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.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#692 Jun 16, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
I think that they just do what they do and that's all that they can do. They can't say, I know what I am doing is immoral, but I'll do it anyway.
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
We have plenty of examples of animals apparently grieving for a lost loved one.
Very true.
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
True.
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
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
I'm not sure that would classify as regret or remorse.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#693 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Correction to this above, all Gods would not be equal, each God would owe it's existence to the God that created them, but then the creator God would owe it's existence to another creating God and so on and so on, infinitely backwards. So if a God owes it's existence to another God, it cannot be said to be God. And therefore none of the Gods could be said to be God because they would always owe it's existence to a prior God.

The whole thing is admittedly an incredibly mind f*ck that seems to be beyond our abilities to understand or reason about. Existence or life itself is a mind f*ck, because to understand anything, we need a context to do so. But how do you take the context that is responsible for context itself and put it into a context within itself?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#694 Jun 16, 2013
In order to truly understand what life is, one has to step outside of life itself. To truly understand what we are, you would have to step outside of yourself. There's an old saying "can the tooth bite itself?". We can make measurements and intimations about life, but to truly understand anything, one needs to have a detached view outside of the thing that we seek to understand. Again, it's one big, unsolvable mind f*ck. We just pretend that we understand or tell ourselves that.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#695 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
In order to truly understand what life is, one has to step outside of life itself. To truly understand what we are, you would have to step outside of yourself. There's an old saying "can the tooth bite itself?". We can make measurements and intimations about life, but to truly understand anything, one needs to have a detached view outside of the thing that we seek to understand. Again, it's one big, unsolvable mind f*ck. We just pretend that we understand or tell ourselves that.
God isn't real. The moment an idiot claims god is real, the burden of proof is upon them.

Since "god is real" is in fact a lie, theists are all liars.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#696 Jun 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
God isn't real.
Thanks for your opinion. Duly noted.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#697 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Meaningless babblydegook.

If your god is **outside** the material world? Then, by **definition** it is not **inside** the material world.

Meaning?

It does not interact with the material world-- may as well not even exist at all, as far as we are concerned.

Now if your god **does** interact with the material world?

IT IS NOT OUTSIDE OF IT--BUT IN IT.

Therefore, subject to all the rules, etc, of the material world.

You are really not good at this "logic" thing, are you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#698 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your opinion. Duly noted.
You have **any** argument in support of a god being real--and in this material world?

No?

We thought as much.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#699 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, if there are multiple Gods, then none of them can be God.
Why? That will depend on your definition of what god is, which means you have decided a priori on the properties of "god" and let the rest come after that. This is precisely opposite to what one would do in logical thinking.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Circular argumentation. Gotta love true believers, they will never see it, unless someone else comes with that same type of argumentation.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#700 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that would classify as regret or remorse.
It does classify as a "burial" ritual. And it may well be due to regret or remorse. You do not need to be sure of that to at least consider that possibility.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#701 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction to this above, all Gods would not be equal, each God would owe it's existence to the God that created them, but then the creator God would owe it's existence to another creating God and so on and so on, infinitely backwards. So if a God owes it's existence to another God, it cannot be said to be God.
Why not? What if that last "god" is the one responsible for the creation of the universe and of living beings? For all practical purposes he'd be the "god" you believers always talk about.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#702 Jun 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Meaningless babblydegook.
If your god is **outside** the material world? Then, by **definition** it is not **inside** the material world.
Meaning?
Meaning if God was true it would HAVE to be outside of the material world. Relative to a video game character, the programmer is outside of their universe and the characters could never conceive of the true nature of the programmer. Maybe you could program guesses into them, but that's about it.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not interact with the material world-- may as well not even exist at all, as far as we are concerned.
Now if your god **does** interact with the material world?
IT IS NOT OUTSIDE OF IT--BUT IN IT.
Therefore, subject to all the rules, etc, of the material world.
You are really not good at this "logic" thing, are you?
I can interact with characters that I create for a video game. I could create them all to operate based on algorithms that I wrote, and they could go on interacting with each other, smashing into each other, whatever, and new types of characters could be created by the events that take place in the game itself. Then i could adjust things, tweak things, etc... Then, I could create another character that I want to be me. And this character would be me because it only has the basics that it needs to be in the game, but no pre programmed algorithms to determine it's reactions. Instead, this character would operate based on my own joystick operations that I choose as the game is playing. So in that respect, this character is actually me and does nothing but the actual decisions that I am making in real time. so it's not really me in the game, or the entirety of me, but in a sense, it is me. It is my actual real time decisions being done through this character.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#703 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Meaning if God was true it would HAVE to be outside of the material world.
Something is either **outside** or it's not.

If it is **outside** then, by definition, it's not **inside** and cannot change what is **inside**.

To do so, requires moving from outside to inside--even if it's immaterial in scope.

So your "god is outside the universe" meme, fails utterly.

For gods outside, cannot--by definition--be inside.

Immaterial or not, doesn't matter.

The rest of your words do not contribute in any way to refute what I just said, above.

Finally, if god is **outside** then god may as well not exist at all.

What would be the point? No influence on the **inside**--by definition.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#704 Jun 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Something is either **outside** or it's not.
Then how can I be outside of software that I created and press keys that change what is going on inside the software?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
To do so, requires moving from outside to inside--even if it's immaterial in scope.
Then how can I be outside and yet create a character that operates in real time by my joystick decisions, rather than a character based on pre programming, that can change the inside? There's actually a flaw in my analogy as no analogy will ever be perfect when trying to explain life itself and God, but I am surprised that you haven't seen it yet. But I'll point it out later. It's actually simple and any Philosophy person should pick it up right away.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
For gods outside, cannot--by definition--be inside.
Inside insofar as it is a character that is not operating based on pre programming algorithms, but based on my own actual real time decisions done through the character I have created. And with such a character, I can even supersede my own algorithms themselves and make exceptions and behave in different ways or react in different ways than my pre programmed reactions that I gave other characters. So if red shirt is always bad, I could react in a different way to red shirts if I choose. Or I could give this character special abilities that my algorithms never gave any pre programmed characters. My algorithms can cause the situations between characters and the environment where new types of characters are created by the running of the game itself, but that is still all my own pre programmed algorithms that cause this. But when I interact directly with the game, through a character that is responding to my joystick decisions, rather than my pre programmed algorithms, all bets are now off and I can change the nature of the game itself through my real time interaction within the game, and these actions are based on my real time decisions while interacting with the game
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The rest of your words do not contribute in any way to refute what I just said, above.
Finally, if god is **outside** then god may as well not exist at all.
First of all, the influence is the creation of the self running game and characters itself. Second of all, I can tweak it as it is running via button presses or joystick actions that live outside of the universe of the game itself.

But let me get into the more basic elements of logic thinking or Philosophy itself, and this should give you a clue into the logical flaw that you should be looking for. But again, I did say that no analogy that I could ever raise would be perfect as it is beyond reasoning itself, and yet it exists.

Here is the Philosophy construct or postulates.

If God exists, it cannot truly be God unless it created everything. Otherwise God would owe it's existence to a force or cause or origin that allowed for it's existence, and therefore the "whatever" that created it, supersedes it. This "God" can be superior if it is created, compared to what it created, but if it lives in material existence itself, it has to be created and therefore cannot be said to be the creator of all things because it itself owes it's existence to something prior that existed before it, that allowed for it's creation or existence. Whether one wants to call that origin or cause or force or whatever, God can't be the creator of all things because it itself was caused or created. So logically speaking, if there is a creator of ALL things, then it has to exist in some fashion outside of the creation itself. This is actually why religions cleverly claim that God was not created, because they did their logic homework. These guys were not dummies, by any stretch of the matter, no pun intended.
Lincoln LCN

United States

#705 Jun 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Something is either **outside** or it's not.
If it is **outside** then, by definition, it's not **inside** and cannot change what is **inside**.
To do so, requires moving from outside to inside--even if it's immaterial in scope.
So your "god is outside the universe" meme, fails utterly.
For gods outside, cannot--by definition--be inside.
Immaterial or not, doesn't matter.
The rest of your words do not contribute in any way to refute what I just said, above.
Finally, if god is **outside** then god may as well not exist at all.
What would be the point? No influence on the **inside**--by definition.
with all due respect this is Malarky
LOL
Keep typing

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#706 Jun 16, 2013
But your example doesn't work because if this were true then humans would have no concept of God right?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Meaning if God was true it would HAVE to be outside of the material world. Relative to a video game character, the programmer is outside of their universe and the characters could never conceive of the true nature of the programmer. Maybe you could program guesses into them, but that's about it.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
It does not interact with the material world-- may as well not even exist at all, as far as we are concerned.
Now if your god **does** interact with the material world?
IT IS NOT OUTSIDE OF IT--BUT IN IT.
Therefore, subject to all the rules, etc, of the material world.
You are really not good at this "logic" thing, are you? "

I can interact with characters that I create for a video game. I could create them all to operate based on algorithms that I wrote, and they could go on interacting with each other, smashing into each other, whatever, and new types of characters could be created by the events that take place in the game itself. Then i could adjust things, tweak things, etc... Then, I could create another character that I want to be me. And this character would be me because it only has the basics that it needs to be in the game, but no pre programmed algorithms to determine it's reactions. Instead, this character would operate based on my own joystick operations that I choose as the game is playing. So in that respect, this character is actually me and does nothing but the actual decisions that I am making in real time. so it's not really me in the game, or the entirety of me, but in a sense, it is me. It is my actual real time decisions being done through this character.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#707 Jun 16, 2013
You sure do speak much for this so called god with lots of information that would be impossible to have.

First demonstrate there is a god before assigning rules to it like the little Chinese boy did in gremlins to Mogwais.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Correction to this above, all Gods would not be equal, each God would owe it's existence to the God that created them, but then the creator God would owe it's existence to another creating God and so on and so on, infinitely backwards. So if a God owes it's existence to another God, it cannot be said to be God. And therefore none of the Gods could be said to be God because they would always owe it's existence to a prior God.

The whole thing is admittedly an incredibly mind f*ck that seems to be beyond our abilities to understand or reason about. Existence or life itself is a mind f*ck, because to understand anything, we need a context to do so. But how do you take the context that is responsible for context itself and put it into a context within itself?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#708 Jun 16, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? That will depend on your definition of what god is, which means you have decided a priori on the properties of "god" and let the rest come after that. This is precisely opposite to what one would do in logical thinking.
<quoted text>
Circular argumentation. Gotta love true believers, they will never see it, unless someone else comes with that same type of argumentation.
If God is preceded by something else as it's cause, then how could God ever be called God, instead of whatever precedes it being the actual God and/or creator of all things? Think about it. Shouldn't the cause of God then be considered as the creator or origin of all things? And what created that? So it's an infinite backwards chain. So if anything can be titled God or creator of all things, it cannot be within the creation itself, it has to be outside. This isn't anything hokey or illogical, this is straight forward logic and philosophy. I had to ponder these things when I took classes in philosophy when I was in college. There are many brilliant minds that have postulated and pondered things like this, so this really has nothing to do with the organized religions that you reject, this is philosophy. And as useless as people consider philosophy to be these days, philosophers were actually the original, true geniuses and the inventors of math itself. They were the heavy duty thinkers.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#709 Jun 16, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
It does classify as a "burial" ritual. And it may well be due to regret or remorse. You do not need to be sure of that to at least consider that possibility.
I said I'm not sure. It could, but it doesn't appear likely based on other behaviors and no apparent sign of self reflection to feel guilt or remorse. So it seems more like an instinctual ritual to me, although an advanced one. I could be convinced otherwise.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#710 Jun 16, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? What if that last "god" is the one responsible for the creation of the universe and of living beings? For all practical purposes he'd be the "god" you believers always talk about.
Well if it's part of creation itself, then how could it be said to be creator of all things if it is within creation itself? They were smart enough to categorize God as creator of all things. So whether you think those loin cloth wearing barbarians were stupid or not, they sure thought the problem through quite thoroughly. At least enough to categorize the concept of God the only way that it logically could be. So they thought of that.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#711 Jun 16, 2013
But if God is outside time and space how could those goat farmers observe him? They couldn't even observe covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough prevents disease!
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Well if it's part of creation itself, then how could it be said to be creator of all things if it is within creation itself? They were smart enough to categorize God as creator of all things. So whether you think those loin cloth wearing barbarians were stupid or not, they sure thought the problem through quite thoroughly. At least enough to categorize the concept of God the only way that it logically could be. So they thought of that.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 49 min karl44 12,662
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 54 min Knowledge- 247,441
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr thetruth 47,806
Proof of God for the Atheist 1 hr Shizle 123
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr ChristineM 2,353
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 7 hr thetruth 14,715
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 12 hr thetruth 7
More from around the web