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
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

#1036 Jun 27, 2013
Salaamz! LOL! looks like Arnold-IBN-Jinn-IBN-Martinni-I BN-SleekR is at it again! Now how many more nics do you have? CheerZ
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1037 Jun 27, 2013
Rabbeen Al Jihad wrote:
Salaamz! LOL! looks like Arnold-IBN-Jinn-IBN-Martinni-I BN-SleekR is at it again! Now how many more nics do you have? CheerZ
Do you want me to use another one? How about "the 20% profit" like Muhammad was? 20% of the war booty theft goes to Allah, but I don't remember anybody burning it to offer it up to Allah. And there is even a Sura entitled "The Booty". This guy was far worse than anything that Bush could ever dream of doing and I even made the direct comparisons, one by one, between the two in that Bush VS Muhammad thread, and you didn't answer one single comparison. Not even one. You merely tried to spam the thread with personal comments about me. Just like you are doing here as well.

Now flake off like an unwanted scab Jihad Joe. The subject being discussed is way over your simple head.
Thinking

London, UK

#1038 Jun 27, 2013
Your saying that true love requires suffering.

By definition, an all powerful god could square that circle.
Why doesn't it?
Seeker wrote:
<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.
barrack

Las Vegas, NV

#1039 Jun 27, 2013
so the gaurd is now a terrorist right?

KILL"EM ALL! yeee haaaaaaaa!
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1040 Jun 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Your saying that true love requires suffering.
By definition, an all powerful god could square that circle.
Why doesn't it?
<quoted text>
The question is, if someone loves another person because they do good things for them, do they really love that person themselves or what the person does for them? Can they still love that person when they do something the other person doesn't like? If so,, then that is true love and love for that person themselves. As far as squaring that circle, as I mentioned, someone could create the perfect robot that's just like a human and it would have no choice but to love that human or it's creator. Would you feel like you were receiving true love from it when it has no choice but to do that?
Thinking

London, UK

#1041 Jun 27, 2013
No. The question was actually how can an all powerful compassionate god allow avoidable suffering?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is, if someone loves another person because they do good things for them, do they really love that person themselves or what the person does for them? Can they still love that person when they do something the other person doesn't like? If so,, then that is true love and love for that person themselves. As far as squaring that circle, as I mentioned, someone could create the perfect robot that's just like a human and it would have no choice but to love that human or it's creator. Would you feel like you were receiving true love from it when it has no choice but to do that?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1042 Jun 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
No. The question was actually how can an all powerful compassionate god allow avoidable suffering?
<quoted text>
If God did everything that you wanted or think that God should do, would you love God or love what God does for you instead? I keep repeating this and maybe there is something about my explanation that still isn't being grasped. I'm not asking for agreement, but understanding of the explanation itself. If there is a non created creator that created something, does this creator create it for no purpose or reason at all? I suppose that's possible, but one would ask why the creator even bothered to create at all. So although God is often said to be without want, I disagree. If God didn't want anything, God would never create anything. So if there could ever be any want or desire that could ever be pure or true, it would be the desire for true love. Not the kind of love where someone loves what you do for them, but the kind of love where the person or entity itself is loved, regardless of what that entity does or does not do for them.

As I said to someone else before. I often ask Christians a question that they truly hate because it exposes their own self interests, masquerading as love for God so that they get to pat themselves on the back and expect their reward.

If God never did anything for you, or never will do anything for you, would you still love God? And if so, why? And they make all sorts of excuses like God could never be that way, and xyz other tap dances around the question, because they are caught off guard by this question because they never asked themselves this. But it was merely a rhetorical question, as if to say, IF the sky was green,.... But it's actually a very simple, obvious question. So why should someone love God if God never did anything for them or never will? My answer is, why not? Why shouldn't I? And if someone says, because he never did anything for you and never will, then I would ask them what they thought they were loving this whole time, what God did or is going to do for them, or God himself or itself? And they hate this because it exposes their own selfish self interests where they merely obey to get their reward. That's not love for God, that's acting in one's own self interest. Obedience for reward. There's no true sacrifice there at all. It's merely forgoing one thing, for what they believe to be a better reward later. That's no different than someone who forgoes spending money and invests it, so that they can gain a better return later. And even when Atheists do kind things, it's not selfless at all. They are merely living up to some ideal of decency that they have created for themselves for whatever reason they thought they needed to. So they are getting their reward as well. The truth is that we are all selfish, but we paint ourselves in glowing colors and pretend we are not. We can't even scratch our own nose unless we believe it benefits us personally somehow.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1043 Jun 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
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.
<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?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1044 Jun 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again-- you are wandering farther and farther from my POINT.

Which was about GLOBAL-SCALE suffering, that a god could easily alleviate.

It has zip to do with free will, here.

As in nada, zilch, nothing, does-not-apply.

You keep ignoring the question.

Why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1045 Jun 27, 2013
Seeker wrote:
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.
Yes you sad that-- and no it STILL DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF GLOBAL EVIL/SUFFERING.

At all.

You are just wandering all over the park, ignoring the main points.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1046 Jun 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Your saying that true love requires suffering.
By definition, an all powerful god could square that circle.
Why doesn't it?
<quoted text>
Indeed. Why not?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1047 Jun 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you sad that-- and no it STILL DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF GLOBAL EVIL/SUFFERING.
At all.
You are just wandering all over the park, ignoring the main points.
Isn't suffering part of facing adversity? And if you think that disease and natural disaster are "evil", then from your perspective of no God, nature is inherently evil. And when you say that suffering is needless, that's from your perspective. Who's to say it is needless? How do you know that there isn't a point to it? And if life is so evil, then why do people keep living instead of swallowing a bottle of pills for a painless death? Why is all of the good in life ignore, and only the suffering focused on?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#1048 Jun 28, 2013
Maybe it would be easier if a little reverse engineering was done and the question gets asked in reverse. Maybe people can describe what they think the world "should" be like. Should it be like Logan's run where there is no disease or natural disasters and everybody reports to the death chamber at age 30 to make room for people to be able to have babies and new people? Maybe some would say yes, but in that story, there was a thing called "runners" who didn't agree with that policy and didn't report to the death chamber.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1049 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is, if someone loves another person because they do good things for them, do they really love that person themselves or what the person does for them? Can they still love that person when they do something the other person doesn't like? If so,, then that is true love and love for that person themselves. As far as squaring that circle, as I mentioned, someone could create the perfect robot that's just like a human and it would have no choice but to love that human or it's creator. Would you feel like you were receiving true love from it when it has no choice but to do that?
We're told frequently that god loves us all. So you raise a good point. If god loves us all, should it be considered true love?

And if it is true love, where is the evidence for it, when there is so much suffering permitted.

The fact is that you cannot answer the problem of suffering because its is a lie.

There is no god, no justice in this world other than the justice we create.

Innocent people die every single day through no fault of their own. Comfortable theists who don't have to worry about their next meal, pump up their own ignorant egos with religion and go about their merry way, blissfully ignorant, thinking they are doing good.

The reality is that theist take no responsilibility for their beliefs ever. It is a selfish and ignorant mental illness.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1050 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't suffering part of facing adversity?
So? Plenty of ordinary suffering to go around-- plenty of adversity too.

Even if you eliminated the global catastrophes as only a **caring** deity could.

Your excuse, here? Is you have to find a reason to excuse your god from doing... nothing at all.

You must-- for the facts are, the god you purport to exist, is pretty much a 100% do-nothing, 100% of the time.

Which is the exact same result, as no god at all.

Which you refuse to accept.

So you twist and squirm to try to find an excuse for the do-nothing results that is reality.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1051 Jun 28, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Maybe it would be easier if a little reverse engineering was done and the question gets asked in reverse. Maybe people can describe what they think the world "should" be like. Should it be like Logan's run where there is no disease or natural disasters and everybody reports to the death chamber at age 30 to make room for people to be able to have babies and new people? Maybe some would say yes, but in that story, there was a thing called "runners" who didn't agree with that policy and didn't report to the death chamber.
Looks like an all-or-nothing scenario once again.

Now, you are simply appearing desperate to "explain" why your do-nothing god keeps on ...

... doing nothing.

You refuse to accept that the do-nothing is the exact same result as if there were no gods at all.

Why on **earth** would a **caring** god behave is such a fashion?

What **possible** motive could be served, here?

Answer: none that results in **good**.

None that results in a positive outcome.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1052 Jun 28, 2013
When I called you a liar ONCE AGAIN RETARD was when you posted the Webster link which did not say what you claimed it said. Only when you belched your google definition hahahaha did it say as you wanted. You were a liar when I called you that, now you are just a retard.

As usual you were wrong and caught red handed.
Seeker wrote:
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 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.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1053 Jun 28, 2013
Your google definition didn't quite match up with Webster's did it?

How many times must I hold your hand and explain this? Oh and for all your wordy, closed minded, insult filled rants not ONCE have you addressed that fact but instead go on wild temper tantrums unrelated.

Hmmm I wonder why...
Seeker wrote:
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?.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1054 Jun 28, 2013
He does tend to do that. Not to mention we see what can clearly be referred to as love in the animal kingdom, so belching the god is love argument fails.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Again-- you are wandering farther and farther from my POINT.

Which was about GLOBAL-SCALE suffering, that a god could easily alleviate.

It has zip to do with free will, here.

As in nada, zilch, nothing, does-not-apply.

You keep ignoring the question.

Why?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1055 Jun 28, 2013
He has to resort to these bizarre off topic dances because he is unable to answer honestly and factually.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like an all-or-nothing scenario once again.

Now, you are simply appearing desperate to "explain" why your do-nothing god keeps on ...

... doing nothing.

You refuse to accept that the do-nothing is the exact same result as if there were no gods at all.

Why on **earth** would a **caring** god behave is such a fashion?

What **possible** motive could be served, here?

Answer: none that results in **good**.

None that results in a positive outcome.

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
Obama to broaden US effort to combat militants 4 min TEA 1,262
Obama wants an election about the economy, not him 4 min Here Is One 478
Walter Harold Marlin 4 President (Oct '08) 5 min Loop Fat poop 301
Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 5 min cpeter1313 1,607
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 9 min Here Is One 11,428
Hospital at center of Ebola drama apologizes 11 min OccupyThis 9
GOP types accused of 'thinly-veiled racism' for... 13 min barefoot2626 144
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min John Galt 1,124,807
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 15 min X -Man- 269,549
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 32 min DanFromSmithville 120,720
Ebola commentary desperately needs clarification 58 min Even Steven 44
Justices allow Texas to enforce strict voter ID... 3 hr woodtick57 116

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE