Douglas Adams Correct?

The year of 1979 Douglas Adams wrote the first part of his trilogy in five parts(!), The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the chapter six a man prooves that God does not exist by using logic. He does it like this (link to the source with more fun quotas):

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

If he had lived now he would have said: "What did I tell you!" If you read the Chicago Tribunes article Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds it really seems as he is correct: People that are thinking more logical and not with their guts (?) are more eager to be sceptical and then a lot of the belives disappear in a cloud of logic. Logic, isn't it?

The original article, Analytic Thinking Promotes Religiuos Disbelief was published in the Science Magasin.

Homeopathy

The Swedish paper DN wrote 18 of Aprill about "many wrong facts in articles about companies on Wikipedia". What a pity they, the paper, did not do their research correct. Swedish Wikimedia answered on their blogg (in Swedish) about all the wrong things the reporter Clas Svahn wrote. Of course no corrections or excuses...

One other group at once liked that article and wrote themselves on their blogg (Swedish link) how Wikipedia and the admins are deleting things written by experts. That group was the homeopathy-likers.

As an admin on Swedish Wikipedia I answered that they are welcome to write in the articles. If the do not use sources that use scientific methods to prove it will of course be deleted. Wikipedia is a place you shall not write lies on. The blogg seems to refuse to let my comment be visible, therefor I write it here.

What both the homeopaths and the companies must know is that Wikipedia is not a place for advertising and writing untrue things. We are not censoring facts that you dislike, but are true. If you try to erase it we put it back (and you think we do not listen to you and then we can see that in DN!!!).

Welcome everyone to write, but do not forget good sources!

(Update: And please anyone who is an expert on homeopathy, can you try to win the one milion dollar price James Randi talks about in this link? And prove he is wrong about homeopathy, after 12 minutes? I doubt you'll succeed, but if so I am sure you'll get an own article on Wikipedia)

Sweden censoring on internet!

I am trying to make the Swedish government to change their censoring laws on aerial photographies. This is one of my assignments for Wikimedia Sverige.

It is an interesting law. The Swedish army must approve all photos taken from the air before they are allowed to be spread on the internet, but the law is only valid for Swedish citizens and if you didn't know about it you'll not get fined (Link to law in Swedish)! If a non-Swedish citizen put the photo on internet the law can do nothing. As you probably understands the law was made before the internet revolution, and now it is time to change it to fit the society of today.

How toothless the law is you might see by searching on the Swedish map hitta.se and compare with the non-Swedish Google maps. To avoid breaking the law I use a link to a Swedish paper, IDG, scroll down to the picture. Here you see the same spot on the map. It is the FRA-headquarter in Stockholm, the difference is clear. Someone is censoring the internet! If the strange powers are not capable to see the difference here and find the secret place, then they are not allowed to be called powers.

I think it is time for Sweden to step into the 21^th century, and change it to not let others make fun of us. According to this paper from 2009 the army itself think it is a silly law and wants to get rid of it-but as long as it is there they have to follow it.


Update: I did not my research correct. The article above is from 2009, and after that they have "cut of" the imaginary forest on the Swedish maps. Now you can see it on this place (FRA in Stockholm), but how about other places in the country...

Google censoring Google street view

In the paper edition of DN I read about a man who had seen a well equipped cherubs on a house in Stockholm when he was out walking one day. He wanted to show it for his wife and opened Google streetview by editing : Norrbackagatan 22, 113 41 Stockholm, Stockholms län on the wall you can only see two gray blurred circles. He was astonished and looked at the same place (Norrbackagatan 22, 113 41 Stockholm) with hitta.se. There he could show his wife the picture. Another blogger read the paper too. He checked an address were there are swastikas on the door, from the 1910^th, before the Nazis. That swastikas were not blurred.

How does Google think? Some art with a little to long penis on the wall, from the beginning of the 20^th century are censored, but not a swastika from the same age? Which is the most disgusting, an attribute for love and making children or an sign that stands for 10^th of millions of dead and tortured?

In my opinion none should be censored, but my guess is that the owners of Google have an own agenda. I hope I am wrong here and that is is just a mistake that seems to make them look pro-Nazis. Is it the Christian right in the US that stands for their puritanism or the Catholic church, who are well known for having helped Nazis to escape to South America and therefor are guilty for a lot of the torture that these people did in the name of the dictatorships? Can someone give me and the readers a clue of how they think?