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

#996 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I meant by law of natural life. You can call it something else, but it's the same thing.
<quoted text>
Not at all. The law of nature. Gravity, energy/entropy, death, life, birth etc... Maybe I should say the law of the universe.
G'night-- I gotta go for awhile.

I must say, these last few exchanges have been....

... Interesting. Capital-I interesting.

I'll be back later or tomorrow, for sure.

Peace.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#997 Jun 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the above word-salad, excuses the FAILURE of a REAL god to act, when it comes to god-avoidable calamity.
Nothing. It does not excuse this failure to act.
Well maybe if the world put God before themselves, God would act. But everybody puts themselves first, just like you did with your statement. So why should God act instead of leaving people to their own selfish devices?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
AT A BARE MINIMUM? A **caring** deity could WARN people with unambiguous PROOF that calamity is about to happen-- letting those who will, get away.
If you were or could be God, you wouldn't put yourself first. So how can you comment on what God should or shouldn't do? When God gave free will and therefore gave up some control, did God put himself first? Well maybe, but only because of wanting to cultivate real love, not love based on what someone thinks something or someone else is doing for them or is going to do for them. So if there is any good form of self interest, that is it. Again, we are all inherently selfish at heart. And I can show that. For every good thing that you do, I can find the inherent self interest in it, no matter how much we hide that fact from ourselves and think that we are good. We are not. I'm selfish as well. The only difference is that I at least realize it. So we are all bad by our own choice, so why should God be good to us?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#998 Jun 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Use plural.... the **laws** of the universe. Or better, the rules by which the universe operates.
That's fine. Whatever. I believe that you knew what I meant anyway.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Those rules are what Einstein called "god" in a bit of fanciful poetry.
And it appears that they are all... quite chaotic, at the bottom levels of reality.
Not so much rules, as they are stern suggestions....
... Quantum Mechanics, again. Anyone who claims to understand it, is probably lying-- or so the experts in that subject tell me.
I would agree, I have merely commented of what has been said.

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think.”
--Heisenberg
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not claim to understand it, apart from very superficially. The maths involved are way-way above my pay grade.
But, I have read quite a number of laymen's papers on the subject, and within my limited maths, I get it a little... and it's weird, too.
It sure is.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
But not so much LAWS. Laws implies "cannot be broken".
With QM? There do not appear to be any rules that cannot be at least bent...
Laws are essentially Newtonian. But QM contradicts them and while they are working on string theory to unify the two, who's to say where that will lead? Maybe even more weirdness. Newton and Kepler told us how to put a satellite into orbit, and it worked and they were proven right. But it turns out, their theories weren't really proven right, despite the success, and Einstein came up with a different reason why it worked.

From what I was told from a Physicist, what Heisenberg really meant by saying that the universe is stranger than we CAN think, is that for anybody to truly understand anything, they have to step outside of it and observe it from a detached, outside view. That's how we make all observations within the universe. We observe what is outside of ourselves. But both we, and the things that we observe outside of ourselves are all still within the universe. If you live in a ball, how could you ever fully understand what that ball really is? For example, what is the outside color? Or is it really a ball or a ball attached within a square? I don't think that Heisenberg believed in any standard version of God, but saw the need for something outside of it all to exist.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I an now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#999 Jun 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
G'night-- I gotta go for awhile.
I must say, these last few exchanges have been....
... Interesting. Capital-I interesting.
I'll be back later or tomorrow, for sure.
Peace.
Gotta go too. This sh!t is a real brain burner when you get into it, and you are getting into it, which is burning my brain. But you are considering or reading and bringing up the right, logical points. I never ask for agreement, I just ask for thoughtful critique, and you are asking a lot of great fundamental questions that allow for me to even say stuff like this. I can't just talk about this because it's too hard to know where to start. Someone has to ask me hard questions before I can, and you are. And I will never be able to prove anything that I say and I know that. All that I can do is to use the logic that I have to show it as possible, and stick with logic to do so. And even if I sometimes say it's beyond the rational mind, I think it's logical to say that if it is. And to me, it IS. It's one giant mind f*ck. And so is life itself.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1000 Jun 25, 2013
When I repeatedly asked for your link for this hehe definition you provided a different link, probably ashamed to admit it was hehehe google definitions. That first link you provided did not say what you claimed it said, hence I rightfully so said you changed the definition to match your preference.

Oops. Guess you forgot about that yes?
Seeker wrote:
<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.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1001 Jun 25, 2013
Provide a sound logical argument that isn't easily shattered then.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>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.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1002 Jun 25, 2013
Yawn I said you may feel free to use any dictionary or even biblical definition of evil. You are unaware of how to debate the problem of evil properly because you have no philosophy education.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I agree and I asked another poster what he means by evil and if he means just bad things that people do or true evil, and he ignored my question and handed me a wiki article about POE and tried to make it look like I know nothing about the question. but there was a very good reason that I asked him that, and you are raising my reason for doing so

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
But large evil-- the kind that wipes out whole sections of the country side without mercy or pity?"

Well, let's take Hitler, for example. You may consider that pure evil, but he actually had his reasons and did not do what he did just for the sake of it. And most German people didn't think he was evil. Germany had stifling and oppressing measures put against them after WW1, and this is what allowed for someone like Hitler to come to power. I would define pure evil as doing something strictly for the sake of evil itself, and I can't think of anybody who ever lived that meets that definition. Everybody has their reasons, whether they are justified or not.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
Or rapidly-advancing plagues that humans are powerless to stop?"

That's a better and tougher question. Everybody has to die so that new things can take it's place. If everybody lived forever, and we also demanded that new beings get created because we are bored with the existing ones, then very quickly there would be no room on the planet. You wouldn't exist. And if we posit a paradise afterlife that would make this life look like the blink of an eye, then that could ultimately be considered benevolence. But growth never happens when everything that happens to you is good, it happens during adversity or bad things happening.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
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."

Well, some people, such as Deists posit that. That's an option. But as far as saying that it might as well not exist, if we posit a non created creator, then without that, you could not exist, so that alone makes it non meaningless. And as far as "gods" go, I think that is logically impossible. If there were multiple "gods", then we would have to ask what their origin or cause is, and that origin or cause that supersedes them could be considered God. The only thing that logically can work is one non created creator. And to be non created, it is has to exist in a way or realm that is outside of natural existence itself and therefore the laws of cause or origin would no longer apply. To be said to be creator of all things, it cannot exist solely within the creation itself or else it would also be created and therefore not be the creator of all things. It can effect the creation or interact with it, if said thing chooses, or possibly enter into the creation in some fashion but it has to also exist outside of the creation itself. As to how? That is beyond the capabilities of the rational, or reasoning, or conceptual mind. We could only ever understand what is within natural existence, and even some of that we may never truly understand. But to assume that all that there is must fit into the conceptualizing mind is a little short sighted in my opinion.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1003 Jun 25, 2013
Jesus said bring non Christians before him and behead them. So they wouldn't fall silent.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Well if you asked them where Jesus said to do any of those things, they would fall silent.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
... throughout most of history, scratch a tyrant, and you'll find **religion** there-- backing the tyrant's power-play."

Sure, people take a good thing and use it for their own personal desires. Look at the internet itself. Good idea, but it will always get infected by bad people. So now you have viruses.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
That's what **faith** does for you-- it blinds you to what is really going on..."

Greed and desire do that, and religion is used to accomplish that. But I see no problem in the words of Jesus or even Buddha. It's not their fault.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
That, and a culture of **faith** which teaches everyone to blindly follow "god given" authority, without question."

Well that's the institutions that used a very powerful concept for their own means. That's what faulty humans do, and then they have the nerve to blame God when it doesn't work out right for them.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
Especially christianity-- it is very guilty of teaching this sort of blindly follower attitude."

The question is, following who or what? The real meanings of the scriptures, or what power hungry people tell you that they mean?

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
I would define pure evil as deliberately lying to gain more power over the people you lied to, which in turn enables mass destruction, death of thousands, just to achieve your power-goals."

Well, don't Atheists who don't believe in God or any such thing as evil do the same thing? It's not called evil, it's called fear, which leads to anger and greed. Look at Stalin.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
Such as what Bush did, with regards to the fictional "weapons of mass distraction" (oops-- was that a Freudian slip?)
"

That is a Political discussion.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1004 Jun 25, 2013
Jesus never spoke of Hell?

Wow you have never read the bible I see.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Well Jesus and Buddha never said such things.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote, "<quoted text>
That?
That theological idea alone? Taints the entire volume sufficiently such that anything it's associated with is automatically evil.
The world has enough problems, without teaching everyone that all humans are scum--worthy of infinite torture. "

Matthew 5
43 “You have heard that it was said,‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It's not Jesus' fault that Christians don't listen to him.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1005 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well maybe if the world put God before themselves, God would act. But everybody puts themselves first, just like you did with your statement. So why should God act instead of leaving people to their own selfish devices?
So. Your god acts like a little spoiled 2 year old, then?

Does a policeman refuse to prevent a crime in progress, just because he doesn't like the victim?

Of course not! The cop will try to prevent the crime, regardless.

Because it is the ***moral** thing to do.

It does not matter if the victim is overweight, or poor, or of the "wrong sort of people".

Prevention of evil is the **moral** response to observed evil.

Your idea of a petty little capricious god?

Is very human-- and very selfish.

Making your average policeman **more** ethical than the god you just described here.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1006 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
If you were or could be God, you wouldn't put yourself first. So how can you comment on what God should or shouldn't do?
Because I expect a god to **act** godly.

I expect no less than a minimum of moral/ethical behavior.

As the lowest common denominator? I expect AT LEAST as good as what a human would or could do.

No **human** would (unless they are sick) refuse to help a baby, if it was in their power to assist.

I expect AT LEAST that much from a god who purports to be good.

We've already discarded the evil gods-- progress of human culture is too good, for there to be evil gods.

Indifferent gods? Simply don't count for anything -- they may as well not exist at all.

So this leaves nothing but **good** gods.

And?

I expect **godly** levels of **goodness**.

As a bare minimum to qualify for the role.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1007 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
That's fine. Whatever. I believe that you knew what I meant anyway.
<quoted text>
I would agree, I have merely commented of what has been said.
“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think.”
--Heisenberg
<quoted text>
It sure is.
<quoted text>
Laws are essentially Newtonian. But QM contradicts them and while they are working on string theory to unify the two, who's to say where that will lead? Maybe even more weirdness. Newton and Kepler told us how to put a satellite into orbit, and it worked and they were proven right. But it turns out, their theories weren't really proven right, despite the success, and Einstein came up with a different reason why it worked.
Not.. quite.

It's not that Newton is now wrong, and Einstein is now right.

That's not it at all.

They are both wrong-- it's just that Einstein's errors are far more subtle than Newtons, when you compare the two.

In fact? If you keep your measurements limited to certain speeds, and certain values? Newton is right after all.

So is Einstein. It's just that Einstein's theory doesn't fail until conditions get **really** weird. Whereas Newton's fail over long stretches of time, and when the speeds are near-light, and if the gravity is really, really strong.

But nobody uses Einstein's equations to navigate their satellites or space probes-- they use Newton's far simpler ones.

Why not? They work quite well in the sort term, and over short (relatively) distances. And are much easier to solve.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1008 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
From what I was told from a Physicist, what Heisenberg really meant by saying that the universe is stranger than we CAN think, is that for anybody to truly understand anything, they have to step outside of it and observe it from a detached, outside view. That's how we make all observations within the universe. We observe what is outside of ourselves.
And Einstein proved this is impossible.

That is why it's called "relativity". You simply cannot **get** to an objective "platform". It does not exist.

There is no absolute, fixed point from which to look-- everything in the universe, including time and causality, is relative to everything else.

How fast are you going? Meaningless, unless you have something else to compare your speed to-- relativistically.

What time is it on Alpha Centuri? According to Einstein? That is a meaningless question-- as you cannot instantly go to Alpha. It will take you a minimum (at lightspeed) of 4.3 years or so. By which time, things will have shifted on Alpha Centuri...

An absolute point of view is impossible in the current universe.

Which, I must point out, rather eliminates your notions of god right off the bat...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1009 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Only if your brain's been damaged from too much exposure to ritualized lies (faith).

Only then, will your ego reassert itself, and demand a Deus Ex Machina.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1010 Jun 25, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta go too. This sh!t is a real brain burner when you get into it, and you are getting into it, which is burning my brain. But you are considering or reading and bringing up the right, logical points. I never ask for agreement, I just ask for thoughtful critique, and you are asking a lot of great fundamental questions that allow for me to even say stuff like this. I can't just talk about this because it's too hard to know where to start. Someone has to ask me hard questions before I can, and you are. And I will never be able to prove anything that I say and I know that. All that I can do is to use the logic that I have to show it as possible, and stick with logic to do so. And even if I sometimes say it's beyond the rational mind, I think it's logical to say that if it is. And to me, it IS. It's one giant mind f*ck. And so is life itself.
:)

Well, life **is** stranger than fiction.

If you wrote fiction like real life? Nobody would believe it-- too fantastic.

<lol>

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#1011 Jun 26, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Your rambling does not address the question; why would a good god allow this to happen to some people, but not others? I never said she never had any good in her life. AS to your question, most people live because they fear what will happen when they are dead(the fear of the Unknown). Most people don't live such horrible lives that they would wish to end it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1012 Jun 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
When I repeatedly asked for your link for this hehe definition you provided a different link, probably ashamed to admit it was hehehe google definitions. That first link you provided did not say what you claimed it said, hence I rightfully so said you changed the definition to match your preference.
Oops. Guess you forgot about that yes?
<quoted text>
I didn't link the first one because I didn't think I needed to and that nobody would be crazy enough to think I would just make a definition up. It was something that I copied and pasted from a google search page itself. Why would I link a search page itself? But anyway, I see what's going on here. You make the mistake and make a false accusation that was stupid of you to make, and then, rather than admitting that, here comes the spin to turn your mistake into something that was my fault.

That's okay, I know you can never admit to a mistake, and I'm actually quite fine with that, because when you don't admit it, then I don't have to speak about any issues with you as I promised I would if you admitted your mistake. And then, you even tried to act as though it never happened and asked me to link the post where you accused me of being a liar. And I never bothered because I knew that you knew, but somehow your memory now seems to have come back, and now the spin is that your mistaken and false accusation was my fault.

All the more reason to not bother to discuss any issues with you at all. And again, because of your behavior, I seriously doubt that you have a Masters degree in anything, as you claimed, unless we consider that Masters Bating is a degree. Someone on another thread said that you have bragged about the size of your schlong in the past. Is that true? Wouldn't surprise me. It does get bigger when you touch it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1013 Jun 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So. Your god acts like a little spoiled 2 year old, then?
Does a policeman refuse to prevent a crime in progress, just because he doesn't like the victim?
Of course not! The cop will try to prevent the crime, regardless.
Because it is the ***moral** thing to do.
It does not matter if the victim is overweight, or poor, or of the "wrong sort of people".
Prevention of evil is the **moral** response to observed evil.
Your idea of a petty little capricious god?
Is very human-- and very selfish.
Making your average policeman **more** ethical than the god you just described here.
I'm not a big fan of Dr. Phil as I think he's cheesy, but the other day I did see a clip of one show where he was right. He was talking to a father who's daughter was a drug addict and always getting into trouble. When things get really bad, he was always there to bail her out. When she needed rent money, he was always there to give it to her, and, of course, the rent money went to drugs. When she was arrested, he was always there to bail her out. And Dr. Phil pointed out that she continues with her behavior because she knows that no matter what she does, Daddy will always bail her out. So she had no motivation to really change. He kind of suggested that maybe he ought to let her hit rock bottom because that's the only way she will finally say to herself "this isn't working, I have to change". Maybe he was right. The interesting thing is that after Hitler, European countries never fought with each other ever again, after a history of doing nothing but fighting with each other.
rider

Gwinn, MI

#1014 Jun 26, 2013
Where Those Who Now Run the U.S. Government Came From and Where They Are Taking Us http://www.insider-magazine.com/christianmafi...
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1015 Jun 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And Einstein proved this is impossible.
That is why it's called "relativity". You simply cannot **get** to an objective "platform". It does not exist.
There is no absolute, fixed point from which to look-- everything in the universe, including time and causality, is relative to everything else.
How fast are you going? Meaningless, unless you have something else to compare your speed to-- relativistically.
What time is it on Alpha Centuri? According to Einstein? That is a meaningless question-- as you cannot instantly go to Alpha. It will take you a minimum (at lightspeed) of 4.3 years or so. By which time, things will have shifted on Alpha Centuri...
An absolute point of view is impossible in the current universe.
Which, I must point out, rather eliminates your notions of god right off the bat...
Actually, it also eliminates your ability to say it is false as well. As I mentioned, the only reason that I posit a non created creator is because I have not been presented with a better answer. I have a choice between an uncreated universe, and a non created creator existing outside of the universe or natural existence itself that is responsible for the existence of the universe. In the first case, by saying the universe is uncreated, we violate every concept that we have for things within the universe where everything is said to have a beginning or origin. We contradict this by saying the universe itself had no beginning or cause. But if something outside of the universe or natural existence itself is posited, we can at least say that the requirement of natural existence, where everything has a beginning, does not have to apply. To me, the only way to posit anything that is uncreated or not caused, is to posit something outside of natural existence itself. That doesn't prove anything at all, but to me, it's the most logical choice. And if I find a better answer, I will accept it immediately. My mind is never closed on the issue and there are some days where I even doubt my current conclusion. Nothing wrong with doubt, that is logical and healthy. But being dogmatic about a conclusion is not. I can even give you better reasons for doubt than you have even raised so far. There is a more fundamental, core reason for doubt than you have raised. Maybe you might arrive at that and ask about it as maybe the logic will lead you to that. But even Einstein entertained a notion for a creator and he commented that he didn't care what the creator was, he was more interested in how the creator thinks. This guy was spot on and a genius. He knew that he would never know what the creator is because that would be beyond reason itself, but we can get an idea of how it thinks by observing what has been created. Heisenberg seemed to share the same feelings, based on things he wrote that I quoted. And the weird part, is that this is what Thomas Aquinas, a religious theologian wrote about God. And in his commentary
on Boethius' De Sancta Trinitate he says there are three ways of
knowing God (1) in the creation,(2) in God's actions through history, and (3) in the highest form of the knowledge of God - to know God tamquam ignotum (to know God as the unknown).

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min Into The Night 23,626
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 24 min Into The Night 258,049
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr Richardfs 5,727
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 8 hr IB DaMann 94
bigger fish to fry (Jul '11) 10 hr Suspicious Packag... 2
What are the best arguments against religion? 10 hr Richardfs 8
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
More from around the web