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

#834 Jun 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a definition. That's barely even a concept.
It is a core, minimum requirement. If God exists, it has to be a non created creator. Otherwise, if factors within creation precede God and cause God, then God cannot be the origin of everything or all creation. You should have learned that when you "made" dem "A"s in all of those Philosophy courses you claimed to have taken. No matter what religion we are talking about, short of ancient pagan religions, this quality is shared by all of them in their definition of God. So yes, it is all encompassing definition and yes it is also a concept.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
More to the point?**NOBODY** is starting wars over such an undefined and nebulosity.
You are going to have to actually **define** it.
The above? Is just new-age woo...
... as such?
That pretty much proves it myth.
People start wars because of their need to think they have the right form of God, and therefore make they themselves right, and get what they think is their ticket to heaven. And martyrdom is actually not martyrdom at all, it is merely one giving up something in order to gain something that they believe they will get that is even better. People just trick themselves into believing they are giving up something, when in truth, they seek to gain something.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#835 Jun 22, 2013
Why would an ultra complex being like god need to be non created but the universe a by far less complex thing require a creator?

You are using a special pleading logical fallacy.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>It is a core, minimum requirement. If God exists, it has to be a non created creator. Otherwise, if factors within creation precede God and cause God, then God cannot be the origin of everything or all creation. You should have learned that when you "made" dem "A"s in all of those Philosophy courses you claimed to have taken. No matter what religion we are talking about, short of ancient pagan religions, this quality is shared by all of them in their definition of God. So yes, it is all encompassing definition and yes it is also a concept.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
More to the point?**NOBODY** is starting wars over such an undefined and nebulosity.
You are going to have to actually **define** it.
The above? Is just new-age woo...
... as such?
That pretty much proves it myth. "

People start wars because of their need to think they have the right form of God, and therefore make they themselves right, and get what they think is their ticket to heaven. And martyrdom is actually not martyrdom at all, it is merely one giving up something in order to gain something that they believe they will get that is even better. People just trick themselves into believing they are giving up something, when in truth, they seek to gain something.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#836 Jun 22, 2013
I notice you ran from my question. Tell you what, feel free to use whichever dictionary definition of evil that pleases you.

Again the question I asked you is ultra elementary philosophy. You should be able to knock that out of the park. Instead you keep dodging the question. Seriously with all the posts you have gushing about philosophy I thought my question would be right up your alley. A simple well known basic philosophical question. But you up till now are still stumped by it which makes me ponder the truthfulness of your educational claims.

As for my so called mistakes, go to the post where I made this so called mistake, point it out in my own words and then demonstrate how it is factually wrong.

Strawman fallacies won't work with me.
Seeker wrote:
. I asked you to define what you actually mean by evil.
You have made many mistakes, such as saying that a non created creator, which God HAS to be in order to be God, must exist within the creation itself, and I didn't push you to admit that error.
Siro

Canberra, Australia

#837 Jun 22, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
The EDL and the GOP are going to have a field day over this, and just when the Islamists are getting violent again! Talk about bad timing.
And this is an example of the atheists and wahhabis in their common cause if not alliance in ruining the civilised world.
A case of bastards helping bastards
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#838 Jun 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice you ran from my question. Tell you what, feel free to use whichever dictionary definition of evil that pleases you.
That was a sidestep. I have explained exactly what I would like to see and why I would like to see it before the conversation of the subject continues, and I know that this conversation is not important enough for you that you will ever admit to making a mistake. And I cannot have a conversation with someone who cannot admit a mistake, even when it is glaring and obvious. You said I made up my own definition or altered an existing one, when that was not true. Then you tried to sidestep or change the issue by attacking Google definitions themselves. But it is a published definition, not one that I made up or altered in any way, and if you followed the more info link beneath that box, you will find even more references to the word belief in other definitions or explanations about agnostic or agnosticism that don't even come from Google. And even the supposed Google definition does not come from Google, it was a short cut they provide pointing to a definition from a definition source. To my knowledge, Google does not bother to make up it's own definitions.

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

So attacking Google definitions was yet another error that you made. I'm losing count at this point. So there wasn't even anything invalid about the definition itself that I chose out of convenience or expediency, and I even provided a second one from Websters when you complained about no link because you thought I invented it to suit my argument. And the word "view" in Websters means the same thing as "belief" in the context of the definition. No two definition sources will use the same exact words as that would be plagiarism.

If you would have accused me of being lazy in that particular instance or using shortcuts for quick convenience, or sources you don't respect, then fine, that is what you should have done. And even if you say that, I believe that you have done the same even more in our conversation. And I even provided a source everybody would deem acceptable after your first complaint.

But for you to think that I would ever be dishonest enough, or even stupid enough to create my own definition and never expect anybody to ask me to link it, says something about your general attitude towards me, and the discussion itself, and perhaps even your own stupidity.

And for you to always assume that I am being dishonest, which you have repeatedly done and said about many of my posts, says something about you. As they say, it takes one to know one. The person who lies always assumes that others are lying, because that's what they themselves do, so they expect the same behavior from others. The person who does not lie, often does not suspect that others are lying. As you will notice, I never once said that you are lying in the conversation, until you accused me of being a liar five or more times during many of my posts. And why would I possibly want to have a discussion with someone that feels that way and thinks that way?

And then, throw the "winning at all costs" attitude that you clearly have displayed when you used words like "admit defeat" and "checkmate", and it makes discussion with you even more pointless.

Then, throw in the skimming of my posts and blanket dismissals without giving specific, piece by piece analysis of what I say, or specific reasons for your objections, and it makes it even worse, if that is at all possible at this point.

Any questions about why I am now demanding what I demand before the conversation about the subject of POE can continue between us?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#839 Jun 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why would an ultra complex being like god need to be non created but the universe a by far less complex thing require a creator?
You are using a special pleading logical fallacy.
<quoted text>
Gods can have an origin. A singular God cannot. If it exists within the creation itself, as "gods" can, it cannot be said to be the creator of all things for the gods themselves would have a preceding origin or cause. You cannot say that all things in the universe have a cause or origin, but the universe itself has none. That is a contradiction of the postulate that even lead one to even ask the question about the origin of the universe. We only ask about that because everything that we know, logically should have a cause or origin whether we know that cause or origin or not, and you can't suddenly contradict the rules that lead one to the final question itself.

For something to have no cause or origin, or be a non created creator, it would have to be outside of the origin or universe itself. This has nothing to do with whether any such existence itself is in fact true, it is merely a logical statement. IF God, or the creator of all things exists, it HAS to be outside of the creation itself and uncreated itself, or else it cannot be called the creator of ALL things. I'm surprised that all of your Philosophy classes never brought this up.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#840 Jun 22, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a sidestep. I have explained exactly what I would like to see and why I would like to see it before the conversation of the subject continues, and I know that this conversation is not important enough for you that you will ever admit to making a mistake. And I cannot have a conversation with someone who cannot admit a mistake, even when it is glaring and obvious. You said I made up my own definition or altered an existing one, when that was not true. Then you tried to sidestep or change the issue by attacking Google definitions themselves. But it is a published definition, not one that I made up or altered in any way, and if you followed the more info link beneath that box, you will find even more references to the word belief in other definitions or explanations about agnostic or agnosticism that don't even come from Google. And even the supposed Google definition does not come from Google, it was a short cut they provide pointing to a definition from a definition source. To my knowledge, Google does not bother to make up it's own definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Dictionar...
So attacking Google definitions was yet another error that you made. I'm losing count at this point. So there wasn't even anything invalid about the definition itself that I chose out of convenience or expediency, and I even provided a second one from Websters when you complained about no link because you thought I invented it to suit my argument. And the word "view" in Websters means the same thing as "belief" in the context of the definition. No two definition sources will use the same exact words as that would be plagiarism.
If you would have accused me of being lazy in that particular instance or using shortcuts for quick convenience, or sources you don't respect, then fine, that is what you should have done. And even if you say that, I believe that you have done the same even more in our conversation. And I even provided a source everybody would deem acceptable after your first complaint.
But for you to think that I would ever be dishonest enough, or even stupid enough to create my own definition and never expect anybody to ask me to link it, says something about your general attitude towards me, and the discussion itself, and perhaps even your own stupidity.
And for you to always assume that I am being dishonest, which you have repeatedly done and said about many of my posts, says something about you. As they say, it takes one to know one. The person who lies always assumes that others are lying, because that's what they themselves do, so they expect the same behavior from others. The person who does not lie, often does not suspect that others are lying. As you will notice, I never once said that you are lying in the conversation, until you accused me of being a liar five or more times during many of my posts. And why would I possibly want to have a discussion with someone that feels that way and thinks that way?
And then, throw the "winning at all costs" attitude that you clearly have displayed when you used words like "admit defeat" and "checkmate", and it makes discussion with you even more pointless.
Then, throw in the skimming of my posts and blanket dismissals without giving specific, piece by piece analysis of what I say, or specific reasons for your objections, and it makes it even worse, if that is at all possible at this point.
Any questions about why I am now demanding what I demand before the conversation about the subject of POE can continue between us?
All theist trolls type WAY MORE than they actualy think.

You have no proof of god and are just typing in volume to hide the previous embarassing posts hiding your stupidity.

When you want to be brave and a real man, please provide proof of your god before sharing your worthless opinions.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#841 Jun 22, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a sidestep. I have explained exactly what I would like to see and why I would like to see it before the conversation of the subject continues, and I know that this conversation is not important enough for you that you will ever admit to making a mistake. And I cannot have a conversation with someone who cannot admit a mistake, even when it is glaring and obvious. You said I made up my own definition or altered an existing one, when that was not true. Then you tried to sidestep or change the issue by attacking Google definitions themselves. But it is a published definition, not one that I made up or altered in any way, and if you followed the more info link beneath that box, you will find even more references to the word belief in other definitions or explanations about agnostic or agnosticism that don't even come from Google. And even the supposed Google definition does not come from Google, it was a short cut they provide pointing to a definition from a definition source. To my knowledge, Google does not bother to make up it's own definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Dictionar...
So attacking Google definitions was yet another error that you made. I'm losing count at this point. So there wasn't even anything invalid about the definition itself that I chose out of convenience or expediency, and I even provided a second one from Websters when you complained about no link because you thought I invented it to suit my argument. And the word "view" in Websters means the same thing as "belief" in the context of the definition. No two definition sources will use the same exact words as that would be plagiarism.
If you would have accused me of being lazy in that particular instance or using shortcuts for quick convenience, or sources you don't respect, then fine, that is what you should have done. And even if you say that, I believe that you have done the same even more in our conversation. And I even provided a source everybody would deem acceptable after your first complaint.
But for you to think that I would ever be dishonest enough, or even stupid enough to create my own definition and never expect anybody to ask me to link it, says something about your general attitude towards me, and the discussion itself, and perhaps even your own stupidity.
And for you to always assume that I am being dishonest, which you have repeatedly done and said about many of my posts, says something about you. As they say, it takes one to know one. The person who lies always assumes that others are lying, because that's what they themselves do, so they expect the same behavior from others. The person who does not lie, often does not suspect that others are lying. As you will notice, I never once said that you are lying in the conversation, until you accused me of being a liar five or more times during many of my posts. And why would I possibly want to have a discussion with someone that feels that way and thinks that way?
And then, throw the "winning at all costs" attitude that you clearly have displayed when you used words like "admit defeat" and "checkmate", and it makes discussion with you even more pointless.
Then, throw in the skimming of my posts and blanket dismissals without giving specific, piece by piece analysis of what I say, or specific reasons for your objections, and it makes it even worse, if that is at all possible at this point.
Any questions about why I am now demanding what I demand before the conversation about the subject of POE can continue between us?
Its takes you more than 120 lines to admit that you are a liar with no proof of god.

So much dishonesty and lack of responsiblity from theists today.

Running scared when science asks them to back up their simplistic judgemental bullsh*t.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#842 Jun 22, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
All theist trolls type WAY MORE than they actualy think.
You have no proof of god and are just typing in volume to hide the previous embarassing posts hiding your stupidity.
When you want to be brave and a real man, please provide proof of your god before sharing your worthless opinions.
Thanks for your opinion. Duly noted, although it's nothing new, just a repeat of what you always say. And this will probably be the 5th time I will have to repeat to you, that an uncreated Creator cannot be proved nor disproved. That has always been my answer and it still is. So just keep repeating yourself. And quite frankly, I am getting tired of having a conversation with a 16 year old. As I said to you before, I would not want to have a conversation with myself as a 16 year old because I thought that I knew it all back then and never listened to anybody nor even considered anything that they said. And neither do you.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#843 Jun 22, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Its takes you more than 120 lines to admit that you are a liar with no proof of god.
I will repeat this one more time for you. One cannot be lying by stating a belief or theory, even if that theory turned out to be wrong. One can only be lying when one knowingly states something that one knows is not a fact, and represents what one knows isn't a fact as fact. I have never represented the existence of God as a fact, but a belief or theory. If other people represent it is a fact, that's their problem, not mine. How many times does this need to be repeated to you before it finally sinks in? Yes, you definitely appear to me to be 16 years old. I become more sure of that with each post you make. You appear to think like someone who is 16.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#844 Jun 22, 2013
So you are unable to answer my very basic philosophical question? I mean that is the long and short of it right?

Also waiting for you to show my exact post and factually prove what I said was wrong.

Any year now.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>That was a sidestep. I have explained exactly what I would like to see and why I would like to see it before the conversation of the subject continues, and I know that this conversation is not important enough for you that you will ever admit to making a mistake. And I cannot have a conversation with someone who cannot admit a mistake, even when it is glaring and obvious. You said I made up my own definition or altered an existing one, when that was not true. Then you tried to sidestep or change the issue by attacking Google definitions themselves. But it is a published definition, not one that I made up or altered in any way, and if you followed the more info link beneath that box, you will find even more references to the word belief in other definitions or explanations about agnostic or agnosticism that don't even come from Google. And even the supposed Google definition does not come from Google, it was a short cut they provide pointing to a definition from a definition source. To my knowledge, Google does not bother to make up it's own definitions.

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

So attacking Google definitions was yet another error that you made. I'm losing count at this point. So there wasn't even anything invalid about the definition itself that I chose out of convenience or expediency, and I even provided a second one from Websters when you complained about no link because you thought I invented it to suit my argument. And the word "view" in Websters means the same thing as "belief" in the context of the definition. No two definition sources will use the same exact words as that would be plagiarism.

If you would have accused me of being lazy in that particular instance or using shortcuts for quick convenience, or sources you don't respect, then fine, that is what you should have done. And even if you say that, I believe that you have done the same even more in our conversation. And I even provided a source everybody would deem acceptable after your first complaint.

But for you to think that I would ever be dishonest enough, or even stupid enough to create my own definition and never expect anybody to ask me to link it, says something about your general attitude towards me, and the discussion itself, and perhaps even your own stupidity.

And for you to always assume that I am being dishonest, which you have repeatedly done and said about many of my posts, says something about you. As they say, it takes one to know one. The person who lies always assumes that others are lying, because that's what they themselves do, so they expect the same behavior from others. The person who does not lie, often does not suspect that others are lying. As you will notice, I never once said that you are lying in the conversation, until you accused me of being a liar five or more times during many of my posts. And why would I possibly want to have a discussion with someone that feels that way and thinks that way?

And then, throw the "winning at all costs" attitude that you clearly have displayed when you used words like "admit defeat" and "checkmate", and it makes discussion with you even more pointless.

Then, throw in the skimming of my posts and blanket dismissals without giving specific, piece by piece analysis of what I say, or specific reasons for your objections, and it makes it even worse, if that is at all possible at this point.

Any questions about why I am now demanding what I demand before the conversation about the subject of POE can continue between us?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#845 Jun 22, 2013
Special pleasing that does not work, because it would negate the entire bible or any holy book or any claim of god. For if what you say is correct man could not have the concept let alone clear rules and definitions for god.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Gods can have an origin. A singular God cannot. If it exists within the creation itself, as "gods" can, it cannot be said to be the creator of all things for the gods themselves would have a preceding origin or cause. You cannot say that all things in the universe have a cause or origin, but the universe itself has none. That is a contradiction of the postulate that even lead one to even ask the question about the origin of the universe. We only ask about that because everything that we know, logically should have a cause or origin whether we know that cause or origin or not, and you can't suddenly contradict the rules that lead one to the final question itself.

For something to have no cause or origin, or be a non created creator, it would have to be outside of the origin or universe itself. This has nothing to do with whether any such existence itself is in fact true, it is merely a logical statement. IF God, or the creator of all things exists, it HAS to be outside of the creation itself and uncreated itself, or else it cannot be called the creator of ALL things. I'm surprised that all of your Philosophy classes never brought this up.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#846 Jun 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why would an ultra complex being like god need to be non created but the universe a by far less complex thing require a creator?

<quoted text>
The same question I have been asking, which has never been addressed by a Godbot. They whole argument for intelligent design is that the universe and life are far too complex to have been created without an intelligent designer. yet, they say that their God is supreme and all powerful. He is so complex, yet he requires no designer.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#847 Jun 23, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Gods can have an origin. A singular God cannot. If it exists within the creation itself, as "gods" can, it cannot be said to be the creator of all things for the gods themselves would have a preceding origin or cause. You cannot say that all things in the universe have a cause or origin, but the universe itself has none. That is a contradiction of the postulate that even lead one to even ask the question about the origin of the universe. We only ask about that because everything that we know, logically should have a cause or origin whether we know that cause or origin or not, and you can't suddenly contradict the rules that lead one to the final question itself.
For something to have no cause or origin, or be a non created creator, it would have to be outside of the origin or universe itself. This has nothing to do with whether any such existence itself is in fact true, it is merely a logical statement. IF God, or the creator of all things exists, it HAS to be outside of the creation itself and uncreated itself, or else it cannot be called the creator of ALL things. I'm surprised that all of your Philosophy classes never brought this up.
You are making up your own rules. There is no more logical reason to assume that their is one god over the idea of many gods. In fact, the theory of more than one God makes more sense because it would do a better job explaining the good vs evil battle. It makes more sense to say that there are two Gods, one good and one evil, than yo say that there is one supreme God, who created good and evil, while portraying himself as a good god.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#848 Jun 23, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your opinion. Duly noted, although it's nothing new, just a repeat of what you always say. And this will probably be the 5th time I will have to repeat to you, that an uncreated Creator cannot be proved nor disproved. That has always been my answer and it still is. So just keep repeating yourself. And quite frankly, I am getting tired of having a conversation with a 16 year old. As I said to you before, I would not want to have a conversation with myself as a 16 year old because I thought that I knew it all back then and never listened to anybody nor even considered anything that they said. And neither do you.
According to the bible, God has had dialogue with us humans before. so God can prove his existence. He just hasn't for some nefarious reason.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#849 Jun 23, 2013
Not to mention his so called design doesn't look so intelligent, just ask your wisdom teeth or the useless extra toe and heel on a dog.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>The same question I have been asking, which has never been addressed by a Godbot. They whole argument for intelligent design is that the universe and life are far too complex to have been created without an intelligent designer. yet, they say that their God is supreme and all powerful. He is so complex, yet he requires no designer.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#850 Jun 23, 2013
Very well said.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>You are making up your own rules. There is no more logical reason to assume that their is one god over the idea of many gods. In fact, the theory of more than one God makes more sense because it would do a better job explaining the good vs evil battle. It makes more sense to say that there are two Gods, one good and one evil, than yo say that there is one supreme God, who created good and evil, while portraying himself as a good god.
Mujahid

Fort Worth, TX

#851 Jun 23, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
The same question I have been asking, which has never been addressed by a Godbot. They whole argument for intelligent design is that the universe and life are far too complex to have been created without an intelligent designer. yet, they say that their God is supreme and all powerful. He is so complex, yet he requires no designer.
There is a God. It is beyond Science and Logic to explain God's existence. Someimes Science helps.

There is a God, leading atheist concludes
Philosopher says scientific evidence changed his mind

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6688917/ns/world_ne...

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#852 Jun 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Not to mention his so called design doesn't look so intelligent, just ask your wisdom teeth or the useless extra toe and heel on a dog.
<quoted text>
Agreed. Why would an intelligent designer make us whittle to helplessness in old age?
Why would an intelligent designer create physical strength differences between men and women, and then inject men with testosterone so that men could be more violent and females the target of violent men?
Why would an intelligent designer give some animals great defense mechanisms while leaving other animals helpless against their prey
Why would an intelligent designer allows some humans to be born slow?
Why would an intelligent designer allow some people to be born with disabilities?

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#853 Jun 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Very well said.
<quoted text>
I am glad you liked it. The reality is, Zeus and Hades, makes far more sense than a God who claims to be good, but created Satan. If God is so good and so powerful, why not rid the universe of evil?

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) 23 min Science 67,076
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 51 min Subduction Zone 28,575
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr yehoshooah adam 3,516
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 17 hr superwilly 21
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 17 hr superwilly 462
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web