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

Louisville, KY

#1118 Jun 29, 2013
This is true, the so called holy books of god are responsible for tremendous pain and genocide.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<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.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1119 Jun 29, 2013
I caught you red handed lying and you know it. It's your shame and ignorance, not my so called rudeness that makes you cower from my questions and facts.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>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.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1120 Jun 29, 2013
Not to mention, why would the creator feel the need to tell his subjects that he himself was created? He would logically have no cause to do such a thing.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>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.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1121 Jun 29, 2013
Even the bible says god created evil so there goes the god is good fallacy. It also says he lies. Yes Yahweh is said to be a deceiver... Let me guess it doesn't mean what it says?

Lol!:))
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>In that case?

Your god?

Isn't all powerful. If he is not **directly** responsible for the bad things?

Then-- by definition-- something ELSE is.

Something your god cannot control.(obviously)

Such a beast isn't really a god at all, then!

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1122 Jun 29, 2013
Any jealousy is such a childish immature emotion. People get over jealousy but god can't?
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly. The buybull says that he is a jealous god.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1123 Jun 29, 2013
Brilliant!
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>I call that the "battered wife defence".

"You just don't understand him. He gets angry, but I know he loves me really."
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1124 Jun 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
It is equally clear to me to that you can't accept our world without an all powerful compassionate god. Thanks again.
<quoted text>
I can accept it, but I don't think it's the correct answer. I would have gladly continued on with you, but I did have to logically acknowledge that suffering is avoidable, and that seems to be all you wanted to hear, despite any possible explanations that I gave for it where God could still be "ultimately" benevolent. You earlier analyzed the other things I said piece by piece and gave your objections piece by piece. But in the last post you made about the subject you just gave a blanket dismissal of any explanations that I offered and merely called them verbose without addressing each possible explanation that I offered. You basically said, if there is avoidable suffering, then there "cannot" be ultimate benevolence and basically said "end of story". So to me, that clearly told me "conversation over" and the blinds got shut. And that's fine, you are not obligated to do anything, and at that point, it did seem like a waste of time for either of us to continue. If that's your clearly stated and unequivocal stand, then so be it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1125 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I caught you red handed lying and you know it. It's your shame and ignorance, not my so called rudeness that makes you cower from my questions and facts.
<quoted text>
So you are saying that me first using a google search page definition, without bothering to link it, nor altering it in any way, and instead accurately copying and pasting it into my post, is lying. Would you care to tell me in what universe that makes sense? You really are that stubborn to your very core aren't you. Absolutely amazing. I honestly just don't know what ails you or eats at you, and maybe I don't even want to know, but it truly amazes me. I don't know what people might have done to you in life to make you this way, and I don't even want to know. But it's pretty ugly.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1126 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Not to mention, why would the creator feel the need to tell his subjects that he himself was created? He would logically have no cause to do such a thing.
<quoted text>
How could the supposed creator of ALL things be created itself? That would be a logical contradiction, and this is why God is said to be non created. If God was created, then God could not be said to be creator of ALL things. What part of the logic are you having trouble understanding? So if God exists and is creator of ALL things, then God would logically HAVE to be outside of creation or "natural" existence itself and be non created. And if God exists outside of creation or "natural" existence itself, then it is possible to not have to apply the rules of cause or origin or beginning to said thing, which always apply to things within creation or natural existence.

But instead, people think that it is logical to posit a beginning or creation or cause or origin for everything within natural existence itself, but when we get to the container and/or cause or origin, suddenly we change the rules and contradict them and posit that it just simply always existed without beginning.

So which logic is more absurd?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1127 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Best look up that term because wow you just majorly placed it wrong. Like Lincoln bad!
Your IQ just sank another 20 points
<quoted text>
I know what it means, but you shouldn't have to appeal to other participants here for agreement with you, like you indirectly did. I never do. There are no "sides", and there is no "atheist team" in general, each has their own point of view. There is no, come on "guys", let's spank this theist and show him what "us" atheists are really made of. That's just the way YOU think, and I've already had a toilet full of it to know. But I don't see other atheists here that behave and think like you do, except for maybe Skeptic. But he's a teenager, so he gets a pass.
Thinking

York, UK

#1129 Jun 29, 2013
Prove it.
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob's life is a burden and a tribulation to his family , so he is doing exactly that which you suggest.
But they don't love him.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1130 Jun 29, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob's life is a burden and a tribulation to his family , so he is doing exactly that which you suggest.
But they don't love him.
Unable to attack atheism, so he attacks bobs children.

These are creationists today - attacking people's children and threatening them with hell.

Look at what people your cults create.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1131 Jun 29, 2013
Wahhhhhh wahhhhh wahhhhh you started acting rude so I am going to take my ball and go home! Wahhhh!
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I can accept it, but I don't think it's the correct answer. I would have gladly continued on with you, but I did have to logically acknowledge that suffering is avoidable, and that seems to be all you wanted to hear, despite any possible explanations that I gave for it where God could still be "ultimately" benevolent. You earlier analyzed the other things I said piece by piece and gave your objections piece by piece. But in the last post you made about the subject you just gave a blanket dismissal of any explanations that I offered and merely called them verbose without addressing each possible explanation that I offered. You basically said, if there is avoidable suffering, then there "cannot" be ultimate benevolence and basically said "end of story". So to me, that clearly told me "conversation over" and the blinds got shut. And that's fine, you are not obligated to do anything, and at that point, it did seem like a waste of time for either of us to continue. If that's your clearly stated and unequivocal stand, then so be it.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#1132 Jun 29, 2013
No.... For the umpteenth time... Once again.....:sigh:.... Seriously even a child could have put this together faster than you....

Okay let me try it like this... I will now post as a mystic. Crank up the black light with neon posters, beads, crystals and lava lamps!

Me givemeliberty.
You seeker.
You seeker postum wrong definition for agnostic with no link.
Me givemeliberty ask for link.
You seeker cry and make excuses for no needum link.
Me givemeliberty say stop stalling where link!
You seeker postum Webster's link that does not say your definition.
Me givemeliberty point this out and all laugh at you incompetence.
You seeker try to change subject with face red.
Me givemeliberty say no no you have been caught tell bigum lie!
You seeker hide from givemeliberty in shame.
Me givemeliberty and others have big laughs at your expense, like when you made up your own definition for a mystic.
Much later you seeker finally post google definition hahaha... hahahaha... lol haha! which say as you said before.
Me givemeliberty hurt side from big laughing!
You seeker now want to avoid discussing your previous Webster's definition which did not say as you claim, and you seeker know it.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying that me first using a google search page definition, without bothering to link it, nor altering it in any way, and instead accurately copying and pasting it into my post, is lying. Would you care to tell me in what universe that makes sense? You really are that stubborn to your very core aren't you. Absolutely amazing. I honestly just don't know what ails you or eats at you, and maybe I don't even want to know, but it truly amazes me. I don't know what people might have done to you in life to make you this way, and I don't even want to know. But it's pretty ugly.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1133 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
No.... For the umpteenth time... Once again.....:sigh:
I didn't even read the rest so save your sigh. It is meaningless to me.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1134 Jun 29, 2013
I quoted and documented it very very well in chronological order with page and post numbers included. You were stupid to demand that I do that, but as you said, it's all in writing and completely verifiable. No spin in the world can ever change that. So I'm actually glad that you demanded that I do that, no matter how much effort it took. That was very stupid of you. In fact, I couldn't believe that you asked me to do that. But now all post numbers with exact quotes are all documented into one post for very clear and easy reference and it is all verifiable and there is no way it can be denied. So I don't even have to play spin games and twist the memory games with you. It's all right there and you read it and now you are trying to desperately spin it, but it just ain't gunna happen.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1135 Jun 29, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
He makes excuses by claiming that true love can only be shown true adversity and that god sends us trials and tribulations. By that argument, we should all subject our love ones to suffering just so we could claim that they love us. I don't know if you are married with children or not, but by his standards, if you have those, then you should subject them to misery just to see if they will love you anyway.
It is like the witchcraft trials, where they would put the women in water. If they drowned, then they were innocent. If they floated, then they were witches.
Exactly. It's as if he's stuck with the god of the story of Job...

... on an endless repeat track.

Kinda sad, really; Job is one of the most primitive stories in the BuyBull.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1136 Jun 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I call that the "battered wife defence".
"You just don't understand him. He gets angry, but I know he loves me really."
<quoted text>
That is a brilliant bit of connectivity.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1137 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
This is true, the so called holy books of god are responsible for tremendous pain and genocide.
<quoted text>
They are!

What's worse-- is that they teach people to go out and **commit** Great Evil in their name(s).

Any deity that gave the least crap about humanity?

Would have eradicated them all from the time-line long, long ago.

That they exist?

Is about a close to 100% proof of **no** gods-who-care as anything going.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1138 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Even the bible says god created evil so there goes the god is good fallacy. It also says he lies. Yes Yahweh is said to be a deceiver... Let me guess it doesn't mean what it says?
Lol!:))
<quoted text>
Magic.

It all goes back to ... magic.

:D

Sad, isn't it?

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
John 3:16 6 min superwilly 66
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 18 min Liam R 10,775
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 26 min Shizle 20
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 45 min Knowledge- 244,885
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Strel 20,589
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 7 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,657
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 11 hr Shizle 17
More from around the web