This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Zarlan's Profile

Zarlan's Avatar Joined about 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Zarlan

More Discussions by Zarlan

Latest Comments by Zarlan

Go to: God is not probable in Sweden (Gud finns nog inte)

Zarlan's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by Zarlan

As this is a somewhat old thread, I dunno if anyone'll read this, but...

"God probably doesn't exist" or "There's probably no god", would be an accurate translation.
The former is more correct, but the latter is probably what they translated into Swedish, perhaps modifying it slightly.
(I'm a Swede ...and fluent in English, as opposed to most Swedes, who are merely relatively good)

8. Comment #386166 by Dhamma
23. Comment #386201 by Prankster
32. Comment #386295 by mig...
81. Comment #386752 by Philip1978

I'll admit that I was surprised, when I saw the ads (in Sweden, that is), but...
Just because less than 20% are religious in the country, doesn't make it pointless.
There's still a minority that are religious, and many atheists still believe in "something supernatural".
Besides, you are failing to grasp the main point, which is in their sub-title, which goes something like "yet he still affects us"
Religion affects all Swedes, despite most of them being non-religious.
Most of us don't realise that.
Also, a lot of us (well me, certainly, until a year of two ago) don't realise that we have an atheist majority, due to the country being traditionally christian.

Also, it's PR for the Swedish Humanists. Letting people know they exist.
They don't have too many members, as most Swedes are rather apathetic about the whole subject of religion.

Oh, and... It's not like we don't have religious ads in this country, you know. (most people don't give a damn about them, though)

BTW, "Det finns troligen ingen Gud", is a perfect translation of "there's probably no god". A rare thing, for a machine translation, even with closely related languages.

24. Comment #386203 by Gustaf Sjoblom

Haha, yeah. Quite true.

45. Comment #386394 by nalfeshnee

Actually, there is still an automatic membership-thingy.
Before, you became a member at birth, as long as either or both of your parents were.
Now, you became a member at baptism, as long as either or both of your parents were.
Also note that, many atheists in Sweden, still baptise their kids.
It's a tradition they keep to, regardless of religion, much like marrying in churches. (I'd add christmas, but it's pretty much secular)

Also, it was John III's father, Gustav I of Sweden, who reformed the country to protestantism.

48. Comment #386450 by Ichy

Moreover, to describe Sweden as an "atheist country" is plain wrong. Being non-religious and being an atheist are two different things, and I would think that very few would describe themselves as atheists.


Bullcrap. As long as you aren't a theist, you are automatically an atheist, whether you realise it or not. That is the very definition of atheist:
Not theist.

Not sure? You're an atheist.
Don't care about religions?
You're an atheist. Non-religious?
You're an atheist.

However, I would agree that the label "atheist country", is somewhat flawed.
It's a "mostly atheist country", certainly and "traditionally christian country".

66. Comment #386682 by Michael Gray

Haha :)
(WTF? Prince Philip? This I gotta look up! It sounds like something similar to Emperor Norton I)
Well, whether they are gods, would depend on how you define what a god is.
They are however, claimed to be gods, and they do indeed exist.
Thus I am not, technically, atheistic about them. I just don't believe that they are supernatural, in any way, shape or form.

70. Comment #386730 by David A Robertson
Could anyone please tell me why the following comment was 'trolled'?

Your arrogance, false statements (e.g. "a nation founded on Christian principles"), fallacies and insulting tone?
Don't get me wrong, I don't consider it to warrant a [troll] and disapprove of it being marked as such.
...unless this is but one of the many posts (indeed nearly all of you posts), with such an insulting tone.

I certainly rate it as "poor", though.
...and the multiple repetition, of the relevant post, could be argued to constitute spam. (well, it's only twice, so I wouldn't press [spam], just yet)

90. Comment #386899 by nalfeshnee
Indeed, I've always found polytheism to make more sense.
A lot of the troublesome bits of monotheism, is easy to explain in polytheism, due to the fact that you have different gods, with different agendas.
Also polytheism tends to have more interesting and entertaining stories.
A sentiment that is shared by certain a humorous game reviewer.

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:23:00 UTC | #370927

Go to: Why is Charlotte Allen so mad at atheists?

Zarlan's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by Zarlan

21. Comment #380044 by Peacebeuponme

I think taking 'umbrage' at Myers' amusing way of responding to the orignal article does not help your case here.

Why not?

30. Comment #380102 by chewedbarber
and on the other extreme are the people who view all card skills as either a myth or so esoteric as to be negligible.

And they can't find card games without any chance of chance, so therefore all cardgames are games of chance?
Argument from ignorance I'd say.
Also a somewhat ridiculous standard for the term "games of chance".

40. Comment #380140 by j.mills
Exactly!
I don't care that it's done for tactical reasons. It's wrong and, quite frankly, insulting.

Sun, 24 May 2009 01:41:00 UTC | #363626

Go to: Men in fancy hats set their priorities

Zarlan's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by Zarlan

36. Comment #380403 by TheLordHumungus

God that's hilarious! *added as favourite on youtube*

39. Comment #380473 by kev_s

Already favourited :D
Anything by Dave Allen is brilliant.

50. Comment #380617 by squinky

The Vatican is only a 45 minute walk from the Colliseum--it's time to bring back the lions and march those fucking child abusers to old school justice.

Ah yes. So close, yet so far away.
Should the lions be specially trained to go for the crotch? >;)

55. Comment #380642 by j s bach
Abuse by nuns? That sounds like a highly under-reported issue (as I hadn't heard of it)

Sun, 24 May 2009 01:23:00 UTC | #363621

Go to: Cardinal Cormac: 'Atheism the greatest of evils.'

Zarlan's Avatar Jump to comment 150 by Zarlan

Sorry about the great off-topicness, but it is in the interest of consciousness raising, critical thinking and debunking myths.

140. Comment #380048 by Sciros

1) they are very sharp

They are no more sharp then any other sword. (which naturally varies, depending on the sub-type of sword)
Hardly razor sharp of course, or even as sharp as a knife, as that would only increase the risk of damage to the edge. (especially since katanas generally have a relatively hard, and thus brittle, edge)
Whatever a katana can cut, a europan sword can cut just as well.
The same could be said of many other swords (let's not forget that there are more swords than japanese and European [they're just the coolest])
2) they are cool

Quite true.
...though I'd say that it's no less cool, than many other swords.
3) lightsabers are too dorky, they promote atheist stereotyping (unlike samurai swords? >_>)

WTF?
"promote atheist stereotyping"?

I don't agree on the dorkyness, but that's a matter of taste.
Yours just isn't as good as mine ;P
4) they are light unlike them lousy crusader swords

The average weight of a European longsword (that is, a sword made to be used with one hand or two, just like the katana), is the same as the average weight of a katana.
About 1.4kg (note however, that katanas are somewhat shorter than longswords)
A one handed sword, which where more common during the time of the crusades, would generally weigh around 1kg.
Naturally, they don't feel as heavy as the weight would let you believe, as they are well balanced (depending on the purpose of the sword).
The balancing of the swords, were also similar.

Your ignorance is understandable.
They are the common myths about swords, that surrounds us all the time.
Most people who don't investigate this properly, fall for them.
*used to correcting stuff like points 1 and 4*

142. Comment #380053 by Raiko

Great drawing :)

149. Comment #380101 by squinky
Cutting through dogma with a samurai sword is bit more graphic (and gratifying) than using a scalpel or/.../

You seem to have missed my emphasis on "samurai". Why a samurai sword, as opposed to any other sword?
If any of the reasons, were the same as Sciros', then I have already answered those.

150. Comment #380168 by Koko
As an aside; we all realise that there is no such thing as evil and that we use the word in a poetic sense. Don't we.

No.
Please explain what you mean by evil existing, and "use the word in a poetic sense". That might clear things up a bit.
Also, if it exists in a poetic sense, how can you say that it doesn't exist? Do I spot a self-contradiction?

Sat, 23 May 2009 04:17:00 UTC | #363330

Go to: Men in fancy hats set their priorities

Zarlan's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Zarlan

Just to place myself in the Catholic mindset for a moment, though, if leaving the church is a great evil, wouldn't discrediting the church by evil acts, by the suppression of justice, and by turning a blind eye to the corruption spreading through the body of Christ be even greater sins, since they will cause multitudes to turn away from the Church? Wouldn't that make Murphy-O'Connor and Nichols perpetrators of even greater crimes against the faith than Richard Dawkins?


That is the single, most brilliant rebuttal, ever.

Sat, 23 May 2009 03:29:00 UTC | #363318

More Comments by Zarlan