random collisions of words in my head). They have to be final because my wife has called a foul for spending more time doing this than with my daughter. Sorry, the existential comes before the abstract.

Your reasoning for morality reduces to hedonism. You might support it with societal jargon, but your underlying premise is basically "I do nothing that brings harm to myself", or "I do anything that brings me the most happiness." This isn't even Utilitarianism, which has a hint of universality to it, but rather, this is pure, unadulterated hedonism. So, Dano, your hopes of solving world crises and overcoming the limitations of humanity will never be realized because there is nothing to unite. The only thing that you will manage to unite humanity in is the worship of humanity. "We must get better so that humanity can thrive", but then we have established a moral absolute. So, to come full circle, I don't see any way around moral absolutes. Kant didn't, Mill didn't, Jefferson didn't, and God doesn't.

WM, I was not claiming that Native Americans are not moral today, nor was I claiming that Native Americans or tribal peoples anywhere do not have mores and even laws, but ultimately those laws and mores were developed on a basis of hedonism. To be offended by this statement is to completely miss the point and to become subjective. I am not claiming that you are not immoral because you do not trust in Christ, just like you are not claiming that I am immoral because I do. We are both arguing a basis for morality. You claim that Christianity does not produce consistant morality. I claim that atheism reduces morality to hedonism and therefore does not produce consistant morality.

Japan practiced Emperor Worship before WWII, right? Would that not be a basis for absolute morality? Not saying that it is today, but did the habits and traditions of their Emperor-based morality change just because we dethrowned their god? I really don't know alot about Japanese culture, so I am going to leave those questions as they are and not assume anymore.

"Perhaps I should have phrased my thought better about raising kids. If you abuse your children, they will likely turn out badly. That's what I meant."

Yes, I would agree, so NO ONE abuse their children. I would add to this, if you don't raise your children at all, and leave them to their genetic predisposition, they will turn out badly. So, EVERYONE raise your children. Oops, I just made a moral absolute. Let me rephrase, Everyone raise your children if it is socially beneficial for you to do so. Anarchists can ignore this.

I'm sorry, that was sarcastic, but it seems to be a common tool for you guys, so I decided I would try it.

Let's go back to Hitler and this issue of furthering society. How was he wrong in his ideals? He was simply practicing the theories of Nietzche. He wanted to further society by creating a master race and exterminating all inferior genes. What a great society, where everyone believes in the good of man, the power of evolution, and the glory of humanity. Now, answer honestly, how was he wrong? Was he wrong because a bunch of other nations didn't want their societies (their religious societies) to change and banded together to defeat him, or is there a moral absolute that dictates that you should treat others as you would like to be treated and not kill them for the furtherment of your social agenda? Oh well, I guess if he had won, we would still be rounding up those rodent Jews, radical Christians, and other despot groups and gassing them still. Sounds like evolution at work to me.

Dano, I have not read all of the folks you speak of, but I have read my fair share, and I would say that for every objection they raise, Ravi Zacharias, CS Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, Lane Craig, and now even Antony Flew would have a response. I would encourage you to read them, if you have not already.

Anyway, its been fun. I have enjoyed thinking with you guys, but this has to be my last for the sake of peace in my family.

Since you guys like to quote so much, here's one of my favorites (sorry, it's a long one).

This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

--Steve Turner

Re: Don't believe in evolution? - ExChristian.Net - Articles

nathan — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:10:00 -0000

He makes a good point about the difference between fact and theory. The problem is that the Evolutionist would completely ignore the scientific method to form his theory, primarily "observation" and "experiment". Although evolutionists make a big deal about "transitional" fossil records, there is no observable evidence that any family of organism has every jumped an evolutionary gap. Neither have there been any experiments that support the theory of macro-evolution. Let both sides finally be honest, neither macro-evolution nor creation is a theory. They are both faith-based beliefs. The one assumes, by faith in mankind's own reasoning and being, that God does not exist and therefore interprets data accordingly. The other assumes, by faith in God, that God does exist and therefore interprets data accordingly.

But, to play along, let's through in some imperical science:

Fact: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: All systems add to the entropy of the universe. In other words, all systems decrease in order, adding to the chaos of the universe, not increase in order. And, the universe is verifiably becoming more chaotic, not more complex.

Fact: Through observation and thousands of years of experience in breeding science, no one has ever observed a productive bridge between two families of organisms, and even within a family, this is often not productive. Take for example, the mule, which is a breed between a horse and a donkey. Mules are born unable to reproduce. A liger, which is a breed between a tiger and lion is another example. Over thousands of years, breeders have bred horses down to as small as a shetlan poney and as large as a Belgian, but never have they jumped the gap and bred a horse into a dog or anything else.

Fact: No one has ever observed a helpful mutation. There has never been a beneficial form of cancer (I say this with all respect for those who might have faced it), or an extra leg that was anything more than just an obstacle.

I know, I'm the annoying Christian that isn't supposed to be posting stuff on an atheistic website, but apparently you already understand why...that whole Great Commission and everything.

Re: http://oheliza.blogspot.com/2009/02/oh-how-sawyer-makes-me-all-stupid-girly.html

nathan — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:14:00 -0000

I also have a crush on Sawyer...when he comes on screen I get all stupid girly too. its the sawyer phenomenon, he does it to everyone, boys and girls.

Re: http://oheliza.blogspot.com/2009/02/books-in-2009.html

nathan — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:10:00 -0000

lists always help me get things done. If you haven't read it, I would suggest "The History of Love" by Nicole Krauss.

Re: http://oheliza.blogspot.com/2009/02/youre-in-middle-of-ride.html

nathan — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:09:00 -0000

I must say I'm glad those years are behind me. Middle school was horrible, high school was better but nothing special. I was glad when it ended.

Re: Honda Insight Hybrid to be Sold for $19,800

nathan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:26:58 -0000

@Joe:

¡Viva la bicicleta!

Re: Honda Insight Hybrid to be Sold for $19,800

nathan — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:56:06 -0000

@Joe: He said. "Our way of life revolves around our car. I'm the first to admit it. Where I work, where I live, what I do.

Requires a car."

Unfortunately, that is true. Hopefully, while we rebuild and add-on to our existing cities, we will design them in a way that encourages mass transit, bicycling, and driving.

Re: The Amazing High-Tech Crosswalk Makes Pedestrians Safer

nathan — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:39:41 -0000

"Living in the MOST ungreen and nonpedestrian friendly city in the world (Tulsa) I could only dream of such things. And strangely enough we are in whats called 'green country' LMAO :)"

Re: Largest Solar Array by an Electric Cooperative to be Installed in New Mexico

nathan — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:05:12 -0000

Yes I ranted. But again. How often woud this installation be producing 30 MW?

Re: Bike Commuting Is On the Rise, In Toronto Anyways

nathan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:25:37 -0000

@anonymous, who said, "a fringe group deserving of not one penny more of the municipal transport budget than, let's see, 1.7%. Sounds fair to me, as long as they pay a license fee."

I feel obliged to do the typical debunking of this fallacy.

1. The vast majority of cyclists also have cars and pay all the taxes related to owning a car, except for lower fuel taxes due to their lower consumption of fuel.

2. Cyclists free up many resources of the city, less space, less pollution, less health-care costs, etc.

3. There are two practical reasons for licensing cars that do not exist for bikes: a. cars kill people. b. when cars are stolen, it is extremely financially difficult to replace it.

Re: Is Public Transit "Liberal" and Cars "Conservative"?

nathan — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:17:09 -0000

80 cents per mile at 15,000 miles a year would be $12,000 per year just on your car, or about 25% of the average household income in this country

Here's a study from AAA regarding cost per mile, note its assumptions of $2.30/gallon and full coverage insurance.

http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Assets/Files/20093271039350.DrivingCosts2009.pdf

Re: Bike Lanes in Toronto Turn Into Phoney "War on Cars"

nathan — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:01:06 -0000

@Jeremy K:

A cyclists also saves the city money by polluting less (big cities in U.S. have higher rates of respiratory problems).

Re: Quote of the Day: Marion Nestle on the Elitism of Organic Food

nathan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:20:49 -0000

I'm not going to respond to your entire post, DB, and some of the specifics I agree with, especially DDT and maybe the MLK Jr. part.

However, given that you have failed to criticize industry in your comment, I feel that you need to have some nuance to your argument.

Re: Would You Wear a Solar Powered Cell Phone on Your Wrist?

nathan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:15:18 -0000

Re: Bizarre Tongue-Eating Parasite Discovered Off the Jersey Coast

nathan — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:15:43 -0000

What's the matter? Isopod got your tongue?

Re: Istanbul : Four days after the rain came

nathan — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:01:39 -0000

congrats on this blog in fact every story almost gives you a feel of being there. one day I hope to share my travels across south america .

Re: http://www.crimene.ws/2009/05/alaska-rape-victim-harassed-over.html

nathan — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:29:01 -0000

hey Trench, I am doing some research about rape in AK. Would you please contact me and help me get some more info. Many thanks, Nathan

Re: Need some advice - Letters to the Webmaster

nathan — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:54:00 -0000

I've been an ex-"believer" of any type of "revealed" religion for just about 1 year to this date. I have a couple of friends that I occasionally engage in discussing my new beliefs (deism) with them and we go back and forth with them trying to get me to read something and me doing the same to them. In the end we try not to get upset with each other and I personally (when their nonsense starts getting out of hand) will ask them to lets drop the subject for now and tell them we'll talk about it later.

My advice to you is similar to what Sophia just posted. Get them to read your articles (or books) and ask them to give you their opinion of what they think about it. (I prefer short articles or website that won't take more that 10 or 20 minutes to read). Most Christian's won't take you up on it cause they may believe they're being "tempted by satan", but for the ones who will read it, with luck, you can still keep them as friends and have a civil conversation with them and eventually learn to let them believe what they want to belive.

Here's one of my favorite website where I get my "amunition" from to debate my opponents.
http://www.godvsthebible.com

Re: http://www.crimene.ws/2008/11/racist-rednecks-indicted.html

nathan — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:55:43 -0000

"Did I hit a little too close to trailer…I mean home?"

That's about what I'd expect from the writer. I'd almost be offended but then again your just some little punk geek that never will matter, that probably won't get much further in life than writing for some sad bullshit blog, so you'll have to excuse me if i have trouble taking whatever you have to say seriously.

Re: http://www.crimene.ws/2008/11/racist-rednecks-indicted.html

nathan — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:30:43 -0000

Yes great way to get your point across...racism is bad, so lets use prejudice comments to describe the offenders...dumbshit...

Re: http://www.crimene.ws/2008/03/adamicik-reduced-sentence-request.html

nathan — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:09:50 -0000

do you know anything about the case or torey or are you just some dumb ass who like the manager of this website that just bitches about everything so people come here

Re: None

nathan — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:02:14 -0000

what i want to know is why everyone is talking about me but no ones ever talked to me

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2007/03/red-high-heels-on-yellow-brick-road.html

nathan — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:26:00 -0000

Thanks for sharing this, Kel. Thank you for your efforts in helping women in the church use creative expression to share their experience with the wider church.

Thank you also Marcel for bring this to a wider audience.

Re: A Theology of the Gifts

nathan — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:02:43 -0000

"it concerns me when there seems to be a greater focus on â??experiencingâ? God (through speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, etc.) than on correct interpretation of the Bible and on correct doctrine." do you believe that God can be "experianced" if so how if not why do most christian churches both charismatic and non focus on christianity not being a religion but a relationship with God through Jesus. how can a true relationship not include experiances? "We also must ask ourselves, who said that those things are the ultimate of experiencing God? " who did say this? I don't see this claim made or implyed here by anyone. I think that we can agree based on biblical evidence that we will not have the ultimate experances with God untill we get to heaven. this however does not mean that we cannot have any experiances with God while we are here on earth. That stance is obviously not supported by scripture. I do not really understand why cessationists spend so much time telling charismatics that how we experiance God is wrong and how they experiance God is right. We are all individuals and I think that it is logical that each of our relationships with God are different. each of the apostals had a different walk with God... does that mean paul was better then petter but not as good as John? No. they were just different. if you as an individual choose to not "seek the greater gifts" thats your porogative I do not think you should look down on your brothers and sisters in christ who do so though.
it should be â??the Bible supports that gifts of the spirit continue to manifestâ?. Just because youâ??ve â??experiencedâ? something, doesnâ??t mean the Bible supports it as true. I agree on this aspect however there are many experiances that the bible never mentions that are still true. for example you're reading this post on a computer computers are not mentioned in the bible that does not make them non-existant. in addition the argument on cessation or not is based on the interpretation of the God breathed bible by imperfect humans. we can be wrong in our interpretation I am willing to admit that about myself... are you? however even though we are capable of being wrong I think God knows this and helps us to learn from this in order to gain a more correct view. this is why I think arguing certian docterine that are not of a salvific nature is of limited merit. in other words cant we just agree on the gospel do our job and let other differencs of oppionon and preference take a back seat as less important?

Re: Sarah Cooney on the Gifts

nathan — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:02:25 -0000

I have reposted this comment because I didn't realise that the comments had moved here and I wanted to see what you all thought.
â??it concerns me when there seems to be a greater focus on â??experiencingâ? God (through speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, etc.) than on correct interpretation of the Bible and on correct doctrine.â? do you believe that God can be â??experiancedâ? if so how if not why do most christian churches both charismatic and non focus on christianity not being a religion but a relationship with God through Jesus. how can a true relationship not include experiances? â??We also must ask ourselves, who said that those things are the ultimate of experiencing God? â? who did say this? I donâ??t see this claim made or implyed here by anyone. I think that we can agree based on biblical evidence that we will not have the ultimate experances with God untill we get to heaven. this however does not mean that we cannot have any experiances with God while we are here on earth. That stance is obviously not supported by scripture. I do not really understand why cessationists spend so much time telling charismatics that how we experiance God is wrong and how they experiance God is right. We are all individuals and I think that it is logical that each of our relationships with God are different. each of the apostals had a different walk with Godâ?¦ does that mean paul was better then petter but not as good as John? No. they were just different. if you as an individual choose to not â??seek the greater giftsâ? thats your porogative I do not think you should look down on your brothers and sisters in christ who do so though.
it should be â??the Bible supports that gifts of the spirit continue to manifestâ?. Just because youâ??ve â??experiencedâ? something, doesnâ??t mean the Bible supports it as true. I agree on this aspect however there are many experiances that the bible never mentions that are still true. for example youâ??re reading this post on a computer computers are not mentioned in the bible that does not make them non-existant. in addition the argument on cessation or not is based on the interpretation of the God breathed bible by imperfect humans. we can be wrong in our interpretation I am willing to admit that about myselfâ?¦ are you? however even though we are capable of being wrong I think God knows this and helps us to learn from this in order to gain a more correct view. this is why I think arguing certian docterine that are not of a salvific nature is of limited merit. in other words cant we just agree on the gospel do our job and let other differencs of oppionon and preference take a back seat as less important?

Re: http://www.mokurendojo.com/2008/11/were-back-from-camping.html

nathan — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:44:00 -0000

Looks like a great place for camping. Welcome back, and a blessed Thanksgiving holiday for you and your family from mine.

Re: No, MY kung fu is better than your puny technique! Hayır, kung fu sen...

nathan — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:06:00 -0000

I have to catch up on these comments. In tribute, I have made you the TDA Quote of the day: http://tdatraining.blogspot.com/2008/04/today-q...

Re: http://www.mokurendojo.com/2008/02/boost-your-blog-traffic-instantly.html

nathan — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:23:00 -0000

It was so easy! And it worked. Plus my athlete's foot is gone!!

Re: http://www.weekinrewind.com/2008/10/giveaway-boston-red-sox-essential-games.html

nathan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:39:00 -0000

I want to win!

Re: http://www.weekinrewind.com/2008/04/giveaway-adventures-of-young-indiana.html

nathan — Tue, 27 May 2008 09:49:00 -0000

This is a wonderful series, but it was hard to find the third season of movies without cable. I'd love to pop this puppy into the DVD machine!

Re: http://mikalatos.blogspot.com/2007/05/matt-by-any-other-name-would-still.html

nathan — Wed, 09 May 2007 11:15:00 -0000

Pseudonyms can be very handy, though...

... so I'm voting for Mick Mackalatos...

Re: Chronic Empathy Deficiency

nathan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:40:00 -0000

Hmm.. sounds like everyone's favorite book needs to be written and distributed to people like that.< />< />"Suicide - Getting it right!"

Re: Chronic Empathy Deficiency

nathan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:40:00 -0000

Hmm.. sounds like everyone's favorite book needs to be written and distributed to people like that.< />< />"Suicide - Getting it right!"

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/10/tractors-revenge.html

nathan — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:04:57 -0000

Great shot, I like how their colors mirror each other.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/09/final-touch.html

nathan — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:06:15 -0000

great composition, really like all the negative space at the top.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/08/quiet.html

nathan — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:39:46 -0000

Great shot. Looks very relaxing and peaceful but at the same time the darkness is a bit scary.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/08/island-of-tranquility.html

nathan — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:17:14 -0000

Awesome lighting and composition, great shot!

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/07/morning-ritual.html

nathan — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:32:37 -0000

Beautiful lighting!

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/05/maze.html

nathan — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:08:00 -0000

Awesome high contrast shot. The perspective is great.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/04/bona-petit.html

nathan — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:51:00 -0000

Nice capture. The expression is funny, and what's also funny is her sweater matches all the green in the plants and her hair matches a lot of the red pots.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/03/forest.html

nathan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:10:00 -0000

Cool effect. The tones and colors are also great.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/03/flying-fish.html

nathan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:08:00 -0000

I love the feel of this photo and the expression on the girl's face. The lighting is awesome too.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2009/01/moment-of-joy.html

nathan — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:03:00 -0000

Awesome shot, looks so bright and happy.

Re: http://www.ilanbresler.com/2008/12/vlada-2.html

nathan — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:24:00 -0000

I love it. It has an almost movie-film type of feel to it.