Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by sebmal


1. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102231 by sebmal on December 22, 2007 at 5:18 am

Rtambree
ricey

Hello.
I'm from Sweden. It's very important to note that the surveys done on atheism and agnosticism in Sweden/ Norway are accurate and represent the reality. BUT; as far as other superstition goes (horoscopes, ghosts etc) WE (the Swedish people), are just as gullible as the rest of the western world (qualified guess).

To my great disappointment; Swedish programs are still being aired that treat the world of ghosts as a absolute reality.* However - as people have rightly pointed out - these childish superstitions are a mere remnant of the absolute credulity propagated by religion. Saying that Sweden is "just as bad as America, but in a slightly different way" is like denying the difference between the common flue and cancer. I would ague that WE (in northern europe) have "advanced a couple of trenches" compared to our American friends in the fight between - as I see it - reality and bullshit.



* ex. Det Okända.

2. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96801 by sebmal on December 10, 2007 at 11:41 pm

tticus_of_Amber

...A very good response indeed. Have you sent this "post" to Jonathan. If "yes" have you recived any comments?

3. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93765 by sebmal on December 4, 2007 at 7:07 am

Why didn't Dawkins speak?

4. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92838 by sebmal on December 1, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Lagomort

I'm sad to say, that you do have a point…
I'm afraid people could actually come away from this debate feeling that Dinesh D'Souza - because of his "rhetorical slyness" and well polished manner - made more sense than Dennet.

I'm therefore sceptical of the effectiveness of these debates. In Sweden, politicians don't engage in debate with leaders of Racists organisations, simply because they don't want to give their position any validity. It has, to the best of my knowledge, worked. I'm wondering if that principle should be used against speakers such as Dinesh D'Souza?