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.

Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#1016 Jun 26, 2013
There can be no all powerful compassionate god because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it also eliminates your ability to say it is false as well. As I mentioned, the only reason that I posit a non created creator is because I have not been presented with a better answer. I have a choice between an uncreated universe, and a non created creator existing outside of the universe or natural existence itself that is responsible for the existence of the universe. In the first case, by saying the universe is uncreated, we violate every concept that we have for things within the universe where everything is said to have a beginning or origin. We contradict this by saying the universe itself had no beginning or cause. But if something outside of the universe or natural existence itself is posited, we can at least say that the requirement of natural existence, where everything has a beginning, does not have to apply. To me, the only way to posit anything that is uncreated or not caused, is to posit something outside of natural existence itself. That doesn't prove anything at all, but to me, it's the most logical choice. And if I find a better answer, I will accept it immediately. My mind is never closed on the issue and there are some days where I even doubt my current conclusion. Nothing wrong with doubt, that is logical and healthy. But being dogmatic about a conclusion is not. I can even give you better reasons for doubt than you have even raised so far. There is a more fundamental, core reason for doubt than you have raised. Maybe you might arrive at that and ask about it as maybe the logic will lead you to that. But even Einstein entertained a notion for a creator and he commented that he didn't care what the creator was, he was more interested in how the creator thinks. This guy was spot on and a genius. He knew that he would never know what the creator is because that would be beyond reason itself, but we can get an idea of how it thinks by observing what has been created. Heisenberg seemed to share the same feelings, based on things he wrote that I quoted. And the weird part, is that this is what Thomas Aquinas, a religious theologian wrote about God. And in his commentary
on Boethius' De Sancta Trinitate he says there are three ways of
knowing God (1) in the creation,(2) in God's actions through history, and (3) in the highest form of the knowledge of God - to know God tamquam ignotum (to know God as the unknown).

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1017 Jun 26, 2013
Stop it liar. You took your belief definition from a highly unreliable source and then pretended you got it from a more reliable source. The first link you posted did not state as you claimed and you were caught red handed.

Only much later did you cave in and post your google definitions lol link after you were busted red handed and you know it. Once again go to the post of mine where I was incorrect, show how I was incorrect and I will eagerly admit my mistake.

I think you know you have no philosophy education whatsoever and are in desperation mode ignoring my question about the problem of evil.

It's okay, we all see it, just admit it.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't link the first one because I didn't think I needed to and that nobody would be crazy enough to think I would just make a definition up. It was something that I copied and pasted from a google search page itself. Why would I link a search page itself? But anyway, I see what's going on here. You make the mistake and make a false accusation that was stupid of you to make, and then, rather than admitting that, here comes the spin to turn your mistake into something that was my fault.

That's okay, I know you can never admit to a mistake, and I'm actually quite fine with that, because when you don't admit it, then I don't have to speak about any issues with you as I promised I would if you admitted your mistake. And then, you even tried to act as though it never happened and asked me to link the post where you accused me of being a liar. And I never bothered because I knew that you knew, but somehow your memory now seems to have come back, and now the spin is that your mistaken and false accusation was my fault.

All the more reason to not bother to discuss any issues with you at all. And again, because of your behavior, I seriously doubt that you have a Masters degree in anything, as you claimed, unless we consider that Masters Bating is a degree. Someone on another thread said that you have bragged about the size of your schlong in the past. Is that true? Wouldn't surprise me. It does get bigger when you touch it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1018 Jun 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Stop it liar. You took your belief definition from a highly unreliable source and then pretended you got it from a more reliable source.
I never made any comment about the source at all for my first definition. I merely copied and pasted it and posted it.
Givemeliberty wrote:
The first link you posted did not state as you claimed and you were caught red handed.
Since you complained, I decided to get a definition from websters, and after I did, you accused me of making the first definition up myself and then said "checkmate". Very foolish of you. You aren't going to spin this and make your mistake out to be my fault. And, as I said, the word belief from the first definition and the word view in the second definition from websters was meant to mean the same thing in the context of the definition. Different people can choose different words, but they are meant to mean the same thing. And, if you clicked on the more info link beneath the box that contained my first definition, you will see many other sources that used the word belief. This is now the third time that I have had to repeat this to you, and I'm not going to repeat it again, and no spin that you attempt will ever work.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#1019 Jun 26, 2013
You are forgetting that when I asked you for a link you at first provided a respected link that didn't say as you said. This was pointed out by myself and everyone had a nice jolly laugh at you. Much later in humiliation you posted your google definition.

You do realize this is a thread and people can go back and see right?

Again you show where I was mistaken with facts backing it up and I will happily admit it.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I never made any comment about the source at all for my first definition. I merely copied and pasted it and posted it.

Givemeliberty wrote, "
The first link you posted did not state as you claimed and you were caught red handed."

Since you complained, I decided to get a definition from websters, and after I did, you accused me of making the first definition up myself and then said "checkmate". Very foolish of you. You aren't going to spin this and make your mistake out to be my fault. And, as I said, the word belief from the first definition and the word view in the second definition from websters was meant to mean the same thing in the context of the definition. Different people can choose different words, but they are meant to mean the same thing. And, if you clicked on the more info link beneath the box that contained my first definition, you will see many other sources that used the word belief. This is now the third time that I have had to repeat this to you, and I'm not going to repeat it again, and no spin that you attempt will ever work.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1020 Jun 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You are forgetting that when I asked you for a link you at first provided a respected link that didn't say as you said. This was pointed out by myself and everyone had a nice jolly laugh at you. Much later in humiliation you posted your google definition.
You do realize this is a thread and people can go back and see right?
I sure do, and they can all go back and read where you clearly accused me of making up my own definition and being a liar. So I don't think you want people to go back and read it. You're better off if they don't.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1021 Jun 26, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a big fan of Dr. Phil as I think he's cheesy, but the other day I did see a clip of one show where he was right. He was talking to a father who's daughter was a drug addict and always getting into trouble. When things get really bad, he was always there to bail her out. When she needed rent money, he was always there to give it to her, and, of course, the rent money went to drugs. When she was arrested, he was always there to bail her out.
But. A human dad has limited resources. He can only act indirectly.

He cannot change his daughter in any way, shape or form-- he's not a god.

Only gods are gods.

Analogy fail.
Seeker wrote:
And Dr. Phil pointed out that she continues with her behavior because she knows that no matter what she does, Daddy will always bail her out. So she had no motivation to really change.
See above.

You keep IGNORING my POINT: needless, mass suffering NOT CAUSED by anything humans do?

Still happens.

Your do-nothing UNCARING absentee landlord "god" DOES NOT CARE.

Obviously.

Dr Phil? Yes-- he's cheesy. Yes, he's mostly fake.

BUT HE IS MORE ETHICAL THAN ANY CARING DEITIES--EVER.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1022 Jun 26, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it also eliminates your ability to say it is false as well.
Nope. You clearly do not understand the implications here.

Relativity theory says many things.

Among the most damning? Is that there cannot possibly be an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-all god.

The present universe does not permit such things to even exist within it.

And?

If the being is without the universe? It does not exist within--by definition.

Even partial existence within, means following the rules.

And the rules, due to relativity, say you cannot possibly know the whole, all at once.

This is also confirmed by quantum mechanics, specifically the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Quantum states of matter **require** uncertainty to maintain their various quantum states of being.

Once their position or speed is **known** they collapse into a single state-- changing what they were.

If there is an all-knowing god? Who knows (and is therefore a part of--simply by the act of knowing) the universe?

Then the whole universe collapses into a single quantum state-- and that's it. End of everything.

So from two well established theories, we see an all-knowing being cannot exist within our universe.

And?

Who cares if there are beings without? They cannot be within-- they cannot interfere therefore.

They may as well not exist at all, for all that they are to **us**.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1023 Jun 26, 2013
Seeker wrote:
As I mentioned, the only reason that I posit a non created creator is because I have not been presented with a better answer. I have a choice between an uncreated universe, and a non created creator existing outside of the universe or natural existence itself that is responsible for the existence of the universe.
What's wrong with an un-caused universe?

Does it soothe your ego, to presume Something Special about our existence, by inventing an impossibility?(uncreated creator)

Postulating an uncreated creator answers zilch. Nothing. Nada.

It creates an infinity of MORE questions than the single one it claims (and fails) to answer.

What causes this uncreated thingy? Where did it come from? Why now? Why not and infinity ago? Why just us? Why not a cornucopia of sentience on earth?

Why make the universe **appear** as if it's uncaused/uncreated? That's kind of .... disingenuous.

Why make life on earth **appear** as if it happened by entirely natural processes, instead of created? Again-- that's fraudulent behavior.

Why refuse to allow even a **hint** that is **objective** of the existence of this creator? Why all the hiding? Again-- fraud at work.

In short?

The god you posit? Is a Big Fat Liar.

That is **not** something you really want to have happen, in a god-being....!

Not at all.....!

... because-- what **else** is this Thing **lying** about?

Hmmmm?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1024 Jun 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There can be no all powerful compassionate god because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
Yep.

Seeker keeps side-stepping this Big Picture, and focusing on the Little Petty individuals.

Never answering that conundrum.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#1025 Jun 26, 2013
If you could impart defence strategies into pets and babies so they would avoid pain as part of their learning process you would.

So why do supposed all powerful deities always choose an unpleasant route for their alleged creations?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
Seeker keeps side-stepping this Big Picture, and focusing on the Little Petty individuals.
Never answering that conundrum.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1026 Jun 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
If you could impart defence strategies into pets and babies so they would avoid pain as part of their learning process you would.
So why do supposed all powerful deities always choose an unpleasant route for their alleged creations?
<quoted text>
Because the creators of these "all powerful" deities are themselves cruel and unpleasant?
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#1027 Jun 26, 2013
I blame much of religion on toothache.

Imagine what that would have been like before modern medicine, and imagine what belief systems resulted from people wracked with agony.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the creators of these "all powerful" deities are themselves cruel and unpleasant?

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#1028 Jun 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it also eliminates your ability to say it is false as well. As I mentioned, the only reason that I posit a non created creator is because I have not been presented with a better answer. I have a choice between an uncreated universe, and a non created creator existing outside of the universe or natural existence itself that is responsible for the existence of the universe.
The thing is that the Universe is real, something we can detect. Your God is not. No proof of your god exist. You just assume that there is a god out there. The theory of an uncaused universe exist because we know that a universe exist.Whereas we don't know if your god exist, so it is foolish to say that he created the universe.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1029 Jun 27, 2013
Very well said. That is his MO.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yep.

Seeker keeps side-stepping this Big Picture, and focusing on the Little Petty individuals.

Never answering that conundrum.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1030 Jun 27, 2013
No they will see you repeatedly refusing to post a link and the first link you posted did not say as you claimed.

You keep wanting to avoid that I see. Like your hehe definition of a mystic is completely made up for your liking.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>I sure do, and they can all go back and read where you clearly accused me of making up my own definition and being a liar. So I don't think you want people to go back and read it. You're better off if they don't.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1031 Jun 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
But. A human dad has limited resources. He can only act indirectly.
He cannot change his daughter in any way, shape or form-- he's not a god.
Only gods are gods.
Analogy fail.
Free will says that a person themselves decides to change. Hey God, butt out of my life. Well, that is, of course, until I WANT you to butt in. And you can only do so only when I want you to and only on my terms. So don't bother me until I need bail money. And if I need it again and again, you better give it to me or else you will be a very very bad God.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
See above.
You keep IGNORING my POINT: needless, mass suffering NOT CAUSED by anything humans do?
I said that true love happens in the face of adversity and if a wonderful afterlife is posited and makes this life look like a blink of an eye, benevolence can still be said. I also said that people have to die to allow for new people. Maybe the world should be perfect. I remember that book Logan's Run, where it was a perfect world with no disease, but everybody had to report to the death chamber at age 30. And then, the story was about two people who decided to not report, and then they met that old guy on the outside etc....Interesting concept. So do you want to know exactly when you will die? What would that do to people and their lives? I don't know. It was an interesting book with an interesting concept. You might say that you would prefer the world to be that way, but how about everybody else? And can there every be any such thing as perfect? Perfect according to who? How can there be a perfect world with varying ideas of what perfect is? What's the perfect color?

Again, I'm not going to prove anything and I'm not even trying to. I am merely showing how it could possibly be said that there is ultimately benevolence, even in the face of evil.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1032 Jun 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There can be no all powerful compassionate god because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
If someone does only good things to you and you love them because of that, what are you loving? The person themselves, or the good things they do for you and expect them to do for you? True love can only begin in the face of adversity. When a person does bad things, and you still love them, then you are loving the person themselves, rather than loving the good things they do.

I don't want to drag the Bible into this discussion, at least not yet. There's no point in talking about that if God or a non created creator itself is not first established. But Jesus had some brilliant things to say about this.

43 “You have heard that it was said,‘Love your neighbor 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? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

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 if God could ever be said to be in want of anything, maybe that is what God wants, and perhaps that could be said to be the purest desire one can have. If there is an intelligent creator, then one would have to assume that the creator had a reason or purpose for creating and doesn't just do things for the heck of it. There is one core, grand daddy of all objections even better than anyone has raised so far, and we are getting close to it. The logic is slowly leading there, so someone is going to figure it out and raise it. I've been dropping clues all over the place. Not that I'm playing a game, it's just that these clues will naturally come out as the logic progresses and I have to let the logic take it's own course.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1033 Jun 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
No they will see you repeatedly refusing to post a link and the first link you posted did not say as you claimed.
You keep wanting to avoid that I see. Like your hehe definition of a mystic is completely made up for your liking.
<quoted text>
Okay pain in the a$$. I can't believe I have to go through the effort to go back and find this. As you yourself said it IS all in writing for anyone to review. But will you just please shut up after I post this? You accused me of lying and altering an existing definition or simply making up my own definition and I did no such thing. So here is where you have done that. These are YOUR OWN words, not mine.

Page 33 post number 657

I quote what you said
"Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief it has to do with knowledge."

And then I offer a quick, convenient definition I got from a google search

ag·nos·tic /ag&#712;nästik/ Noun A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

You respond in post 675
I notice you won't provide a link to your so called definition so it is ignored.

I respond in post 678
So you actually think that I would just make up a definition and make it look like a dictionary definition? Really? I just gave the short form from the first definition that your see when you google "definition for agnostic". Here's the long form with links. Doesn't change a single thing http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agn ...

You respond in 682
Hmmm I notice this time the definition doesn't include the term belief... I notice it clearly states the root of the words gnostic and agnostic is knowledge....So once again we can clearly see you rely on dishonesty to debate.

post 682 you go on to say:
So by your own links we see that you indeed edited the definition to fit your argument. Not that such a thing is new for you

post 683
"Yes we can see your dishonesty from your links and how you edited the definition to fit your argument."

What was that? You clearly accusing me of dishonesty by editing a definition? Very stupid move. I edited nothing, I merely provided a second source that is considered more official.

post 684 I respond
I didn't edit it all at and you have something deeply wrong with you if you think that I would ever bother to. I merely copied and pasted the first one that I saw, and I even said in a later post where I posted the longer definition or went to webster's that I merely used the short definition. So you are wrong, yet again. Go here and look at the top of the page. It's exactly what I posted

And then you went away for a few days, and I assumed that it was because of your anger at being caught making a false accusation and the matter was finished. How foolish of me. I was wrong, and you probably didn't even read my response in 684 which should have ended the issue and accusation. You appear to have a habit of not reading entire posts.

post 795 on page 40. The accusation rears it's ugly head again. You said

"You were caught lying red handed on your definition and you know it. Blame yourself for that not me."

Now, I would like you to tell the rest of the class how using a google definition is lying. Go ahead, tell us all.

And you repeated the accusation again on post 808
"You know you lied about the definition of agnostic changing the definition to suit your argument. And you know it."

Now, here comes the spin after you knew you made a false accusation.

post 817
Google definitions? GOOGLE DEFINITIONS??!!! Hahahahahahahahaha! And you wonder why you get mocked! Oh and once again I am afraid I have to nust you for being a liar. Post 678 you gave this definition from a non :snicker chortle: google definition sourcde.

So here, you are mocking the fact that I used a google definition, and using a google definition. And then you still accused me of being a liar.

Can't wait to hear your next spin attempt.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1034 Jun 27, 2013
So givemeliberty, all that I did was to offer a convenient definition from a google search page, and then, when I received complaints, I offered a definition from webster's which would be considered a more respected source. So where is the lie? Where did I make up or alter a definition to suit my argument as you clearly accused me of doing? In fact, the second definition did not suit my purpose as well as the first, although the word "belief" in the first definition and the word "view" in the second are meant to be synonymous in the context of the definition. And if you hit the more info link, beneath the definition box that shows up on the search results page, you will see more sources that use the word belief. And this is now the third Time I have had to repeat this fact to you. And as you yourself said, it's ALL in writing and I can't believe you were stupid enough to challenge me to produce what you clearly said. Seems like not only do you not read other people's posts completely, you don't even read you own.

Now would you PLEASE just shut up? I said "please", so I am being more polite than you deserve. You are nothing but a negative annoyance in any serious conversation.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1035 Jun 27, 2013
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. And your accusation was PROVEN to be false.

And I expect no admission from you of any mistake as I know that you are just simply incapable of that. I've seen people like that before, and when they think and behave that way, any serious conversation with a person like that is completely pointless. And this is why I don't discuss POE with you, but have discussed it in length with all other takers here.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump bars transgender individuals from US arme... 12 min C Kersey 78
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 17 min Dr Z 315,319
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 17 min Fitius T Bluster 1,567,014
News Republican senators blink on a big chance to re... 21 min CodeTalker 12
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 24 min CodeTalker 17,673
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min Dogen 222,034
News Trump bans transgender people from military 36 min C Kersey 34
News By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans prefer Obamacare ... 2 hr IMpeach Now 571
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr IND 280,146
More from around the web