Sunday, October 07, 2012
Must not call a pineapple "Mohammad"
Britain
A group of atheist students were thrown out of their freshers' fair because they included a pineapple labelled 'Mohammed' on their stall.
The Reading University Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society (RAHS) said they wanted to celebrate free speech and promote their upcoming debate 'Should we respect religion?'
But they were ordered to remove the offending fruit by union staff who said their actions were causing 'upset and distress' to a number of Muslim students and other societies.
RAHS refused, citing that they had labelled the pineapple after the Islamic prophet to 'encourage discussion about blasphemy, religion, and liberty'.
According to RAHS, a group of students surrounded their stall and removed the pineapple's name tag before the society was 'forced to leave the venue' accompanied by security
Source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I wonder who they would have reacted to a pineapple named CHARLES DARWIN?
Too bad the that Muslims and Christians are so blinded by their religion that they cannot see the truth in the following quote:
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." by Robert A. Heinlein
Why u attacking CHRISTIANS? This was islamic and pc bullcrap.
It certainly seems like these atheists (and many like them, including some here) are more interested in giving others a metaphorical poke in the eye than in trying to convince them that atheism is true. That strikes me as counterproductive.
Bravo, usually atheists are too scared to poke fun at the Islamists. However, they will find that in England, that Islamists are a protected class and it is criminal to mock them.
England pays the price for illegal imagration and the EUROPEAN(SOVIET)UNION
Is Luke not aware that 'a-theism' is merely the refutation or non-acceptance of 'theism'. Logically it doesn't need to convince that any negative position is true; that is up to the positive claim by the 'theists' (whether or not some "atheists" make any other positive claims of their own).
I will now name my pet pig Mohammed
I think so long as they are equal-opportunity insulters they should be free to continue. Why single out just one?
Seems like a fair comparison to me:
Islam promotes, without any hesitation, cutting off the head of an infidel. In order to properly eat a pineapple, you must first cut off the top.
Is Luke not aware that 'a-theism' is merely the refutation or non-acceptance of 'theism'
"I don't know" is a non-position. That's agnosticism.
"There is no god" is atheism. It's a positive truth claim, otherwise known as a position.
Your assertion is nothing more than a type of word game known as sophistry.
Luke is now pedantically playing with words and terms. He knows full well that most "atheists" merely do not believe in the liklihood of a god or gods existing, and only a minority go so far as to make a claim that gods do not or cannot exist. There are also the further definitions distinguising between various forms of atheism and agnosticism. Furthermore, many theists (like Luke) are responsible for calling people "atheists" whatever the latter actually believe or claim.
playing with words and terms
Wow. So using precision in word usage and confirming that precision with dictionary definitions is playing word games? Here's another word you're demonstrating.
Taking any position on the "liklihood of a god or gods existing" is not the same thing as no position/"I don't know".
many theists (like Luke) are responsible for calling people "atheists" whatever the latter actually believe or claim.
The people in the article called themselves atheists. It's their actions we're discussing.
Luke responds EXACTLY as expected. He is quite anal about his postings, at least until he sees something shiny.
Of course logic is predictable! Duh! That's part of what distinguishes it from the MSU way of thinking.
MSU, like religion?
MSU, like pretending that holding a position on something is not holding a position on something. Or ignoring evidence. Or pretending insults are rational arguments.
Or (especially!) trolling.
Whats you got against relegion and god annon 1:28?
Luke is doing everything he can to avoid the fact that THEISTS make a positive claim (about god/s) and A-THEISTS reject that claim (ie. a negative position). It's up to the folks making a positive claim to uphold it and not those in the default position to defend NOT holding such a claim. If for instance Luke doesn't believe that people are abducted by aliens, does he have to prove every case is false, or is it up to those who claim to have been abducted to support their claim?
Also the evidence for a positive claim (like theism) has to be convincing enough, and the sceptics (or a-theists) don't have to accept the quality of evidence provided, just like the above-mentioned claims of alien-abductees), and indeed the sceptics/atheists can pose arguments against the claims made, without that being a claim in itself (which seems to be Luke's fallacious point).
Why do I have the feeling that if this pineapple was named Jesus and some Christians complained that the atheists would not be asked to leave?
Post a Comment