Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Athe...

Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing...

There are 1239 comments on the Mediaite.com story from Apr 6, 2013, titled Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing.... In it, Mediaite.com reports that:

CNN has an amazing story out of Guantanamo Bay about an American atheist prison camp guard that converted to Islam after spending extensive time talking to with some of the English speaking prisoners there.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Mediaite.com.

Thinking

Poole, UK

#672 Jun 13, 2013
I didn't negative icon you, btw.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Willful evasion can be annoying. Some people think that I am trying to be evasive because the ideas I put forth can often be very abstract and foreign to normal modes of reasoning. But I don't think of it as evasive, just something that might not be easily or immediately grasped because of the foreign nature of them. But I do always try to answer every request given to me the best that I can. Sometimes, things don't fit into words very well and that can confuse, irritate or even frustrate some, or just cause them to outright dismiss it without any real explanation why.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#673 Jun 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I didn't negative icon you, btw.
<quoted text>
I know you didn't, but others do all of the time and that was who I was talking about. You don't seem to operate that way. You at least seem to consider what is being said rather than immediately dismissing it. I can tell the difference between the two types of thinking where one will just dismiss what someone says, but offer little specifics as to why it is supposed to be dismissed, and others challenge what someone says piece by piece. The latter reads and probably at least has some understanding of what is being said, the former does not. It's easy to tell. It's perfectly fine to disagree, as long as someone really understands what they are disagreeing with. That's what I look for. But the former is impossible to have any meaningful discussion with. It's nothing but blanket statements of opinions which are rather pointless in any discussion. Theism is not the only thought process or belief where dogmatism is found.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#674 Jun 13, 2013
People, this is what you call desperation mode. Lay down before you hurt yourself.

Sheesh!

This is the kind of idiot that falls for mystics and other hucksters. I gotta wonder of he is really this stupid or being purposely obtuse?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>In what? And from where?

Givemeliberty wrote, "
And again... yet again... once again of Mystic lover, show me where I was incorrect about the term agnsotic?
Agnosticism really has nothing to do with belief one way or the other."

You said it had nothing to do with belief and had to do with knowledge, and you know you said that. And the definition I quoted mentioned both belief and LACK of knowledge. I knew you would backtrack and change what you said any way that you could and I even said that in my last post.

Givemeliberty wrote, "
Here let me hold your hand and try to use smaller words."

Why don't you just use the correct ones the first time and you wouldn't even have to "hold my hand"? It's not my fault.

Givemeliberty wrote, "
Athesist/Theist deals with the proposition of personal belief in a god. Okay? With me so far? Didn't get lost in mystic candyland?
Ok good. Now a breath, exhale, clear your mind of mystic stupidity...."

There is no need for the extraneous, personal comments. That only shows anger and excessive hurt pride on your part. Just get to the point.

Givemeliberty wrote, "
With me? Ready? Are you sure?"

I was ready 50 or so posts ago. Why the stupid theatrics?

Givemeliberty wrote, "
I can give you another few minutes little fella if you need it. Take a break before reading further I don't want you to injure yourself...ready?
Last chance...
No really last chance half wit...
Here we go...."

Again, slights like this only show your anger and that your pride is hurt or challenged. Just get to the point.

Givemeliberty wrote, "
Agnostic/Gnostic deals with the proposition of having knowledge or knowing about a god's existance."

The fact of the matter is that you never said Agnostic/Gnostic, you merely said Agnostic, and I knew you would try to cleverly backtrack any way that you could because you can't stand to ever be mistaken about anything, but it's all in writing. If you think I misunderstood, then it's YOUR fault not mine. But you never even uttered the word Gnostic at all until I pointed out how you were erroneously using the term Agnostic. In fact, I was the first person who even uttered the term Gnostic, because I know full and well what both words mean. But I know that you can't stand to ever be mistaken about anything and this is where the anger and personal slights to me come from before you even got to the point itself in your post. I've seen this profile before.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#675 Jun 13, 2013
I notice you won't provide a link to your so called definition so it is ignored.
Seeker wrote:
"Agnostic/Gnostic deals with the proposition of having knowledge or knowing about a god's existance."

And that is Gnostic, not Agnostic. So you are wrong once again, and i can even prove it.

Here's the definition of agnostic once again, but I guess you are so smart that you should have written the dictionary itself

ag·nos·tic
/ag&#712;nästik/
Noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

So where is knowledge or having knowledge in that definition? Do you want to know where we can find the words you said?

Gnos·tic (nstk)
adj.
1. gnostic Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.

So go argue with the people that wrote the dictionary themselves, as we all know that they are all full of it and you are smarter than they are and know the meaning of words better than they do, if that suits your needs.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#676 Jun 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
People, this is what you call desperation mode. Lay down before you hurt yourself.
Sheesh!
This is the kind of idiot that falls for mystics and other hucksters. I gotta wonder of he is really this stupid or being purposely obtuse?
<quoted text>
You have been nothing but immediately dismissive and insulting throughout this entire discussion from the get go. I would expect someone with a Masters to be more civil and open minded, and that's why I am quite surprised to hear that you even have a Masters. If you can't be that way, then why enter into a discussion at all? After all, you KNOW it all already anyway, right? You skim posts or just read the first two sentences and you dismiss it. But sometimes, you don't even understand what you are dismissing. You have a past history with anybody who has theistic beliefs, so you immediately react emotionally as soon as you hear the word God and put me in the box that you have created from your past experiences.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#677 Jun 14, 2013
All those sobs and words and no links to your definition.

Put a tampon in, pop some midol and dry those tears.

I am sorry but when I hold your hand and guide you what 6 times? Ya after a while one gets tired of your ineptitude and voices it.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>You have been nothing but immediately dismissive and insulting throughout this entire discussion from the get go. I would expect someone with a Masters to be more civil and open minded, and that's why I am quite surprised to hear that you even have a Masters. If you can't be that way, then why enter into a discussion at all? After all, you KNOW it all already anyway, right? You skim posts or just read the first two sentences and you dismiss it. But sometimes, you don't even understand what you are dismissing. You have a past history with anybody who has theistic beliefs, so you immediately react emotionally as soon as you hear the word God and put me in the box that you have created from your past experiences.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#678 Jun 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice you won't provide a link to your so called definition so it is ignored.
<quoted text>
So you actually think that I would just make up a definition and make it look like a dictionary definition? Really?

I just gave the short form from the first definition that your see when you google "definition for agnostic". Here's the long form with links. Doesn't change a single thing

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agn...

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Origin of AGNOSTIC
Greek agn&#333;stos unknown, unknowable, from a-+ gn&#333;stos known, from gign&#333;skein to know

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gno...
Definition of GNOSIS
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
Origin of GNOSIS
Greek gn&#333;sis, literally, knowledge, from gign&#333;skein

You said that agnosticism does not have to do with belief, but with knowledge, when the very meaning of the word itself involves not knowing or no knowledge, whereas gnosis has to do with the belief that one has knowledge.

I wouldn't even bother to bicker or quibble about this so much, except for the fact that I can tell that you just cannot stand ever being mistaken about anything, and after your behavior all over this discussion from the very beginning, I do not mind turning the screw with you. What goes around comes around. Now obviously, this might make you even more livid, but I don't care because you were livid from the beginning. So what does it matter at this point? You'll be that way no matter what I say anyway unless I simply say "you are right and I am wrong". That is all that will ever be acceptable for you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#679 Jun 14, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been nothing but immediately dismissive and insulting throughout this entire discussion from the get go. I would expect someone with a Masters to be more civil and open minded, and that's why I am quite surprised to hear that you even have a Masters. If you can't be that way, then why enter into a discussion at all? After all, you KNOW it all already anyway, right? You skim posts or just read the first two sentences and you dismiss it. But sometimes, you don't even understand what you are dismissing. You have a past history with anybody who has theistic beliefs, so you immediately react emotionally as soon as you hear the word God and put me in the box that you have created from your past experiences.
As usual form pseudo-theist intellectuals, lots of analysis & playing victim - followed by no proof of god.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#680 Jun 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
All those sobs and words and no links to your definition.
Linked it and link the full, longer form definitions. Gee, has anything really changed?
Givemeliberty wrote:
Put a tampon in, pop some midol and dry those tears.
I am sorry but when I hold your hand and guide you what 6 times?
And you have been wrong every single time. And then you tried to backtrack to cover your error by going from a statement about Agnostic, to then saying you were talking about Agnostic/Gnostic. You added gnostic to cover your mistake. You just can't stand ever being mistaken about anything. I've seen the type before. And personal insults are not going to hide your mistakes.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#681 Jun 14, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual form pseudo-theist intellectuals, lots of analysis & playing victim - followed by no proof of god.
I have no seen very many meaningful statements from you at all.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#682 Jun 14, 2013
Hmmm I notice this time the definition doesn't include the term belief... I notice it clearly states the root of the words gnostic and agnostic is knowledge....

Why exactly what I have been saying all along.

So by your own links we see that you indeed edited the definition to fit your argument. Not that such a thing is new for you after all you have your own bizarre made up definition for mystic.

So once again we can clearly see you rely on dishonesty to debate.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>So you actually think that I would just make up a definition and make it look like a dictionary definition? Really?
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Origin of AGNOSTIC
Greek agn&#333;stos unknown, unknowable, from a-+ gn&#333;stos known, from gign&#333;skein to know

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gno...
Definition of GNOSIS
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
Origin of GNOSIS
Greek gn&#333;sis, literally, knowledge,

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#683 Jun 14, 2013
Yes we can see your dishonesty from your links and how you edited the definition to fit your argument.

And for the umpteenth time... Gnostic: has knowledge.. Agnostic: does not have knowledge. Theist: has belief. Atheist: does not have belief.

Nifty eh?

Checkmate.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Linked it and link the full, longer form definitions. Gee, has anything really changed?

Givemeliberty wrote, "
Put a tampon in, pop some midol and dry those tears.
I am sorry but when I hold your hand and guide you what 6 times?"

And you have been wrong every single time. And then you tried to backtrack to cover your error by going from a statement about Agnostic, to then saying you were talking about Agnostic/Gnostic. You added gnostic to cover your mistake. You just can't stand ever being mistaken about anything. I've seen the type before. And personal insults are not going to hide your mistakes.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#684 Jun 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Hmmm I notice this time the definition doesn't include the term belief... I notice it clearly states the root of the words gnostic and agnostic is knowledge....
But agnistic says lack of knowledge, and "view" is also a belief. The words are interchangable which is why definitions fromn two different sources say have the word "belief" in one and "view" in the other. But clearly, you said that agnostic has nothing to do with belief and has to do with knowledge, and it most certain has to do with belief and most certainly does NOT have to do with knowledge but rather a lack thereof, which is why you had to clean your mess up later and change agnostic by itself in your original statement to be agnostic/gnostic. You did the same thing with the word atheist where you later revised your claim about yourself from Atheist, to agnostic atheist where you are technically agnostic bit have a very strong leaning towards atheism.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why exactly what I have been saying all along.
I don't know why. Is that a question?
Givemeliberty wrote:
So by your own links we see that you indeed edited the definition to fit your argument.
I didn't edit it all at and you have something deeply wrong with you if you think that I would ever bother to. I merely copied and pasted the first one that I saw, and I even said in a later post where I posted the longer definition or went to webster's that I merely used the short definition. So you are wrong, yet again. Go here and look at the top of the page. It's exactly what I posted
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=...
Givemeliberty wrote:
Not that such a thing is new for you after all you have your own bizarre made up definition for mystic.
And I did no such thing and you are wrong again. How does it feel to get egg on your face again? But you deserve it for accusing me of editing a definition to suit my own needs. That was a very very stupid accusation on your part and gives me a window into your reasoning abilities and how you approach things.
Givemeliberty wrote:
So once again we can clearly see you rely on dishonesty to debate.
<quoted text>
So how does it feel to have egg on your face? You should think things through a little more carefully before you make such assumptions and then even downright accusations. But then again, you seem quick to jump to a lot of conclusions without reading a statement and truly pondering it, so it doesn't surprise me. Seems to be your general M.O.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#685 Jun 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes we can see your dishonesty from your links and how you edited the definition to fit your argument.
And for the umpteenth time... Gnostic: has knowledge.. Agnostic: does not have knowledge. Theist: has belief. Atheist: does not have belief.
Nifty eh?
Checkmate.
<quoted text>
And here were your exact original words
"Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief it has to do with knowledge."

And now you backtrack and revise, while never even once saying that perhaps you didn't state yourself correctly and instead you go on about how I can't understand anything.

Nifty eh?

If you think that I misunderstand, then perhaps you can be more clear and careful with your choice of words instead of trying to throw it back on to the other person, and then even accusing them of being dishonest.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#686 Jun 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Checkmate.
Really?? How are you looking now, self proclaimed genius? But that's what the whole conversation is to you, nothing but a stupid chess match where you have to win at all costs. I saw this from you in the beginning a long time ago where you asked me to "admit defeat", so I knew your mentality right then and there. And it's an ugly and pompous one. You're one of those people that always has to be right, no matter what and you can't stand even making the smallest of mistakes, which is why I decided to spend this time pointing out yet another few mistakes that you have made. As they say, you asked for it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#687 Jun 14, 2013
Oh, and let's bring up another past logical error that you made. You put the concept of a creator into creation itself when you asked about how if God exists, then who created God, and i pointed out your error when i told you that IF God exists, it would HAVE to be an existence of a different nature outside of the material world. And you should have thought of that simple, self evident logical postulate. Have you ever had any courses in Philosophy or Logic?

For a genius, you sure make a heck of a lot of little logical boo boos.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#688 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't know the truth for the origin and existence of the universe, but you can at least drop the error of believing that God did it, right?
"god" is a non-explanation. It doesn't solve a scientific question, it just creates several new ones. One of those is "why *a* god? Why not fifteen million threehundred sixty thousands and three?"

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#689 Jun 16, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>You are a dumb bell.
An animal kills another animal or a human being and does not experience the feeling of right and wrong.
Right: kill to eat. Wrong: kill everything in your path. Gee, animals do this: they kill to eat, but don't eat everuthing in their path. Seems they know right from wrong...
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>
So the idea that the knowledge of right and wrong was acquired from human experience is a falsehood created by atheist.
As far as history can record man has always felt remorse over a lost loved one, and showed respect for the dead by crating a burial grave for its dead.
We have plenty of examples of animals apparently grieving for a lost loved one. Heck, I've myself seen animals repeatedly going back to a dead infant of their own species to try and help it back to life.

Chimpanzees and elephants are also known to "bury" their death (usually adding leaves on top). There's even a recorded instance of an elephant that had killed a woman and her child putting leaves on top:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3818833.stm

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#690 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Just to clarify the above that I posted, animals can know they did something wrong, But only if you or a fellow animal tells them that by getting angry with them. It would seem that they have no capabilities of self reflection like humans appear to have.
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2012/03/...
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#691 Jun 16, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
"god" is a non-explanation. It doesn't solve a scientific question, it just creates several new ones. One of those is "why *a* god? Why not fifteen million threehundred sixty thousands and three?"
Because, if there are multiple Gods, then none of them can be God. You can't even say that the original God is God, because if God is put within creation, then the question of where did God came from is an endless infinite regression of cause or origin. The God of the God of the God of the God......infinity, and none of them could be said to be God because there cannot be a one starting or origin God or cause and therefore they would all be equal. So IF God is true, than it MUST be something outside of creation itself and therefore does not have to be part of the rule that it needs an origin or cause like everything WITHIN creation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 46 min dollarsbill 4,915
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 53 min Into The Night 85,582
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Jan 15 superwilly 111
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web