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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#915 Jun 24, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then break down what is wrong with the claim. Anybody can say "Seriously????". There I just said it too. That was easy. I typed an opinion and then considered the matter done. So what does my blanket dismissal mean? Nothing, except for stating an opinion.
And here's another thing: so what?

You seem to think there is a **requirement** for people to "choose" one or the other, and **never** a combination of good/evil...!!!

That is ludicrously naive.

People are a mix of good and evil traits-- always have been.

(by evil, we arbitrarily define as "selfish with damaging consequences to others")

And humans would still have that option, even if the only god was all good, and there was no deliberately-created evil.

Sheesh but you are a simpleton.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#916 Jun 24, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said there was no free will and in fact said the opposite. Did you read the rest of what I said? Obviously, based on your response, you "seem" like you didn't. Why didn't you? That's a question that I am asking myself right now, and I might even know why you didn't.
Why should I bother? Your initial premise was fatally flawed, so no amount of word-salad could fix that mistake.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#917 Jun 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
As a creator. Of the universe.
That's pretty loose, but that is a testable definition.
I also said "purpose". An uncreated creator with a purpose. And I think that was very fair of me to add the word purpose. So test it.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And your god? Fails the first requirement, as the universe isn't a creation in the first place.
So then explain how things pop out of thin air. If I said that I could rub my hands together and create something that never existed, you would laugh, and maybe I would too if someone said that to me. And yet you do not laugh about an idea that the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere. Why? Why the sudden change of theoretical thinking if and when it seems to meets your ideas or what you need them to be?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#918 Jun 24, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Actually, I believe that I am quite the opposite, and if you really try to understand what I saying, you might see that.
You may well be capable of understanding that the universe has little in it, that is 100% or 0%.

Most of the universe is composed of probabilities.

Even the very sub-atomic "fabric" of the universe is probabilities and chance. Never 100% or 0%.

But faith? Faith **demands** 100% or 0% to operate at all.

After all: a person cannot go 70% to hell, and 30% to heaven...

Which is why religion is so dangerous to teach-- it forces the mind into 100%/0% channels, against reality which is anything but.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#919 Jun 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And here's another thing: so what?
You seem to think there is a **requirement** for people to "choose" one or the other, and **never** a combination of good/evil...!!!
I never said there was a "requirement", I only said that if true love could ever exist, then there has to be a choice to not do so.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That is ludicrously naive.
People are a mix of good and evil traits-- always have been.
I know, that is obvious. They are capable of doing either one. That's what free will is about.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
(by evil, we arbitrarily define as "selfish with damaging consequences to others") And humans would still have that option, even if the only god was all good, and there was no deliberately-created evil.
Yes, that's what true free will is about. You are actually agreeing with me without even knowing it. But the question asked was, IF there was a benevolent God, then why does evil exist? You are talking about God not existing, but that is not the question of the problem of evil that seeks to prove the non existence of a benevolent God. You are only commenting as if there is no God, and the question that seeks to prove that, need not even be asked. And that's fine, but that was not the question I was asked by others.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#920 Jun 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You may well be capable of understanding that the universe has little in it, that is 100% or 0%.
The question itself is one invented by the conceptualizing or rational mind. But who is to say that the origin of everything that we use and see to even ask those questions can ever fit into the rational or conceptualizing mind?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the universe is composed of probabilities.
According to what our limited, conceptualizing minds can tell. I'm not denying what you say, I just think I am putting it where I think it belongs, but in even doing that, I am still within the realm of the conceptualizing mind.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the very sub-atomic "fabric" of the universe is probabilities and chance. Never 100% or 0%.
Sure, the very idea of chance itself is something that our minds invent, to help us sort things out better (or so we think). A useful, but not complete tool and nothing more. It's a "concept" that we have, and that we even invent. What's the chances of 10 heads coin flips in a row? We can conceptualize that, even though each flip in reality will always be 50/50.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
But faith? Faith **demands** 100% or 0% to operate at all.
Well my idea of it says there aren't even numbers like 100% or 0%. Those are things that are qualitative and quantitative measurement we invent for our convenience.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
After all: a person cannot go 70% to hell, and 30% to heaven...
Well how about if that issue was dealt with later. How could that issue be dealt with when the idea of a non created creator is not established first? I could give you my ideas about that later. But I'll say one thing that is very abstract that you will disagree with because I can't give you a whole bunch of info to allow you to consider this idea, but maybe you might grasp it anyway. You do not believe or disbelieve in God, you believe or disbelieve in an idea for God that someone has told you. And so do theists as well. You can't disbelieve in something or even believe in it, unless someone told you an idea to believe or disbelieve in. In the thirteenth century, you could not believe in or disbelieve in the idea of radio frequencies, because there was no idea of them to believe or disbelieve in back then.

Here is quote from an unnamed person that I read.

“Every word, every image used for God is a distortion more than a description.”

Now granted, this quote still assumes God, so that is a prior assumption. But the concept is that if you drop all ideas of God, suddenly it's there. When you deny God, you deny an idea that someone told you. The assumption is that if all false descriptions or ideas about God were gone, then God would naturally be there, although it could never be anything you could ever describe or put into words. The assumption is that humans would naturally feel God, if it wasn't for all of the false descriptions they have been given of God. I don't expect you to swallow or agree with that, but that is the concept that I have been exposed to. I know that there are prior assumptions there. But who's to say that they couldn't be made? And that's where the real feeling comes from, and it could never be proven, just like real or true love can't. It's too abstract and is beyond the conceptualizing mind. Why do people even laugh? Try to put that idea into a conceptualizing box? I can't. It just happens and I don't know why.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#921 Jun 24, 2013
Like I said before , you are making up your own rules.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
For you to be surrounded by nothing but good people would mean that all people are good and cannot be bad, including you. Therefore, nobody, including you, could choose to be bad, and therefore they cannot choose to be good as well.
<quoted text>
I am explaining why there is the capability for being bad, or bad in the world, so that there is the ability to choose to be good. True love appears to be the most valuable thing that there is. But if someone does everything that you want, then you could not truly love that person, you would actually be loving what that person does for you, not the person themselves. It isn't true love until there is still love even in adversity or bad times.
I often ask Christians, if God didn't do anything or will not do anything for you (no heaven), would you still love God? And my answer would be, why not or why shouldn't I? But someone might reply, why should I if God didn't and isn't going to do anything for me? what would be the point? Then I would respond that although they thought they loved God this whole time, what they have actually been loving is what God does or will do for them, not God himself or itself. They don't like it when I bring this up.
So without adversity, we cannot truly love God, and if there was any purpose that I can think of for God creating the world leading to humans, it would be to cultivate true love, much like a person plants a tree so that it can bear fruit, although a tree does not have free will, so that's not a perfect analogy, just an analogy.
If you could create a perfect robot designed to love you and with no choice but to do so, would you ever receive true love? One might always think, well yes, you love me, but that's only because I programmed you to do so and gave you no other choice. It wouldn't be real. True love can only come from free will choice, and with that comes the choice to be bad. That doesn't mean that it's impossible for someone to always choose good, but I have never heard of anybody like like, unless one believes in the story of Jesus.
But an imperfect world is the only environment that can cultivate true love.
People say that God can do anything or is all powerful,or so the story goes. But I think that God gave up some of his or its power and control by giving humans free will, in exchange for the possibility of receiving true love from them. And "true" free will means the option or capability to be bad. If God created everything good, with no capabilities to be bad, then God would never receive true love. If God created all of this, one would or could assume that an intelligent creator would had to have a reason or purpose for doing so.
You say that we need adversity to show true love. But love is supposed to be a reciprocal thing. I heard of a story where a woman was married with three kids. She lost her husband in an accident, her eldest son died, and her daughter was killed by the Green River Killer. I am wondering how that is proof of God's love/

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#922 Jun 24, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Yes we do.
And here it is.
Read it:
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodL...
None of this points to your god.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#923 Jun 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And here's another thing: so what?
You seem to think there is a **requirement** for people to "choose" one or the other, and **never** a combination of good/evil...!!!
That is ludicrously naive.
People are a mix of good and evil traits-- always have been.
(by evil, we arbitrarily define as "selfish with damaging consequences to others")
And humans would still have that option, even if the only god was all good, and there was no deliberately-created evil.
Sheesh but you are a simpleton.
I had to laugh because you are right.I had been contesting his statements before, but you responded better. He makes up his own rules and requirements to justify his views. Rules that not proven, but fits totally in line with his views. Like his statements that multiple gods have to be created, but a single god cannot be created. There is as much evidence for created/uncreated gods/goddesses as there is for a created/uncreated god.
Thinking

London, UK

#924 Jun 24, 2013
Do you have proof that it can't?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
The question itself is one invented by the conceptualizing or rational mind. But who is to say that the origin of everything that we use and see to even ask those questions can ever fit into the rational or conceptualizing mind?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#925 Jun 25, 2013
You haven't even remotely discussed it so stop lying. Well discussing it with the voices in your head doesn't count.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I'm already discussing it with someone else, but you only read posts that you are involved in. Ready to answer that question I asked of you before the discussion between us can continue? Just checking. I would probably rather that you don't at this point, and I know you never can admit to ever making a mistake. That's fine, I prefer to discuss the issue with others anyway, so maybe you are actually doing me a favor without realizing it.

Have a nice day.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#926 Jun 25, 2013
Exactly and he has no evidence to say otherwise.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That **is** the way it works.

When one god falls out of favor? Another is fabricated out of the shreds of the old gods, to rise into preeminence in it's place.

The mindless, baah-ing sheeple demand it!

<laughing>

Since: Mar 11

United States

#927 Jun 25, 2013
You answer my question and I will answer your's, fair enough?

Oh and still waiting for you to find that post where you proved me factually wrong. Please note your apologetic opinion doesn't count as proof.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Instead of laughing, why don't you have a real laugh and pick the article apart? Your blanket dismissals mean absolutely nothing. And don't look at me, I didn't post it.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#928 Jun 25, 2013
He does make up his own rules as he goes. And they change often to fit his losing proposition.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said before , you are making up your own rules.
You say that we need adversity to show true love. But love is supposed to be a reciprocal thing. I heard of a story where a woman was married with three kids. She lost her husband in an accident, her eldest son died, and her daughter was killed by the Green River Killer. I am wondering how that is proof of God's love/

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#929 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I also said "purpose". An uncreated creator with a purpose. And I think that was very fair of me to add the word purpose. So test it.
<quoted text>
So then explain how things pop out of thin air. If I said that I could rub my hands together and create something that never existed, you would laugh, and maybe I would too if someone said that to me. And yet you do not laugh about an idea that the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere. Why? Why the sudden change of theoretical thinking if and when it seems to meets your ideas or what you need them to be?
Prove that there is purpose, coward. It gets to the core of atheism.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#930 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I only said that if true love could ever exist, then there has to be a choice to not do so.
This is one of those stupid statements that theists make all the time.

You haven't even proven true love yet, or choice / free will,

You always do that - instead of proving the fundamental lie - ie. the god you invented. You add more lies and get us to talk about those instead.

This is a typical theist tactic. If we move on from the god assumption you can try to fool us into discussing the lie's intricacies.

It will not work.

Either prove your f*cking god, or f*ck off Seeker, you pig-ignorant troll.

You will not spread your cult in this forum through deception, like others have tried and failed to.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#931 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I also said "purpose". An uncreated creator with a purpose. And I think that was very fair of me to add the word purpose. So test it.
<quoted text>
So then explain how things pop out of thin air. If I said that I could rub my hands together and create something that never existed, you would laugh, and maybe I would too if someone said that to me. And yet you do not laugh about an idea that the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere. Why? Why the sudden change of theoretical thinking if and when it seems to meets your ideas or what you need them to be?
You invented the particular brand of god that lives inside your head's chosen mental illness.

It does not apply to anyone else except you. We are not subject t your mental illness.

Its really simple when you try to think about it a litt.e
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#932 Jun 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You answer my question and I will answer your's, fair enough?
No. Look, I know that even if I did, you would find an excuse to not directly answer my question because you can never admit a mistake. Besides, I'm discussing it with emperorjohn who seems to at least read what I say and can discuss specifics. Blanklet dismissals such as your are completely meaningless and pointless.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and still waiting for you to find that post where you proved me factually wrong. Please note your apologetic opinion doesn't count as proof.
<quoted text>

I'm sure you remember accusing me of altering an existing definition for agnostic to suit my needs, and I'm sure you remember me providing the source for the definition that I supposedly altered and it was not altered at all. End of story. Have a nice day.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#933 Jun 25, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
Like I said before , you are making up your own rules. <quoted text>
You say that we need adversity to show true love. But love is supposed to be a reciprocal thing. I heard of a story where a woman was married with three kids. She lost her husband in an accident, her eldest son died, and her daughter was killed by the Green River Killer. I am wondering how that is proof of God's love/
Do you mean that nothing good has ever happened to her? Then why doesn't she commit suicide if there is nothing good about life? A bottle of pills should do it easily and painlessly. She could anytime she wanted. If God created such a completely terrible world, we all have the option to leave it any time we want. But for some bizarre reason, the overwhelming majority do not. We complain about how terrible and cruel life is, and yet we continue with it even though we don't have to. Why?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#935 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You invented the particular brand of god that lives inside your head's chosen mental illness.
It does not apply to anyone else except you. We are not subject t your mental illness.
You aren't subject to anything and nobody is forcing you to believe anything, nor even consider it. You have the choice to ignore my posts altogether, so why don't you just do that and do us both a favor? You don't like what I say, and it's not like I find anything interesting or thought provoking in anything that you say.

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) 22 min The_Box 7,645
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 24 min karl44 19,143
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 25 min Eagle 12 239,933
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 1 hr Reason Personified 166
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr Reason Personified 14,660
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr Thinking 2,237
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 15 hr NoahLovesU 7,514
More from around the web