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

#752 Jun 18, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you went to Rudgers, so any and all b*llocks lies coming from you should suddenly be truth, right?
If represented anything that I say as "fact" rather than theory or beliefs, and if what I represented as facts are not facts, then I could be called a liar. Why are you so illogical and emotional? Are you sure that you have it "all figured out"?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#753 Jun 18, 2013
If someone writes off Philosophy as useless or frivolous, then I can tell that they have never studied it, no matter what they claim. One guy here, not to be named, even told me he took many courses in it and he "made" "A"s in all of them. You don't make "A"s in a course. Making an "A" means drawing or writing one or making a plastic "A", or whatever. So what am I supposed to think about that claim of "I took many courses in Philosophy and I made "A"s in all of them"? This is like a kid who tells his teacher that Martians ate his homework and the kid can't figure out why the teacher doesn't believe him.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#754 Jun 18, 2013
Why?
Seeker wrote:
"Thinking", are you sure you have studied Philosophy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhel...
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#755 Jun 18, 2013
I think we are being presented with the "No True Philosopher Fallacy" [sic]!
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you went to Rudgers, so any and all b*llocks lies coming from you should suddenly be truth, right?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#756 Jun 18, 2013
Liar.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Well then I guess that Rutgers University is not a reputable University.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#757 Jun 18, 2013
Lol!

I am still waiting for him to use his so called philosophy intellect on the problem of evil with god.

He seems to be stumped. Rutgers eh?

Lol!
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>I think we are being presented with the "No True Philosopher Fallacy" [sic]!
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#758 Jun 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I think we are being presented with the "No True Philosopher Fallacy" [sic]!
<quoted text>
I think Leibniz was one and I even linked an article about him. Here's another one about Kierkegaard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierk...

So what could you possibly be talking about? Why is everyone wearing dyslexic glasses where they claim I am saying the opposite of what I am saying?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#759 Jun 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Why?
<quoted text>
Because it appears that you misunderstand what Philosophy really is and what they thought and who they were. Leibniz, for example, made many mathematical discoveries. You are confusing it with the misuse or casual use of the term as in "well, my Philosophy is, if you have a problem, just let it go, it's not worth it". That's not really Philosophy. It's a casual or careless use of the term. And the article that you linked even said as much.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#760 Jun 18, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lol!
I am still waiting for him to use his so called philosophy intellect on the problem of evil with god.
He seems to be stumped. Rutgers eh?
Lol!
<quoted text>
I find you to be a highly angry and ignorant person who was so stupid to actually accuse me of altering a definition that I found on Google. And then you say "check mate", which means that you have no interest in actually discussing ideas, you just want to win the conversation at all costs. And you really made a blithering fool out of yourself when you made that accusation of me altering a definition that I found and you made it even twice as bad when you assumed it was check mate, which in of itself is an extremely arrogant statement to make. And don't blame me for your embarrassment, you did it all yourself. I didn't have to do anything. You are your own worst enemy. And Rutgers? YES. How about you? You sure don't act like you have a Masters like you claim. Generally, highly educated people do not make blanket statements of dismissal, but you do that all of the time. And you are so stupid to claim I am lying in many of your posts. How can anybody lie if they are merely stating theories or beliefs? If I represent something as fact, and it is not, then you can call me a liar. But I have never done any such thing.

So I really have no interest in discussing anything with you. You can respond to me all you want, but this will be the last response that you hear from me. It is absolutely pointless to have any discussion at all with someone such as yourself.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#761 Jun 18, 2013
Newton believed in alchemy.

The fact that Newton was a brilliant mathematician and physicist doesn't make alchemy right, or Leibniz's philosophical musings true.

I don't know what you're trying to project onto me, but it is not working.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it appears that you misunderstand what Philosophy really is and what they thought and who they were. Leibniz, for example, made many mathematical discoveries. You are confusing it with the misuse or casual use of the term as in "well, my Philosophy is, if you have a problem, just let it go, it's not worth it". That's not really Philosophy. It's a casual or careless use of the term. And the article that you linked even said as much.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#762 Jun 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Newton believed in alchemy.
The fact that Newton was a brilliant mathematician and physicist doesn't make alchemy right, or Leibniz's philosophical musings true.
I don't know what you're trying to project onto me, but it is not working.
<quoted text>
I am explaining what Philosophy is and who Philosophers were and what they were like. You don't appear to be very familiar with Philosophers.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#763 Jun 18, 2013
Your definition of philosophy only seems to represent a small subset of that which is described here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Are you a fundamentalist philosopher?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I am explaining what Philosophy is and who Philosophers were and what they were like. You don't appear to be very familiar with Philosophers.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#764 Jun 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Your definition of philosophy only seems to represent a small subset of that which is described here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Are you a fundamentalist philosopher?
<quoted text>
These are the first two paragraphs of your link

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]

The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek &#966;&#953;&#955; &#959;&#963;&#959; &#966;&#943;&#945; (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[5][6][7] The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.[8] A "philosopher" was understood as a word which contrasted with "sophist". Traveling sophists or "wise men" were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" and were therefore not in it primarily for the money.

Here's the important part
"In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]

It says in more casual speech it CAN mean....That means it doesn't really mean that, but sometimes people extend it's meaning in a casual manner. Casual suggests minor inaccuracy or misuse or laxed or loose.

And the sentence right before that is what it really means in proper terminology.

"Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."

All of the rest of the article talks about subsets of the core definition or explanation above, not supersets.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#765 Jun 18, 2013
I don't want to ban philosophy, looks like fun if you've got the spare time.

I liked Feynmann's explanation of how to find new scientific laws.

“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG."
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
These are the first two paragraphs of your link
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]
The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek &#966;&#953;&#955; &#959;&#963;&#959; &#966;&#943;&#945; (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[5][6][7] The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.[8] A "philosopher" was understood as a word which contrasted with "sophist". Traveling sophists or "wise men" were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" and were therefore not in it primarily for the money.
Here's the important part
"In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]
It says in more casual speech it CAN mean....That means it doesn't really mean that, but sometimes people extend it's meaning in a casual manner. Casual suggests minor inaccuracy or misuse or laxed or loose.
And the sentence right before that is what it really means in proper terminology.
"Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
All of the rest of the article talks about subsets of the core definition or explanation above, not supersets.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#766 Jun 18, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly philosophy classes you can pass while stoned lol. He probably took one at his local Junior College and now thinks he is all that!
Lol!
<quoted text>
Hey!**I** took Philosophy at my local Junior College.... but.. wait.

I don't think I'm all that....*whew*

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#767 Jun 18, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody says that vacuum energy is not caused. You should read it in more detail.
I have. You are wrong.

Buh-bye.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#768 Jun 18, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, with all due respect, after observing the way you approach issues such as these, I find that difficult to believe.
Because I do not simply cow-tow to the crap YOU post?

Is that pretty much your reasons? Too bad.

You are about as logical as a mouse in heat...
Seeker wrote:
It's not about what you believe or don't believe, it's about the way you approach the topic itself.
Seriously? Your EGO is showing. Again.
Seeker wrote:
I've never seen a good philosophy student who is immediately dismissive of theories as you are.
Why? Are they just supposed to kiss the azz of the "professor" first?

Isn't that how it works? <laughing>

If an idea has MERIT-- IT WILL STAND ON IT'S OWN, REGARDLESS.

None of your ideas have much merit....
Seeker wrote:
They walk through the logic of the theory and examine it.
I have. You and logic appear to be unacquainted...
Seeker wrote:
And I'm not familiar with the expression I MADE "A"s. It's usually I got "A"s or I received "A"s or even I earned "A"s. I made "A"s is a very odd expression for someone who has been to college.
Your massive EGO showing-- because LORD-OF-ALL-THAT-IS--YOU, has never heard of something, it MUST BE WRONG.

It's an expression hereabouts. You are trying to read too much of your self-impressed lofty shyt into what is just a phrase....

Sheesh.

But you have a massively over-inflated ego....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#769 Jun 18, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
What do you mean a good philosophy student?
People's personal philosophies are as varied as people themselves. Which you should know had you taken a philosophy class.
<quoted text>
Exactly!

The philosophies I've read of, and about, all too often contradicted other philosophies.

In fact? They seldom were in agreement in anything.

What most of them seemed to be best at, was arguing amongst themselves....

... without ever reaching a resolution or consensus.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#770 Jun 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Philosophy is great fun but it has limited application in reality.
<quoted text>
Yep.

It's an amusing set of mind-games that some folk can play with themselves.

It rarely produces anything congruent with acutal day-to-day.

And it **never** produces anything **new**.

That takes... science and experiments and such...

.... you would **never** see a "philosophy professor" getting his **hands** dirty doing a "nasty old experiment"....!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#771 Jun 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Sadly, philosophy is not solely concerned with logical argument. There's a lot of wishful thinking bollocks in there too.
<quoted text>
Yes.

In fact, I'd say it's **mostly** bollocks...

... seeing as how they ***never** perform experiments to try to **prove** their idiocy.

They leave that to actual .... scientists.

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
A riddle for fun.... 4 hr Guest 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr candlesmell 94,457
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism 6 hr Guest 16
Stephen Hawking, now a believer 7 hr Guest 21
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 6,004
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 9 hr blacklagoon 3 155
News Geoff Robson is wrong about Richard Dawkins, th... Sat Eagle 12 - 12