Attack? I attacked you?

I have plenty of arguments, all of which you promptly ignored and began posting anyway.

And your point is? They are still both belief systems capable of being used to manipulate masses of people. Additionally atheism is equally based on faith as theism. You don't think so? Then if it is not based on faith, prove to me God doesn't exist. I would like to see your scientific evidence for the nonexistence of God. So yeah, your belief system is not any better sorry.

Additionally your last statement has no logical explanation or reasoning behind it, you just make a declarative statement as if it is fact without any supporting evidence. You claim "it can be seen", but how? If you can't even be bothered to describe it, why should I believe you have any evidence to support your argument? This is just lazy man's arguing, you aren't even trying. I never denied religion can be used to control people. I did however say atheism can also be used to control people too, just like any other belief system. Sorry buddy but your belief system is nothing more than the religion of Godlessness.




Now you are just arguing the semantics of how God is defined. Buddhists do believe in God, as you said, just not in the sense that most monotheistic religions do. The importance is the recognition of something ABOVE ones self and above the state that can not be interfered with. Additionally I never said there can be no law without God, only that all law is BASED ON God. Your argument about Buddhists is irrelevant. BTW love the anti-American cherry on top. Just because I used the US as an example means I think "the US is the only nation in the world" and I "don't have access to a globe or a plane ticket". That is a cute little red herring you have there. Hating on the US is the cool thing lately I guess, gotta pander to those easily confused masses.



You are right. Historical figures such as Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin totally did not try to stomp out religion and try make the government the only authority figure. They Romans didn't burn Christians either

Religion is not required for social control or to create fear. Open a history book before you open your mouth.

They sell it on Amazon in the US. I have seen others here selling it here as well, and they were not banned. You are good to go.

Any belief system can be manipulated to control the populace, even atheism. That by no means negates the value of all belief systems just because they can be exploited.

I am a fan of American Thinker, but I am sorry that statement is just mostly bullshit. Yes the environmentalists love to blow things out of proportion and often use the public outcry for profit, but that doesn't make every initial complaint false. The best propaganda has a seed of truth at its core which keeps it alive. I am not supporting every reaction to these problems by environmentalists, but lets not pretend these things aren't issues at all and ignore potential harm reduction measures.

DDT: "In addition to more than two dozen studies documenting the presence of DDT in breast milk and human tissues, the petition cited three studies, published in 1968 and 1969, linking DDT to cancer. In one, DDT had been found to cause as many tumors in mice as did the known carcinogen aminotriazole.12 In the second study, successive generations of mice fed high doses of DDT showed increasing rates of leukemia and tumors.13 The last study, a human study, found that DDT levels were twice as high in people who had died of cancer compared with those who had suffered sudden or accidental deaths.14 The studies, the petitioners concluded, provided “clear evidence that DDT causes cancer in animals and provides very strong indications that it produces cancer in man.”15"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821864/


Pesticides: http://www.who.int/heli/risks/toxics/bibliographyikishi.pdf ,  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/aip/179691/


Acid Rain: http://folk.uio.no/rvogt/CV/Co-author/Larssen%20et%20al%201999.pdf

Cancer and EMF fields: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/12/S50.full.pdf

Care to even reference that study? IMO we have real and serious environmental issues, IMO CFCs are one of them. Global warming just serves as a red herring to distract from the real issues like the dangers of nuclear energy, fracking, or pharmaceuticals at detectable levels in the water supply.

It doesn't matter if you are taking rights from them or not. You are not picking a designer to contract with and paying them, thus this is SPECULATIVE work, IE you might not get paid a dime for any work regardless of rights not being lost. I didn't call other people half ass garbage, I called the work half ass garbage. Also this doesn't mean they can't do better, it is just not worth their time to even try because you are paying a pittance and they aren't even guaranteed that meager sum.

You are treating them like bitches, because you are expecting people to work for you for free. Talk to a few designers and make a contract with one, don't just waste all of their time except one, then pay that person a pathetic sum. I think it is unethical and inappropriate for you to operate this way.

In what other industry would this even come close to being acceptable? Additionally, it hurts ALL designers by pretending like this method of operation is ok, because it drives down their ability to earn reasonable pay for their work because there is ALWAYS some one more desperate and willing to work for nearly nothing, especially when ones job is creating digital assets and the competition is global. Just because you are able to take advantage of that desperation does not make it ok. The really sad part is people like you only see the money they save and don't know enough about marketing or design to know you lose in this equation as well by getting a substandard product when you could pick ONE designer and pay the same amount and get a much higher quality result. No one wins with speculative work, even if you think you do.

Just because you are ignorant of history and law does not make it a fallacy. What I stated was an example, and it is true that within the US, if God was to be completely stripped from law, YOU WOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS. You did not even bother to do that much, you just made two statements and linked them together without explaining any of the reasoning. It is a fact all law is based on God, and that doesn't change just because you sloppily apply a fallacy label to it.

I think this sums it up well:

"Set aside religion and consider this: If our fundamental rights are merely granted by the state, then they can be taken away by the state. What is more, the state would have no moral compunction not to rob us of our rights. The state is not particularly moral or special or better than people. The state is people. If they don't have some larger, higher moral code that guides them, then assumptions about what constitutes the "good" are, at least to some degree, arbitrary."

https://theweek.com/articles/546457/troubling-implications-believing-rights-dont-come-from-god

Even if you believe God is a fairy tale, it is still a fairy tale worth telling, because your rights are inherent as a living human, they are not granted to you by the state. In reality the Bill of Rights is not a list of your rights, but a list of rights the government is not allowed to infringe upon because they are "God given". If you remove God from the equation, rights are then granted by the state... and can be taken by the state, but don't mind any of that. You don't need rights when you are enjoying frothing at the mouth with intolerant anti-religious vitriol.

I don't know how anyone would get that idea...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs-july-dec13-whistleblowers_08-01/

Correlation does not equal causation. You just stated two separate things and pretend they are linked without providing any evidence or even any logical reasoning for it.

No one, just like every other hack.

I see consensus management has arrived. I am surprised it took this long.

I have got reports from other users that this has happened. I have a feeling this is going to be a big problem.

I was excited to help with your logo here... then I saw it was spec work. First of all that is a pathetic amount to offer anyone for a decent logo even on a contract basis. Usually people running these spec work contests at least compensate for the potential of not getting paid by increasing the amount above what a normal contract cost would be. You however have done the exact opposite... and you get what you pay for, a bunch of half ass garbage.

I implore any designers reading this not to participate in any kind of spec work, because it reduces all designer's ability to earn a living. Would this type of setup be considered acceptable in any other industry? Stop treating designers like bitches and pay them a fair fee. Designers, stop being bitches and demand fair payment for your work.

http://www.nospec.com/

Did you use the same email and password for the exchange as you did for this forum? The password hashes were compromised for this forum, your exchange account may be compromised as a result.

If you listened to the recordings, none of them appeared to be that controversial. IMO at most it would be embarrassing. I think you are overreacting just a tad.

Uh, you are the one that began this, so I don't know where you get off accusing me of being off topic when you began this line of discussion. I am sure you know Better than Berkeley. Anyone else with a functional brain stem got the point, just please refrain from pretending like you know things, it confuses people who actually want to educate themselves. Also, way to avoid my question btw

Clearly you are ignorant and willfully wish to remain so in order to defend your failure of an argument. You have now had this explained to you by a forum member of 4 years and a moderator, but clearly you know best. In a battle of wits, I refuse to fight an unarmed man... so have fun arguing with yourself.

Freon is a CFC. It is purported that CFCs break apart the ozone layer, but more importantly they continue to react and do so over and over instead of being depleted. While IMO global warming is a red herring, I do believe we are damaging our ozone layer, and depleting it would be bad (like we can't go outside with exposed skin bad).

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/freon-really-affect-ozone-78916.html

I am sure wherever you are from is a veritable utopia. I am willing to bet you live in one of those socialist eastern European countries that likes to tell themselves they are better than the rest of the world, ironically putting themselves on their own path to destruction. Circle of life.

Government loves atheism, that makes them the closest thing to a God on earth. Government has sought to fill this role since governments existed. The case you cited is very telling. I have, in the past on this forum described how and why God is inseparably linked with law, back to its very beginnings until the modern day. The Bill of Rights for example, is a list of GOD GIVEN inalienable rights. If there was no God in law, you would have all the rights of an animal or a turnip. The case history you cited is another good example of how God is inseparably linked with law, and why you should want it to stay that way.