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

#792 Jun 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I do laugh at how Mr. Philosophy genius can't mystic up an answer for the problem of evil.
Not to you. It's pointless to have a discussion such as that with you. Perhaps if someone like Marco or Thinker wants to ask that, then I would discuss it.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#793 Jun 19, 2013
Aww that's a funny way of saying you don't know.

What are you like 16 stamping your feet taking your ball and going home because I caught you lying for everyone to see?

Sorry but that is soooooooo childish especially from a self described philosophy expert.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Not to you. It's pointless to have a discussion such as that with you. Perhaps if someone like Marco or Thinker wants to ask that, then I would discuss it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#794 Jun 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Aww that's a funny way of saying you don't know.
I said that I would gladly discuss it with someone else who I find more reasonable, rather than immediately dismissive. And you have proven to be the latter time and time again. All you want to do is to win a discussion at all costs and paint the other person as a liar, and you have proven that to me more than once. So someone coming from that angle is incapable of considering any ideas that might be counter to their previously drawn and steadfast conclusions. And what would be the point of my answering if you are only going to read half of my answer or skim it with your conclusion already drawn before you even read it? That would be a pointless and complete waste of my time. You are not asking for an explanation from me at all. We both know that, so let's both be honest with ourselves, okay? You are not asking a question at all, you are merely setting up what you believe to be a trap, and that is not asking a question at all.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#795 Jun 19, 2013
You were caught lying red handed on your definition and you know it. Blame yourself for that not me.

So you can reply to stamp your feet and cry but not answer my question.

So childish.

And yes I have read your replies but once again when you merely repost what has already been soundly debunked time and time again or go off on a wildly off topic, bubble headed rant it gets tiring.

So Mr. Philosophy expert, here's a philosophy question for you, explain away the problem with evil when it comes to god? Stop being a childish coward and answer already, this is right up your alley after all.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I said that I would gladly discuss it with someone else who I find more reasonable, rather than immediately dismissive. And you have proven to be the latter time and time again. All you want to do is to win a discussion at all costs and paint the other person as a liar, and you have proven that to me more than once. So someone coming from that angle is incapable of considering any ideas that might be counter to their previously drawn and steadfast conclusions. And what would be the point of my answering if you are only going to read half of my answer or skim it with your conclusion already drawn before you even read it? That would be a pointless and complete waste of my time. You are not asking for an explanation from me at all. We both know that, so let's both be honest with ourselves, okay? You are not asking a question at all, you are merely setting up what you believe to be a trap, and that is not asking a question at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#796 Jun 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I do laugh at how Mr. Philosophy genius can't mystic up an answer for the problem of evil.
I guess he was mystic-aken? Lol!
<quoted text>
It must have been a deep myth-stery.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#797 Jun 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Aww that's a funny way of saying you don't know.
What are you like 16 stamping your feet taking your ball and going home because I caught you lying for everyone to see?
Sorry but that is soooooooo childish especially from a self described philosophy expert.
<quoted text>
<LMAO>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#798 Jun 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that I would gladly discuss it with someone else who I find more reasonable, rather than immediately dismissive.
Translation: you want to "discuss" with someone who agrees with you and blindly accepts your unsubstantiated crap.

<laughing>

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#799 Jun 19, 2013
Lol! Awesome!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>It must have been a deep myth-stery.

:)
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#800 Jun 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You were caught lying red handed on your definition and you know it.
Which definition?
Givemeliberty wrote:
Blame yourself for that not me.
So you can reply to stamp your feet and cry but not answer my question.
So childish.
And yes I have read your replies but once again when you merely repost what has already been soundly debunked time and time again or go off on a wildly off topic, bubble headed rant it gets tiring.
So Mr. Philosophy expert, here's a philosophy question for you, explain away the problem with evil when it comes to god? Stop being a childish coward and answer already, this is right up your alley after all.
<quoted text>
Fine, time to completely waste my time. But since you will keep stomping up and down like an angry little child who didn't get a present in his stocking, I will give you my particular take on it. Since I give you all the wrong definitions, as you claim, even though I quote from the dictionary, why don't you give me your definition of evil, and I'll answer from that. Is there pure evil or is it people doing things that are bad for whatever reasons they have or bad things happening? But again, you and I know that this is a compete waste of time because there never will be an acceptable answer for you, no matter what I say, and you will make it so if you have to.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#801 Jun 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: you want to "discuss" with someone who agrees with you and blindly accepts your unsubstantiated crap.
<laughing>
How about someone who would even consider my answer? Are you telling me that you actually consider anything that I say?But that's okay, I'm going to be ultra fair and answer the other guy with his arms folded and foot tapping that asked the question.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#802 Jun 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that I would gladly discuss it with someone else who I find more reasonable, rather than immediately dismissive. And you have proven to be the latter time and time again. All you want to do is to win a discussion at all costs and paint the other person as a liar, and you have proven that to me more than once. So someone coming from that angle is incapable of considering any ideas that might be counter to their previously drawn and steadfast conclusions. And what would be the point of my answering if you are only going to read half of my answer or skim it with your conclusion already drawn before you even read it? That would be a pointless and complete waste of my time. You are not asking for an explanation from me at all. We both know that, so let's both be honest with ourselves, okay? You are not asking a question at all, you are merely setting up what you believe to be a trap, and that is not asking a question at all.
Lots of familiar whining and playing victim from the liar with no proof of god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#803 Jun 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Which definition?
<quoted text>
Fine, time to completely waste my time. But since you will keep stomping up and down like an angry little child who didn't get a present in his stocking, I will give you my particular take on it. Since I give you all the wrong definitions, as you claim, even though I quote from the dictionary, why don't you give me your definition of evil, and I'll answer from that. Is there pure evil or is it people doing things that are bad for whatever reasons they have or bad things happening? But again, you and I know that this is a compete waste of time because there never will be an acceptable answer for you, no matter what I say, and you will make it so if you have to.
You quickly assume there is no acceptable answer because you know that you're lying to us about god and have no evidence.

Your a dishonest person trying to convince us that your cult is honest, when its not by its own nature and presents no evidence.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#804 Jun 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
How about someone who would even consider my answer? Are you telling me that you actually consider anything that I say?But that's okay, I'm going to be ultra fair and answer the other guy with his arms folded and foot tapping that asked the question.
When you are brave enough to prove your god, your attempts to change the subject will matter.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#805 Jun 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When you are brave enough to prove your god, your attempts to change the subject will matter.
If you had ever really read any of my posts, you would have clearly seen that I have always said that God cannot be proved nor disproved. But you don't read my posts and you don't even understand who or what you are disagreeing with. But you sure do a heck of a lot of vocal disagreement.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#806 Jun 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had ever really read any of my posts, you would have clearly seen that I have always said that God cannot be proved nor disproved. But you don't read my posts and you don't even understand who or what you are disagreeing with. But you sure do a heck of a lot of vocal disagreement.
God is not real and is a disproven. You make the claim that god is possible and present no evidence whatsoever.

Lying will not hide this fact.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#807 Jun 20, 2013
Give a logical sound answer I will eagerly accept it. Ramble on about some random mystic or other off topic emotional nonsense and you will be called out for it.

Fair enough?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>How about someone who would even consider my answer? Are you telling me that you actually consider anything that I say?But that's okay, I'm going to be ultra fair and answer the other guy with his arms folded and foot tapping that asked the question.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#808 Jun 20, 2013
You know you lied about the definition of agnostic changing the definition to suit your argument. And you know it.

I didn't ask for the definition of evil did I? I asked a famous philosophical question... Explain away the problem with evil in relation to god.

And who was the one stomping their feet about others not reading his posts again?

Lol!
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Which definition?

Givemeliberty wrote, "
Blame yourself for that not me.
So you can reply to stamp your feet and cry but not answer my question.
So childish.
And yes I have read your replies but once again when you merely repost what has already been soundly debunked time and time again or go off on a wildly off topic, bubble headed rant it gets tiring.
So Mr. Philosophy expert, here's a philosophy question for you, explain away the problem with evil when it comes to god? Stop being a childish coward and answer already, this is right up your alley after all.
<quoted text>
"

Fine, time to completely waste my time. But since you will keep stomping up and down like an angry little child who didn't get a present in his stocking, I will give you my particular take on it. Since I give you all the wrong definitions, as you claim, even though I quote from the dictionary, why don't you give me your definition of evil, and I'll answer from that. Is there pure evil or is it people doing things that are bad for whatever reasons they have or bad things happening? But again, you and I know that this is a compete waste of time because there never will be an acceptable answer for you, no matter what I say, and you will make it so if you have to.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#810 Jun 20, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not real and is a disproven.
Lack of evidence is not considered proof. It is merely lack of evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. There was a lack of evidence for radio frequencies in the 13th century, and without evidence, people had no reason to believe they existed. I don't blame them, I probably would have laughed at the idea if I lived in the 13th century as well. I don't "blame" Atheists for not believing in God at all. I just have a different opinion and i have my reasons for having them. You are putting me in the same box as all of the Theists that you know that shove God in your face and tell you that you are going to hell and that they can prove that God exists and they tell you this is a fact. But I would never say such things because that would be foolish. And you don't realize that because you don't really read my posts at all. But you can sure disagree with them. What you are actually disagreeing with? I have no idea. Maybe you past image or experiences of anybody who believes that God exists, but I'm am not part of your past, so stop lumping me into that and come into the present moment and read what people actually say.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You make the claim that god is possible and present no evidence whatsoever.
Lying will not hide this fact.
Possible means exactly what it says. Theories are theories, they are beliefs. Nothing wrong with that as long as one does not represent it as fact because once they do, then they have to prove it. Scientists have theories as well. In fact science would be meaningless without theories. But they cannot call their theories or beliefs fact until the prove them. You call it a fact that God does not exists, but lack of evidence is not proof at all. Those are two different things. One might say that they don't believe because there is no evidence that they can tell or see, but that isn't proof, it's just a logical reason to doubt. There's a difference. You cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than anyone can proves that God does exist. If either side claims they can, then they are a fool.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#811 Jun 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You know you lied about the definition of agnostic changing the definition to suit your argument. And you know it.
I quoted a dictionary definition and did not alter it one bit. I didn't link it because it was the first definition that I saw when I googled "definition for Agnostic", and it was on the search results page itself in a box at the top. So I merely copied and pasted from that for convenience. Then, when you complained about no link, thinking that I was just making it all up, then I quoted from an actual page in Websters, to make it more official and meet you demands. And the only difference was that one used the word belief and the other used the word view. But they were both meant to mean the same thing in the context of the definition. I have already been through this with you once, and I find it hard to believe you missed the post where I definitively answered your accusations of changing a dictionary definition, but then again, you have a habit of not completely reading posts.

But here it is again. Here is where I got the first definition from where it has the word belief in it, and if you go back and check, you will clearly see that I copied and pasted it and posted it exactly as it is. Go to this search results page and look at the top of it and you will see where I got it from. Here is the link for the returned search results for a google query of "definition for agnostic". You will notice a very large box show up at the top with the exact definition that I posted. If you click on the more info link below the box, you will see many more instances of the word believe or belief referenced as well.

https://www.google.com/#gs_rn=17&gs_ri=ps...

So as far as me being a liar, I guess it's old saying "takes one to know one", eh?
Givemeliberty wrote:
I didn't ask for the definition of evil did I? I asked a famous philosophical question... Explain away the problem with evil in relation to god.
There are different schools of thought about whether evil even exists or not, so I need to know what school of thought you are in before I can answer the question for YOU, they way YOU want it answered. If you would prefer, I'll just quote from Leibniz, a famous Mathematician and Philosopher. But I really see no good that it's going to do, except to get you to stop repeating a question who's answers you have no interest in even considering anyway. And if you have a Masters, as you have claimed, then I'm surprised that you yourself don't already know the answers that Philosophers themselves have come up with. I have a slightly different answer that I arrived at myself. So which do you want?
Givemeliberty wrote:
And who was the one stomping their feet about others not reading his posts again?
Lol!
<quoted text>
There weren't any angry words in my last post to you at all. I was merely stating the obvious. And it still IS obvious.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#812 Jun 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of evidence is not considered proof. It is merely lack of evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. There was a lack of evidence for radio frequencies in the 13th century, and without evidence, people had no reason to believe they existed. I don't blame them, I probably would have laughed at the idea if I lived in the 13th century as well. I don't "blame" Atheists for not believing in God at all. I just have a different opinion and i have my reasons for having them. You are putting me in the same box as all of the Theists that you know that shove God in your face and tell you that you are going to hell and that they can prove that God exists and they tell you this is a fact. But I would never say such things because that would be foolish. And you don't realize that because you don't really read my posts at all. But you can sure disagree with them. What you are actually disagreeing with? I have no idea. Maybe you past image or experiences of anybody who believes that God exists, but I'm am not part of your past, so stop lumping me into that and come into the present moment and read what people actually say.
<quoted text>
Possible means exactly what it says. Theories are theories, they are beliefs. Nothing wrong with that as long as one does not represent it as fact because once they do, then they have to prove it. Scientists have theories as well. In fact science would be meaningless without theories. But they cannot call their theories or beliefs fact until the prove them. You call it a fact that God does not exists, but lack of evidence is not proof at all. Those are two different things. One might say that they don't believe because there is no evidence that they can tell or see, but that isn't proof, it's just a logical reason to doubt. There's a difference. You cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than anyone can proves that God does exist. If either side claims they can, then they are a fool.
Why does it take you 27 lines to simply admit that you are a liar with no proof of god being possible?

Just admit it- you lie about god and have no evidence - be a man! Have some balls!

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Ronnie 33,871
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 13 min Eagle 12 102
church disowns Trump for being too gay friendly 19 min Eagle 12 3
News Are There Atheists in the Foxholes? 1 hr Eagle 12 47
Reasoning with Insanity 1 hr Eagle 12 29
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Eagle 12 4,450
News Your atheism isn&#x27;t going to keep your... (Apr '14) 2 hr Eagle 12 155
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 14,801
More from around the web