Tre Pezzi (1959) by Franco Albini and Franca Helg is produced by Cassina.

There is something that most religious parents who indoctrinate their children into their own religion have in common. These parents usually teach their children that fictional characters such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are real. This kind of parenting can only be characterized as sub-standard.

If parents should teach their children anything it should be critical thinking. Children need to learn how to properly evaluate the things they encounter in life. They need to know how to ask the right questions and be able to analyze information to come to rational conclusions. Teaching them that imaginary characters are real will only make them more susceptible to unfounded claims in the future.

There is also the problem of lying to children. Teaching them something which you personally know isn’t true is morally wrong. And for you Christians, it violates the 9th commandment. There is also an element of idol worship involved (violation of the 2nd commandment), especially for Santa Claus whom children basically pray to for presents.

The Santa Claus myth also promotes doing good for the sake of reward and avoid doing wrong out of fear for punishment (i.e. coal) because you are being watched by an omniscient supernatural being (sounds familiar). What this teaches children is an unjust system of morality. Children should learn that good has intrinsic value and should be done for its own sake.

Moreover, for many of these myths the child’s belief of the supernatural being involved is required in order for them to receive the reward. This teaches children that it is okay to believe in something without proper evidence. And even when children begin to ask questions parents will continue to lie to them in order to keep them believing in the myths as long as possible (to not spoil their fun). The result is the discouragement of healthy skepticism.

Nevertheless, it seems like teaching kids about these more softer versions of religion makes it easier to push the hardcore religion down their throats. The step from Santa Claus to Jesus is not that far. I guess it is all just part of the religious program of indoctrination.

I have now started to read ‘Calvin for Armchair Theologians,’ by Christopher Elwood. I have to admit that I come to this book with a very doubtful attitude. The front cover illustration of John Calvin and the many ‘comic-like’ illustrations throughout the book worry me. I just don’t get a sense that this book is a serious treatment of John Calvin. That is the impression that presents when just looking at the book – I hope to be proven wrong for having ‘judged a book by its cover.’ The illustrations in the book are by Ron Hill, who is apparently a freelance illustrator and cartoonist.

I have to admit that the ‘armchair theologian’ part of the title also gives me a poor impression of the book – it sort of gives me the picture of a guy who loves to watch sport on the TV while sitting in his armchair, while not really taking the sport seriously in his actual life – has nothing to do with it in reality, in that he doesn’t play sport. This is the idea that ‘armchair theologian’ paints for me, which is an approach to theology that is far removed from the Bible’s idea of involvement with the truth.

But, as I said, I hope to be proven wrong for having ‘judged a book by its cover.’

One of the major problems with most religious people who try to launch an offensive against evolution is that they don’t have a clue what it is. You don’t need to get a degree in biology or even read a biology textbook. But, you should at least familiarize yourself with some of the basic concepts and sources of evidence for what you are trying to argue against. Otherwise, you end up making a complete fool of yourself.

Religious zealotry and ignorance of science can lead to some amazingly ridiculous questions. Today I was asked, “Why do we have to use science? Can you explain why we are eating pizza right now with science?”. Clearly, the person asking the question was not trying to seek the truth. He was creating a smokescreen to try and hide from the truth.

The main difference that separates science (e.g. evolution) and pseudo science (e.g. CrIntelligent Designism) is the process in which they arrive at conclusions. In science a hypothesis is made and observations are collected; if the observations support the hypothesis then the theory is accepted, otherwise, a new hypothesis needs to be made. However, with pseudo-science a conclusion is already presumed. Only observations that support said conclusion are collected and those that refute it are ignored.

Those who question the validity of science really need to wake up and take a look at the world they live in. Every day you take advantage of all the advancements and innovations made possible only with science. You have no problem with science when it comes to your computer, cell phone, car, medicine, contact lenses, clothes, and so on ad infinitum, but when it conflicts with your presumed conclusions you deny its usefulness. If that isn’t mental gymnastics I don’t know what is.

Yesterday, November 24th was evolution day: the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charle’s Darwin’s revolutionary book, The Origin of Species.

Fundamentalist religious people, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaccine conspiracists and all people of that sort have one thing in common. They all ultimately want one thing. I can tell you now that it isn’t the truth. And they sure as hell don’t want rational discourse. They are all out to get one thing: the satisfaction of their personal emotional needs.

These kinds of people did not come to their beliefs because they were convinced by a rational argument. They have either been taught these beliefs by their families, been convinced emotionally, or a combination of the two. The justifications and special pleadings only come after their conversion. This is why a rational argument isn’t going to convince them and neither is all the disconfirming evidence in the universe ever going to change their minds.

And the irrational, illogical, and unscientific nature of their beliefs becomes very clear when their last resort is to hide behind an argument that is unfalsifiable. For religious people it’s God and for 9/11 truthers and anti-vaccine conspiracists it’s a huge government scheme to create a world government or something equally ridiculous. This is usually followed up with an argument from ignorance such as, “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist”.

This thought process often strikes me when I am about to make a comment in response to another comment or video on youtube made by these types of people. Is there a point in responding to people who don’t think logically? Sometimes I even write out the whole comment and immediately discard it afterwards because I know that I am just going to get a bunch of bullshit back. However, there are times when I feel that a point needs to be made.

The only way to get to these people seems to be an appeal to emotion. But, I am not willing to stoop to this level to convince people. I have more integrity than that.

I wonder how much of the Bible these monkeys read in order to reach this level of reciprocity.

This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Waterloo Festival for Animated Cinema. It is a yearly festival that has been going on for nine years. I have been going to university in Waterloo since last year, but I had never heard of this event.

Fortunately, this year I received an e-mail from my campus’s gaming oriented club informing me about this festival. And once I learned from their website that they would have a showing of the North American premiere for Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance, I knew I had to go.

Initially, I expected that most of the films that were to be shown would be Japanese. I was surprised when I found out that only 3 out of the 14 were Japanese anime films. They had films from many diverse countries countries including Ireland, Hungary, Australia, Sweden, Belgium and Serbia.

The theme of this year’s festival was Russian animation. Specifically, the focus of the event was on a select number of some of the oldest films in Russian animation which had their start in the Soviet Union. I even got to see the Soviet Union’s first animated feature film, The Lost Letter, which was made in 1945.

I also have to give a big kudos to the team who put this event together. They did an amazing job with the programme booklets, ticket system, and the overall aesthetic quality and organization of the festival. The staff was also very friendly and made me feel right at home. I had a great time and definitely plan on going next year.

There’s something very interesting when an advertisement is more memorable than the product. Nevertheless, here we have Toshiba’s Space Chair ad campaign promoting its new TV series … Truly amazing stuff. Now buckle up watch.

There is something that many Christians really do not understand. Atheists do not reject Christianity or the existence of God because they have not heard all the arguments offered by apologetics or because they have not heard the proper apologetics yet.

We have heard just about every argument for God’s existence, Jesus’ divinity, the bible’s legitimacy and so on. These arguments do not work. Every single one has failed. Not one of these arguments can bridge the gap between the natural and the supernatural.

What occurs in most Christian apologetics is a presumption of the legitimacy of the bible. So, it fails from the start. Before you can prove that the bible is the word of God you cannot use it as any evidence. The result is a juggling of dogma. Throwing bible verses around does not amount to anything. It is merely circular reasoning.

One of the most troubling things is the claim that the miraculous events in the bible are historically based. This claim reveals a large misunderstanding of how history works. History can only show what is most probable. Therefore, miracles which are the most improbable events can never be used as explanations in history.

All the arguments for God also fail. The teleological, cosmological, ontological, and transcendental arguments, the argument from morality and so on fail miserably. To say that they prove anything is to pervert philosophy. There is also rampant misuse of philosophical principles such as Occam’s razor in apologetics.

Most atheists are open-minded people. It is not that we have not heard all the arguments or haven’t heard the right ones. The reason why I and many others remain unconvinced is because Christian apologetics is an epic failure. The evidence is not on your side and no amount of special pleading will change that.

Yesterday saw the launch of Toshiba’s latest ad campaign to promote its new 2010 REGZA SV LCD TV series, Toshiba’s first with LED backlight and local dimming.

The video revolves around the journey of an “ordinary armchair” which was made out of biodegradable balsa wood and sent up 98,268 ft. Fitted with 4 GPS systems and attached to helium balloons, the journey was shot using Toshiba’s own IK-HR1S cameras.

This is the first of two videos with part two set to hit our screens in 2010 to promote the new range of Satellite T Series of ultra low voltage laptops.

Whilst this video is certainly attention grabbing, it’ll be interesting to see whether the TV sales reach the same dizzying heights the chair has or if it’ll be one of those campaigns where the advert is more memorable than the product.

In this post I will teach you theists how not to argue. This was inspired by a recent commenter. He said that belief in science presupposes its superiority to any other worldview or as he likes to call it “noetic structure”. “Without presenting an argument to justify the superiority of some noetic strcuture, B, one begs the question in favor of B by simply presupposing it is correct.” So, he says that he doesn’t agree with my claim that science is the superior method of finding knowledge which makes it an invalid claim to him.

I responded by saying that the only way we can tell if one system is better than another is through how well they work for us. And he convienently responds by saying that I have presupposed the pragmatic approach to selecting the proper system. Really? Is there another way to tell how well something works other than the way it works for us? This type of reasoning, lets call it bullshit, boggles the mind.

It is hard to be gentle with people who try to argue like this. This type of pseudo-intellectual babble does not lead to anything and is just arguing  for the sake of argument. The proper term for this type of view is conceptual relativism. Conceptual relativism presupposes that there are different worldviews. Not every system is accepted, but there is no way to judge between two good systems. There is also no neutral worldview to make judgment from; no outside perspective. And there is no point of view from within a worldview for judging another one.

What does this mean for Christianity? Well it means that it is nothing special. All religions would be equally valid worldviews. That is the best conclusion that could come from conceptual relativism. But, how does that help apologetics? Well it doesn’t help at all. It has the opposite effect desired.

Anderson Teak CHD-190 Marlborough Dining Armchair Review

Products by : Anderson

Model :

Rating Reviews :

Availability : Usually ships in 4-5 business days

Anderson Teak CHD-190 Marlborough Dining Armchair Feature

• Sloping arches and fully scrolled arms are designed to complement and enhance its natural surroundings
• Made from kiln dried first grade plantation grown teakwood
• Marine grade brass and stainless steel fittings
• Mortise and tenon joints with teakwood dowels
• Dimensions: 37″W x 25″D x 40″H; Seat Height 17″

Anderson Teak CHD-190 Marlborough Dining Armchair Overview

The Marlborough Dining Armchair is a timeless classic faithfully reproduced from the designs of Sir Edwin Lutyens, one of Britain’s most noted architects. The sloping arches and fully scrolled arms are designed to complement and enhance its natural surroundings at any time of year. Rain or shine the Marlborough will embrace any location and impress all who behold it. We have made subtle but careful design changes to ensure excellent back support. Quality built for generations. Features: Made from kiln dried first grade plantation grown teakwood (Tectona Grandis) from legal sources in Indonesia; Marine grade brass and stainless steel fittings; Assembled using the traditional method of mortise and tenon joints with teakwood dowels; Natural finish; No assembly required. Dimensions: 37″W x 25″D x 40″H; Seat Height 17″.

List Price : $650.00

amazon.com’s Prices Offer : $650.00

Check For Lowest Prices and Details Now!

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Nov 16, 2009 14:50:03

Partners : Cheap Handbags4u cheap apple iphone 3gs

maybe there are people wishing for the life of a dog.

Made in Romania

Made by Dutch company Montis, Lazy Bastard (2009) is designed by Bertjan Pot.

A few days ago I went to a presentation by “The Embassy” a student ministry at a nearby university. The topic of discussion was Hell. Here was what I found out about the event on their website beforehand:

Skeptics Welcome:

Nov. 09/09 – Go To Hell
The concept of Hell is hard to swallow – that a large number of people will spend their afterlife in a place of eternal torment and unquenchable fire. At The Embassy, we want to take a good, hard look at where this idea came from, expose the myths associated with it, and make some suggestions that might just surprise you – whether you’ve been attending church your whole life or have spent an equally long time avoiding it.

And judging by this material I had the impression that this group would be more progressive and rational than other church groups. On the flyer it said that “the concept of Hell is hard to swallow” and I jokingly commented that they would try to make me swallow it. Unfortunately, that was exactly what happened.

When I walked into the small auditorium I was surprised  to see band equipment on the stage. I believed that this was going to be a thoughtful discussion. However, I was surprised once more when I had to endure three terrible Christian rock songs before they got to the substance of the discussion. This involved me sitting down while the faithful stood up, some with their arms in the air (maybe even waving them like they just didn’t care).

The first speaker talked about what Hell might be like. He quoted some theologians and apologists and came to the conclusion that we don’t exactly what kind of place Hell is, but it is not a place you want to be. What I thought was going to be a thoughtful discussion was actually a sermon. I was being preached to. This part wasn’t all that bad. The speaker did assume that the Bible was the true word of God and that Hell existed, but I couldn’t have expected much more from a church group.

It was the next part that really surprised me. The main pastor came up on stage and talked about why Hell exists in the first place. He said that God created Hell for Satan and the other fallen angels who rebelled, but made no connection to human afterlife.

He also said that heaven would not be heaven if all the bad people could get in. And he said that these bad people would be getting what they wanted anyways, to be away from God. However, he still maintained that God was still omnipresent because only the compassionate part of his nature would be missing in Hell (also known as a cop-out).

Furthermore, the pastor said that qualifying for heaven has nothing to do with the amount good things or bad things you did. He said that all that was required was belief in Jesus Christ. But, it is never answered what happens to people who have never heard the Gospel. It is also never explained how a belief in a deity has to do with being a good person.

In addition, he ends up contradicting some of the statements he made earlier about it being easy to imagine Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and other evil people being in Hell because he labelled them as evil solely by their actions. It is very arguable that Hitler who was Christian is in heaven. It is even arguable that Bin Laden is in heaven because for all we know he may have been a believer in Christ.

During the sermon we could text questions to the pastor to be answered at the end. Two of my questions came up at the end. The first one was: What if you don’t believe in the concept of Hell? They basically answered me as a Christian and said that the Bible makes it clear that Hell exists. But, I guess that’s the basis of Christian apologetics: assumptions and more assumptions.

My second question (more of a comment) was: An omnipotent God is capable of infinite rehabilitation especially a loving one. And for this they answered me as if I was a Catholic and which consisted of  the concept of Purgatory being attacked.

The pastor also said that when you force your will on a person it is the same as rape. So, sending people to Hell in the first place doesn’t count as imposing on someone? And he also made the point that some people might not want to reform. This logically implies that given the option of heaven or hell that some people would actually choose Hell (which is both a very disgusting and fallacious suggestion).

At the end of the sermon, the conclusion they came up to was “God is not loving in spite of Hell, but because of Hell.” By that time I was already thoroughly annoyed, but I still had to endure some Christian rock music as I exited the auditorium. Overall, I felt I was deceived into believing I would hear some rational discussion. Instead, it just ended up being like any other sermon; it was meant for indoctrination, not education.

Bringing the outdoors in, Camping (2009) in moulded beech using traditional crafts by Jesper K. Thomsen for the Danish company Normann Copenhagen.

Often, Christians apologists try to portray Hitler as a godless heathen and a symbol of the evils caused by atheism. But, this is a very inaccurate picture. He may not have agreed with mainstream Christianity at the time, but he was devoted to Jesus and was personally inspired by him. He makes this clear by expressing his praise for Jesus in some of his speeches and writings.

Many Protestant Christians today have no problem criticizing Catholicism. Hitler was simply doing the same thing; criticizing his religion of birth, Roman Catholicism, and was not attacking Christianity itself. You will find many quotations of Hitler making harsh criticisms of the mainstream institution of Christianity, but you will not find any criticizing Jesus, God the Father, or the Bible.

Another tactic used to distance Christianity from Hitler is to say that the actions of Hitler demonstrate that he was not a Christian. However, that is contrary to how Christianity works. Time and time again I have heard how Christianity is better than all other religions because it is not works based.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
- Galatians 2:16

The only real qualification to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ which Hitler definitely did.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.”
- Adolf Hitler (My New Order)

So, even recognizing that Hitler’s actions were sinful do not bar him from Christianity. This is because according to Christian belief all people sin and only redemption through faith in Jesus Christ can absolve them. Therefore, there is also nothing stopping Hitler from being in heaven right now.

There is also no doubt that Hitler believed he was doing God’s work.

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
- Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Christians will of course argue that his was a twisted distortion of Christian faith and cannot be considered Christianity. But, why then was he supported at large by the population of devout German Christians and the highest Protestant and Catholic leaders before and even during the war?

On the contrary, it can be argued that Hitler was more Christian than Christians today because he acknowledged the legitimacy of the Old Testament. For example, he used the Old Testament race laws as the foundation for his views against the Jews, which later became the Nazi Nuremberg race laws.

Even his anti-Semitism was not unusual at the time. Christianity had a long history of distancing itself from Judaism and hatred of Jews. It is undeniable that Christianity was the only source from which Hitler, the Nazis and the general population of Germany could have cultivated such a strong hatred for Jews. Christians may want to attribute his anti-Semitism to evolution or “Darwininism”, but Hitler was a creationist and did not accept evolution.

“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.”
- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.”
- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

When you have looked at the facts as I have you can come to no other conclusion that Hitler was a Christian. You may abhor his actions, but you can only attribute this to the ever changing morality of Christianity.

]]> http://armchairantichrist.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/neocons-and-terrorism/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:08:22 +0000 The Armchair Antichrist http://armchairantichrist.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/neocons-and-terrorism/

Is terrorism a threat to global security? Yes, I do not doubt that. But, has the United States’s foreign policy on this matter been successful? No. The US has been simply trying to police the entire world. It has been trying to export “democracy” through military means. This translates into toppling over governments whose interests conflict with the US’s capitalist interests. Sometimes this includes trade sanctions and embargoes, bombing raids, funding of anti-government groups, assassinations and full-on invasions.

I think American foreign policy has had the opposite effect. It hasn’t increased global security. Instead, it has made the world a more dangerous place. The forceful actions taken by the US has no doubt made large numbers of people angry and legitimately so. These people do not just hate the United States because of all the freedoms Americans have. They are angry in response to the illegitimate actions made by the US in their countries that resulted in detrimental effects to their lives, also known as blowback.

American interventions, both overt and covert, have taken place all over the world including the countries of: Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Georgia, Ukraine, Nicaragua, Chile, Lebanon, Guatemala, the Philippines, Ukraine, Ghana and so on. So, throughout the world many people are angry at the United States. But, what has happened, especially in the Middle East, is that this hatred has fused with religion. Islam and specifically the more extremist sects such as Wahhabism have literally turned this hatred into a holy war – a jihad – a struggle against the infidels.

The answer to terrorism is not to kill all the terrorists like the neocons would like you to think. That only treats the symptoms and does nothing to cure the disease. Terrorism is a cancer, but the actions of the United States are carcinogenic. The longer the US stays in the Middle East and the more the US intervenes in the Middle East, the more the terrorists will be able to recruit more terrorists. This is exactly what the fundamentalists want. It is a never ending cycle. Because you were never welcomed into a country in the first place (e.g. Iraq) the people there will only hate you. I don’t claim to have the solution to terrorism, but the first step should be to get out of the Middle East.

Here is a quick debunking. Some theists claim that they don’t worship Jesus just to get into heaven. I beg to differ. And by breaking it down into smaller chunks which will be easier for the theist’s brain to digest, I will demonstrate how this is not true:

Q1: Why do you worship Jesus?

A1: I worship Jesus because he died for our sins.

Q2. Why did Jesus die for our sins?

A2: Jesus died for our sins to allow us to achieve salvation and be able to enter heaven.

If Jesus did not die for your sins, you would not worship him. And since his dying for your sins is a necessary condition for you being able to enter heaven, you worship Jesus to be able to get into heaven. If A -> B and B -> C, then A -> C. It’s not that hard to understand.

I finally watched the film, 9, directed by Shane Acker and produced by the likes of Tim Burton. Throughout the movie there are many very obvious allusions to religion. And many people after viewing the film have viewed it as a spiritual film because of the ending which depicts the souls of some of the rag dolls floating into the sky. But, virtually all of the references to religion in the rest of the film were anti-religious. This is testament to the fact that religious people only see what they want to see.

The oldest rag doll, 1, was dressed like the pope and has a cape and scepter. He was very dogmatic and authoritative and even had his own strongman, 8, who to me represented the might of the Christian princes of Europe. Furthermore, he was aversive to discovery and enforced strict rules to not allow the other rag dolls to venture outside. However, he ordered 2 to go outside  in the hopes that he would be killed by the machines because he found him to be too inquisitive. This reminds me of the burning heretics practiced by the Church, although somewhat less cruel. In addition, he announced blatantly that science was rubbish.

However, there are some good scenes. One of the best ones was when the rag dolls were walking away from the Church which was burning down behind them. To me it showed the departure from the backwardness of the Dark Ages characterized by 1’s rule into the Renaissance marked by 9’s progressive leadership . The scientist who made the machines also says in a video left behind that the machines were a flawed creation who were easily corrupted. This seems to me to be a critique of God’s creation of humanity. Why create humans who are flawed and easily corrupted and then blame them for everything you know they would do?

But, of course everyone only remembers the part where the souls fly into the sky. So, it ends up being a spiritual film that reinforces their beliefs when in fact the entire movie is actually very blatantly anti-religious. The most crucial part they fail to understand is the part when the rain that falls down is shown to be full of microorganisms. This implies that the hope for the world is that evolution, a completely natural process, which will allow the earth to be prosperous once again.

I have nothing to say today, so I will entertain you with some religious cartoons.

And to finish off here is a cartoon that should be in everybody’s My Pictures folder:

Intelligent design fails because it has no evidence to support it. But, it would fail even if there was evidence of design. This is because the conclusion that ID proponents want to prove is that God was the source of the design. However, even if we found out that DNA was designed, intelligent design would not be the logical conclusion.

There are better natural explanations than positing a supernatural creator. Directed panspermia, for example, is a better explanation. It hypothesizes that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Richard Dawkins answered in a similar the same way when Ben Stein asked him how design might work. But, of course creationists created the straw man that he actually believed this.

Then again we have a great theory for explaining the complexity of life. It is the theory of evolution which is arguably one of the most supported theories in science. So, we don’t need intelligent design (the pseudo-scientific approach of creationism). Evolution is a fact and if you don’t want to accept it then don’t. But, you should stop trying to corrupt science with your religious pseudo-science.

Furniture are very comfortable and at the same time practical. They can be a real ornament of living rooms, the bedroom, studies in private flats, they constitute also unusually elegant equipping offices, studies and rooms at companies, companies, enterprises and all sorts public institutions. Furniture are produced in a few categories. They are gathering into sets destined for rest, into corner furniture, there are single sofas, armchairs, including armchairs intended for offices. Furniture is appearing among sets and furniture of corner or single copies modern, stylish and youth. Armchairs intended for living rooms, hassocks and footrests provide to users with practicality and the comfort. In bedrooms furniture so as fold-out and a healthy person and a deep sleep provide to users with sofas, divan beds, children’s small beds and different additions. For real and unabridged rest furniture is produced with assigning to furnish living rooms. Between them single, double not to say triple sofas, ottomans and corners are. The upholstery is made from the different kind and the colour best qualitatively finding fabrics oneself on the market. At producing furniture a modern technology and a careful finish are a deciding factor. Production of furniture apart from using modern technologies, machines and devices, requires including the human factor which the work of hands of people employed at the production is into the process. Here especially such advantages are valuable as the manual ability of people and appropriate taste and aesthetic tacts which assure for produced furniture quality high. An appropriately integrated design giving the row of functional aspects and the arrangement is an important and deciding factor.