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.

Read more

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1159 Jun 29, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Cause and beginning two different things.
Yep.

He's easily confused; I see that now.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1160 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, good distinction. Does a beginning have a cause?
Not always. See quantum mechanics, and sub-atomic particles.
Seeker wrote:
That's probably a better worded question. And then if no cause, is there anything in the natural world that can have no beginning?
Possibly. How could we know? It may well be that all the universe's sub-atomic particles-- down below the smallest building blocks, have always existed in one form or another.

Unknown. Impossible to tell, at present.
Seeker wrote:
Although for every beginning, we always ask cause.
So? Just because humans are wired to ask, does not mean it's automatically correct or even universal.
Seeker wrote:
So the two still are kind of hand in hand, although not the same.
Not... really. No. Not really.
Seeker wrote:
So you've made a proper distinction, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it changes the heart of the question itself.
It does. It changes **everything**. Because beginnings without a cause eliminates the need for your Special Pleading Cosmic Fabricator-Genie Thing.

*poof*

There goes 100% of your argument in support of your myth-gods.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1161 Jun 29, 2013
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..
There was no reason for him to address your excuses because I had already poked holes on them.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1162 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.
I don't know Bob personally, so I am not going to lie about him, either in a positive and negative way. You on the other hand, have no need for decent moral values. Therefore you don't mind lying about your fellow human beings.
As for Bob's character, I have seen nothing here to suggest that he is a repugnant personality and I have seen nothing but ethical behavior/statements by him.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1163 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The story of Job makes God sound like some cruel king or some macabre serial killer. Despotic monarchs like Henry VIII or Ivan the Terrible are known for being friends with people one day and killing those people the next day. Serial killers are known for wanting the power to take lives at will.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1164 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a brilliant bit of connectivity.
:)
I find it ironic that he says that god wants to test us for "true love," the reason being
1-A all knowing God should not need to test us to know if we truly loved him
2-In the bible, the devil tries to tempt Jesus into testing God's love for him, but Jesus' refuses saying that he has no right to do so. Yet, according to Seeker, it is totally appropriate for God to do the same to us.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1165 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.
We are not creating our own laws, you are. We simply stating that there is no proof of something creating the universe. You are insisting without proof, that there is a creator and that this creator cannot be created. Suppose I said that the universe is our creator and that it cannot be created.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1166 Jun 29, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me something in the universe that has no beginning and prove it. Everything has a beginning within the universe until proven otherwise, right?.
We don't have to prove that the universe has a beginning and we cannot assume that is does have a beginning until we have proof that it does.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1167 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This is funny. I had to laugh when I read this. Even a young person with primitive knowledge of the sciences like myself can sense that his arguments were false.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1169 Jun 30, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Go read up on Quantum Mechanics-- all sorts of uncaused particle-pairs and other uncaused events.
So no.
Actually, more appropriately, it says cause unknown, not uncaused, and it also postulates parallel universes and other strange stuff. So how do we know that things that "appear" to pop into existence aren't just borrowed energy from a parallel universe and then we ask the cause or origin of the parallel universe. And even saying "uncaused" does not say no beginning and end.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1170 Jun 30, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not always. See quantum mechanics, and sub-atomic particles.
<quoted text>
Possibly. How could we know? It may well be that all the universe's sub-atomic particles-- down below the smallest building blocks, have always existed in one form or another.
Unknown. Impossible to tell, at present.
So when there is "evidence", then I should accept the idea or theory, and until then, it gets thrown out and dismissed, right?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It does. It changes **everything**. Because beginnings without a cause eliminates the need for your Special Pleading Cosmic Fabricator-Genie Thing.
Without a cause or cause unknown?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1171 Jun 30, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Right, so for something to have no beginning, it must be outside the universe itself. So according to what you are saying, a universe with no beginning is impossible. And when something seemingly pops into existence in QM, does it not pop into existence inside of something preexisting? Isn't there a preexisting universe that allows for them to even pop into existence? And if remember correctly, some attribute this phenomenon to borrowed energy. Again, it is not necessarily uncaused, but rather cause unknown.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1172 Jun 30, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Happens billions of times a second, at the quantum level of reality.
Literally, happens **all** the **time**.
Well established phenomena, too.
NEXT!
And each time it happens, there is a beginning and an end.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1173 Jun 30, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> We don't have to prove that the universe has a beginning and we cannot assume that is does have a beginning until we have proof that it does.
So it's all just blap, but the idea of a non created creator cannot even be entertained or "believed" without evidence. There's always "prove it", but any alternative does not need to be proven. Seems kind of skewed to me.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1174 Jun 30, 2013
To me, the thinking seems to come down to anything is possible EXCEPT a non created creator. One cannot even postulate that, but everything else is allowed to be postulated. Anything BUT a non created creator. There seems to be a strange exception made in the thinking.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1175 Jun 30, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wahhhhhh wahhhhh wahhhhh you started acting rude so I am going to take my ball and go home! Wahhhh!
<quoted text>
Look, you are simply rude, obnoxious and ignorant. And you add nothing to the conversation at all. Who would ever want to have a conversation with someone like that? Others participating here run rings around you.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1176 Jun 30, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Just answer yes or no, did your google and Webster's definitions perfectly match up? Yes or no.
<quoted text>
They mean the same thing. View and belief both mean the same thing in the context of the definition, and there are many more sources that use the word belief. Seems to be the author's choice. No two definitions perfectly match up as that would border on plagiarism, but they are all intended to mean the same thing.

And, once again, that has nothing to do with you clearly accusing me of altering or just making up the first definition I posted to suit my needs. That was your clear accusation. No amount of spin in the world is going to make your clearly false accusation disappear. Don't blame me. I didn't ask you to make that mistake and I am not responsible for it in the least.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1177 Jun 30, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's all just blap, but the idea of a non created creator cannot even be entertained or "believed" without evidence. There's always "prove it", but any alternative does not need to be proven. Seems kind of skewed to me.
How about I suggest that the creator is a magical pony or Clifford the Big Dog, how is that any less rational than your version of a god? My point is that we know that there is a universe. What caused it or if it was caused remains a mystery. You want us to consider your wild guess as a credible theory.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1179 Jun 30, 2013
Why would god be required to tell his people that he himself had a creator? I notice you cowered away from that.

Everything comes about due to natural processes. So your question only solidifies my point. We have proof of natural processes while we have zero proof of supernatural ones and you know it. As far as other possibilities I will eagerly consider them once some evidence is given thanks.

Yes your argument does eventually lead to Jesus, sorry you have already quoted him too many times to change your story. Nice try but no banana.

Good grief again are this obtuse on purpose? Once again when I asked about the problem of evil your answers in no way, shape or form had anything to do with it. Since you obviously from your answers had no idea what I was talking about I posted the Wikipedia page giving you a little information on it. Sorry that hurt your feelings so much but for the umpteenth time that was all I was doing. Put in a tampon and get over it.

Oh the afterlife is your big ace in the hole eh? Lol! Sure even if people suffer no problem because they just go to heaven and float on a cloud lol! Wow you were saving your real mental muscle for that I see! Of course can you prove there is an afterlife? Nope and you know it. Worse this afterlife myth is a key factor on all the religious violence in the world. The 911 hijackers thought by killing those innocent children they were going straight to heaven, just as Christian soldiers think if they die while shooting non Christians they will go to heaven.
Seeker wrote:
<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.

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.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1180 Jun 30, 2013
Exactly.

He still won't answer if his google and Webster's definitions match up... I wonder why!:) lol!
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>You miss the point, while events may have a start they do not necessarily have a cause.

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) 25 min Igor Trip 236,948
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 31 min par five 6,461
News 'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma (Jul '13) 1 hr karl44 7,553
News Confessions of a black atheist 2 hr realvelations 48
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Thinking 14,510
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr karl44 18,031
News The Consequences of Atheism 3 hr Liam R will return 1,145
More from around the web