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.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1056 Jun 28, 2013
Is drowning millions of infants evil? How about standing by while your General burns his screaming daughter to death as a sacrifice to you?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't suffering part of facing adversity? And if you think that disease and natural disaster are "evil", then from your perspective of no God, nature is inherently evil. And when you say that suffering is needless, that's from your perspective. Who's to say it is needless? How do you know that there isn't a point to it? And if life is so evil, then why do people keep living instead of swallowing a bottle of pills for a painless death? Why is all of the good in life ignore, and only the suffering focused on?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1057 Jun 28, 2013
Did your google definition match up perfectly with your Webster's definition? Couldn't mystic that up could you?

Atheism: without belief
Agnosticism: without knowledge

As I have said all along. I accept your apology.
Seeker wrote:
givemeliberty,

This one deserves repeating
Post 808 you clearly said this:
"You know you lied about the definition of agnostic changing the definition to suit your argument. And you know it.".

I didn't change or alter one single definition and here you clearly accuse me of doing that. You did not accuse me of offering a second definition, you clearly accused me of altering an existing definition to suit my needs because you thought that I altered the first definition that I offered and that was why I didn't link it. And later, I gave you the link for where I got the first google definition from and it matched what I originally posted PERFECTLY.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1058 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
He does tend to do that. Not to mention we see what can clearly be referred to as love in the animal kingdom, so belching the god is love argument fails.
<quoted text>
Yes. He cannot build enough house-o-card excuses to account for the fact that random suffering exists--and on a global scale sometimes.

A **caring** god would do something about that.

Just as a caring human will literally sacrifice their very life for the children they love.

If this god of his exists? Mere humans are far more caring and loving.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1059 Jun 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like an all-or-nothing scenario once again.p/QUOTE]

Not at all, I just asked for a description of how you think things should be. Seems like it might be easier to start there.

[QUOTE who="Bob of Quantum-Faith"]<quoted text>
Now, you are simply appearing desperate to "explain" why your do-nothing god keeps on ...
... doing nothing.
You refuse to accept that the do-nothing is the exact same result as if there were no gods at all.
Why on **earth** would a **caring** god behave is such a fashion?
What **possible** motive could be served, here?
Someone making the choice to love even when things don't go the way they want, including suffering. Loving someone when they only do good for you means you are merely loving what they do for you, not the person themselves. Loving in the face of suffering is when one could be said to really love the person themselves, rather than what they do for you.

I could go into a whole thing about suffering itself actually being merely an idea of ours, but that would be a major detour and would take too long. But, if we posit God and an great afterlife that would make this life's sufferings look like the blink of an eye, then it could be possible to posit ultimate benevolence. I'm not going to prove anything, but I do not think that suffering should automatically lead one to conclude that there is no ultimate benevolence nor any purpose for suffering. "Needless" is simply your logical conclusion, that's all.

But nobody is actually hitting the grand daddy problem of them all, but the logic is slowly leading to that. And when THAT question comes up, I'm going to have to say some very strange, counter intuitive stuff in my explanation that many are not going to like. But POE isn't even the real meal. That's a snack.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1060 Jun 28, 2013
Why would this caring god allow thousands of different religions to pop up all claiming they and only they are truly serving him?

An idiot would see that would lead to war, terror, massacres, rapes, violence against children and more.

No news to clear that up eh god? Oops there are another 100 children dead because they were born into the wrong religion.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. He cannot build enough house-o-card excuses to account for the fact that random suffering exists--and on a global scale sometimes.

A **caring** god would do something about that.

Just as a caring human will literally sacrifice their very life for the children they love.

If this god of his exists? Mere humans are far more caring and loving.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1061 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker the mystic fanboy:Someone making the choice to love even when things don't go the way they want, including suffering. Loving someone when they only do good for you means you are merely loving what they do for you, not the person themselves. Loving in the face of suffering is when one could be said to really love the person themselves, rather than what they do for you.

We see what could easily be thought of as love in the animal kingdom. Ravens take one mate for life, several animals care for crippled and otherwise disadvantaged offspring, even raising the offspring of a different species instead if letting it die. Is there a Raven Jesus?

I could go into a whole thing about suffering itself actually being merely an idea of ours, but that would be a major detour and would take too long. But, if we posit God and an great afterlife that would make this life's sufferings look like the blink of an eye, then it could be possible to posit ultimate benevolence.

Prove God exists first before you assign attributes and deeds to him, thanks.

But POE isn't even the real meal. That's a snack.

Seeing as how you are failing epically with your belching about god and avoiding the problem with evil, you really shouldn't attempt to tackle meatier subjects. Crawl before you run after all.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1062 Jun 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. He cannot build enough house-o-card excuses to account for the fact that random suffering exists--and on a global scale sometimes.
Ho do you know it's random? Granted it could or would "appear" that way, but how do you know for sure? Sure, you might not find a one to one correspondence between one's actions and what they suffer with, but in some way, not known to us, maybe there is.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
A **caring** god would do something about that.
Well a non caring God also would not provide a great afterlife for those that truly love, that makes this life look like the blink of an eye.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as a caring human will literally sacrifice their very life for the children they love.
Well why would a non created creator do that? And if a creator is responsible for everything, where would that leave us if it did? And when people sacrifice their own life, there is actually a self interested motive behind it, even if it is very well hidden from us. The parent might think they are going to heaven for their sacrifice, or even might just think that they could never live with the thought that they didn't protect their child. Either way, there is always a self interested motive, even if it is sometimes a choice between a "lesser of two evils". It's very near impossible for there not to be one. But then again, the parent can't provide their child with an afterlife, so if an afterlife is posited, then all good people are ultimately protecting in an everlasting way. But you can't even as much as scratch your nose unless you thought it benefited you somehow. Even when people commit suicide, there is their own self interested motives at work.

To understand much else of what I am saying or going to say, one must first accept the fact that we are all inherently selfish, even when we do good things. It seems like out most basic instinct to act in our own self interest.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1063 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Seeker the mystic fanboy:
Don't you have something else to tend to? Like what you asked me to give you and I gave you? You mean to tell me you never saw those three posts I made yesterday giving you what you asked for or demanded that I produce? I find that hard to believe. I don't find much in you that can make this conversation interesting. And while others may not agree with my answers and they answer their specific objections back, I am most certainly not ignoring them at all and that is what a discussion is about. So I have no fear of the topic at all, I just don't see you as a reasonable participant and see discussion with someone that has an attitude such as yours to be completely pointless.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#1064 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>

So why would God like evil and therefore create it and/or allow it? Perhaps because the most valuable thing is true love which can only truly happen in the face of adversity and can only come from a free will decision to love, regardless of what the other person does. If you could create a perfect robot that is programmed to love you, that might be great, but would it ever be as good as love that comes from free will, even in the face of adversity?.
So basically you are saying that god created evil so that he could experience true love from his subjects? That is a selfish thing to do. People who love are not supposed to create problems from their loved ones just so that they can see if their love is reciprocal. That is like a father allowing people to mistreat his kid just to see if his daughter would love him anyway.
By the way your fantasy does not explain why God allows some people, like Paris Hilton, to go without any significant adversity in their lives, while allowing other people to be born in abject poverty.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1065 Jun 28, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> So basically you are saying that god created evil so that he could experience true love from his subjects? That is a selfish thing to do.
Well if the desire for true love is selfish, so be it. But if there is one desire that could actually be pure, that would be it. But maybe if we weren't selfish ourselves, that might change and suffering might end. But in terms of God actually having a desire, well I would think that God would, or else what would be the purpose of creating anything? In fact, the posit of completely detached God doesn't make sense to me because there could be no purpose seen behind bothering to create at all. So what would be the point? and if we posit a wonderful afterlife that would make this look like a blink of an eye, it could be said that ultimately, there is benevolence. But you are starting to get close to the REAL problem, and it isn't POE.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
People who love are not supposed to create problems from their loved ones just so that they can see if their love is reciprocal. That is like a father allowing people to mistreat his kid just to see if his daughter would love him anyway.
By the way your fantasy does not explain why God allows some people, like Paris Hilton, to go without any significant adversity in their lives, while allowing other people to be born in abject poverty.
People shouldn't want much money anyway. If people stopped being so greedy, there would be plenty to go around. There are more than enough resources to spread around and take care of everyone's basic needs. The additional needs come from fear and from comparing ourselves to each other and always having to outdo each other. And maybe Paris and others will get their due, in time. Getting warmer.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1066 Jun 28, 2013
Selfish is God's middle name. He according to the bible myth adores blood and sacrifice. He is like a mafia boss demanding your allegiance to him or suffer an eternity in hell. He also likes his followers to eat dung and their own children.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>So basically you are saying that god created evil so that he could experience true love from his subjects? That is a selfish thing to do. People who love are not supposed to create problems from their loved ones just so that they can see if their love is reciprocal. That is like a father allowing people to mistreat his kid just to see if his daughter would love him anyway.
By the way your fantasy does not explain why God allows some people, like Paris Hilton, to go without any significant adversity in their lives, while allowing other people to be born in abject poverty.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1067 Jun 28, 2013
So you skimmed my post and made a huge jackass out of yourself going on your usual off topic random temper tantrum. You run from questions and facts like your god runs from iron chariots.

Here let me keep it nice and simple.

Did your google definition that you have much later match up perfectly with your Webster's definition that you have earlier? Yes or no.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you have something else to tend to? Like what you asked me to give you and I gave you? You mean to tell me you never saw those three posts I made yesterday giving you what you asked for or demanded that I produce? I find that hard to believe. I don't find much in you that can make this conversation interesting. And while others may not agree with my answers and they answer their specific objections back, I am most certainly not ignoring them at all and that is what a discussion is about. So I have no fear of the topic at all, I just don't see you as a reasonable participant and see discussion with someone that has an attitude such as yours to be completely pointless.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1068 Jun 28, 2013
Matthew 5
43 “You have heard that it was said,‘Love your neighbor[i] 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?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1069 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Here let me keep it nice and simple.
Did your google definition that you have much later match up perfectly with your Webster's definition that you have earlier? Yes or no.
<quoted text>
The google definition came first, and I just grabbed it out of quick convenience. It was the first thing I sawand i didn't bother to link it at first because it was on the search page itself. And when I posted the websters version next, which of course is not going to say the same exacts words, you accused me of altering or making up the first definition and then of being a liar and then said checkmate. I would never be so stupid to just make up a definition and then expect nobody to ask for the source. I only didn't provide the link at first because it was on the search page itself and not on a dictionary page, and I assumed that nobody would think that I would ever stoop to just fabricating a definition anyway. But you were actually stupid enough to think that I would. And the only reason that I can figure that you would think that is that maybe you might do something like that yourself. you do seem to have a win at all costs attitude so it wouldn't surprise me. But I don't know that, it's just a thought. Maybe the old saying, takes one to know one. You have been trying your best to make me out to be a liar any possible way you can and you have been trying to do that from the very beginning. you don't just disagree, both you and skeptic actually try to refer to me as a liar. That's an entirely different matter. Who would ever bother to outright lie about something on a silly forum unless they had a win at all costs attitude? So sorry if I make you eat your words. But I didn't do it, you did. You made your own bed. And I'm sick of it at this point, and truly hope you don't eat them because then I won't have to keep my promise of discussing POE with you. To me, that is a complete waste of my time having a discussion like that with someone who has the kind of attitude and behavior that you have clearly displayed.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1070 Jun 28, 2013
Luke 19:27

New International Version (©2011)
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"
New Living Translation (©2007)
And as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king--bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'"

English Standard Version (©2001)
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
But bring here these enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, and slaughter them in my presence.'"

International Standard Version (©2012)
But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!'"

NET Bible (©2006)
But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and slaughter them in front of me!'"

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“However, those my enemies, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them and kill them in front of me.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Bring my enemies, who didn't want me to be their king. Kill them in front of me.'"

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But those my enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me.

American King James Version
But those my enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me.

American Standard Version
But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me.

Darby Bible Translation
Moreover those mine enemies, who would not have me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.

English Revised Version
Howbeit these mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Webster's Bible Translation
But those my enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Weymouth New Testament
But as for those enemies of mine who were unwilling that I should become their king, bring them here, and cut them to pieces in my presence.'"

World English Bible
But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me.'"

Young's Literal Translation
but those my enemies, who did not wish me to reign over them, bring hither and slay before me.'
Seeker wrote:
Matthew 5
43 “You have heard that it was said,‘Love your neighbor[i] 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?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1071 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You run from questions and facts like your god runs from iron chariots.
I'm not running from other people's question, but a question from someone such as you isn't really a question at all. You offer blanket dismissals instead of true analysis, and I don't even think you even read the complete posts that I make. So why would I ever want to have a discussion with someone like that? I asked you whether you wanted by take on POE, or quotes from a famous Philosopher like Leibniz. You completely ignored that and handed me a stinking wiki page explaining what POE is when I never asked for any such thing. And then tried to suggest that I need that and that you had to hold my hand. So either, once again, you did not read my entire post where I asked you what you want, or you are practiced willful manipulation and spin on the conversation. I don't know which it is, and I could care less.

But next, true to form, I am waiting for you to spin your false accusation into something that is now my fault. I think I have a pretty good idea of your MO at this point. So much so, that I know that you will never own up to anything and that's great because then I won't have to keep my promise of discussing POE with you. Suits me just fine.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1072 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
When I called you a liar ONCE AGAIN RETARD was when you posted the Webster link which did not say what you claimed it said. Only when you belched your google definition hahahaha did it say as you wanted. You were a liar when I called you that, now you are just a retard.
As usual you were wrong and caught red handed.
<quoted text>
Look, it's all in writing and I pieced it back together, in chronological order with actual post numbers referenced. I first posted a google definition, you asked for a link, and since my definition came from a search page itself, not a dictionary page definition, I decided to get off my lazy arss and give you one from the most respected source possible and link it. After I did, you accused me of making up or altering the first definition I gave. As you said, it's ALL in writing. So I even went back and gave you the huge long link from the first search page definition itself and it matched what I first posted PERFECTLY. No lies, not one single alteration. That should have ended the matter right there, but it's never over with you because you just simply can never own up to making a mistake in the form of a false accusation. I think I know the thought process pretty well by now.

Now go ahead and spin it to make it all out to be my fault. I never asked you to accuse me of altering existing definitions or making my own ones up.

And for now, the fifth time, the words "belief" and "view" were meant to be synonymous in the context of the word agnostic. Different dictionary sources sometimes choose different words, but they are still meant to mean the same thing. And the more info link under the definition box on the search page leads to page with many more sources and some of them used the word belief as well. Belief and view were meant to be synonymous. No lies, no invented definition and no mistake at all, unless you just want to say that I was lazy for posting the first definition that I saw out of convenience. Lazy? Fine. Liar? No. It's that simple.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1073 Jun 28, 2013
Luke 19:26 is part of a parable of an owner and his servants. The entire chapter should be read to see the meaning.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1074 Jun 28, 2013
Whoops, mistype. Luke 19:27
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#1075 Jun 28, 2013
It's not a matter of god doing my bidding, it's a matter of god allowing avoidable suffering.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
If God did everything that you wanted or think that God should do, would you love God or love what God does for you instead? I keep repeating this and maybe there is something about my explanation that still isn't being grasped. I'm not asking for agreement, but understanding of the explanation itself. If there is a non created creator that created something, does this creator create it for no purpose or reason at all? I suppose that's possible, but one would ask why the creator even bothered to create at all. So although God is often said to be without want, I disagree. If God didn't want anything, God would never create anything. So if there could ever be any want or desire that could ever be pure or true, it would be the desire for true love. Not the kind of love where someone loves what you do for them, but the kind of love where the person or entity itself is loved, regardless of what that entity does or does not do for them.
As I said to someone else before. I often ask Christians a question that they truly hate because it exposes their own self interests, masquerading as love for God so that they get to pat themselves on the back and expect their reward.
If God never did anything for you, or never will do anything for you, would you still love God? And if so, why? And they make all sorts of excuses like God could never be that way, and xyz other tap dances around the question, because they are caught off guard by this question because they never asked themselves this. But it was merely a rhetorical question, as if to say, IF the sky was green,.... But it's actually a very simple, obvious question. So why should someone love God if God never did anything for them or never will? My answer is, why not? Why shouldn't I? And if someone says, because he never did anything for you and never will, then I would ask them what they thought they were loving this whole time, what God did or is going to do for them, or God himself or itself? And they hate this because it exposes their own selfish self interests where they merely obey to get their reward. That's not love for God, that's acting in one's own self interest. Obedience for reward. There's no true sacrifice there at all. It's merely forgoing one thing, for what they believe to be a better reward later. That's no different than someone who forgoes spending money and invests it, so that they can gain a better return later. And even when Atheists do kind things, it's not selfless at all. They are merely living up to some ideal of decency that they have created for themselves for whatever reason they thought they needed to. So they are getting their reward as well. The truth is that we are all selfish, but we paint ourselves in glowing colors and pretend we are not. We can't even scratch our own nose unless we believe it benefits us personally somehow.

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 min Joe Fortuna 257,156
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 27 min Eagle 12 10,374
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 1 hr Richardfs 396
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr FedUp 21,422
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 2 hr par five 451
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr River Tam 20,327
News A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 4 hr Romantic Romeo 17
More from around the web