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.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#712 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Why? If I give you the opportunity to write a software programme, providing almost everything you need for that, am *I* the creator of that software programme?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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 is a claim without any substantiation. Why does it have to be outside? I know the answer: because otherwise your concept of god does not work. You realise that without that claim you would completely have to abandon logic. And thus you make the tiny illogical step to allow most of your world to remain as it is.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm not entirely unknown to the field of philosophy, being a PhD myself...in fact, I'll just repeat the conclusion I and other philosophers came to: if god must by definition be outside creation, god cannot be part of creation, meaning god cannot interact with creation.

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#713 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What would be the apparent sign of self reflection?

“Facts, not fiction”

Since: Apr 07

Earth

#714 Jun 16, 2013
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.
There's no logic in the concept of god. It's almost the antithesis to logic: we don't understand something, so we'll just imagine a sentient being doing something. Problem solved, right?

Well, not quite...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#715 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your opinion. Duly noted.
God isn't real is not an opinion it is a fact.

If you disagree, please present your evidence to the contrary.

Now we will all see the theist dishonesty...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#716 Jun 17, 2013
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.
Before you even talk about god, you need to prove that

1. The word "god" has a meaningful definition
2. Prove that "god is possible"
3. If god is possible, prove that "god is real"

None of you lying theists can even get past the (1). But here you are, lying your hearts out trying to convert atheists 100X smarter than you, who know more about your cult than you do.

When theists want to be honest instead of liars, atheists are here to listen.

But lying about the definition of atheism, evolution, science, quantum mechanics & the big bang theory will not make all of this damning facts go away.

You choose your beliefs out of stupidity and ignorance. Once you know that they are false you continue to LIE about god.

You take no responsibilty for these lies and play victim, the first chance you get.

While all the while your religion states that "atheists are fools" without ever having met any of them.

You're disgusting dihonest people who make lives miserable for the rest of us rational, normal people who want to get on in life.

Takes responsibility for your stupid beliefs theists.- do it now you cowards. It is the best advice you will ever recieve.

Fight your addiction to faith.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#717 Jun 17, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a claim without any substantiation. Why does it have to be outside? I know the answer: because otherwise your concept of god does not work.
IF God exists, it would have to be the creator of all things, otherwise, if God owes it's existence to someone or something else, then we look at that superceding thing as the creator of all things. The creator of the creator. I'm not talking religion right now, this is Philosophy. Straight forward logic postulates. These are the things that one learns in a Philosophy class.
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
You realise that without that claim you would completely have to abandon logic.
I know. Forget about religion, this is logic and Philosophy 101.
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
And thus you make the tiny illogical step to allow most of your world to remain as it is.
There is nothing illogical at all. This comes straight from Philosophy. It is a logic postulate in Philosophy. If there is anything flawed or illogical, it is my software developer analogy. As I said, I can't think of a perfect analogy, it was merely meant to illustrate how something can be outside of this world. But here is the simple flaw in my analogy that nobody picked up. Who or what created the programmer? You paralleled the programmer by suggesting someone offered the materials to the programmer, so you keep thinking a in a parallel sort of mode. But the real flaw is seen in the fact that the programmer has a creating cause himself. The programmer did not always exist nor is self created.
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not entirely unknown to the field of philosophy, being a PhD myself...in fact, I'll just repeat the conclusion I and other philosophers came to: if god must by definition be outside creation, god cannot be part of creation, meaning god cannot interact with creation.
Well, the software analogy would suggest that this is indeed possible. The only flaw with the analogy was that one can ask where the programmer/creator came from. I do not live inside my software, but do you mean to tell me that I cannot control it or even interact with it? I guess I better stop creating totally useless software. And I have never heard of your conclusion in Philosophy. I never remember that even being addressed as if it isn't even part of the central question. But if some Philosophers concluded that, I have no idea why.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#718 Jun 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Before you even talk about god, you need to prove that
1. The word "god" has a meaningful definition
A non created creator. In fact, this can be the only possible definition for God, because if God is created then it can't be God and instead we look towards the creator of God to be the actual God.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Prove that "god is possible"
My software analogy makes it "possible" although far from proven.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
3. If god is possible, prove that "god is real"
Ask a software character to prove that the programmer or creator of the game is real. They can't. The best they could do is to point to the fact that they exist inside the game. That isn't proof, but in the analogy, the software developer DOES exist, but can never be proven with the limited faculties or experience that a software character has.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#719 Jun 17, 2013
And skeptic, would you please stop saying that everybody is lying? Nobody is lying, they are giving theories. Just because something can't be proven, does not make the person offering theories a liar. If I say something is a proven fact, when it is not, then I am lying. I have no idea who lied to you so much in life that causes you to call everyone else a liar all of the time. But this constant accusation of lying has no place at all in the discussion.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#720 Jun 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
But lying about the definition of atheism, evolution, science, quantum mechanics & the big bang theory
If you think that I have told any lies about any of those things, then point out the specific lie and tell me why you think it is a lie. Otherwise, stop making this claim. I have given the dictionary definition for atheism. I believe in evolution. I believe and use science all of the time and it's possible that I have more science education than you do. I have accurately quoted one of the most brilliant Quantum physicists ever. I have accurately stated that the big bang started with an almost infinitely dense and small material object. Now point out the lies in any of these things that I have mentioned. Otherwise, stop with the completely baseless accusations.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#721 Jun 17, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
God isn't real is not an opinion it is a fact.
Go take a course in Philosophy, okay?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#722 Jun 17, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no logic in the concept of god. It's almost the antithesis to logic: we don't understand something, so we'll just imagine a sentient being doing something. Problem solved, right?
Well, not quite...
Do you have a better explanation for how existence came into being? Anyway, I can tell that you have a Phd because at least you try to logically pick through the theories I offer rather than just give blanket dismissal statements. An highly educated person does not just make blanket dismissals and then think that is sufficient. That is one of the ways that I use to tell who is educated and who is not. That's not always an accurate way, but it can quote often be accurate. And one someone just gives blanket dismissals, I ask myself, "have they ever even been is discussions such as these?". If one gives blanket dismissal answers on a Philosophy test, they would fail that test miserably. Any logical person never just says "you are wrong", they try to explain in detail why they feel that way. you do that, some others here do not.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#723 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how can I be outside of software that I created and press keys that change what is going on inside the software?
<quoted text>
WTF? Your analogy is silly. Software still exists within the universe, as do the programs, the computer that runs them, and the fairly ignorant operator too.

None are outside the universe. The universe is not software, nor a computer.
Seeker wrote:
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?
The universe isn't software or a computer.
Seeker wrote:
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.
Your "analogy" is bullshit. The universe isn't a computer.

As for god? There isn't one--until you can show otherwise.

The **default** state, is no god, unless extreme facts are presented.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#724 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how can I be outside of software that I created and press keys that change what is going on inside the software?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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
<quoted text>
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.
Blah-blah-blah-- you present a wall-of-words belaboring the same, false idea.

IF gods are on the OUTSIDE of the universe-- that is, not IN it?

They cannot-- BY DEFINITION-- interfere with it. They are **outside**.

To **interfere** with the universe, requires-- as a bare minimum--**influence** to be **inside** the universe.

Putting the gods firmly in the **inside** category-- at a minimum, their influence is **inside**.

Or else?

There can be **no** influence at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#725 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
1) you failed to demonstrate that all things were, in fact, created.

What if some are not such?

2) you failed to demonstrate that something **sentient** is required for this... "creation" you insist on (but haven't show to be needed)

3) in quantum mechanics? There are billions of **uncaused** events, each and every day-- at the quantum level.

In fact? vacuum-- at the QM level -- appears to be quite impossible to maintain. The "better" your vacuum? The more likely a sudden **uncaused** particle-pair will appear out of... nothing.

4) so, due to the above? It appears the very universe not only was uncaused-- it was **inevitable** if there really was nothing there.

5) by the way? There is more support (facts/evidence) for quantum mechanics than about any other theory going. Including gravity.

Just in case you try to claim "qm is just a theory" or some other lunacy.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#726 Jun 17, 2013
Marco the atheist wrote:
I'm not entirely unknown to the field of philosophy, being a PhD myself...in fact, I'll just repeat the conclusion I and other philosophers came to: if god must by definition be outside creation, god cannot be part of creation, meaning god cannot interact with creation.
Exactly!

And such a non-interfering deity may as well not exist, for all it matters to us lowly humans.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#727 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
A non created creator.
The present universe is non-created.

It's an uncaused event.

Happens all the time, in QM.

No need for your idiotic idea of "god" at all.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#728 Jun 17, 2013
Bob, would you please just take a formal Philosophy class and fail it?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#729 Jun 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
1) you failed to demonstrate that all things were, in fact, created.
What if some are not such?
Okay, tell me what is not created or has no cause or origin.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
2) you failed to demonstrate that something **sentient** is required for this... "creation" you insist on (but haven't show to be needed)
3) in quantum mechanics? There are billions of **uncaused** events, each and every day-- at the quantum level.
Not caused, or cause unknown?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#730 Jun 17, 2013
Yawn you study philosophers and their writings, some of their opinions you'll agree with some are batsht insane.

So you think you are this philosophy genius?

Explain away the problem with evil when it comes to your God.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Go take a course in Philosophy, okay?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#731 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Bob, would you please just take a formal Philosophy class and fail it?
I've taken philosophy several times. I made "A"s each and every time.

It is **you** who cannot explain properly.

Sorry about that-- you lose this round.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min New Age Spiritual... 239,238
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min MikeF 19,048
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Eagle 12 7,417
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr Pahu 2,187
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 5 hr prophecydotorg 7,469
News New Atheism's fatal arrogance: The glaring inte... 7 hr EdSed 5
News Number of Christians Decline 'Unaffiliated' Ris... 7 hr EdSed 5
More from around the web