The religion of peace and toleration continues to amaze

[Giraffe]

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
What was once an obscure physics concept only readily accepted by Science Fiction is now pretty well accepted in general. If the string theory ‘unravels’ then the multiple universe theory will probably go with it, but it is wrong to dismiss a concept of physics you don’t find palatable as stupid and wankery. This is not based upon some creative myths from 1500 to 3000 years ago, but rather scientific theory that has been growing slowly since around 1955 and has only come to be accepted as probable in the last 5 to 10 years.
[/QUOTE]
Accepted by whom? I know of no one studying quantum mechanics who invokes or even refers to multiple universes. I’m sure it has a strong following in the popular science press, which all too often plays up the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics to make it seem more exciting and magical, but that doesn’t necessarily correspond to the opinion of the scientific community.

Isn’t that how science is supposed to work?

No, actually, quite the opposite. There’s nothing wrong with postulating unusual or unlikely theories, but one shouldn’t expect anyone to take them seriously until they can be supported by experimental evidence. Some theories, such as string theory, are unlikely to ever be experimentally verifiable at any energy or time scales accessible by us and so may never be anything more than elegant mathematical constructs, but at least bring something extra to the table in terms of a more all-encompassing theoretical framework than current models. The fact that people study string theory is not itself evidence of higher spatial dimensions, though.

If your disbelief about “Invisible unprovable parallel universes” is the same as your disbelief in God, than you are one of the atheists that I would have to consider foolish indeed. Surely, you know that lack of proof is not proof it is just probable.

Of course. But I have no problem assuming that improbable, unprovable things don’t exist.

For example, one could construct a highly unlikely scenario in which a polar bear ends up on the roof of my house while I’m at work. Yet I have no problem stating “I believe my roof to be free of polar bears” on any given day. I’m not asserting I can prove there’s no bear up there at any given instant without physically viewing the roof, but my statement of belief is based on my choosing what I perceive to be the most likely situation given what I know about the world. To do otherwise strikes me as needlessly wishy-washy.

[LonesomePolecat]

[QUOTE=tagos]
Communism performing the function of a religion for its adherents is a reasonable hypothesis and your hysterical ranting says more about you and your ability to think than anything else.
[/QUOTE]
They are not saying that Communism “performs the function of a religion.” *They are saying that Communism is literally a religion. * My ability to think is just fine, thank you. Yours seems to be seriously impaired if you really believe that it’s just a matter of how you define it. You can re-define a tail as a leg, but a dog will still not have five legs.

[Snarky_Kong]

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
They are not saying that Communism “performs the function of a religion.” *They are saying that Communism is literally a religion. * My ability to think is just fine, thank you. Yours seems to be seriously impaired if you really believe that it’s just a matter of how you define it. You can re-define a tail as a leg, but a dog will still not have five legs.
[/QUOTE]

Is a personal massager a vibrator or just a massager that’s used as one?

[mlees]

@Zoe

tagos, I know that you are from Northern England. I don’t expect you to know that even in a Democracy such as the United States, their is no Constitutional “basic human right” to equality before the law regardless of gender. We have failed to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

Did it fail to pass because of male chauvinism, or some other (more legitimate) reason?

And, of course, we have had no women presidents or vice presidents. Maybe someday we will learn from India, Burma and Pakistan. Maybe they will spread their freedom to our country. Freedom is on the march.

Well, the fact that we have had no woman Prez or VP has nothing to do with what is written in the laws of the land (as in the OP’s case of the sharia laws), but more to do with what the voters perceive as who appears to be more fit for those jobs, among the choices offered. So, if it is perceived that a women has the most stainless steel package of the packages presented to us, than I believe that that woman would be elected.

In fact, it’s looking not too bad for Senator Clinton’s chances, right now…

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
They are not saying that Communism “performs the function of a religion.” *They are saying that Communism is literally a religion. * My ability to think is just fine, thank you. Yours seems to be seriously impaired if you really believe that it’s just a matter of how you define it. You can re-define a tail as a leg, but a dog will still not have five legs.
[/QUOTE]

Its kind of like when people say “Lonesome is a total dick”, they don’t really mean that you suddenly grow to eighteen feet tall when someone shows you a picture of Chuck Norris nekkid.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
And, of course, we have had no women presidents or vice presidents. Maybe someday we will learn from India, Burma and Pakistan. Maybe they will spread their freedom to our country. Freedom is on the march.
[/QUOTE]
I’m curious…do you know much about the quality of life and amount of freedom that the average woman in India, Burma, and Pakistan have? I don’t know much about these countries, except that I believe that their class systems are severely stratified. Do you think that the average woman in such countries has more freedom than the average woman in the US? And do you think it’s fair or accurate to assess the amount of freedom and opportunities the average woman has based on the accomplishments of a couple of outstanding women?

[Malacandra]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I’m curious…do you know much about the quality of life and amount of freedom that the average woman in India, Burma, and Pakistan have? I don’t know much about these countries, except that I believe that their class systems are severely stratified. Do you think that the average woman in such countries has more freedom than the average woman in the US? And do you think it’s fair or accurate to assess the amount of freedom and opportunities the average woman has based on the accomplishments of a couple of outstanding women?
[/QUOTE]

Not sure about Burma, but in India and Pakistan I believe the women’s surnames had something to do with why they got the top job. It’s not like that’s going to happen in America any time soon.

Not that anyone gives a hoot about the original topic, but the morning papers are now reporting that the authorities hope to clear up the teddy-bear case quietly and without fuss, without things getting as far as anyone being sentenced to forty-nine lashes or a jail term.

[Zoe]

Sarafeena: I’m curious…do you know much about the quality of life and amount of freedom that the average woman in India, Burma, and Pakistan have? I don’t know much about these countries, except that I believe that their class systems are severely stratified. Do you think that the average woman in such countries has more freedom than the average woman in the US? And do you think it’s fair or accurate to assess the amount of freedom and opportunities the average woman has based on the accomplishments of a couple of outstanding women?

Sarafeena, I don’t believe in thinking in terms of “the average woman” anywhere. There are no such people. I don’t mind trying to talk about groups of women in general from different countries, with the understanding that it is a great oversimplification.

I know a little about the women’s movement in Burma – what I have read in magazines and on the internet. But I’ve heard nothing in recent months because of the actions of the military in recent months.

They complain of the same problems that we do – a lack of social, economic and political equality. They are also trying to get their Constitution changed to guarantee gender equality, but they go even further. They want a guaranteed quota in their governing body.

Of course there is terrible poverty there and the usual stereotyping of roles. But it is fair to point out that they have had a woman leader who is very popular with the people. The military keeps her under house arrest.

I’ve probably read more and seen more on television about Pakistan and the lack of freedom for women there. Again, they have had a woman leader quite popular with the people. They freely elected her. Apparently they wish for her return. The last I heard she was under house arrest.

We know this country is terribly biased against women. How is it that Bhutto was elected to head the government there, but it may be somehow unfair to compare that country with our own and say “Why not here?”

India I love the most, feel the greatest connection with, and have read the most about. But I know enough to know that I know nothing. I think the amount of freedom a woman has depends on her family, her social position, her wealth, her education – so many things. Was Indira Gandi not a great leader?

And of course there are other countries and other women leaders.

Your generation of American women lives with more freedom than my generation at the same age. I think it’s fair to compare our country with others and to learn from others even when they are less fortunate.

tagos: Religions are what the religious do under its banner. Nothing more. Everything else is playing ‘no true scotsman’.

In that case we go from “no true Scotsman” to many true Scotsmen" – (shrieks in horror for your safety). Christianity becomes as complicated to describe as the individual Christians.

(I confess. My ancestors were borderers.)

[tagos]

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
They are not saying that Communism “performs the function of a religion.” *They are saying that Communism is literally a religion. * My ability to think is just fine, thank you. Yours seems to be seriously impaired if you really believe that it’s just a matter of how you define it. You can re-define a tail as a leg, but a dog will still not have five legs.
[/QUOTE]

What something is is defined by the functions it performs. You are working from a literalist narrow definition of religion and getting hysterical because other sociological constructs and analytical concepts exist that allow us to look at religions in a more useful way.

Communism can legitimately be said to have been literally a religion and that is all there is to it. Maybe not by your definition but this is not the 18th century and there’s more to sociology and other social studies than you realise or accept.

I’m tired of wiping your spittle from the inside of my monitor so i’m out of here.

[What_Exit]

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Not sure about Burma, but in India and Pakistan I believe the women’s surnames had something to do with why they got the top job. It’s not like that’s going to happen in America any time soon.

Not that anyone gives a hoot about the original topic, but the morning papers are now reporting that the authorities hope to clear up the teddy-bear case quietly and without fuss, without things getting as far as anyone being sentenced to forty-nine lashes or a jail term.
[/QUOTE]

The part about the surname was a good joke right? You know with the current President be the son of a former President and of course the front running in the election being the wife of another former President.
Good to hear that there will be no jail term or lashes over this little bit of stupidity. It would be better to hear that whichever prosecutor brought the case this far was officially censured in some way, but I know that is to much to ask.

Jim

[Malacandra]

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
The part about the surname was a good joke right? You know with the current President be the son of a former President and of course the front running in the election being the wife of another former President.

Jim
[/QUOTE]

Yes, every time I get into an argument with Americans about our monarchy I always mention it’s lucky for them they live in a country where no-one gets to be head of state because of who his father was.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
They are not saying that Communism “performs the function of a religion.” They are saying that Communism is literally a religion.
[/QUOTE]

Inasmuch as religions in general and Communism in particular are labels for abstract concepts that have no meaning outside of people’s beliefs and their adherence thereto, this is a distinction without a difference.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Its kind of like when people say “Lonesome is a total dick”, they don’t really mean that you suddenly grow to eighteen feet tall when someone shows you a picture of Chuck Norris nekkid.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a pretty good illustration of what I just said. A dick, being a material object, has objectively measurable properties; hence, it’s possible to distinguish the literal from the metaphorical in the case of “Lonesome is a total dick” but impossible to do so meaningfully in the case of “Communism is a religion”.

[What_Exit]

[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Accepted by whom? I know of no one studying quantum mechanics who invokes or even refers to multiple universes. I’m sure it has a strong following in the popular science press, which all too often plays up the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics to make it seem more exciting and magical, but that doesn’t necessarily correspond to the opinion of the scientific community.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know your background, do you frequent circles that have scientist that study quantum mechanics? I’ll be honest, I don’t.

As I said, articles in Scientific America and the New Scientist treat this theory seriously and Stephen Hawking has talked about it along with other “magical” theoretical possibilities like wormholes. Now my only in depth reading on Hawking’s work was the popular A Brief History of Time, so I am sure you will also dismiss this.

Of course it is also possible you are talking out of your ass and know as little about physics as I do.

Jim

[tagos]

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I don’t know your background, do you frequent circles that have scientist that study quantum mechanics? I’ll be honest, I don’t.

As I said, articles in Scientific America and the New Scientist treat this theory seriously and Stephen Hawking has talked about it along with other “magical” theoretical possibilities like wormholes. Now my only in depth reading on Hawking’s work was the popular A Brief History of Time, so I am sure you will also dismiss this.

Of course it is also possible you are talking out of your ass and know as little about physics as I do.

Jim
[/QUOTE]

Multiple universes are common outputs of variants of string theory in particular.

From Space.com

The irresistible, mind-boggling fantasy comes to just about everyone, sooner or later: What if everything we knew, our whole universe, was just a speck of dust on someone’s shoulder?

Of course, that’s not an idea astronomers take seriously. But many cosmologists are giving serious thought to a more scientific question: Do other universes exist?

At first glance, you can’t help but wonder how anyone could have the chutzpah to ask a question like that. We can barely figure out this universe, and now we’re wondering about others?

Believe it or not, theorists have an answer. And the answer appears to be, Yes.

That doesn’t mean, however, that Impey is prepared to accept the idea of other universes. For one thing, he says, cosmologists don’t really understand the nature of quantum fluctuations, “because we dont have any quantum gravity theory yet.” That means the idea of multiple fluctuations, and multiple universes, is “truly speculative.”

Other astronomers are even more forceful in their resistance to the idea.

“It’s not a testable idea,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, “You can’t really prove it exists or doesn’t exist.” When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you’re not talking about science anymore. “In my view, you’re into metaphysics.”

Not everyone rejects the multiple-universe idea out of hand. At the University of California, Virginia Trimble is more accepting. “I find it neat. In much the same way that I think it would be neat if there were reincarnation.”

The Big Void thingie is exciting because it could mark the moment multiple universes move from metaphysics to testable science.

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Was Indira Gandi not a great leader?
[/quote]

That definitely depends upon what “great” means, right?

Among other things, Indira Gandhi cheated in an election, assumed dictatorial powers, suppressed opposition, suppressed free speech, applied police power in ways that violated human and civil rights, incited revolt among minority groups, maintained outdated and ultimately unbeneficial economic policies, and tried to set up her son (who had an even more autocratic nature) as an Indian Kim Jong Il. Fortunately he was killed in a plane crash. Her other son, who did eventually become prime minister, ran a notoriously corrupt administration. His widow, the current Richelieu of the Congress Party, has benefited from the convenient deaths of all her Congress rivals.

[Musicat]

[QUOTE=Liberal]
In Pyongyang, the rules are very specific about how physically to handle the Kim image.

No one is permitted to point casually at a portrait of Kim Jong Il or his father, Kim Il Sung, the founder of North Korea. If you find yourself holding a book with a picture of a Kim on the cover, you’d best carry it with two hands, face up, in a dignified manner. And no thumb or fingers are ever allowed to touch or cover Kim’s face…
[/quote]
This reminds me of the anti-US-flag-burners’ proposals regarding the flag, not to mention existing practices (laws?) about flag disposal, etc. Perhaps the difference is only one of degree?

RE: Muhammed as a name

I thought the name was a common one in Islamic societies, much like Jesus is common in Hispanic societies. Wasn’t Muhammed Atta one of the 9/11 hijackers? Are people getting upset because it was used for a toy bear, but it’s OK for a real person?

[Malacandra]

[QUOTE=acsenray]
That definitely depends upon what “great” means, right?

Among other things, Indira Gandhi cheated in an election, assumed dictatorial powers, suppressed opposition, suppressed free speech, applied police power in ways that violated human and civil rights, incited revolt among minority groups, maintained outdated and ultimately unbeneficial economic policies, and tried to set up her son (who had an even more autocratic nature) as an Indian Kim Jong Il. Fortunately he was killed in a plane crash. Her other son, who did eventually become prime minister, ran a notoriously corrupt administration. His widow, the current Richelieu of the Congress Party, has benefited from the convenient deaths of all her Congress rivals.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but, she was like, head of state, and a woman, and that’s what counts, isn’t it?

:rolleyes:

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=Musicat]
RE: Muhammed as a name

I thought the name was a common one in Islamic societies, much like Jesus is common in Hispanic societies.
[/quote]

Yes. Muslims are encouraged to “name all your sons Muhammad.”

Are people getting upset because it was used for *a toy bear

Apparently. I think naming anything that is considered something less than a “man” would be considered insulting to the prophet (to some Muslims, anyway). A bear, being an animal, is less than a man. A toy, being an inanimate object, is less than a man. A toy bear doubly so.

I wonder if a woman named “Muhammad” would also be considered insulting.

[tagos]

[QUOTE=acsenray]
Yes. Muslims are encouraged to “name all your sons Muhammad.”

Apparently. I think naming anything that is considered something less than a “man” would be considered insulting to the prophet (to some Muslims, anyway). A bear, being an animal, is less than a man. A toy, being an inanimate object, is less than a man. A toy bear doubly so.

I wonder if a woman named “Muhammad” would also be considered insulting.
[/QUOTE]

Islam is pretty down on idols and as any sane and balanced person has to concede, naming a teddy bear thus is a clear and calculated attempt to insult Muslims and Islam. :rolleyes:

Teacher charged

A British teacher has been charged in Sudan with insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

I can see their point. It’s certainly incited hatred in me and deepened my contempt for Islam.

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=acsenray]
Yes. Muslims are encouraged to “name all your sons Muhammad.”

Apparently. I think naming anything that is considered something less than a “man” would be considered insulting to the prophet (to some Muslims, anyway). A bear, being an animal, is less than a man. A toy, being an inanimate object, is less than a man. A toy bear doubly so.

I wonder if a woman named “Muhammad” would also be considered insulting.
[/QUOTE]

Also, Islam prohibits the creation of images of persons. In particular, it is considered blasphemous or heretical to create any image of the prophet. In any depictions of Muhammad, he is shown without a face or just as a beam of light. Naming a toy bear “Muhammad” could be interpreted as creation of an image of Muhammad, an insulting one to boot.