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

#1139 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Any jealousy is such a childish immature emotion. People get over jealousy but god can't?
<quoted text>
Oh yes-- the bible's god has the mind and demeanor of a spoiled 2 year old brat.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1140 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
How could the supposed creator of ALL things be created itself?
If you can use Special Pleading to excuse your creator?

We can remove the ugly step entirely (creator).

And use the **same** Special Pleading to excuse the universe directly.

In one move, we've removed a near-infinity of unanswered questions, by eliminating this ... "creator" thingy.

The universe itself is uncaused.

And indeed-- Quantum Mechanics shows us how this happened.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1141 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.
Projection.

And? That would be... what? 3 more lies? At $20/lie, you owe me... what? Hundreds of dollars by now...

... I think I'll find out your REAL identity, and sue you for what you owe me in court....

... it ought to be good for many laughs, even if you **are** poorer than dirt....
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1142 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can use Special Pleading to excuse your creator?
We can remove the ugly step entirely (creator).
And use the **same** Special Pleading to excuse the universe directly.
In one move, we've removed a near-infinity of unanswered questions, by eliminating this ... "creator" thingy.
The universe itself is uncaused.
And indeed-- Quantum Mechanics shows us how this happened.
So while everything in the universe is said to have cause, or beginning, when we get to the last link of the logic chain, we change the rules to say that the universe itself, which is part of the natural law or natural existence, since it is existing due to natural law and therefore subject to the same rules, has no beginning, rather than placing something outside of natural laws itself as something that could have no beginning. Is that what you mean? So we say that something within natural laws defies natural law, rather than positing something outside of natural law itself.

So while both can be said to be absurd or even inconceivable, which one has no logical contradiction? The one that contradicts natural law itself, where something within natural law defies natural law, or the theory that puts something outside of natural law or natural existence itself and therefore is no longer subject to natural law?

And Quantum Mechanics does NOT show us how this can happen. It does NOT show us that the universe simply always existed. That is a misnomer.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1143 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can use Special Pleading to excuse your creator?
Why do you use these "borrowed" terms like "special pleading"? Why not just speak in your own words? Who am I talking to? You? Or an article that you read?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1144 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So while everything in the universe is said to have cause
Prove this horsesh*t.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1145 Jun 29, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove this horsesh*t.
Show me something in the universe that has no beginning and prove it. Everything has a beginning within the universe until proven otherwise, right? So prove you assumption that there are things in the universe that have no beginning and tell us how that can possibly be. Why don't you answer you own stupid questions for a change and actually give some actual answers for once? It's easy to do nothing but ask questions and ask everybody else to prove things, so now it's your turn to prove something. Let's see how well you do in doing something that you continually ask others to do.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1146 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So while everything in the universe is said to have cause, or beginning, when we get to the last link of the logic chain, we change the rules to say that the universe itself, which is part of the natural law or natural existence, since it is existing due to natural law and therefore subject to the same rules, has no beginning, rather than placing something outside of natural laws itself as something that could have no beginning. Is that what you mean? So we say that something within natural laws defies natural law, rather than positing something outside of natural law itself.
So while both can be said to be absurd or even inconceivable, which one has no logical contradiction? The one that contradicts natural law itself, where something within natural law defies natural law, or the theory that puts something outside of natural law or natural existence itself and therefore is no longer subject to natural law?
And Quantum Mechanics does NOT show us how this can happen. It does NOT show us that the universe simply always existed. That is a misnomer.
Cause and beginning two different things.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1147 Jun 29, 2013
I often wonder if you are this ignorant or being purposely obtuse?

Which is it?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't even read the rest so save your sigh. It is meaningless to me.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1148 Jun 29, 2013
Just answer yes or no, did your google and Webster's definitions perfectly match up? Yes or no.
Seeker wrote:
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.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1149 Jun 29, 2013
Everything has a natural beginning. Each day we are learning more and more about that and each day your Jesus myth shrinks.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>So while everything in the universe is said to have cause, or beginning, when we get to the last link of the logic chain, we change the rules to say that the universe itself, which is part of the natural law or natural existence, since it is existing due to natural law and therefore subject to the same rules, has no beginning, rather than placing something outside of natural laws itself as something that could have no beginning. Is that what you mean? So we say that something within natural laws defies natural law, rather than positing something outside of natural law itself.

So while both can be said to be absurd or even inconceivable, which one has no logical contradiction? The one that contradicts natural law itself, where something within natural law defies natural law, or the theory that puts something outside of natural law or natural existence itself and therefore is no longer subject to natural law?

And Quantum Mechanics does NOT show us how this can happen. It does NOT show us that the universe simply always existed. That is a misnomer.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1150 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Everything has a natural beginning. Each day we are learning more and more about that and each day your Jesus myth shrinks.
<quoted text>
Well let me know when you come up with a good answer of something in natural law that has no beginning and contradicts natural law itself. In the meantime, could people not be so sure of themselves and mock others that posit other possibilities? It's not the disagreement or the very logical questions that people have that I mind, it's the immediate, "hammer" dismissals or the "CAN'T BE" that I wonder about.

And as far as "my?" Jesus goes, that wasn't any argument that I was bringing up. That's a different discussion. I only quoted from Jesus for specific reasons of discussion itself, not to get into any specific proof of a specific religion. I only found what he said to be very wise in the instance that I quoted and there were deeper reasons for that.

But the interesting thing, is that I have thought of a much better reason to doubt anything that I have said than POE. Believe it or not, I question my own conclusions all of the time, and they lead me to a really, really hard problem to solve in terms of a benevolent God, and it is actually much more fundamental than POE, and a question you probably won't find on that wiki article you gave me, where you were "holding my hand" without me asking you to.

I have thought very extensively about all of this, and whether people agree with me or even want to agree with me, I can always at least offer a logical possibility that does stay within logic, whether it is accepted or not. But in this final problem of the logic chain that I arrived at, I almost have to contradict math and/or logic itself, which is always very shaky ground where I'm just asking for it at that point, and just waiting to have eggs thrown at me. And people have been knocking on the door of the REAL problem sometimes without even knowing it. You did too, but I'm not sure that you knew you did, because if you did, I couldn't be more sure that you would say "Aha!!, caught you liar, checkmate"

I don't know why I would even give anybody a clue to this, let alone you, but in all fairness, fairness is fairness. So if we change the question from a benevolent God supposedly being all powerful, therefore being able to stop evil, to one of a benevolent God being all knowing, what is the biggest problem that you see with that? That's a HUGE hint. I haven't mentioned it because if anybody was really trying to ponder my answers, rather than simply dismissing them, they would have seen this problem right off the bat. But everybody seemed to have tunnel vision from their preexisting ideas. I gave TONS of clues in my answers themselves and if people properly examined them, rather than just looking for holes in them, they would have seen it right away and nailed me from the answers I gave themselves and it is far more fundamental than POE. And when you can figure it out, you can all have a good laugh at me as I give you what I believe to be the only logical explanation possible, which will again, possibly contradict math itself. But I don't care about the ridicule, I'm just amazed that nobody here was a real surgeon and cut to the heart of the matter itself.

If there is an afterlife posited that can give us a wonderful, everlasting life of joy, that would make this life and all of it's good and bad look like the blink of an eye, I still think that one can posit "ultimate" benevolence" even if it is not immediate benevolence. But there is a more fundamental problem with my answer.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1151 Jun 29, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Cause and beginning two different things.
Okay, good distinction. Does a beginning have a cause? That's probably a better worded question. And then if no cause, is there anything in the natural world that can have no beginning? Although for every beginning, we always ask cause. So the two still are kind of hand in hand, although not the same. So you've made a proper distinction, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it changes the heart of the question itself.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1152 Jun 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I often wonder if you are this ignorant or being purposely obtuse?
Which is it?
<quoted text>
If you could just stop being so ignorant and insulting yourself, maybe I could talk to you more. I even did so in my last post, going against everything that I said where I said it's completely pointless with you.

Look, I'm not the kind of person that likes to rub any mistake in someone's face, but you kept asking for it, and then denying it and trying to spin it. You were even the one who actually asked me to lay the whole thing out, and I did, post number by post number in chronological order.

And after that, I even just gave you a clue of how to finally throw eggs at me about the subject of the benevolence of God and get rid of me like you always have wanted, even though I even said that I don't want to discuss any serious issues with someone who behaves like you do. How much more fair can I possibly be?

At the end of the day, I really could care less what you think and if I did, I would have the same problems that you appear to have. I was much more interested in good discussion with people that would like to participate in that. And all that you have continually done is to attempt to stifle that with nothing but blanket dismissals and immediate insults and then, even worse, accusations of me being a liar. If you don't think that the possibilities that I offer are reasonable, don't just dismiss them, break them down and discuss each part and point out specifically why they are unreasonable. That's what a discussion is about.

This shouldn't be an exercise on how fast "team" atheist can get rid of me and preserve their existing notions. There is no such thing as team atheist and I laughed when you basically tried to say, that will teach me to mess with atheists who are much smarter than me. I'm sorry to say, but in your case, I detect no superior intelligence at all. In fact, most really intelligent and well educated people that I know would never behave the way you do. Is it any wonder why I still wonder whether you actually have a Masters or not, whether you claimed you have one or not?

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1153 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, good distinction. Does a beginning have a cause? That's probably a better worded question. And then if no cause, is there anything in the natural world that can have no beginning? Although for every beginning, we always ask cause. So the two still are kind of hand in hand, although not the same. So you've made a proper distinction, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it changes the heart of the question itself.
You miss the point, while events may have a start they do not necessarily have a cause.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1154 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So while everything in the universe is said to have cause,
False.

Go read up on Quantum Mechanics-- all sorts of uncaused particle-pairs and other uncaused events.

So no.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1155 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
we change the rules to say that the universe itself, which is part of the natural law or natural existence, since it is existing due to natural law and therefore subject to the same rules, has no beginning, rather than placing something outside of natural laws itself as something that could have no beginning.
Your 2nd mistake: you presume the laws are somehow, magically, outside the universe.

They aren't--- they exist within it, and are dependent on it.

In fact? As the current state was just beginning? Those laws were not yet fixed-- and it seems many of them were mutable during that initial microscopically short phase.

As the universe expanded, the laws settled into their current configuration-- the why/how is not yet known.

But it appears that the current set of laws could have been slightly different, had things gone a wee bit different than they did.

So you are mistaken once again.

In any case?

Your argument is flawed, due to a faulty beginning.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1156 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:

And Quantum Mechanics does NOT show us how this can happen. It does NOT show us that the universe simply always existed. That is a misnomer.
Mistake #3: a failure to comprehend what you read in my other post.

I did not claim your Straw-Man statement above.

I said that QM clearly shows that UN-CAUSED phenomena is not only possible, but common.

Thus, the very universe itself could be just another uncaused happening.

Or?

The universe might simply have always been (not QM in this instance), only in a different shape or form than presently.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1157 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you use these "borrowed" terms like "special pleading"? Why not just speak in your own words? Who am I talking to? You? Or an article that you read?
Because "special pleading" is a logical form.

It's meaning is unambiguous and very clear.

That is why I chose this term to describe what you are guilty of, here.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1158 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me something in the universe that has no beginning and prove it.
Happens billions of times a second, at the quantum level of reality.

Literally, happens **all** the **time**.

Well established phenomena, too.

NEXT!

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) 2 hr replaytime 70,279
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 30,197
News Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 9 hr John 70,630
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 9 hr John 14,734
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Paul Scott 3,800
How To Get To Heaven When You Die 10 hr Eagle 12 87
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 hr Eagle 12 258,473
More from around the web