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

#936 Jun 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I bother?
Well if you shouldn't bother to read the rest of my post, why should you even bother to respond?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your initial premise was fatally flawed, so no amount of word-salad could fix that mistake.
Well, YOU decided that the rest of the post couldn't possibly say anything to explain what I was talking about. So again, why did you even read any of it all if your decision was already made before you even read it? And why even bother to respond?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#937 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You can stop lying about god then. You don't even need to reply - just f*ck off back your cult because nobody is being converted to your here.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#938 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you shouldn't bother to read the rest of my post, why should you even bother to respond?
<quoted text>
Well, YOU decided that the rest of the post couldn't possibly say anything to explain what I was talking about. So again, why did you even read any of it all if your decision was already made before you even read it? And why even bother to respond?
Defeated creationist troll meltdown. We see it every week. Last week it was dollarbills before he f*cked off.

Lincolns meltdown is yet to come, I bet it will be good. Theists always get caught off guard in the atheism forum. They assume people wil sit down and listen to their religious garbage like in the real world and we're supposed to jus sit and nod.

Online you need to prove your religious lies and its clear you can't.

People either realise that their faith is a worthless charade, or they become bitter frustrated trolls who understand that they are wrong, but cannot accept it.

They express this frustration by spamming the forums with creationist propoganda, anecdotes, news stories and blogs.

When they realise that nobody is reading this garbage, they post passive agressive comments, in order to break up threads that highlight the fraud of religion.

When they realise that doesn't work, by the time they try anything more extreme (coordinated troll attacks, sock puppet attacks) they get banned.

Then the cycle starts all over again.

We've seen it all here, nobody is surprised, and nobody had ever proven god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#939 Jun 25, 2013
The mistake most religious trolls make is that they assume we haven't seen their games before. eg. trying to act nice / or pretending to be agnostic, before conducting a religious spam propoganda attack for creationism / their cult.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#940 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Defeated creationist troll meltdown. We see it every week. Last week it was dollarbills before he f*cked off.
Lincolns meltdown is yet to come, I bet it will be good. Theists always get caught off guard in the atheism forum. They assume people wil sit down and listen to their religious garbage like in the real world and we're supposed to jus sit and nod.
Online you need to prove your religious lies and its clear you can't.
People either realise that their faith is a worthless charade, or they become bitter frustrated trolls who understand that they are wrong, but cannot accept it.
They express this frustration by spamming the forums with creationist propoganda, anecdotes, news stories and blogs.
When they realise that nobody is reading this garbage, they post passive agressive comments, in order to break up threads that highlight the fraud of religion.
When they realise that doesn't work, by the time they try anything more extreme (coordinated troll attacks, sock puppet attacks) they get banned.
Then the cycle starts all over again.
We've seen it all here, nobody is surprised, and nobody had ever proven god.
LOL!!! Stalin Jr. I'll tell you one thing that is being proven. The pointlessness of saying anything to most Atheists here. But it's no surprise. I am merely looking for the reactions. I don't expect anybody to actually consider anything that I say, I'm just looking for the exact reasons for disagreement and the overall behavior. And I'm getting it. It is beginning to become boring and repetitive for me, so don't worry, you won't be FORCED to read my posts for much longer, and then you can feel all better again.((chuckle chuckle))
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#941 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
The mistake most religious trolls make is that they assume we haven't seen their games before
You haven't even seen college yet. And aren't you supposed to be in summer school right now or does that start next week?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#942 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I am merely looking for the reactions.
And you whine, complain and lie about god when you get honest ones.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#943 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't even seen college yet. And aren't you supposed to be in summer school right now or does that start next week?
Thats it defeated troll, try and insult my past with an adhominem attack, because you sure as hell cannot argue against atheism.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#944 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats it defeated troll, try and insult my past with an adhominem attack, because you sure as hell cannot argue against atheism.
It amazes me to see what might be the king of ad hominem, Stalin Jr. himself, talk about the ad hominem of others. And by the way, you spelled it wrong, genius. Before you parrot a word that you learned from others and probably don't even know the real meaning or origin of, check your spelling, okay? Maybe you will learn that in summer school. Or at least copy and paste it if you have to.
fan

Hove, UK

#945 Jun 25, 2013
another looser finds islam,so what?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#946 Jun 25, 2013
You mean your google definition? The one that doesn't stand up to any reputable dictionary? Lol!

So childish.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>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.
"

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#947 Jun 25, 2013
How do you know? You avoid questions like superman avoids kryptonite. So often we answer your questions but you run from ours. You are a philosophy junkie right? Good grief I ask a question that should be right up your alley and instead of answering it for days you cower and hide from it!

I guess you just looked up some philosophers on google to try to make yourself look smart... Sadly that doesn't help when you are actually asked questions eh?

Thanks for once again proving my point.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>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

#948 Jun 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You mean your google definition? The one that doesn't stand up to any reputable dictionary? Lol!
So childish.
<quoted text>
You said that I altered a definition and therefore made it up and even outright accused me of being a liar. You were wrong. So when are you going to admit that your were wrong or mistaken about something? And we both know, that you simply cannot do that and I doubt you have ever been able to do that in your entire life. But don't bother anyway, as I prefer to discuss these issues with others anyway where I at least get logical critic instead of meaningless, pointless blanket dismissals. If you admitted you were wrong, then I would have to discuss things with you as well, like I promised to. But I feel pretty secure that you are incapable of doing that, so it's so far so good.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#949 Jun 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
How do you know? You avoid questions like superman avoids kryptonite.
I avoid YOUR questions, and you know why. you know what I am waiting for. But I haven't avoided emperorjohn's. I never avoid thinkers questions, nor Marcos as well. Skeptic? Well he doesn't even ask questions, he just makes angry rants.

And besides, why would I ever answer any of your questions when they aren't even questions at all? A question involves wanting an answer, whether one agrees with the answer or not. All you want is for me to say I'm wrong, so that you can say checkmate. It's not a discussion for you, it's a win at all costs game for you. So it's pointless to have any serious discussion with someone like that because it's not even a discussion at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#950 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What? Who was talking about love, here? How on earth do you get from "people being good" to "true love" without any steps in-between?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#951 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And another thing. What on **earth** do you mean by "true love"?

Are you quoting from the movie Princess Bride, now?

Is this some pie-in-the-sky "philosophy" thing?

You are so **going** to have to be much more specific, with scientific examples too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#952 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
IF there was a benevolent God, then why does evil exist?
That would depend on the sort of evil you are speaking of.

Small evil, petty crimes of negligence and such? Are easily attributed to human activity.

But large evil-- the kind that wipes out whole sections of the country side without mercy or pity?

Or rapidly-advancing plagues that humans are powerless to stop?

Those evils are **not** due to anything humans have done.

Yet, they happen anyway. And only a godlike level of power could stop them....

... but does not.

Allowing such evil to flourish? Proves beyond a doubt that there is no **good** any any gods that may or may not exist.

And then, there are the so-called "dinosaur killer" asteroids. The facts show that the earth's life was all but **wiped out** on multiple occasions in the past, due to these massive strikes.

Where was your "good" god then? All that needless suffering and death-- for WHAT?

There can BE no "greater good" for that-- NONE! For to a GOD?

There are MUCH BETTER METHODS at hand, than massive death, mayhem and destruction.

So those things prove beyond a doubt, that if gods exist, they are NOT GOOD.

And the slow steady progression of human culture into the modern age, is more than ample proof of no EVIL gods.

Leaving only the indifferent ones-- which may as well not exist at all, for all then non-interactions they do.

Final conclusions? No gods at all seems to be the only thing that fits ALL the facts.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#953 Jun 25, 2013
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?
New-age babble-speak. Meaningless, as presented in this context.

Aaaand, it appears that is going to be your entire point for this word salad.

Pass.
Seeker wrote:
According to what our limited, conceptualizing minds ...
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#954 Jun 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Who was talking about love, here? How on earth do you get from "people being good" to "true love" without any steps in-between?
What sort of steps in between are you expecting? There is loving people because they are good to you, and then there is loving people even when they are not good to you. It's easy to love people when they are good to you, but not easy to love when they are not good to you. And if you love someone just because they are good to you, then you really aren't loving that person, you are loving the good things they do for you. Only when they don't do good things for you and you still love them could that be considered truly loving the person themselves, rather than what they do for you. A child can be nothing but a nightmare to the parents and curse them and hate them, but a good parent will always still love them. And sometimes, love means not doing what the other person wants, such as when a parent disciplines a child, even when they don't want to.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#955 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
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?
There is no need for a creator-- non-created or otherwise.

As such? Your "argument" such as it is, is moot.

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) 11 hr Regolith Based Li... 78,489
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 12 hr Science 1,322
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 hr Science 32,431
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web