Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing...

Apr 6, 2013 Full story: Mediaite.com 1,239

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.

Full Story
Thinking

York, UK

#1076 Jun 28, 2013
Alcohol has long been a choice for relief of uncontrollable religion - which is why so many religious people frown up on it!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a good point. Alcohol has long been a choice for relief of uncontrollable pain.
And alcohol is older than religion.
I wonder if there's a connection?
Thinking

York, UK

#1077 Jun 28, 2013
upon ^
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1078 Jun 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
It's not a matter of god doing my bidding, it's a matter of god allowing avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
Well wouldn't it be your bidding for God not to? Obviously, since their are bad things that happen, it wouldn't be God's. And while it could be said to be avoidable, is it needless? I'm not sure. How could I really know? And if a wonderful afterlife is posited that would make any suffering in this life look like the blink of an eye, then "ultimate" benevolence could still be postulated.

But there is also a difference between bad things happening and the concept of "suffering". Animals feel pain, no doubt. But is it "suffering"? Suffering is a concept or idea that we have created where we say that something "should not be". Then there is suffering. It involves our judgement of the way things "should" be, based on our judgmental minds. Same thing with "problem". If mankind ceased to exist, nature would continue on in all of it's beauty and violence without a single problem at all. What would be the problem? The idea of "problem" wouldn't even exist. It comes from our judgmental mind which seems to be a quality that animals don't seem to have. Sure they feel pain, but I doubt that they say "this shouldn't be".
Thinking

York, UK

#1079 Jun 28, 2013
No matter how verbose you become, there is still evidence of avoidable suffering. Therefore there is no all powerful compassionate god.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well wouldn't it be your bidding for God not to? Obviously, since their are bad things that happen, it wouldn't be God's. And while it could be said to be avoidable, is it needless? I'm not sure. How could I really know? And if a wonderful afterlife is posited that would make any suffering in this life look like the blink of an eye, then "ultimate" benevolence could still be postulated.
But there is also a difference between bad things happening and the concept of "suffering". Animals feel pain, no doubt. But is it "suffering"? Suffering is a concept or idea that we have created where we say that something "should not be". Then there is suffering. It involves our judgement of the way things "should" be, based on our judgmental minds. Same thing with "problem". If mankind ceased to exist, nature would continue on in all of it's beauty and violence without a single problem at all. What would be the problem? The idea of "problem" wouldn't even exist. It comes from our judgmental mind which seems to be a quality that animals don't seem to have. Sure they feel pain, but I doubt that they say "this shouldn't be".

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1080 Jun 28, 2013
Lol! So Jesus didn't mean that literally because... Well it sounds bad!

Lol!
Seeker wrote:
Luke 19:26 is part of a parable of an owner and his servants. The entire chapter should be read to see the meaning.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1081 Jun 28, 2013
Lol now he interchanges words at will.

Oh good grief it's getting embarrassing now. Next up he'll humiliate himself with his personal definition of a mystic.

Hey what's the definition of a mystic with link please.

:))
Seeker wrote:
<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

#1082 Jun 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
No matter how verbose you become, there is still evidence of avoidable suffering. Therefore there is no all powerful compassionate god.
<quoted text>
Okay, so what you just basically said is that no matter what I try to explain, you are never going to really consider it, let alone buy into it. You have your one stand and that's it. So I suppose there is no reason for me to continue the conversation. That's fine. But at least I did not run from your questions at all and gave the best explanation of possibilities that I know how. If it will never be good enough for you, I can accept that. That's your choice. At least you did attempt to have a reasonable conversation, so I thank you for that.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1083 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lol! So Jesus didn't mean that literally because... Well it sounds bad!
Lol!
<quoted text>
What are parables?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1084 Jun 28, 2013
Who else notices that whenever you point out the factual holes in his argument he throws this exact same temper tantrum?

Seeker if you, as most of us see, lack the IQ and resources to debate with atheists I suggest you move on and debate your fellow Christians. But wailing that people aren't listening and are closed minded and so you won't answer their questions when they have you on the ropes factually just makes you look childish. Really childish and ignorant.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, so what you just basically said is that no matter what I try to explain, you are never going to really consider it, let alone buy into it. You have your one stand and that's it. So I suppose there is no reason for me to continue the conversation. That's fine. But at least I did not run from your questions at all and gave the best explanation of possibilities that I know how. If it will never be good enough for you, I can accept that. That's your choice. At least you did attempt to have a reasonable conversation, so I thank you for that.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1085 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Who else notices that whenever you point out the factual holes in his argument he throws this exact same temper tantrum?
What temper tantrum? I even thanked him for at least having a reasonable, civil conversation, unlike you. But, he probably could have saved us both some time by saying up front that there is no explanation or possible reason for avoidable suffering that he will ever accept, no matter what. And that's what it seemed to come down to. I gave my take on it, gave many possible reasons for it and he said there will never be a good explanation and basically decided to make a firm, unmovable stand on that spot. There was nothing illogical or impossible about what I explained, but he clearly said this is his spot and he's not budging no matter what.

So that's fine. No point in moving further with the conversation. He basically told me that and I am listening to what he says. I read other people's posts and listen to what they say. I don't think you read or listen to much of my posts at all. Maybe that could be part of the reason that I haven't discussed this issue with you at all, but have discussed it with all other takers. And I'll still discuss it with others if they want, but it seems like thinker said there is no longer any reason to discuss it with him anymore. I can respect that and I certainly don't want to waste my time or his.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1086 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Who else notices that whenever you point out the factual holes in his argument he throws this exact same temper tantrum?
Argumentum ad populum?
Thinking

York, UK

#1087 Jun 28, 2013
I would be happy to discuss the possibility of some form of deity, just not an all powerful compassionate one.

I don't think that is going to be of much use to you. But, yes, we certainly kept it civil.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so what you just basically said is that no matter what I try to explain, you are never going to really consider it, let alone buy into it. You have your one stand and that's it. So I suppose there is no reason for me to continue the conversation. That's fine. But at least I did not run from your questions at all and gave the best explanation of possibilities that I know how. If it will never be good enough for you, I can accept that. That's your choice. At least you did attempt to have a reasonable conversation, so I thank you for that.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1088 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lol now he interchanges words at will.
Oh good grief it's getting embarrassing now. Next up he'll humiliate himself with his personal definition of a mystic.
Hey what's the definition of a mystic with link please.
:))
<quoted text>
Yes, here comes the spin and changing the subject and your mistaken accusation gets ignored and buried. No surprise.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1089 Jun 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I would be happy to discuss the possibility of some form of deity, just not an all powerful compassionate one.
I don't think that is going to be of much use to you. But, yes, we certainly kept it civil.
<quoted text>
Agreed. I think that I understood what your last response meant. As soon as you stopped analyzing what I said, piece by piece, as you did earlier, I knew that was your unequivocal stance, and you made that quite clear to me. No need for either of us to waste anymore time. Thanks again.
Thinking

York, UK

#1090 Jun 28, 2013
It is equally clear to me to that you can't accept our world without an all powerful compassionate god. Thanks again.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. I think that I understood what your last response meant. As soon as you stopped analyzing what I said, piece by piece, as you did earlier, I knew that was your unequivocal stance, and you made that quite clear to me. No need for either of us to waste anymore time. Thanks again.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1091 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So? These are the actions of an individual, and yes you have some interesting points.

NONE of which explain why GLOBAL suffering happens, at random times, to large masses of otherwise innocent folk.

Your excuse above, might possibly explain why an individual gets sick, and your do-nothing god uses his #1 attribute: to do nothing.

But your excuse fails to explain global suffering of masses of folk.

Easily prevented by a god-- but never happens.

Why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1092 Jun 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Yep.

But it is worse than that-- if there be a **caring** god? Why did this god permit the evil that are the worlds' "holy" books which have lead to **more** suffering, death and evil-actions than any other single thing.

The very existence of these horrid "holy" books (bible, quoran, book of mormon, etc) proves there are **NO** caring gods at all.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt proof, too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1093 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Ho do you know it's random?
If it's not? That would be...

... several orders of magnitude...

.... WORSE.

And pretty much 100% proof that there are no CARING gods of any sort at all.

Much... much worse.

Random at least has the morality of applying to everyone, equally, by chance ...

... no special favorites or special exemptions.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1094 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
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.
This... "afterlife" of which you speak?

You have some ... FACTS to back this play?

If not? It's no more helpful or useful than a fish owning a bicycle ...

In any case?**all* the descriptions of "afterlife" I have ever seen, would be hellish after a couple of hundred years or so-- most would be hellish after 5 minutes. The Bible's "heaven" is one of the latter...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1095 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Well why would a non created creator do that?
No such thing.

You've failed to give **one** logical reason for this thing.

If you allow special pleading to exempt your "creator" from the requirement to have a beginning?

The universe is a **much** more logical choice to grant such an exemption to.

Especially if you consider a cyclical universe or perhaps an infinity of multiple universes.

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
The Consequences of Atheism 4 min polymath257 684
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Joe fortuna 235,539
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 11 min NoahLovesU 4,710
Is Religion Childish? 15 min Thinking 125
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Mugwump 16,520
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 40 min Patrick n Angela 6,029
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response 7 hr QUITTNER Feb 26 2015 2
More from around the web