talkpolitics | Feeling the Pulse of the Intellectual Void

During my years in college I toyed with the idea of working for the CIA in order to spy on the organization for the benefit of the American public. It was a tempting mission, but I decided against it. Some of my friends pointed out how I would not fit in anyway. Since then many insider accounts of the plight of CIA employees has convinced me that I made the correct decision. There is something about an organization where you have to check your brain at the door that does not sit well with me.

In his memoir of his time working at State with the Afghan Muhajeddin, Peter Tomsen recounts many actions on the part of the CIA that he felt showed a poverty of judgment. One of the smaller ones was the desire for the CIA to send ISI (the Pakistani equivalent to the CIA) representatives on a mission to buy back stinger missiles from the Muj. Tomsen opposed the presence of the ISI people on the grounds that it would send the wrong message to the Afghanis. Tomsen says that the CIA replied that they would not include ISI personnel, but Tomsen could not confirm whether they followed his recommendation or not.

Tomsen includes quite a bit of material that ties ISI to terrorism in the Muslim quarters of Central and South Asia. Their initials could easily stand for Islamists Supplying Insurgents. (This game of renaming organizations has come up with gems such as Fuck-ups, Boneheads, and Incompetents.) The involvement of ISI in terrorism is probably why they were admired so much by people like Reagan and Bush.

In our school we held a discussion of why dummies thrive in organizations like the CIA. One of our students pointed out that the admissions requirements tend to deter intelligent people. It is as if you have to kowtow to the flag in order to get in the front door. One of our guys said it was like the Masonic entrance requirement to express belief in the material Creator. Those who know better are simply turned away from the git-go.

Could you see yourself working for an organization with as many publicly documented disasters as has the CIA?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Evolution disproves creationism. What exactly disproves the existence of god?

What exactly disproves the existence of god?

You're setting up a strawman. I've already clarified why a scientist (or anyone who would consider themselves a rational being) is not rational for their belief in god.

I'm sure you already know all the arguments such as absense of evidence vs. evidence of absense, the various scientific and historical arguments, etc. The bottom line is that there's no proof any kind of supernatural being exists, and such a being can be argued away empirically, deductively, inductively, and subjectively. Any scientist would know this, and yet some still believe. That's not rational, by definition: "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Faith is (arguably) antithetical to reason and logic.

"You're setting up a strawman.

No, I was responding to "If you concede that believing in the creation story is irrational, then you should agree with that, too."
And the reason a scientist believing creationism isn't rational is because of all the evidence against it.

"I've already clarified why a scientist (or anyone who would consider themselves a rational being) is not rational for their belief in god.
"

You have got to be kidding. The only things you've offered are:

"They're holding on to ideas deeply ingrained into their psyche since birth. That kind of brainwashing is hard to break away from for some people, including PhDs."

Unlike true believers, I'm willing to alter my opinion when new facts are presented. Feel free to offer an alternate explanation for why a scientist who relies on empiricism and falsification to determine truth would disregard all of this as well as the history of social evolution and put all his chips on creationism.

"Creationists, theists, and anyone else whose beliefs rely solely on faith."

And I elaborated (without getting too deep into it):

"I'm sure you already know all the arguments such as absense of evidence vs. evidence of absense, the various scientific and historical arguments, etc. The bottom line is that there's no proof any kind of supernatural being exists, and such a being can be argued away empirically, deductively, inductively, and subjectively. Any scientist would know this, and yet some still believe. That's not rational, by definition: "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Faith is (arguably) antithetical to reason and logic."

And another thread:
http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1163595.html?thread=92527947#t92527947

Feel free to join the discussion any time, BTW.

"Creationists, theists, and anyone else whose beliefs rely solely on faith."

Oh yeah, that does clarify why. How did I not see that.
I also missed the second quote, as you hadn't written it yet. I also missed your response to this comment, as you haven't written that yet either.

Oh yeah, that does clarify why. How did I not see that.

Good, I'm glad we're in agreement.

I also missed the second quote, as you hadn't written it yet. I also missed your response to this comment, as you haven't written that yet either.

Nobody's perfect. You're forgiven.

There are people who claim that the deity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the same as the material Creator. The latter was crafted after the former, so this cannot be the case. If you take a careful look at the story of Adam and Eve, those characters were a threat to the divine order because they had been given knowledge of good and evil. In the original story of the demi-gods, they were the creatures of Elohim, a plural entity akin to the pantheons of pagan religions. The Elohim cannot possibly be the same as the material Creator.

We know that the gods exist because we know how they were crafted.

Feeling the Pulse of the Intellectual Void

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Which god?