…and this is a 
Godless bloggers vs. Pensacola Christian College: who is more powerful?
Category: Godlessness • Weblogs
Posted on: March 29, 2006 2:50 PM, by PZ Myers
Here's an optimistic idea:
Personally, I have a great deal of hope that this is going to start to change in the near future. Indeed, this is one area where the blogosphere could actually prove quite powerful. Ten years ago, I'm not sure there was anywhere that your average Christian American was exposed to openly atheistic viewpoints. These days, I'm constantly amazed how many prominent bloggers profess their atheism on a daily basis. On the list, with the help of The Raving Atheist: Daily Kos, Washington Monthly, The Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren), Pharyngula, Daily Pundit, onegoodmove, Matthew Yglesias, Vodkapundit, and of course many others, including me. Notably, many of these have substantial conservative readership.
Of course, the average American still may not tune in to these atheist blogs, but a lot of people do. A lot more than used to face proud, open, secularism a few years ago. And since most of the hostility toward atheists, in my view, is based in the fact that so few people feel they know any, this could well start to have a dramatic effect. The informal nature of blogs, revealing much of a blogger's character and personality, has the potential to be quite powerful in this regard.
Unfortunately, I read that just after reading about the absurd War on Christians, and just before Nic mentioned an article on Pensacola Christian College (that's the Chronicle of Higher Ed…I'm not sure if the link will work for machines without an institutional subscription) to me. We godless have a long way to go when we live in a culture in which many people can accept these absurdities:
Lisa Morris was walking to class with her boyfriend last October when something happened. At first Ms. Morris, a sophomore music major, is reluctant to divulge the details. Eventually, however, the truth comes out: He patted her behind.
Someone who witnessed the incident reported Ms. Morris and her boyfriend. At Pensacola any physical contact between members of the opposite sex is forbidden. (Members of the same sex may touch, although the college condemns homosexuality.) The forbidden contact includes shaking hands and definitely includes patting behinds. Both students were expelled.
Of Pensacola's many rules, those dealing with male-female relationships are the most talked about. There are restrictions on when and where men and women may speak to each other. Some elevators and stairwells may be used only by women; others may be used only by men. Socializing on particular benches is forbidden. If a man and a woman are walking to class, they may chat; if they stop en route, though, they may be in trouble. Generally men and women caught interacting in any "unchaperoned area" — which is most of the campus — could be subject to severe penalties.
Those rules extend beyond the campus. A man and a woman cannot go to an off-campus restaurant together without a chaperon (usually a faculty member). Even running into members of the opposite sex off campus can lead to punishment. One student told of how a group of men and a group of women from the college happened to meet at a McDonald's last spring. Both groups were returning from the beach (they had gone to separate beaches; men and women are not allowed to be at the beach together). The administration found out, and all 15 students were expelled.
Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as "optical intercourse" — staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as "making eye babies." While the rule does not appear in written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar with the concept.
Everything is that tight-laced.
There are plenty of other ways to run afoul of the rules. Last spring Timothy Dow was caught playing the video game Halo 2. Such games are banned by the college. Movies are also forbidden, including those rated G. Music is restricted to classical or approved Christian ("contemporary Christian" artists are deemed too worldly). Students are allowed to watch television news at 6 o'clock, but that's it. The TVs are controlled by college employees, who flip a switch to black out the commercials, lest students see anything inappropriate.
In the library, books and magazines are censored. One student says she saw a pair of black-marker boxer shorts on a photograph of Michelangelo's David. Any books that students wish to read that are not in the library must first be approved by administrators. Those containing references to "magic," for instance, are normally rejected. The rule book specifically prohibits "fleshly magazines and books."
In addition, access to the net is tightly restricted to only a few sites. Somehow, I don't think us atheist bloggers are on their list.
Worse still, the college is not accredited. Think about that: these kids are going off to this school that is run like a concentration camp, suffering for four years, and then 'graduating' with a degree that is almost completely worthless, and with credits that won't transfer to any other university. It's hard to blame the kids—few 18 year olds are aware of the concept of accrediting bodies—but that fact makes the administrators simply evil. Here's this sad sack kid who thought the restrictive rules were good for him, but also believes he's going to go to dental school:
Mr. Ghobrial, the student from Egypt who doesn't mind the rules, wants to attend dental school. His first choice, West Virginia University, has already said it would not consider his application, because Pensacola is not accredited. "I'm hoping they change their minds," he says.
"I'm hoping they change their minds." Jebus. The poor guy has had four years of expert training in delusional thinking. What kind of job is that going to get him? About all he is qualified for is President of the US.
It's nice to know that a lot of prominent bloggers are god-free and proud of it, but I doubt that the people who need the information most are never going to see it. There are 5000 students at PCC. Every one has been sold a bill of goods…and it was easy. Their parents, their communities, their whole culture tells them that these con-artists are good, as long as they're preaching about Jesus. How are we going to fight that?
Comments
Posted by: just john | March 29, 2006 2:57 PM
Would I be right in guessing there are few (if any) examples of schools being retroactively accredited, with their alumni suddenly having their degrees upgraded to something above junk status?
Posted by: NJ | March 29, 2006 2:59 PM
Isn't Pensacola where our good buddy Kent Hovind has set up shop?
Posted by: BronzeDog | March 29, 2006 2:59 PM
"Lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for." -Some guy.
Posted by: Opiwan | March 29, 2006 3:01 PM
Actually, PZ, if he's from Egypt, that's one of the few things that actually DISqualifies him for the job of the Presidency. Oh, the irony!
Posted by: The Brummell | March 29, 2006 3:06 PM
"How are we going to fight that?"
Why would we fight that? PCC repressents the extreme end of a spectrum of religious delusional institutions. Any effort put into changing minds at such a place is up against such an obstactle, it seems unlikely that any progress could be made there.
At the other end of the spectrum, or perhaps just nearer the middle, are lots and lots of other religious colleges. Presumably even the hard-core fundie places pretend to have science faculty, and thus provide an opening to discussion of critical thinking and what words like "evidence" or "theory" mean to scientists.
I have encountered Christians who believe that converting the heathen is one of the most important things they can do. They have a heirarchy of difficulty and consequently of bonus points for converting various other people: other christian, protestant demoninations aren't worth much, Catholics a bit more, but Jews and Atheists are worth the most (nice to get some respect, even if it's backhanded).
My point is, why should Atheists be copying such a heirarchy? "Converting" a born-again YEC True-Believer to Atheism (bad choice of vocab, sorry) shouldn't be worth any more to you or to me than convincing a person who says grace over dinner twice a year that they're wasting their time.
Apologies for length. I got to be first commenter!
Posted by: The Brummell | March 29, 2006 3:07 PM
OK, I'm not the first commenter. D'oh!
I took so long writing the long-winded above, I dropped ranks.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 29, 2006 3:08 PM
The more visible atheists become, the more effectively they will serve as boogeymen for anti-atheist Christian types (e.g., "Look at all the pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff on those atheist sites!").
This will remain true until it becomes clear that the anti-atheist Christian types have their heads up their asses, i.e., when atheists become "normalized."
I think this may occur in my lifetime, actually, although probably close to the end of it. But a few stupid ass decisions from the Supreme Court could slow this process down somewhat.
Posted by: Zac | March 29, 2006 3:14 PM
I'm shocked at their indifferent attitude to eye-baby abortions.
Posted by: Kristine | March 29, 2006 3:17 PM
Dumb question number one: Why in the world does this country have colleges that are not accredited?
Dumb question number two: How does Pensacola Christian College enforce the rule (I assume they have one) against men who engage in "breast intercourse" with a member of the opposite sex, a.k.a. "making boob babies"? I'm sure that's a bigger [whoops] problem.
Posted by: wamba | March 29, 2006 3:18 PM
Lie for Jesus.Posted by: minimalist | March 29, 2006 3:21 PM
"Making eye babies."
Making eye babies.
MAKING. EYE. BABIES.
I cannot even begin to unravel the sort of twisted thinking that could lead to such a concept. They ban books with magic in them? Their entire thinking is magical! A world full of demons and spirits and genies and EYE BABIES -- it is a terrifying world that probably makes little sense to those raised in it from birth. No wonder they cling so tenaciously to the Bible -- it probably makes the most sense of all the crazy garbage they believe, and is something relatively solid to cling to.
This is several levels deeper than brainwashing; they turn the world into some kind of crazy, surreal carnival where nothing is as it seems and everything is at the whim of invisible spirits. No doubt they believe gravity could be revoked at any second if some demon got too uppity.
Posted by: aiabx | March 29, 2006 3:21 PM
It's hard to be visible to the Christians and not be demonized, since they see us and are aware of us the most when we are defending ourselves from their religious dogma. For instance, if I try to prevent my daughter from being forced to pray in school, *that's* when the Christians will notice me, and accuse me of attacking Baby Jesus. We need an Atheist Day when everyone engages in a public act of charity with no hope of posthumous reward.
Posted by: Paul | March 29, 2006 3:23 PM
ummm....I attended that college from 1990-1991. I went only one year and only could stand it because I had been raised in a VERY strict fundamentalist (sort of pentacostal holiness) home, but even I had to leave it for the relative freedom of my parents home. Following rules and doing what you were told was the peak of academic achievement. We had assigned seating for dinner with a designated senior taking attendance, mandatory daily chapel (with attendance taking), 11pm curfew (with room check), etc. Fear and zero intolerance for opposing views was the only way they could control a campus full of 18-23yr olds.
Posted by: A Pang | March 29, 2006 3:30 PM
Ahahahaha eye babies!
Seriously, though, that place sounds like a frakkin' nightmare. The lack of privacy, the lack of freedom.
aiabx, I really like the Atheist Day idea and may even recommend it to my club.
Posted by: bigdumbchimp | March 29, 2006 3:34 PM
"making eye babies."
What if you smell someone of the opposite sex too long.
Making nose babies. Ugh. That's scary.
...Ear babies.
I can't wait for Rick Scarborough's oral treatise on Eye Babies.
Posted by: aiabx | March 29, 2006 3:35 PM
Kristine-
I can only assume that breast intercourse is permissible because the women won't actively enjoy it and turn into satanic sluts.
Does anyone else think "Khmer Rouge" when they hear about this kind of thought control nonsense?
Posted by: Corkscrew | March 29, 2006 3:36 PM
The Brummell: I think it's more the case that brainwashed fundies (like most of these kids are likely to become) have historically represented the biggest physical and political threat to atheists' rights. It's enlightened self-interest - the more we "convert" now, the lower the chance of atheism being a lynching offence forty years down the line.
The guy who says grace over dinner twice a year ain't so likely to join in the lynch mob (theoretically anyway).
Posted by: Joe Shelby | March 29, 2006 3:38 PM
Opiwan: I'm sure Arnold and his friends are working on that limitation...
Posted by: Jianying | March 29, 2006 3:41 PM
All these self righteous christians should be forced to read the great christian theologian Hans Christian Andersen. In Andersen's fairy tales Self-Righteous christian gets skewered. In one of the stories one of them is forced by the angel of death to walk thru the forest where their hypocrisy and inner-evil is revealed. When this sinner arrive at the gate of heaven, he realizes he is not worthy to enter its gates, at which point the gate of heaven opens. Andersen is a very christian person, and his very christianity allowed him to see what BS these fundie types are. Course he believes in universal salvation a concept foreign to those fundamentalist type today.
Posted by: Michael Wells | March 29, 2006 3:45 PM
Sometimes I arrogantly think nothing can surprise me anymore. Then something like this comes along and the underside of my jaw gets pieces of shattered floor tile embedded in it for the thousandth time.
This isn't a college, this is a cult.
How on earth do they get 5,000 students in this day and age? I grew up in the Midwest and knew a fair number of Christian conservatives of the rather prissy variety (admittedly, few real hardcore ones), and I can't think of one who wouldn't think this place sounded like a loony bin.
On the broader subject of this post, I definitely think that atheism/agnosticism is gaining ground in respectability and visibility in our culture. It's just a question of how much more long-term damage the fundies can do before they're finally marginalized (which will be a long time coming yet).
Posted by: wamba | March 29, 2006 3:47 PM
Maybe you could force them to read Paul Farrell as well.Posted by: jianying | March 29, 2006 3:48 PM
Just saw ajabx's comment, actually PCC is more like Franco's spain. Remember Opus Dei ran the education ministry.
Posted by: Jeremy | March 29, 2006 3:50 PM
It depends what you mean by "visible." If you mean that as atheists come out of the woodwork and people meet them and learn about them, then it's going to be just the opposite. People will stop swallowing the BS about atheists being "immoral."
That could cause a HUGE generational gap between Christian youths and their parents. Then again, like The Brummell alluded to, there is the extreme spectrum that will go to places like PCC. There will always be extremes.
Posted by: vagodin | March 29, 2006 3:57 PM
No doubt the PCC cafeteria serves kool-aid and the PCC armory is well stocked.
Posted by: Francis | March 29, 2006 4:00 PM
I'd love to know what the graduates do after graduation. How are they employable? What kind of skills do they have? Is there an alumni organization that places graduates in suitable environments?
wow. just wow. eye babies!
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 29, 2006 4:04 PM
"My point is, why should Atheists be copying such a heirarchy? "Converting" a born-again YEC True-Believer to Atheism (bad choice of vocab, sorry) shouldn't be worth any more to you or to me than convincing a person who says grace over dinner twice a year that they're wasting their time."
Not really a disagreement here, just an observation... for most other atheists that I have met, their pre-atheist beliefs largely mirror the sort of atheist they become. The lifelong, second (or more) generation atheists I've met generally are the less vocal, more easygoing ones, along with the ones who were, at best, only semi-religious before. The ones who were rather religious (such as myself) tend to be a bit harder-edged, and if you want to see a real fire-breathing atheist, look for the former fundie atheists.
Naturally there are exceptions (I've never heard that Dawkins was religious in his youth), but that does seem to be the rule from what I've observed.
Posted by: Daniel Martin | March 29, 2006 4:05 PM
I was afraid you were going to say that a place like that was accredited. That they aren't shows that at least the accrediting bodies have some standards.
Now in some states, a place like that wouldn't even be able to call itself a college or university, and would have to resort to more generic terms like "school", "academy", or "learning institution". It is a pity Florida is apparently not one of those states.
Posted by: Benzene | March 29, 2006 4:06 PM
Wonder if they believe in vaccinations, too.
I mean, would it be such a horrible thing if there was an outbreak of mumps on campus that rendered each and every one of them sterile?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 29, 2006 4:06 PM
"I'd love to know what the graduates do after graduation. How are they employable? What kind of skills do they have? Is there an alumni organization that places graduates in suitable environments?"
Well, duh, someone has to staff all those Republican "think"-tanks.
Posted by: Benzene | March 29, 2006 4:07 PM
Nah, ignore that. Even I feel bad about wishing mumps on people. But the idea of them being out of the gene pool isn't bad.
Posted by: Justin K. | March 29, 2006 4:09 PM
Paying thousands of dollars for four years in a concentration camp where you live in terror of babies falling from your eyes? No wonder these folks are so mad all the time.
Of course, they can't be angry at the folks who conned them, what with the wrath and the smiting and eternal hellfire and all, so that anger and frustration gets redirected toward ruining things for the godless heathens who actually have a little freedom and pleasure in their lives. It's actually kind of ingeneous if you think about it.
Posted by: Jeremy | March 29, 2006 4:11 PM
Talk about hitting the nail on the head. A place that snuffs out any rebellion and free speech whatsoever? A program like this can't be expected to turn out anything BUT cultists. Jesus H. Christ, if I have a bad dream, am I going to be expelled?!
Posted by: JP | March 29, 2006 4:13 PM
Actually the description of PCC chears me up a little. Half of my siblings went to Ricks College (aka BYU Idaho) and now I see how much worse things can be. At least their choice of schools was accreditted. It also has slightly less strict rules about interaction between the sexes, since the whole point is to be married before you graduate. In that way PCC seems to fail as an insular, controlling religious school -- attendees really should leave with a similarly brainwashed mate to get their money's worth.
Posted by: The Brummell | March 29, 2006 4:18 PM
Thanks for the feedback, Corkscrew and MJ Memphis. It's nice to operate under the impression that other people are reading something I wrote (first paper still "in press" right now... supervisor cheerfully admits to never actually reading it in final form).
Anyways, I agree with Corkscrew that the hard-core fundies are probably the greatest threat to secular society (church-state separation) in general and atheists in particular, but I don't think it's actually *possible* to "convert" any significant fraction of that group. I've seen comparisons between Fundamental Religion (of any variety) and paranoia - the only thing you have to keep track of is instead of "The Government" or "Big Pharma" (or whatever) the Conspiracy is run by Satan. So any time an atheist (or anyone, really) shows up and says "please just think about this for 5 minutes, OK?", the fundie can assume this person is an agent of Satan and should be either ignored or attacked. After all, the best way into heaven is on the piled corpses of Satan's minions, right?
More apologies for length, I'm procrastinating before I do obnoxious lab work (too much PCR! aaaaaaaaaa....)
Posted by: lt.kizhe | March 29, 2006 4:18 PM
"Why in the world does this country have colleges that are not accredited?"
It's called "free enterprise". AFAIK, there is nothing to stop any loon or charlatan (and people like Hovind are both) from incorporating a business with a name including the word "college" or "school" or "university", offering to teach whatever BS they please, and accepting the money of consenting adults (or their parents) to come there and be dis-educated. Same as how you can buy toilet-paper Ph.D's by mail-order, for little or no real work -- but that's not too far from how "Dr. Dino" Hovind got his, is it? (Not to mention "Rev. Dr." Gasbag from t.o.)
(For some reason, this is more prevalent in the US that in Canada)
Speaking of t.o, googling for "Pensacola" in back-posts turns up more stories of the place.
Posted by: Al | March 29, 2006 4:19 PM
Jeez, that is scary. At least here in the UK only bodies given Royal (read: government) assent can be called universities. Having said that, here in Scotland, out of the four ancient universities (all 500+ years old), only Edinburgh wasn't found by Papal Bull- instead, founded by the city fathers, and hence not religious (though we do have a faculty of divinity. You may have heard of one of the former students, surname Darwin?).
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 29, 2006 4:22 PM
As an undergrad, I knew a guy whose girlfriend went to PCC. She got in trouble because she had a picture of them holding hands in her dorm room.
Posted by: robd | March 29, 2006 4:25 PM
About the optimism,
when I was at school there was hardly anyone openly gay, either in my village or in the media.
This has changed a lot in 25 years, so it is well possible the acceptance of atheism will come too.
Posted by: Meri | March 29, 2006 4:25 PM
Damn, and I thought Bob Jones University was the worst of the Christan schools. I really do wonder what happens to these kids. Many are home-schooled and then they get sent somewhere like that. Really, it makes my South Carolina public school/ College of Charleston education seem amazing by comparison.
Posted by: ben | March 29, 2006 4:29 PM
Their admissions requirements page has an interesting item on the application checklist: 2. Attach a recent photograph. Now why might they need that? To make sure you look like a good Christian?
Hmmmm. I wonder what they think a good Christian looks like.
Posted by: gibbon | March 29, 2006 4:29 PM
"The TVs are controlled by college employees, who flip a switch to black out the commercials, lest students see anything inappropriate."
Isn't that stealing?
Just a note: Bashing Christians in general is bad because that is a very diverse set of people many of whom are allies or potential allies. Always remember the truely scary (fundamentalist) christians are a minority. Bashing Christians in general interferes with gods task of driving a wedge between them and the rest of Christianity.
Posted by: Kelley | March 29, 2006 4:30 PM
"Optical intercourse??!!!" That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard (with the possible exception of "eye babies"). I would comment further but it's hard to type and wipe the tears of hysterical laughter from my eyes at the same time!!
Posted by: Rich | March 29, 2006 4:32 PM
ARRRGGHHHHH.
The CSA must be after me!! How many Eye-babies have I fathered? Probably thousands. I hope I'm eye-impotent!
Posted by: Jeremy | March 29, 2006 4:34 PM
I hate to Godwin the comments thread, but I just came across this in the article.
Hitler Youth, anybody?
Posted by: MissPrism | March 29, 2006 4:44 PM
Al, wasn't Darwin a medical student at Edinburgh? His Divinity studies were at Cambridge, after he dropped out due to finding the human dissections revolting.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | March 29, 2006 4:46 PM
However ill intentioned, I'd say the informant did them both a huge favor.
Oh, and the obligatory reference seems appropriate here...
If you doubt the existence of EYE BABIES, how do you explain PYGMIES + DWARFS??????
sorry... :-)
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 29, 2006 4:47 PM
The Taliban has left Afghanistan and moved to Pensacola ... Who woulda thunk?
Posted by: Jeremy | March 29, 2006 4:50 PM
This must be illegal. This is cruel!
Posted by: CanuckRob | March 29, 2006 4:53 PM
Ben asks "2. Attach a recent photograph. Now why might they need that? To make sure you look like a good Christian?
Hmmmm. I wonder what they think a good Christian looks like."
I suspect they think a good Christian is white and has no visbile scars or deformaties, tattoos, piercing, unsuitably long hair on males or short hair on females, inappropriate clothing etc. Added points if the picture shows someone that is already incapable of critical thought but I am not sure how that shows in a photo, perhaps the dean of admissions posts the pics in his/her bedroom and prays on them. Makes as much sense as any of the other crazy stuff the loonier xians do.
And of course they are encouraged to inform on one another, their religion is based on fear.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | March 29, 2006 4:56 PM
If y'all want more horror stories about PCC, here's an informative website:
The Student Voice at Pensacola Christian College
It's an underground newspaper published by a former student, and includes a thorough discussion of some of the more overtly Orwellian rules, such as how students must sign out upon leaving campus and state their destination, from a list of approved destinations. (Public libraries are forbidden, for example, as are other colleges in the vicinity. Also, no groups of more than 20 students may meet off-campus for any reason, even at one of the "approved" destinations.) It also discusses the punishments for breaking these rules, of which "shadowing" is a particularly chilling example.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 29, 2006 5:00 PM
IIRC, PCC will expel any student who speaks in tongues.
Posted by: Rosie | March 29, 2006 5:04 PM
Often, you have to attach a photo to prompt interviewers' memories of who you were, or for administrative purposes after you get in. We had to send photos in our applications for my university, for the interview reason.
Posted by: wriiterdd | March 29, 2006 5:08 PM
Bloggers who are not writing atheist or political blogs also include atheists. I have a knitting blog and I openly talk about being an atheist. I wish that more "regular" people who are non-believers would come out. You don't have to be an atheist evangelist or a left-wing political pundit to be out about your atheism.
Think about it, those of you who read blogs like this but who are in the closet about your own non-belief.
Posted by: Jim | March 29, 2006 5:15 PM
"You may not allow the end of your belt to hang down from the belt-loops resembling a phallus."
http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/rules.htm#THE%20RULES.
No further comment is required.
Posted by: coturnix | March 29, 2006 5:20 PM
I doubt that the female students there are allowed to wear any kind of clothes that makes "mammarian intercourse" to happen...more something burka-like, I guess.
My offline friends and family are so worried because the word atheist is right up top on the subheading of my blog (why are they not bothered by the other words there, e.g., liberal, Jewish, Serbian?).
But, just like emergence of gays changed the general perception of them, I think that greater visibility of atheist can only have a positive effect.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | March 29, 2006 5:23 PM
Hmm, Stanford, that rather bucolic institution of higher learning located on a former farm in the Bay Area, way out in the Wild West, somehow manages to recruit its freshman class each year WITHOUT relying on a photograph or personal interview.
But then, its students are laboring under a major handicap--it's accredited.
Posted by: Sean Foley | March 29, 2006 5:34 PM
Someone witnessed the exchange and turned Mr. Dow in. Students routinely turn each other in for violating rules and are rewarded by the administration for doing so. According to several former students, those who report classmates are more likely to become floor leaders.
Hitler Youth, anybody?
Actually it reminded me of the Young Pioneers and their hero Pavlik Morozov.
Posted by: Mike | March 29, 2006 5:51 PM
It's probably good that atheists are rising in the ranks of the distrusted. First it was blacks, then gays, now atheists. While neither blacks nor gays are universilly accepted, "tolerence" (ugh, we shouldn't need tolerence for race or sex) for both is much better in the US now than it was say 50 years ago. There will always be jerks, but in another 50 years gay marriage will be a total nonissue, and as accepted as interracial marriages are now. And the more atheists are demonized, the more acceptance they'll find from mainstream americans.
Posted by: Kristine | March 29, 2006 6:02 PM
I meant to say "eye-boob babies." (His eyes gazing at hers...) But another question: What about "thought babies"? Is it right for a good Christian boy at Pensacola to like a girl for her mind, rather than the purity of her soul? After all, I was taught that we shouldn't worship our intellects, and all that.
Oh great, watch this cult now impose choosing one's spouse by lottery.
Posted by: Kevin Bryant | March 29, 2006 6:03 PM
"You may not wipe 'boogers' on the wall. This is being cracked down on."
Actually, the 'boogers' are in the administration, not on the wall.
can't.... stop.... laughing.....
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 29, 2006 6:27 PM
"I'm hoping they change their minds," he says.
I'll pray for you, man.
The "making eye babies" got me laughing (and can you be accused of "optical rape"?) Reminded me of the old Superman TV show (George Reeves) episode where Jimmy and Lois are jailed for trumped up reasons and Jimmy can't get Clark to take him seriously until he says, "and he's making goo-goo eyes at Lois", to which Clark reacts sharply, "He'd doing WHAT!? I'm on my way." Thing is, they knew it was camp back then, and 40 years later these poor saps haven't a clue.
I do agree that the online community is likely to be the first place many people meet a self-professed, open atheist, and that is the first step to understanding and accepting. (It usually goes through the "oh, he's all right, but I mean atheists.. you know" stage too. Watch for it.)
Posted by: ben | March 29, 2006 6:29 PM
"You may not allow the end of your belt to hang down from the belt-loops resembling a phallus."
But, may I allow the end of my belt to hang down and not resemble a phallus?
Posted by: Stephen Frug | March 29, 2006 6:32 PM
Doesn't seem to be commented on in the article, but I wonder if the lack of accreditation actually works with the tyrannical rules: there must be more fear of expulsion, since one can't transfer credits elsewhere. Perhaps it helps keeps people trapped.
Posted by: Stephen Frug | March 29, 2006 6:39 PM
No, someone does mention it. Oops.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | March 29, 2006 6:47 PM
I disagree with the entire analysis implicit it what everyone has said up to this point except, of course, that it's thoroughly disgusting. And the humor.
And PZ-- I can definately explain how not to fight it, how to guarantee failure -- misdefine the problem, the opposition, the arena, the strategy and tactics you're up against, and the tools necessary to prevail.
So far everybody, jokesters aside, is advocating/analyzing some variation of those. Here's a portion of a post to Hipster Dodos I sent Carl Zimmer who's snowed under writing. Don't know know if the thread's closed or suspended, and hope it's not bad form to quote oneself. [Context -- scientist need media analysis and training available at various meetings.]
The kids at the college are simply future cannon fodder. Assigned meal seating sound like West Point?We must go after the general staff, guys, waaaaay to the rear. The strategists. The raddical right has to do this -- it's the only way they can get enough votes to stay in power. Deconstruct their strategy and tactics, then counter them -- the only workable option.
Short example: the more visible athiests become.... The generals will create that "visibility" if necessary.
For the generals it's one thing -- producing voters in voting booths casting ballots. Therefrom derives immense power.
[If this is a waste of space, tell me.]
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 29, 2006 7:00 PM
And what exactly do you propose to do? Have the atheists hide, so they don't rouse the Beast?
Posted by: Frito | March 29, 2006 7:24 PM
Holy crap! Literally!
I want to go to this college and get arrested for trespassing. Honestly. I want to go there, wearing an obscene T-shirt, yelling about drugs, sex and rock and roll. I mean... it would be the high point of my entire life.
Posted by: demoman | March 29, 2006 7:33 PM
The informal nature of blogs, revealing much of a blogger's character and personality, has the potential to be quite powerful in this regard. . .
Boy, you got that right. Nothing like a refreshing visit to that places like the DailyKos, or that fine atheist standby Pharyngula and see Mr. Myers show how the atheists are so much more civilized than those benighted Christians.
Name-calling, ad hominem argument, minds more closed than any Fundmentalist Christian I have ever met. . .yep. Atheism sounds like the way to go for me.
Posted by: just john | March 29, 2006 7:36 PM
PZ -- That's why I asked about accreditation the way I did, especially if recruits are led to believe that this place's degree counts in the real world. To me, it sounds like there's some potential fraud going on here, and I think that would be the best tack to take, if you really want to take them on.
Posted by: shaker | March 29, 2006 7:45 PM
Brummell wrote: They have a heirarchy of difficulty and consequently of bonus points for converting various other people: other christian, protestant demoninations aren't worth much, Catholics a bit more, but Jews and Atheists are worth the most
From my personal experience Muslims are at the top of the list for most Christian evangelicals. Because of my name everyone assumes at once I am a Muslim. The evangelicals can't help themselves and sets upon the task of trying to convert me. When it is pointed out that I am an atheist most of them are not so eager to debate me. I guess the reason is that it is easier to convert someone who already believes in a god than to convince someone that there is a god.
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 29, 2006 8:01 PM
If the grads are getting jobs with other Christians, then the accreditation issue probably never comes up.
The school is a private institution, and apparently takes no public monies. Sadly, if kids are going there willingly, there's not much we can do about it. As they say, it's a free country.
The remarks about eye-babies have me wondering how many I have "fathered" over the last four decades. Yikes. I hope they never come asking for money ... Hey, dad, I'm eye-child #403. Can I have $20?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | March 29, 2006 8:23 PM
Do they mean nose boogers or eye boogers? If the latter, maybe it's a form of birth control.
Posted by: Graculus | March 29, 2006 8:42 PM
The lifelong, second (or more) generation atheists I've met generally are the less vocal, more easygoing ones,
Let me say, as one of those multi-generation atheists, that I've gotten a *lot* less easy-going as these twats have gotten more pushy.
Posted by: Shell | March 29, 2006 8:52 PM
Hmmmmm...do you mean to tell me you don't run into name-calling and ad homininem pretty much *everywhere you go across the spectrum*?! It ain't *all* PZ Myers stickin to his guns about religion being, by gum, a bad thing in general. In fact that PZ Myers guy seems pretty mild-mannered to me, though stubborn, of course.
I don't know why PZ seems to attract these sensitive souls. Repeated arguments about not alienating the moderate Christians, about not being so confrontational, about being more "open-minded"...what gives?
Posted by: Jeff | March 29, 2006 8:56 PM
Pensacola Christian College produces textbooks for Christian schools and homeschoolers under the name "A Beka Books." I was homeschooled with their textbooks and believed the full crock of bull. The only problem was I kept feeling a niggling sense of doubt.
You can read my story here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ec31b043505eee55?as_umsgid=Kadhe.7724$i03.3502@fe06.lga
Posted by: Peter | March 29, 2006 9:01 PM
Patrick Henry College in Virginia is the same deal. Run by one Michael Farris, a major mover in the home schooling association. At PHC, dating is not allowed, only courtship with a view towards marriage. If a guy wants to court a girl, he has to write a letter to the girl's family and get permission. While courting, the only thing you can do is hold hands WHILE WALKING. Holding hands while standing still is forbidden. The school is not accredited, and teaches that evolution is incorrect.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | March 29, 2006 9:07 PM
No PZ, not at all! "Deconstruct their strategy and tactics, then counter them -- the only workable option."
My point is, the weapon has to be pointed at the right target. And, we could do it just as skillfully as they do but right now the entire left is having circles run around it. Nobody get's it.
The solution actually lays in using scientific methodology. That's exactly what they are doing. My observations tell me our side doesn't believe there's anything there, that there's anything to apply science to. If so, that's incorrect. Another self quote.
Strategy is for the professionals to figure out, not me. Not you.
I'm late for dinner at a friend's. I haven't read past your immediate comment. I'll do so later. Feel free to pile on while I'm gone -- as if you guys needed permission.
Posted by: Kristine | March 29, 2006 9:10 PM
"Do they mean nose boogers or eye boogers?" Jesus, Molly, I gotta remember not to be drinking anything while reading your comments, 'cause I nearly laugh-spewed red wine this time.
"I want to go to this college and get arrested for trespassing..." Let's have an "eye-baby sit-in." Let's do it. I'm game.
Posted by: tacitus | March 29, 2006 9:13 PM
I don't have a blog but I do spend a fair bit of time on a Christian message board at Crosswalk.com. There's a fair bit of debate about origins, politics, and atheism all conducted in a reasonable convivial fashion (unlike FreeRepublic, for example!).
There are, of course, many wild misconceptions about atheists and atheism in general--we're all supposedly sad, depressed, hopeless, mean-spirited, and ready to rape and pillage as soon as God is proved not to exist!
I doubt I have changed many minds on the board but it is a chance to dispel some of the more ridiculous myths about atheism and at least those browsing the forums get to see both sides.
Posted by: The Brummell | March 29, 2006 9:31 PM
Shaker said: "...it is easier to convert someone who already believes in a god than to convince someone that there is a god."
The last time I encountered someone who wanted me to sit next to him in a church was several years prior to September of 2001. I expect Muslims have moved up the rankings in the last 4 1/2 years or so.
I was operating under the assumption that the points were awarded partly based on difficulty - like Olympic diving, or Gymnastics, such that more difficult "conversions" are more challenging but worth more. I freely admit that I have my own delusions to labour under. They turn the sky a pretty colour.
Posted by: rob stowell | March 29, 2006 9:34 PM
On the optimistic side: I hang out a bit at a right-wing philosophy site called "right reason" (I like arguing and I like philosophy and I really like that the site maintains standards of civility in disagreement). And while I find the religious beliefs of most of the contributors hard to understand, there is one who blogs about "the conservative atheist".
Posted by: Ken | March 29, 2006 9:44 PM
Eye babies? Well, that explains how we evolved from having one eye to two.
Posted by: Eaagh!! | March 29, 2006 10:27 PM
I say we form a raiding party on Pensacola College:
We storm the campus, blaring Led Zeppelin's "The Immigrant Song" at high volume to get their attention, but once our atheist horde is on the grounds we switch it to Two Live Crew's "Me So Horny". We'll all be wearing either Darwin fish t-shirts or GG Allin t-shirts, and all men will have their phalluses hanging down from the belt-loops resembling the end of a belt. Everyone, men and women, will start wildly making eye babies with everyone else.
We'll film it and later PZ can use image analysis software to count the rate at which administrator's heads explode.
Posted by: george cauldron | March 29, 2006 10:58 PM
I'm actually relieved. You'd want a ridiculous Christian madrassah like that to be able to claim to be a real college?
Posted by: george cauldron | March 29, 2006 11:00 PM
"Making eye babies."
Sounds like something Ralph Wiggum would talk about.
Posted by: bmurray | March 29, 2006 11:05 PM
"If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in His name, He'd never stop throwing up." -- Frederick, Hannah and Her Sisters
Posted by: Torbjorn Larsson | March 29, 2006 11:29 PM
"How are we going to fight that?"
In general perhaps one can hope that blogs reach children before they get isolated in such cult places - blogs are great because they also seem to grow a secular community of sorts among all other web communities. Kids should be curious enough to get to go webbing without supervision.
In particular the missing credential seems like a weak spot. One could wish anticultist freethinkers would make an effort to give away flyers informing the poor kids about how they are tricked.
"optical intercourse"
Oooh, that's hot! I love eyes, among other things. Nothing like a long foreplay with near glances and some coy blinking. Until the real action begins with my stare threatening to go deeply into the womans eye, of course. Enough said.
Of course, some protection is warranted if it's a causal encounter. Glasses are too clunky, while thin contacts feels so much better! If you had laser correction as I have, you may use lightly colored light weight sun glasses, or colored contacts. They come in all colors and sizes nowadays. If not for other reasons, remember that unwanted "eye babies" are a serious matter!
Posted by: demoman | March 29, 2006 11:34 PM
Shell said: Hmmmmm...do you mean to tell me you don't run into name-calling and ad homininem pretty much *everywhere you go across the spectrum*?!
Of course not. But at least on some ends of the spectrum an effort is made (tho' often failed) to avoid it.
Here, I see a rad-lib site, where the spoken credo is one of tolerance (amongst rad-libs) and yet we are greeted with name-calling and ad hominem argument.
Why would atheism be any more attractive than Christianity? It claims there is nothing after this. What is the attraction in that?
It claims to be true? Well, only through the third act of the mind is it true. If you want to know more about the first and second acts of the mind, see a basic philosophy text. (The second act is oversimply known as "common sense.")
Posted by: george cauldron | March 29, 2006 11:50 PM
Why would atheism be any more attractive than Christianity? It claims there is nothing after this. What is the attraction in that?
Not being deluded?
Posted by: Michael Geissler | March 30, 2006 12:07 AM
"Why would atheism be any more attractive than Christianity? It claims there is nothing after this. What is the attraction in that?"
Over to Dr Gregory House:
Cameron: You find it more comforting to believe that this is it?
House: I find it more comforting to believe that this simply isn't a test.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 30, 2006 12:28 AM
"Waaaa! You're a bunch of name-callers! Dirty, stinking liberal name-callers! All you can do is call people names!"
Ignore the troll, everyone. He's just here to cry and act stupid so he can whine that you call him names when you describe his behavior accurately.
Posted by: george cauldron | March 30, 2006 12:33 AM
Here, I see a rad-lib site,
You mean those books where you fill in words to make funny stories? Why do you object to them?
Posted by: Bruce | March 30, 2006 12:34 AM
"Making eye babies" reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Peter turns his basement into a bar and Lois becomes the main attraction:
Brian: Something troubling you Peter?
Peter: Oh no, nothing. Just all of my friends are eye-humping my wife.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | March 30, 2006 12:36 AM
You know, I might be a little more impressed by your accusations of name-calling and ad-hominem attacks (and, of course, closed mindedness) if you'd actually presented an argument about facts in dispute. Absent that, your post reads to me, like, well, a name-calling ad-hominem outburst of closed mindedness.
If you have some argument about facts in dispute, have at it. Present your factual assertions and evidence in support thereof. I'll be more than happy to discuss it.
Posted by: craig | March 30, 2006 12:44 AM
I didn't like House's response. My response to that kind of question is just to say "What the ^%#$ does my level of comfort have to do with anything?"
I mean, I've been told I was born pretty recently - 1965... but if I get to choose how and why the entire universe exists based on what version makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, then apparently there IS a god, and it's ME.
Posted by: craig | March 30, 2006 12:59 AM
I sure hope the PCC is not getting any government funds. But as long as they AREN'T, then I really don't give a damn what their rules are - I see it as one of those "consenting adults" situations, sort of like people who willingly engage in S&M, bondage, or dominance and humiliation types of things... Odd from my point of view, but "whatever floats your boat."
Actually, the more I think about it, the more those rules sound exactly like the dominance sex games some people play. I wonder if the PCC students at least get to have a "safe word?"
Posted by: Alon Levy | March 30, 2006 1:27 AM
I wonder if the PCC students at least get to have a "safe word?"
I presume that a safephrase like, "I'm an apostate" will get you safely kicked out of the madrassa. I haven't read the college's decency code, but it's possible that even the word "Fuck" can function as a safeword.
Posted by: Moody | March 30, 2006 1:31 AM
Can we be more reasonable about this? Sure, PCC is a cultist trainwreck. It's a no-brainer, in more ways than one. In other words, it's a ridiculously easy target to hit -- and that's the problem. It's too easy to knock PCC. Is it even worthwhile to do so? Even as comic relief it hardly rises above the level of the "Time Cube" guy. Just sayin'.
I totally understand the impulse, mind you. I read the post with my mouth agape. "Eye babies"? For crying out loud, it's obvious that these people are pathetic, and the so-called administrators of the "school" are either morally insane (fans of Jim Jones and David Koresh) or are utterly amoral con artists.
The thing is, the people who go there and stay are (like all of us) herd animals. They belong to a small herd formed out of a shared (assortment of) fear(s). They have such a strong desire to control things (often things that can't be controlled, such as the fact of their mortality) that their only recourse is to completely wall themselves off from the world at large and attempt to conjure a fantasy into reality.
But the PCC folks are not the ones currently infecting the U.S. government and American culture, however similar they may seem. IMO, they are symptomatic of the psycho-social malaise we suffer from, but they're a common zit compared to what is, by comparison, a suppurating boil exhibiting metastasizing necrotic tendencies.
Posted by: G. Tingey | March 30, 2006 2:18 AM
BEWARE!
These are the places where the people who will RUN what is now the USA are being trained, and brainwashed. ...
After the "Election" in 2016 and the immediate state of emergency and suspension of your constitution, these people will become the commissars/pastors/gauleiters for Gilead......
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | March 30, 2006 2:26 AM
PZ
I had time to think a bit at dinner. Were you responding to my sentence, "Short example: the more visible atheists become.... The generals will create that "visibility" if necessary."?
I screwed that up trying to be brief. Let me be explicit, in general, not just to PZ.
The argument that atheists should not be more visible/ confrontational/ etc--or the opposite-- DOESN'T MATTER!
If I may be allowed to do this as general, not specific to any individual -- "...more visible atheists become.. serve as boogeymen ...will remain true until... clear... anti-atheist Christian types have their heads up.." and "..hard to be visible...and not be demonized..." and "... mean that as atheists come out of the woodwork and people...and learn about them....will stop swallowing the BS about atheists being "immoral." And from others, pro and con, DOESN'T MATTER!
Here's why -- If there were not a single atheist in the U.S., the radical right could still manufacture an "Atheist Conspiracy to Take Over America" and sell it to enough voters to keep control of our political structure and other institutions they consider important. This, apparently, is not clear to many people.
Reality doesn't matter, the PERCEPTION of reality is what mass decision-making in America is now based on. If the last three years haven't made this clear, I'm doubtful anything I say here can tip the balance, but I'll try.
Average Americans, outside their immediate social milieu, exist in a virtually 100% designed and manipulated environment. Thinking, or rather believing, that facts or information or education or, we've seen recently, even reality are adequate to penetrate into this environment is highly irrational. This genie is out of the bottle permanently. The apparently widespread belief that things can be changed without getting immersed in the mass persuasion game is doomed, doomed, doomed.
The "morons" running PCC have figured this out, and know they must restrict access to it. Does this mean the PCC administration is smarter than the entire left?
There is no other way to get at people's minds. Are half a million lefties going to move to towns across Alabama, not work for four years, divvy all the Christians/ klanners/ flat-taxers/ etc. and talk their ears off between presidential elections? Do that, and you'll discover that's a terrible idea. People have psychological defenses. Obvious, right? I guess not.
Pssst.....science knows how to sneak past them -- does it every day. It's all media, guys. Reality is media. Perception is reality.
Public decisions, issues, whatever nomenclature, need to be addressed and campaigned on a national level. One creates national campaigns that build environments/realities in citizens' minds, that are then activated, specified, adapted, and used locally. This is how it's done now in the U.S. by the winners. Analyze your opposition and you'll see this dynamic behind their success. That's exactly what the self-quote in my initial post above illustrates in process.
It just is.
These aren't my ideas. I'm an imperfect messenger. I only know a small amount but I'd bet my life on what I do know. This is how our opponents, and OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY, are succeeding. And it's all based on science. 50 years of scientific research and it's application. The applications get more and more scientific themselves. It's not one field; it's all over the map. But, forced to headline it, I'd call it, "The science of how humans process information." And it's not what you think.
A small cadre of craven, power-hungry idealouges, I called them elsewhere, are using it to run circles around everybody else. That's reality.
Posted by: Dan | March 30, 2006 2:41 AM
Well, now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.Arent't there rather large chunks of the Bible that condemn hypocrisy?
Posted by: guthrie | March 30, 2006 3:11 AM
THey dont allow contemporary christian music?
I would like my sister to crash into that place with a bunch of contemporary christian rock groups, and see what happens.....
(I'm agnostic, shes into some kind of evangelical thing, but its of a fairly mainstream variety, here in the UK)
Posted by: Alex | March 30, 2006 4:01 AM
This is both deeply sad, and disturbing. What should really worry you is how all this dogshit is meant to be enforced. How can you discipline someone for "making eye babies" unless somebody else rats on them? The scary thing is that this place, like any totalitarian culture, breeds informers and busybodies - otherwise its rules couldn't survive.
That's what their graduates are prepared for. It's like torture - it's not just that it's wrong, it's not just that it's usually counterproductive, it's also that it corrupts the torturer and by extension the institution.
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | March 30, 2006 6:36 AM
"Here, I see a rad-lib site, where the spoken credo is one of tolerance (amongst rad-libs) and yet we are greeted with name-calling and ad hominem argument."
Translation: You don't worship king george you stinky athiests! YOu kill babies! you hate JESUS!
boo-hoo-hoo.
"Why would atheism be any more attractive than Christianity?"
Because Atheism isn't a bunch of lies and childish mythology.
"It claims there is nothing after this. What is the attraction in that?"
Yeah, better to live this life worrying about the next and miss out. That's great.
"The second act is oversimply known as "common sense"
And how is that compatibile with any religion?
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 30, 2006 6:51 AM
Are the students legally adults?
Posted by: Keith Douglas | March 30, 2006 8:22 AM
This sort of case is a great example of the problem of what might be called "metaconsent". If your decision making structure etc. are so warped, how do you consent later? How does the bootstrapping arise anyway? As it happens I think the next hundred years or so will involve repeated shakeups in the neurosciences of responsibility and decision, too. We're in for a rough ride.
Posted by: Chris | March 30, 2006 9:19 AM
Even if they're legally adults, I bet they're not exactly encouraged to take a look at the college and all alternatives and make their own decision.
More like, shut up and do what daddy says or go fetch the belt.
Re Skookum: Perception isn't reality. Reality is reality. Ask the average Iraqi on the street.
The problem is that demagogues are the endemic plague of democracies; most people are taught not to dig for the real truth, so they accept whatever lies are fed to them as long as they are crafted to be somewhat plausible.
So you can get a democracy moving with lies, if they're well-presented lies; but the cliff is still there, no matter how many people you have successfully convinced that cliff-related evidence is the product of an atheist materialist conspiracy.
Generally, rationalists reject the idea of using propaganda to counter propaganda because we feel the cure is as bad as the disease; it's not the specific content of the lies that's the problem, but the public's vulnerability to any plausible-sounding statement without regard to the quality of the evidence. The solution is not to present the truth so that it sounds as good as the lie, but to give people the skills to look beyond the perception and see the reality - nothing less than an acquired resistance to propaganda.
Creating "good-guy" manipulators doesn't help - they can't be trusted to remain good guys, because they're human like everyone else. They'll make mistakes and push their mistakes on the public; misinterpret things according to their personal bias and push their misinterpretation on the public; or put their personal benefit ahead of the public good and push *that* on the public; and then they'll be little or no different from the manipulators we already have. No matter how good the shepherd's initial intentions, he'll be wearing a wool coat soon enough, and eating mutton before too long.
Increasing the public's resistance to manipulation, so that people can guard their own interests without being suckered into every religion/ideology/political party that comes down the road - that's a goal worth working for.
Political offices are not the real battleground. They're only a side effect.
Posted by: Flex | March 30, 2006 10:01 AM
There is a similarity here to a discussion I've been recently been having with one of my economics profs.
The idea of competition leads to capitalism, and unrestrained capitalism can eventually destroy competition. That is, unrestrained capitalism will almost inevitably lead to mergers, acquisitions, and eventually monopolistic market power which eliminates competition. Note, I'm not making a claim about how American capitalism relates to this notion. I have my opinions, and other people have theirs. I'm simply pointing out what my professor pointed out to me, that the idea of free and open competition contains the seeds of the destruction of competition through competitive market forces.
Now for the connection. Could the seeds of unrestrained tolerance allow, to some measure, the growth of intolerant sub-cultures?
Obviously this is a socratic question that I already have my own answer for. I also know that I'm not the first to propose the idea, it's been around for awhile.
But are there enough similarities between the economic competition models and the idea of social tolerance to be able to apply economic models to predict how a tolerant society will degrade into an intolerant society through it's own adherance to the idea of tolerance?
Further, we know enough about economic models to identify when a market is becoming non-competitive and we sometimes use legislation to restore competitiveness to that market. I know there are real problems with social engineering, both practical and moral, but if the alternative is the loss of tolerance in our society entirely we might need to look closely at the options to prevent this from happening.
These are just a couple thoughts, more like the un-licked bear's cub of fable than any rallying cry.
Cheers,
-Flex
Posted by: george cauldron | March 30, 2006 10:54 AM
"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet and they were making babies and I saw one of the babies and then the baby looked at me."
I think I may have to add the phrase 'making eye babies' to my active, everyday vocabulary.
Posted by: Space_Monkey | March 30, 2006 11:29 AM
In my view, these extreme "Christians" will not make it far in the real world. Why? Because their experience in ultra-controlling environments promotes a complete lack of interpersonal skills. In the real world, such skills are extremely important for a career, hapiness, and general sucess. Is it any wonder that the fundies have a higher rate of divorce (ie poor relationship management) than the rest of the population, given that they do nothing to teach their kids good interpersonal skills?
Posted by: mothworm | March 30, 2006 11:36 AM
tacitus,
I used to hang out on Crosswalk about seven or eight years ago to argue about evolution (I'm assuming they're still against that. My personal version of "how are there pygmies and dwarves" came from one guy's response to the fact that humans and chimps share 97% of their DNA: "Oh yeah? Watermelons and clouds are 99% water. Does that mean they're related?")
Back then you couldn't say you were an atheist on Crosswalk, so when someone pressed me I usually said I was a Methodist, since that was the church where my grandmother taught Sunday-school when I was a little kid. Interestingly, their response was, "You might as well be an atheist, then". I'm glad to see they're not quite so insane anymore.
Anyway, what I noticed most from hanging out there, and from this article, is that these people are pathologically afraid of sex or sexuality in almost any form. It overrides any other thought about their religion. Of course, as with any paranoia, the thing they claim to be most against becomes an all-consuming obsession. For people who claimed Jesus had "freed" them from the sins of the flesh, they spent more time thinking about sex than I did as a teenager. They were constantly checking to see if oral sex counted as a sin (ans: Yes. It's sodomy), whether one could masturbate (No. Also, they couldn't spell masturbate to save thier lives.), or if it was OK for couples to use sex toys (Why do you need a sex toy? How dare you try to have an orgasm that might not result in you getting pregnant.). The question of whether or not it was OK for married couples to have anal sex came up so often a moderator finally forbade anyone to open any more threads about it.
That level of repression has got to screw you up in terrible, life-damaging ways. (Having just watched Polanski's Repulsion last weekend, it seems even scarier.)
Really, that article is one of the saddest things I've ever read. It's precisely the knowledge that this is the only life I get that makes me not want to waste it. I can't imagine a worldview that would make me deny some of the greatest pleasures life has to offer. Never trust anyone who's against pleasure.
This may be an isolated fringe case, but I really wish there was a way to reach these kids, because what's happening to them is abuse, plain and simple.
I also find it telling that the girl got expelled along with her boyfriend. I guess they figured she must be an evil slut to make her boyfriend want to touch her ass.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | March 30, 2006 12:18 PM
Chris, a few points.
1) I was applying "Perception is reality" to America only. And that's what got us into Iraq.
2) I said nothing about "lying." Doesn't have to be done that way. You just need to be smarter than the other guy about doing it Having truth on your side is a big help in using this technology.
3) I'm not identifying propaganda. Propaganda is antiquated technology, though still useful at times. I'm speaking to much more sophisticated applications.
4) "...give people the skills to look beyond the perception and see the reality - nothing less than an acquired resistance to propaganda." Excellent idea for students. I did this a bit decades ago with my composition students. But there's no way to do this at a mass level, with enough people to effect elections. It's a pipe dream. I hesitate to go further without having a idea how you might suggest one could practically give those skills.
It's a tough nut to crack. How do you give media/psychological skills to 20, 30, maybe 40 million people who won't even look at you, let alone listen to you? Not PCC types, any 20, 30, 40 million. How are you going to get into their heads the ability to deconstruct "emotional design using color" or to recognize when "proximity soundbites" are being used? Or teach them to decypher in their daily data stream the "fingerprint of a negative PR campaign"? There are oodles of these "off-line", "subconscious", whatever you call them, building blocks that can be put together into campaigns.
I take your point about political offices being side effects. However, the political offices, theoretically, control all practical means to give those skills. I'm not stressing this, but for discussion, it's a practical issue -- the bad guys know this and are moving to control those institutions that can interfere. As we speak.
I would also make the point that much of the technology I'm talking about can be used to subconsciously -- literally without the target being aware it's happening -- build reality in peoples minds. This approach allows persuaders to, in essence, pre-condition how people treat new incoming information. I have lots of examples of how this works.
The people doing this probably consider themselves "rationalists". And, humans do not, generally, think and act based on reason, but on emotion. I'd argue it's likely we evolved as primarily emotional decision-makers, not rational ones.
Examples of how this technology works abound, we're immersed in them daily.
Finally, we agree 100% on something -- the cliff is still there. Problem is we're all in the car together.
Posted by: wswilso | March 30, 2006 12:19 PM
One of the more sad and scary parts of this "education" is that lots of these kids aren't feeble-minded. At some level they'll be disturbed by the absurdity and falseness of this worldview, but they will think it's THEMSELVES that's at fault and compensate with greater fanaticism.
Like the Nazi who knew he had a Jewish great-grandmother.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | March 30, 2006 1:04 PM
I spotted an amusing response to the Chronicle article here:
Posted by: Chris | March 30, 2006 2:13 PM
Substantially the whole country is either students or ex-students. That's the point of having a national education system - to educate people.
There is no skill more important to educate than critical thinking. None. A gullible fool who can read is *worse* off than a gullible fool who can't read - because he reads more lies and isn't equipped to reject them.
The point of a rationalist philosophy (or at least my version) is that we *know* rationality doesn't come naturally to humans, but consider it important enough to be worth the effort to practice and instill it anyway. Taking the easy way out and going with your instincts or gut reactions is *dangerous*. Not just to yourself, either - if you're sure Hussein must have chemical weapons, regardless of what the available evidence says, you can get quite a lot of people killed with that kind of certainty.
If we are in the car together, wrestling over the steering wheel only goes so far. At some point you have to teach the driver how to drive. (Although it's hard to get the lesson accomplished if you're all busy plunging to your deaths, so maybe both approaches are necessary at different time-scales.)
Posted by: Randy! | March 30, 2006 2:51 PM
I'd like to go there and leave porno mags opened up to the centerfold, just sort of willy-nilly all over the place. Or even better, thousands upon thousands of those call-girl services cards that they hand out on the strip in Vegas. Just toss them everywhere.
Then, run around and rat out everyone for looking at them and try to get as many people as possible expelled. Surely they can only expell so many students before they hit their budgetary limits and start making exceptions to their rules real fast.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | March 30, 2006 5:46 PM
Chris
I don't disagree. Also, the difference in time scales you note is very important I think.
I'm just concerned about current practicality and current knowledge. By the latter I mean that there is so much knowledge it's difficult to be vigilant about all persuasive avenues and tools arrayed against us.
I've always been a real big big fan of education in critical thinking. It's not only what got to me to the point of being able to deconstruct this stuff, but I've been in a position to teach it before. Implementing it large-scale successfully is a giant, long-term problem.
Posted by: Eclogite | March 31, 2006 6:36 AM
Why on earth would anyone actually choose to go there? And what would you do with yourself when you have to enter the real world, where men and women interact and work together on a daily basis?
Posted by: Spike | March 31, 2006 1:17 PM
I have to go with SkookumPlanet. I will use my own life as an example, because I have learned quite a bit about the difference between the world that scientific rationalists see, and the world that the greater majority of people who are not so rational see.
I used to work in quality assurance and quality control in the biotech industry. I finally gave up on it when my manager proved to be emotionally attached to her interpretation of cGMP (and berated my integrity for not agreeing with her).
Now I sell insurance.
I am in the exact position that Chris worries about: I am a "good-guy" manipulator. I help people protect what they've built by getting them into insurance contracts with the right amount of coverage at the best price I can offer.
But "the right amount of coverage" is subjective. People's tolerance for, ignorance, or outright rejection of the consequences of being underinsured are a big determinant in how much coverage they feel they need.
The reason I'm a manipulator is because I learn what personality type I'm dealing with, then present the information in the format that will have the most influence on that kind of person. Some are analytical, some are more emotional, some are leaders, and some want to be led. I'm a "good guy," because I try my best, with the tools I have available, to make sure the client is properly covered.
The situations in which I feel the most ethical satisfaction are those where the clients really understand the purpose of insurance, know how much they need, how much they can afford, and tell me what they want.
The situation in which I feel the least ethical satisfaction are those where the clients do not understand anything about insurance, but buy from me because of other considerations, such as trust, good looks, or whatever.
But that is because I am a rationalist, and I'm not really a leader, and actually am uncomfortable when people rely on me to satisfy their needs.
My point, and I do have one, is that when I came into the sales world from science, I was very shocked to find out how little reasoning most people do regarding important matters in their lives.
Even when you ask questions and get the prospect to describe in their own words what their needs are and what they think the solution is, then you present that solution to them, they will reject your idea. Their rejections will be entirely irrational, but not seem so to the client. (They may think, "There must be some reason why I don't like to buy insurance from bald guys with glasses.")
My goal is to educate people about what insurance is for, what it's not for, and what it really costs, not just to buy insurance, but also to file the claim. That way, I know the client is more likely to stick with me, because they have reasons for their decision. I still have to come back around from time to time and "re-sell" the relationship.
But it takes a long time to educate people. And many of my clients need major changes in their insurance coverage right now.
Just like America. We need to break free from the influence of the radical right immediately.
We are losing lives, killing innocents, and wasting billions of dollars every day in Iraq, and are looking to expand to Iran and Syria. We are wasting children's educational years on social engineering experiments. We are tying up government bodies and the courts trying to get repressive laws passed. And, we are in a culture war where a very small minority is controlling the terms of the discussion, not to mention the outlets where the discussion is permitted.
We do need to use the scientific tools of persuasion that marketers spend billions of dollars developing and perfecting. They have learned that rational discourse is fine, but if you want to sell something, you use sex, groupthink, support, fear, cognitive dissonance, and just plain likeability.
Each person has their own priorities, and as the world seems to move into greater and greater chaos, then order and safety, at whatever cost (especially to others), become the highest priorities. We have to be able to support people emotionally while we give them the education to create order and safety for themselves.
The bottom line is that we have to become mass marketers of our ideas. We have to learn why people reject them and figure out how to make them more "palatable." We have to start with people as young as we can get at them, and keep repeating the message again and again through their lives.
We do have to have a plan, a group of people dedicated to carrying out the plan and a way to counteract the "forces" aligned against us.
As distasteful as this sounds to most rationalists: We are going to have to learn to deal with people the way they are, not as we would like them to be.
Posted by: Deacon Barry | March 31, 2006 3:55 PM
Randy,
"Willy-nilly??" - with porno mags on the table? The reverse surely?:D It's the faculty with their 'no belts hanging' rule who want genital negativity.
Hopefully Ms Morris and her boyfriend will have a chance now of getting worthwhile qualifications at an accredited college.
I also hope they will reflect on their treatment at this institution, and begin to question the whole fundamentalist ethos.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | March 31, 2006 6:58 PM
Thanks, Spike. It's extremely important for us, the far right's opposition, to hear voices and experiences like yours. I encourage you communicate about this from every angle you can. Don't underestimate your value!
I've been thinking about Chris' response. Education in critical thinking is desirable, but can't get the country back. A couple points --
1) We can't force people to think. We can't force people to be motivated. Stating the obvious, but education's heading in the opposite direction.
To retake America via education we must --
A) Turn a ship [education] that's course has been set [by freaked-out parents/corporations], then
B) Reverse pedagogy philosophy of the nation's schools of education, then wait
C) While a new generation of teachers replaces the old, then wait for
D) Enough kids to be run through schools and age into enough voters.
E) Curriculum change is done balkanized, district by district or as a national campaign, requiring psychomarketing.
F) Meanwhile the far right watches, strategizes, co-evolves.
2) More practicality -- education is under coordinated attack. It's being financially starved. Coming is a national fight over all tenure that will consume any attention and energy educators can spare.
3) Expecting Americans to care enough to muster energy to resist the massive, minute-by-minute assault on their minds is a sucker bet. See #1.
Here, from a longer piece, are two different types of preconscious psychomarketing tools.
Even correctly educated, the general public can't deal with such tools and strategies. It's a pipe dream.
A knee-jerk distaste of psychomarketing technology among scientists, academics, and the entire left, reflects a supposition it's dishonest, manipulative, appealing to the worst in people. It doesn't have to be so, which you can discover yourself with some research. Our opponents, and OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY are succeeding this way. Consider convincing Americans to give up SUVs using only "professorial skills and resources". This is the technology we're up against. Bring your "rationality" to bear on the evidence.
Do you want to be right, or be effective? They're mutually exclusive at present. The former is a hidden choice to lose the country. This binary choice is faced every day.
Posted by: Torbjorn Larsson | March 31, 2006 9:07 PM
"As distasteful as this sounds to most rationalists: We are going to have to learn to deal with people the way they are, not as we would like them to be."
Actually, that's a rational view.
"A knee-jerk distaste of psychomarketing technology among scientists, academics, and the entire left, reflects a supposition it's dishonest, manipulative, appealing to the worst in people.
Of course it's mostly dishonest for those who are primarily concerned with marketing facts within their group, and preferably outside it too. It's not their fault that they don't see psychomarketing as a solution. You have to come up with a marketing technology that satisfies your customers needs.
Posted by: Cinatyte | March 31, 2006 9:58 PM
PZ,
This is probably the best blog entry w/comments I've ever read. Keep up the good work.
mothworm, I may be behind the times in responding to this, but your response was excellent.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 1, 2006 12:15 AM
"Actually, that's a rational view."
Torbjorn, you'll get no argument from me.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 1, 2006 2:00 AM
Torbjorn
Would you please restate you last paragraph worded differently? Some of the pronoun references are ambiguous. On first reading I thought I understood your point, now I'm not sure.
Thanks
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 1, 2006 7:34 PM
Torbjorn
I've lost track how many times I've come back to your last paragraph. Sometimes I think I understand. You said . . .
Are you suggesting to me that I would be more successful in my efforts if I "demonstrated", using examples, how psychomarketing can be used ethically, etc.?
In other words, that I should use some positive "teaching examples"? The metaphor of the final sentence being I'm the marketer and the readers/scientists are my customers? If so, it's a good observation. I'm just uncertain that's your point. [And that's a lot of work! I only have a few such examples prepared -- I only know of a few.]
Posted by: Torbjorn Larsson | April 1, 2006 8:29 PM
SkookumPlanet,
I'm sorry I wasn't clear!
Yes, your last post got it correctly. Those groups, stupidly or not, ultimately want to market facts, and seem think psychomarketing will be a problem for that goal. I merely thought that someone might have to come up with a solution (which could be another type of marketing) that they can believe satisfies their needs.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 2, 2006 12:02 AM
Or more simply, come up with another name for it.
"Psychomarketing" is a word I coined, out of necessity, for an essay I wrote last fall. Unfortunately for my present purposes, I designed it with built-in negativity. A lesson in the hazards of amateurism.
Posted by: Torbjorn Larsson | April 2, 2006 2:52 AM
Well, it *is* instantly recognisable. Which I guess count as a good piece of psychomarketing. ;-)
Posted by: Spike | April 3, 2006 1:33 PM
Skook,
Thank you for the encouragement.
Torbjorn,
I think you did a better job of making my point (eventually! ;D ).
The first "sale" we need to make is to the other rationalists/scientific thinkers on the benefits of packaging the message to fit the audience.
One of the most commonly repeated (and therefore true!) phrases in selling is, "Facts tell, but stories sell."
Creation stories are powerful, because they provide comfort, a sense of belonging, reasons for all the bad stuff that happens in people's lives, and a purpose for our existense. Even if they are about malevolent creators who made the world just to torture us, at least the created have a purpose.
As has been pointed out time and time again, ID theory is just an attempt to repackage the creation story in a way that looks benign to the courts.
A few months ago, between scienceblogs and PT, someone provided a link to the web page of some Unitarians who are traveling the country, telling a new creation story that describes cosmological and biological evolution as the tools of the creator. It's a start.
We have many compelling stories in the struggles and triumphs* of scientists and the benefits we gain from changes in science and technology. Even just the wonder of learning something new can be compelling.
What I like best about the scientific view is that we learn that most bad stuff that happens in the world has a rational explanation, and once we can explain it, we can figure out ways to minimize, if not eliminate it.
If people feel security in the here-and-now, they are much less likely to appeal to deities for assistance - at least that is my experience.
As a note of encouragement, here is a link to science education club for Jr. High and High school kids:
www.sciencedecathlon.com
*"Try + umph! = Triumph!"
Posted by: Daniel | April 22, 2006 3:32 PM
I am not a student at Pensacola Christian College. I do not even agree with this college in some areas, but I'm afraid the point has been missed on this blog. The students that go to this college (for the most part) make a conscious choice to do so. It's kind of like someone making a decision to go into the army; they know they could possibly die. It's also like a person that decides to go to a bar; they know that there is the possibility of getting drunk and having a wreck on the way home. Life is filled with individual choices, but for some reason our society is filled with people who like making choices for other people. Our government is always coming up with a new way to do our thinking for us. My point is that these students (once again, for the most part) know what situation they are putting themselves into when they go to college here. The reason a person would go to such a college - even though this is hard for most to comprehend - is not only because they want to learn, but they also don't want to be subjected to the continuous "party life" of secular colleges. I am not condemning these accredited universities
in this statement, but don't make decisions for the 5,000 students by isolating a few. I know there won't be many that will like what I have written, but as most of these college students would probably agree, God's opinion is the only one that really matters.
Posted by: Joe
|
May 13, 2006 1:48 AM
Having entered into this site a few minutes ago, I was both amused and alarmed at some of the comments written about my college. Although I loathe sites like this where (for the most part) gossiping hags ramble and rage about the happenings and injustices of society, and twist half-truths, I have decided to reply to some of the false accusations about Pensacola Christian College. Wow, rumors sure like to spread. Proverbs 26:20 (oh yeah this "radical fundamentalist" is quoting the Bible, don't get your panties in a wad, just read it and ackowledge that the verse is true...ok?) "Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth." Lots of talebearing blogs here, instead of truth bearing. Much of the strife having to do with PCC or "Bible Fundamentalism" is based on rumors rather than fact. As a student, I know the truth about PCC. For the record, there is no such thing as a rule against "making eye babies" at PCC. If one were to just visit the campus and stroll into the Campus Commons you would see the so called "making eye babies" in full sanctioned swing. However revolting the tendency for PCC students to ogle each other fondly may be, it sure does happen and no administrative labling of "making eye babies" as a cardinal sin exists. There is even a whole "Social Hall" room replete with couches for students to stare at each other. The phrase "making eye babies" comes from what we as students laughingly call the "quality time" PCC students spend with each other. Sure, "making out, kissing, and definitely butt slapping is against the rules" but on dating outings members play(as pathetic as it may be) chaperoned hand holding games. I believe a physical relationship was intended to be enjoyed by a man and a wife. Put yourself in a parents shoes, would you encourage your 18 year old daughter to have a sexual relationship with any grease monkey looking for a free ride? If you want to hate PCC for its stand on the Bible, go ahead. If you want to hate PCC for believing that Jesus Christ is the only way to go to Heaven, be my guest the truth is the truth. Please don't hate PCC because of a supposed "Making Eye Babies" rule. The rules are not oppressive, but geared for saftey, and much like the rules of most college campuses just a century ago. As for the supposed sympathy from some on this site for those of us who are languishing under the oppressive PCC regime, get a life, please. The rules facilitate an atmosphere of learning, rather than most of the beer soaked condom crazed drugged out atmosphere of many Floridian colleges. As a transfer student from two other accrediated college, I can honestly attest that the education offered at PCC is at a much higher level that so called "elite universities." I chose to attend PCC partly because of the rules and also for its standard of excellence. I was tired of the "college life" and wanted a different atmosphere to learn in. When I told my grandmother I was going to a college in Flordia, she began to warn me about the drugs that would be all around, hehe not so. Many of my friends thought to warn me of the "concentration type" atmosphere that does not exist. One is more free to do what is right here (no drugs or immoral sex) and not be pressured by those wanting to encourage wrong/illegial behavior. Most of the problem comes from whiny kids who come to PCC, leave and make up stories about PCC like a five year old depicting his teacher as a dictator. I consider PCC to be one of the best colleges in the country. The school is not accrediated, but it has never sought to be so. If it desired accrediation, they would definitely be accepted. As far as graduate school is concered, I know personally a one who is attending Medical School in Boston and another is studying Law in Indiana on a scholarship.
Rumors such as:
We had assigned seating for dinner with a designated senior taking attendance (NOT TRUE AT ALL...I SKIP MOST OF MY DINNERS AND WITH 5000 PEOPLE WITH ONE SENIOR, QUITE IMPOSSIBLE, mandatory daily chapel (with attendance taking)(OOO...SO SCARY, THIS PERSON MAKES CHAPEL SOUND LIKE A NAZI GAS SHOWER), 11pm curfew (with room check) (TRUE...BUT WHO CARES..over 21 and SENIORS CAN STUDY TILL 12 am ROOM CHECK IS JUST A WIPING OF THE PERSONAL BATHROOM MIRROR AND A EMPTYING OF THE TRASH CAN DOWN A TRASH CHUTE LESS THAN THRITY FEET AWAY....SO OPPRESSIVE HUH?), etc. Fear and zero intolerance for opposing views was the only way they could control a campus full of 18-23yr olds. (...RIGHT..HOW ABOUT A CONSISTANT ABIDING BY THE EASY TO FOLLOW HANDBOOK? IF YOU BREAK A RULE YOU GET WRITTEN UP AFTER 150 times of not emptying the trash you may get expelled, but not likely)
I hope people read this post and actually get over the fact that PCC is a little different. The atmosphere is not stifling at all and it is fun to come home and watch those with amazement examine a PCC student who likes and is proud of the school he attends. Come one now, I have it so easy compared to my good friend attending West Point. For those skeptics who think I am a disguised administrational spy sent to post positive remarks on PCC, I say again "GET A LIFE." I have no clue why I took the time to write this, which will probably get laughed at. For those who would encourage me to tranfer and save my sanity by going to a school where college sports teams are notorious for hiring strippers at Lacrosse parties, I think I'll stay safe here. I would rather have the reputation this school has than experience the pain and confusion other schools breed. Once again, there is NO EYE BABIES goblin spirits floating around PCC with the administration trying to bottle them.
Posted by: wakefuldrmr
|
June 1, 2006 2:23 PM
Welp, Joe done gone and said it all, didn't he?
But I graduated from PCC in 2002 after 4 years of torment, too scared to quit, knowing that the credits I'd worked so hard for wouldn't transfer. From an academic standpoint, I can honestly say that I have no respect for religious-based education, especially in the halls of higher learning. It took approximately two years for me to quit going to church on my breaks back home, and after graduation I quit altogether. Let's just call PCC the messy underside of biblical literalism. Jesus works if you work it...and by working it I mean sacrificing your reason, your dignity and all personal aspriations for the good of the institution. "Don't be a cog in our wheel," is the accepted attitude toward anyway swimming against the flow--- faculty or student.
Those thinking of leaving the college are admonished in mandatory services that those who leave PCC end up working at gas stations because they have "left the will of God". I wasn't dumb enough to believe this, but I didn't want to be a quitter and waste the money we'd put in already. And, I hated the thought of possibly not getting into another school. That was a mistake.
Before even getting the the absurdity of the rules, which ensure that women are viewed as sexual objects (even if just to further her husband's ministry) for the length of any union, anyone espousing the value of an insitution like PCC has to first suspend any faith in his/her common sense. But of course, this is the first step to becoming a "faithful follower of Christ", is it not? Yes, many students were homeschooled. I was homeschooled by two college-educated parents who got involved at an independent baptist church at a time in my life that was extremely inconvenient to my personal growth. I went to PCC because I hadn't figured on college early enough to get other scholarships, and it wasn't encouraged. My best friend gave up a full scholarship to the Univ. of Louisiana med program because her fundie parents told her she needed to go to PCC for a year first. We both missed out by being in the only Journaling/Commercial Writing programs to offer degrees without any experience from having a student-run paper. Tell me how someone is going to enter the competitive journalistic world without a student paper on a resume? No room for disent whatsoever. Yes, this is legal. Yes, they have a right because they don't take government money. But PCC can't function without being in total control of its students and faculty. Total control. And Joe, you say that you'd rather be at PCC than someplace with booze and parties? You think everyone who goes anywhere else is FUBAR? Huh...good luck getting a job in the professional realm with that attitude. Can't wait to see how you get on with people who can see through you pseudo-superiority and ask you for proof that you qualify for a job. A friend of mine married an engineering grad, and without accreditation he can't work on certain projects which would help him get further in his career. PCC accepts just about every application it gets...the trick is that once you've been there 2 weeks, they can kick you out for any reason and you get nothing back. It's a money machine, and you're just another nut holding the bolts together.
Even other evangelicals and fundamentalists find PCC to be a thorn in their side. If you're a Christian who finds solace in your autonomy as a believer, you'll have to get rid of it--- everyone at PCC has to go to Campus Church, and if you live in the area and are already going to another church it has to be approved by the administration. This place is the Vatican of the Protestant world, minus the priceless art and modicum of class.
Thank God it will never have a place in the formation of history....oh wait. We were told told in 2000 that the number of votes in PCC's Florida precinct were what pushed Bush over the line and got him elected. It may be true, but I didn't take it seriously because they're full of crap like that about everything to get money from churches and parents, and to increase enrollment....ANYTHING to increase enrollment.
But going there was a wake-up call for me...I realized that I seriously needed to get in control of myself. The lack of love...even the fake "agape" kind that has no business being discussed between humans, the lack of academic excellence due to fear of "getting out of God's will"...I spat out the hook, line and sinkier I'd swallowed and can say with honesty that PCC is college like margarine is butter.
Posted by: wakefuldrmr
|
June 1, 2006 2:33 PM
Welp, Joe done gone and said it all, didn't he?
But I graduated from PCC in 2002 after 4 years of torment, too scared to quit, knowing that the credits I'd worked so hard for wouldn't transfer. From an academic standpoint, I can honestly say that I have no respect for religious-based education, especially in the halls of higher learning. It took approximately two years for me to quit going to church on my breaks back home, and after graduation I quit altogether. Let's just call PCC the messy underside of biblical literalism. Jesus works if you work it...and by working it I mean sacrificing your reason, your dignity and all personal aspriations for the good of the institution. "Don't be a cog in our wheel," is the accepted attitude toward anyway swimming against the flow--- faculty or student.
Those thinking of leaving the college are admonished in mandatory services that those who leave PCC end up working at gas stations because they have "left the will of God". I wasn't dumb enough to believe this, but I didn't want to be a quitter and waste the money we'd put in already. And, I hated the thought of possibly not getting into another school. That was a mistake.
Before even getting the the absurdity of the rules, which ensure that women are viewed as sexual objects (even if just to further her husband's ministry) for the length of any union, anyone espousing the value of an insitution like PCC has to first suspend any faith in his/her common sense. But of course, this is the first step to becoming a "faithful follower of Christ", is it not? Yes, many students were homeschooled. I was homeschooled by two college-educated parents who got involved at an independent baptist church at a time in my life that was extremely inconvenient to my personal growth. I went to PCC because I hadn't figured on college early enough to get other scholarships, and it wasn't encouraged. My best friend gave up a full scholarship to the Univ. of Louisiana med program because her fundie parents told her she needed to go to PCC for a year first. We both missed out by being in the only Journaling/Commercial Writing programs to offer degrees without any experience from having a student-run paper. Tell me how someone is going to enter the competitive journalistic world without a student paper on a resume? No room for disent whatsoever. Yes, this is legal. Yes, they have a right because they don't take government money. But PCC can't function without being in total control of its students and faculty. Total control. And Joe, you say that you'd rather be at PCC than someplace with booze and parties? You think everyone who goes anywhere else is FUBAR? Huh...good luck getting a job in the professional realm with that attitude. Can't wait to see how you get on with people who can see through you pseudo-superiority and ask you for proof that you qualify for a job. A friend of mine married an engineering grad, and without accreditation he can't work on certain projects which would help him get further in his career. PCC accepts just about every application it gets...the trick is that once you've been there 2 weeks, they can kick you out for any reason and you get nothing back. It's a money machine, and you're just another nut holding the bolts together.
Even other evangelicals and fundamentalists find PCC to be a thorn in their side. If you're a Christian who finds solace in your autonomy as a believer, you'll have to get rid of it--- everyone at PCC has to go to Campus Church, and if you live in the area and are already going to another church it has to be approved by the administration. This place is the Vatican of the Protestant world, minus the priceless art and modicum of class.
Thank God it will never have a place in the formation of history....oh wait. We were told told in 2000 that the number of votes in PCC's Florida precinct were what pushed Bush over the line and got him elected. It may be true, but I didn't take it seriously because they're full of crap like that about everything to get money from churches and parents, and to increase enrollment....ANYTHING to increase enrollment.
But going there was a wake-up call for me...I realized that I seriously needed to get in control of myself. The lack of love...even the fake "agape" kind that has no business being discussed between humans, the lack of academic excellence due to fear of "getting out of God's will"...I spat out the hook, line and sinkier I'd swallowed and can say with honesty that PCC is college like margarine is butter.
Posted by: wakefuldrmr
|
June 1, 2006 2:36 PM
seems i posted twice. feel free to delete one; i don't seem to be able to figure out how.
Posted by: Carrie | August 21, 2006 10:44 PM
I went to PCC for two years in 1989-90 & 1990-91. At that time, we did have assigned seating for dinner. If a person missed dinner for any reason, he/she got demerits. And, we had assigned seating for the manditory M-F chapels. During chapel, the floor monitors checked our rooms for contraban. PCC was a place where you either had to do as they told you, or you would be kicked out. I still occasionally have nightmares that I have accidentally missed a class and earned myself 25 demerits. I did once get called to meet with the dean of women for doing something wrong (they never tell you until you show up). I found out I had forgotten to sign out of the computer lab, so I got a demerit for that. It was my only demerit for that entire year! I molded myself to fit their image and still am recouperating from my 2 years of self inflicted imprisonment at their concentration camp.
Each break from school, I went through a rebellion toward any/all authority. I stopped attending church, and didn't attend anywhere regularly for about 10 years following my 2 year term at PCC.
All that said, I did find the courses I took while there the most challenging courses at any college or university. I have attended 2 other colleges and 1 major private university since leaving PCC. None of them provided the academic challenge that I had at PCC. The classwork and required knowledge to earn a good grade at PCC was much more superior than any of the other places I attended. I felt the education I got at PCC academically was worth the money. The 10 years of rebellion following my attendance there is something I wish would have never happened.
All of my credits earned while at PCC transferred to the private (secular) university I attended. My Bible credits transferred as "elective". And, the knowledge I gained at PCC in the academic world provided me a huge advantage over my peers.
Yes, the rules are strict and sometimes weird. Most of them are easy to live by if you are a "good person". What I hated most about PCC was their lack of trust and allowing people to make their own mistakes. The adults there are treated like children. Its almost like a brainwashing, or maybe everyone just becomes a zombie to fit in and get by until the next semester break.
I don't know what I would do if my children wanted to attend there. My biggest advice to anyone contemplating attending PCC is to get a copy of their handbook, decide in advance if you can live by their strict rules. If you can't do it, then don't even bother going, because you will be miserable. If you can abide by their rules, you will get an awesome education, book wise. Being able to use the knowledge gleaned while there in the "real world" is a whole other topic.
Posted by: Mikell Taylor | September 11, 2006 2:35 PM
So, I know I'm late to this party, but this got linked from another blog today. Anyhow, just a note about accreditation...
I actually graduated from an unaccredited school. However, the issue was not that it had failed to be accredited, but rather that we were a brand new school (Olin College of Engineering in Needham, MA), and accreditation bodies will not do their thing until you've graduated a class. I'm a member of the first graduating class -- we graduated in May. We're in good standing with the local accreditation body (NEASC), and when they accredit us (set to be within the next year or so), it will apply retroactively to my degree.
I don't know what that means for these places, which certainly do NOT meet the accreditation standards and which do not have the excuse of "we aren't able to yet" -- they just CHOOSE not to. Even if they were eventually accredited, I can't fathom retroactive application to earlier graduates.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 27, 2006 7:33 PM
Bunch of godless liberals. Any graduate from PCC can outdue any of you guys academically. Some of the rules are weird, but I rather send my daughter their knowing that she will keep her purity until her wedding day rather than send them to any of the heathen insitutions that teaches everyone came from monkeys and wonder why they all act like animals.
All you have to do to know the success of the PCC graduates is get a copy of the NewsLetter or look up the alumni database and you will see how "worthless" their degree really is.
Bunch of monkies.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 27, 2006 7:50 PM
Originally posted by Joe:
Gossiping hags? Nice attitude towards women, buddy. Pick that up at PCC, did you?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 27, 2006 8:05 PM
Is Yamil serious? He can't be. Heathens? What is this? 1912?
Why bother getting her an education? Just marry her off and let her pop out 10 kids already.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 27, 2006 9:02 PM
Outdue? Any...that teaches? Monkies?
Really. When you come online to brag about your academic virtues, you'd damn well better proofread carefully.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 27, 2006 9:27 PM
I'm getting to the opinion that anyone who makes the 'act like animals' pseudoargument should be taken away by men in white coats wielding butterfly nets.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 11:53 AM
I am of the opinion that any institution that teaches that your great granddad is a monkey has some major academic flaws.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 28, 2006 11:55 AM
"I am of the opinion that any institution that teaches that your great granddad is a monkey has some major academic flaws."
I agree- all of my great-grandparents were undeniably homo sapiens. What institutions are you referring to that claim monkey to human evolution within 3 generations?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 11:56 AM
Steve C wrote:
"Why bother..."
That seems to be your problem.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:00 PM
PZ Myers wrote:
"Really. When you come online to brag about your academic virtues, you'd damn well better proofread carefully."
I will leave the proofreading up to you. BTW you do well to proofread the whole blog. I am sure there are many others that could use your help.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:08 PM
MJ Memphis,
Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from monkeys?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:08 PM
Are you claiming I'm uneducated? You're the one claiming Evolution states our great grand parents are monkeys.
How old do you think the earth is Yamil?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:10 PM
Steve,
No. I am claiming that you have been stupified.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:13 PM
Well the things your write are quite stupifying.
So are you an old earth creationist or a young earth creationist?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:16 PM
Let's just say that like you. I do not believe that monkeys are in my family tree.
BTW. I thought this was about PCC not whether or not your grandad was a monkey.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:19 PM
Proofreader where are you?
I assure you that it was a typological error.
Ok repost:
Let's just say that UNLIKE you. I do not believe that monkeys are in my family tree.
BTW. I thought this was about PCC not whether or not your grandad was a monkey.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:21 PM
Ha!
Proofreader. Forgive me for my sins.
"Typographical"
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:22 PM
You brought it up. Education is the topic. What we're taught and what we understand is a result of education. Oh and I think we are related to monkeys by a very distant ancestor millions of years ago.
Won't answer the young earth/old earth question?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 28, 2006 12:32 PM
Nope, we didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys (and the apes) and humans did, however, evolve from a common ancestor. The transition will have occurred much too long ago to fit on most conventional family trees, unless you have an unusually detailed pedigree. And anyone who, in this day and age, is a creationist is definitely not educated, in any meaningful sense of the word, and any "college" that teaches creationist claptrap is not imparting an education in any meaningful sense of the word.
Oh, and regarding your daughter's "purity": I'd keep her away from any preacher's sons if I were you. And probably keep her away from preachers too, for that matter.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:40 PM
Steve_C said:
"Oh and I think we are related to monkeys by a very distant ancestor millions of years ago."
Is'nt that special
There you have it folks, that's the kind of education that you will be receiving from the secularists.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:44 PM
Wow. You're in the wrong place if you think you're going to be laughed with rather than laughed at with that sharp humor.
Hey I don't believe in Noah's Ark either! Cut me down to size with that.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:47 PM
MJ Memphis will not be quite as simplistic. He resorts to the technacalities of double-talk:
"Nope, we didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys (and the apes) and humans did, however, evolve from a common ancestor."
Ha! Thank you for your thoughts.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:50 PM
Yup. That pesky scientific doublespeak will get ya everytime!
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:50 PM
"The transition will have occurred much too long ago to fit on most conventional family trees, unless you have an unusually detailed pedigree."
Yes that's why evolution is nothing more than a theory for those who would have nothing to do with God. It's the best the skeptic can do to explain God away.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:52 PM
Yamil did you keep your purity until your wedding day? did your wife?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:54 PM
"Oh, and regarding your daughter's "purity": I'd keep her away from any preacher's sons if I were you. And probably keep her away from preachers too, for that matter."
I think I have a better chance keeping her at church than in your STD infected campus whore houses.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 12:56 PM
Steve_C,
Yes.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:56 PM
So only godless heathens acknowledge evolution?
There's alot of christian scientists that would disagree with you.
You don't need science to understand the truth that there is no evidence of a god.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 12:59 PM
I feel like we've stepped into the twilight zone and into Deliverance.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 1:03 PM
Just because people say their a Christian does not mean that they are. You cannot be a Christian and deny the teachings of Christ.
There are many "Christians" that are a bunch of perverts as well. Does that mean that its OK to be a pervert?
Please don't answer that. Ha!
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 1:05 PM
Monkeys.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 1:07 PM
Depends on what kind of pervert. Seems alot of christains are addicted to pornography sooo...
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 1:10 PM
Hitler liked to ridicule his enemies and portray them as less than human too.
It's an ad homonim. You don't have an argument so you call people names.
Does it make you feel better. Did Jesus call people monkeys?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 28, 2006 2:09 PM
My campus is populated by bright, enthusiastic, ambitious young men and women who are here to learn.
It is not a whore house.
You do a fine job representing the sanctimonious lies of Christianity. Keep it up.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 28, 2006 2:22 PM
"I think I have a better chance keeping her at church than in your STD infected campus whore houses."
Interesting neuroses that keep bubbling to the surface here.
I'm guessing the whorehouses you refer to must have been at the big state school where I did undergrad, and not the small Catholic school where I did grad school. Sadly, engineering students have no time for whorehouses, so I must have overlooked them. :(
(Although I am reminded for some reason that Thomas Jefferson's original plans for UVA included a campus brothel.)
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 3:21 PM
Steve_C,
No. Jesus called them serpents. He called them children of the devil. So I think mine is more humane than his. Besides, you are the one who believes that you came from a monkey.
It's like the African American who hates being called the "n" word but he does not mind calling himself or his buddies the same thing.
Posted by: John Bode | September 28, 2006 3:25 PM
Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from monkeys?
Not directly, no, and nobody who's reasonable makes that claim.
Based on the information we have so far, H. sapiens is most likely descended from H. heidelbergensis, which in turn is most likely descended from H. ergaster. H. ergaster is likely descended from H. habilis.
Prior to H. habilis we get into the australopithecines, who show combinations of human- and ape-like traits (bipedal like humans, but with smaller brains and ape-like jaws). The path of descent among australopithecines is not known exactly. We know that A. afarensis predates A. garhi, but whether there's a direct line of descent between the two is not currently known.
Something you may want to check out is the National Genographic Project, specifically their Atlas of the Human Journey, which shows the migration and changes in human populations over the last 60,000 years. It's all based on genetic studies, not fossil remains, and is quite fascinating.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 3:27 PM
PZ Myers
"My campus is populated by bright, enthusiastic, ambitious young men and women who are here to learn. It is not a whore house."
Yeah and they happen to believe that you one can have sex before marriage. How many times does one have to have sex before she is a whore? For that matter, how many times does one have to kill before his a murderer?
But you are right in one respect. I think you all do not get paid for your promiscuity. So I digress.
Bunch of godless, fornicators!
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 3:32 PM
"Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from monkeys?
Not directly, no, and nobody who's reasonable makes that claim."
I know, noone in their right mind enjoys the association. So just hide it behind scholastic mumble-jumble and it makes you feel better.
The devastating truth is that you will not go down very far the geological pedigree and you will run into your long lost relative: the monkey.
Posted by: David Godfrey | September 28, 2006 3:34 PM
University College London is halfway between King's Cross and Soho. I don't think we need bother with campus brothels.
Incidentally it was founded as a secular university- non-conformists, etc couldn't go to the Oxbridge colleges and didn't want to send their children all the way up to Scotland. It's also known as "Godless of Gower Street".
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 28, 2006 3:36 PM
You know, after seeing this:
"gossiping hags... your STD infected campus whore houses... How many times does one have to have sex before she is a whore?"
I figured there would be more bubbling to the top. Sure enough we get this:
"It's like the African American who hates being called the "n" word but he does not mind calling himself or his buddies the same thing."
Seems like prejudices often come in a nice little bundle. Am I the only one waiting to hear Yamil's opinions on Jews, Muslims, interracial marriage, and (probably) Catholics too?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 3:38 PM
"Something you may want to check out is the National Genographic Project, specifically their Atlas of the Human Journey, which shows the migration and changes in human populations over the last 60,000 years."
60,000 years. Ha!
You are going to prehistoric times. Do you not understand what that means. Anything that goes beyond what has been recorded in history is pure conjecture. It's amazing that you would swallow this hook and line knowing that there is no record of such a migration.
Of course. Evolution is one big knotted-up conjecture.
Congratulations. You have more faith than I do with all my religion.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 3:42 PM
It's funny how people claim that atheists just want to feel superior to the believers by not believing. I have to admit I'm feeling somewhat superior to Yamil and it has nothing to do with my atheism.
Posted by: DavidD | September 28, 2006 3:47 PM
How fun that this popped up again. I didn't see it before. I was so intrigued about this business of making eye babies that I searched on it. A google blog search turned up 38 sites, not all currently available, but each one in the past 6 months and responding to this same publicity about PCC (which was a Bible college in 1998 - in case anyone thinks they only hate godless liberals there, they also don't allow Calvinists or any speaking in tongues).
A regular search on google turns up over 1000 sites, too many for me to look at, but maybe the same story. One interesting one was a note to Wikipedia under User Talk: Kralizec! A former PCC student explained that neither "optical intercourse" nor "making eye babies" was an official term. "Staring into eyes" was the official term. The administration didn't enforce that, though, so the other students had to find something else to say besides, "get a room", which is where "making eye babies" came from. What creative kids.
I feel obligated to report this appalling lack of discipline for Yamil's sake. If he does send his daughter to PCC, Yamil may find himself an eye-granddad before Christmas. Well, at least no one would speak in tongues around her. Maybe that's one thing PZ would like about the place.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 3:47 PM
Of course you will try to play the race game. As a matter of fact, my Dad is black. And I have more black friends than probably you do in your elitist social club.
Jews are God's chosen people and we owe them a great thanks. It was Hitler, the evolutinist, that killed the Jews not the Christian.
Muslims... as long as they are not terrorist. They still need Jesus though.
Interracial marriage... Ha. I graduated from PCC not Bob Jones. And I am married to someone from another race.
Catholics, well, I have family who are Catholic and I love them very much.
Nice try. But you ate the bait.
It is the evolutionists who popularize race supremacy with its survival of the fittest, not the Judeo-Christian culture.
If you have any general knowledge of history, most of the modern day dictators were evolutionists.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 3:54 PM
Hitler was a Catholic. Besides the point but...
"Evolutionists" don't believe in racial supremacy. Race has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
You make it clear you don't even know what current devlopmental biology consists of.
You come off like a babbling baboon. Sorry baboons.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 3:54 PM
DavidD ,
I've made a few "eye-babies" myself. So long as you keep your purity.
I rather have that happen than find out that she's been participating in those group orgies during spring break.
You guys can never understand PCC because you do not understand God. I do not know of a student that went their in my five years that completely agreed with all the policies but they were content to be there for reasons you will never understand.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 3:57 PM
Steve_C ,
And let me guess you have never read Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest."
I think you are the babbling baboon. Your the one that insists that your pedigree consists of a bunch of monkeys.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 28, 2006 4:01 PM
Uh, Yamil Babbler, Darwin never wrote anything titled, "Survival of the Fittest."
Sorry about that, you wee uneducated git.
Posted by: David Godfrey | September 28, 2006 4:05 PM
The concept of race is extremely arbitrary. If you actually look deeper than some superficial differences in skin colour and facial details there's more difference within Africans than between any African group you mention and "whites".
African-Americans have appropriated the "n-word" in exactly the same way and for much the same reasons as gays have taken insults used against them.
The Judeo-Christian culture has been promoting racial supremacy using the Bible for longer than evolutionary theories have been going. I'm not goin to say that science hasn't been used to justify racism, it has, but so has the Bible, and for much longer and on a vastly bigger scale.
Most modern dictators have been driven by nationalistic ideologies. I suspect that's rather more important in selecting targets for genocide than an understanding of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibria.
Anyway killing people based on percieved weaknesses is artifical not natural selection. Something humans have been doing for 10,000 years or more.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:06 PM
Of course. I forgot technacalities:
"On
The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 4:07 PM
I don't insist that. And my pedigree is exactly the same as yours just many thousand years removed. Thankfully.
You are a walking and talking public service announcement for not attending PCC.
Posted by: DavidD | September 28, 2006 4:08 PM
So who's "you", Yamil? Is it anyone who disagrees with you? Anyone who doesn't go to your church? Anyone who doesn't say the Bible is the Word of God? Anyone who doesn't call Jesus Christ Lord and Savior? Anyone who believes mainstream science?
I guarantee you that you don't know where I fit in that list. I believe that God is whoever and whatever God is, whether atheists are right that He is just a better part of me or traditionalists are right or the much more likely possibility of something else is what's true. Do you think that's possible? It's true that I didn't learn that at PCC. I didn't send my daughters there, either. I'm sure they're better off that I didn't.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:09 PM
"The Judeo-Christian culture has been promoting racial supremacy using the Bible for longer than evolutionary theories have been going. I'm not goin to say that science hasn't been used to justify racism, it has, but so has the Bible, and for much longer and on a vastly bigger scale."
Most of the genocides have been in the hand of evolutionists not Christians.
That's the devastating truth.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 28, 2006 4:11 PM
Yammer:
Now that you've learned to google, learn to spell-check.
"technacalities."
Uneducated git.
And before you make even more of a morom out of yourself than you already have, Darwin didn't mean by "races" what you apparently think he meant.
Google a little further and see if you can tell us what he did mean.
As unlikely as it seems, you may even learn a little from this exchange.
I won't, however, be holding my breath.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:11 PM
"So who's "you", Yamil? Is it anyone who disagrees with you? Anyone who doesn't go to your church? Anyone who doesn't say the Bible is the Word of God? Anyone who doesn't call Jesus Christ Lord and Savior? Anyone who believes mainstream science?"
Yes.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 28, 2006 4:12 PM
morom ==> moron ==> Yamil.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 4:12 PM
Most of them had a moustache. Therefore people who have one MUST be evil.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:15 PM
Yes. I am sure you know how to google yourself. Its quite a long title.
I know perfectly what he meant. I also know what you would like him to mean as well.
But I will allow you to be my proofreader if you like.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:16 PM
So I see you've learned how to proofread yourself. Not bad for someone who evolved from a monkey.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:21 PM
"Do you think that's possible? It's true that I didn't learn that at PCC. I didn't send my daughters there, either. I'm sure they're better off that I didn't."
Yes. You can send them to a place that will teach them that the only value they have in life is knowing that they came from monkeys.
That's its OK to have mutiple partners, multiple divorces, and multiple partners. After all, we are all animals anyway.
So sad.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 4:27 PM
No one teaches we came from monkeys.
Multiple partners is OK.
Multiple divorces is kind of dumb from a financial standpoint.
You believe you're descended from Adam and Eve. That's hysterical.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 28, 2006 4:28 PM
Well, Yamil, I'm glad you don't subscribe to some of the more virulent prejudices of some of your religious cohorts (like the ones at BJU), although your sexist language is still pretty disturbing. However, so far as I can tell you are the first one here to use race as an issue, by implying that racial epithets are appropriate, so long as they are occasionally used within an in-group. But hey, I'm sure you and your dad would feel exactly the same being referred to as "the n-word" by a friend with no hostile intent as by, say, some white supremacist moron.
Oh, and what were these evolutionist-sponsored genocides of which you speak? Surely you aren't referring to the Nazis (mainly Lutherans/Catholics) or the purges of Stalin (who sent many evolutionary biologists to the gulag).
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:31 PM
Steve_C,
You are not evil. You've simply been stupified.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:36 PM
Yes Nazis as well, who just happen to be evolutionists. If they were practicing Catholics, I doubt they would have commited the crimes. You do not see the Pope practicing genocide.
Nice try.
Posted by: Uber | September 28, 2006 4:40 PM
If your retarded it's the truth. By percentage of the population harmed the religious actions far exceed any secular action.
If the marriage sucks is it not better for all involved to seek resolution. It's horrible to say anything is always bad. Some marriages are not good, not all divorces are bad.
99% of all humanity will have more than one partner during their lifetime, the majority more than 5. We seem to get along just fine as a species.
Posted by: Uber | September 28, 2006 4:43 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA, nothing is more funny than an uneducated individual speaking jibberish to people more educated than them.
They where practicing Catholics. The Vatican had knowledge of what was going on.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:43 PM
Justice Jackson noted that 'The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology', and 'carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.'2 He cited a decree of leading Nazi, Martin Bormann: 'More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.'2 Jackson cited another defendant, the viciously anti-Jewish propagandist and pornographer Julius Streicher, who 'complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of "racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe."'2
Posted by: David Godfrey | September 28, 2006 4:46 PM
The Spanish Inquisition was Catholic. That didn't seem to stop them killing people who disagreed with official dogma. The Conquistadors were Catholics. That didn't stop them wiping out the Incas and Aztecs.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 4:46 PM
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO68fUMWx3g
You're not evil Yamil. Just ignorant.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:47 PM
You do have a point. And the previous pope had relations with Hitler. That's what happens when evolution infiltrates religion.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:49 PM
David Godfrey,
Ha! That can hardly be called a genocide as evil as it was.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 4:53 PM
There have been many in the past that had had a form of Christianity that does not make one a Christian any more than baptizing a horse would make it a Christian.
I am sure that there may be some here that claim to be a Christian even though they would deny what the Bible stands for.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 28, 2006 4:58 PM
As assuredly that the earth revolves around the sun, we evolved.
We are evolving, everthing on this planet has evolved. It is a fact.
Evolution has nothing to with the evils man has done throughout history.
There is no devil. There is no hell. There is no heaven.
Posted by: David Godfrey | September 28, 2006 5:02 PM
It would if the horse called itself a christian. And claimed its actions were justified by God.
If the atrocities in Bosnia are genocide then wiping out the Cathars would be genocide.
Stalin's purges weren't just about race. They driven by differences in ideaology. They parallel the Spanish Inquisition very nicely.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 5:11 PM
the previous pope had relations with Hitler
the Pope had relations with Hitler?
I do declare I'm gettin' the vapors!
It would explain a lot, though.
I wonder if they made illegitimate eye babies together?
*evil grin*
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 5:13 PM
shouldn't the thread be godwined at this point?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 5:51 PM
"We are evolving, everthing on this planet has evolved. It is a fact."
Name one thing that you have observed evolve?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 5:53 PM
"There is no devil. There is no hell. There is no heaven."
And we all came from monkeys.
That's a hopeless worldview you have.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 5:57 PM
"Stalin's purges weren't just about race. They driven by differences in ideaology. They parallel the Spanish Inquisition very nicely."
There is no historian that would call that a genocide. But it does prove that Catholics and Evolutionists do have something in common.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 6:01 PM
Catholicism has been known to adapt itself to secularism. Its no wonder many of them try to reconcile evolution with the Bible.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 6:12 PM
So the conclusion of the whole matter is that everyone knows that Christian education is far superior than secular education. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Ever since prayer and the Bible have been banned from public education and evolution took its place, the quality of education has significantly dropped. All you have to do is walk to any school and look at all the police officers that we have to higher to maintain some sense of control and compare that to 50 years ago when The Bible was encouraged.
You can't teach kids that they are animals and expect them to act like human beings.
You can mock PCC for its silly rules, but you cannot deny that Christianity have done more to advance civilization than any evolutionist.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 6:15 PM
You mock and deride Christians as if they are ignorant but history testifies against evolution.
Even these last 50 years testify against it with its degeneration in education as a whole.
Posted by: Numad | September 28, 2006 6:16 PM
Look at the size of that troll!
Posted by: Coin | September 28, 2006 6:35 PM
Why not?Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 6:43 PM
Look at the size of that troll!
yeah, but fortunately, they are easily avoided, being so slow and stupid, after all.
beware of trolls with rocks, though.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 7:28 PM
If you want stupid, simply look at the product evolution has in the educational system.
For that matter, look at any part in society where evolution is strong and you will have a good idea of how degrading evolution is.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 7:31 PM
The only profit evolution has ever served is to give man an excuse to deny his Creator.
Posted by: Numad | September 28, 2006 7:34 PM
Would that be Prometheus?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 7:36 PM
have you ever heard the term "god-bothering tub-thumper" before, Yamil?
You're in a vegetarian restaurant trying to sell a side of beef, boy!
Posted by: Numad | September 28, 2006 7:39 PM
I'd say it's more of a pile of sausages of suspicious make and composition.
Posted by: David Godfrey | September 28, 2006 7:45 PM
Me proofreading's on the blink again.
"So the conclusion of the whole matter is that everyone knows that Christian education is far superior than secular education. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out."
Utter rubbish. I'd rather take a class that was poorly funded with a shoddy lecturer, than one where I'm taught blatant untruths and prevented from finding out that I'm being hoodwinked. The students at PCC aren't allowed in public libraries! In most universities you don't need to go to public libraries- all the references you'll require are at you findertips.
So education is getting worse because people are being taught about current science? They're also being taught about the germ theory of disease for just as long maybe that's the cause?
"Stalin's purges weren't just about race. They driven by differences in ideaology. They parallel the Spanish Inquisition very nicely."
There is no historian that would call that a genocide. But it does prove that Catholics and Evolutionists do have something in common.
Eh? It is perfectly possible to commit acts of genocide against members of the same religious, ethnic or political group as yourself. Dress it up in all the semantics you like you're still talking about the mass-murder of millions for purely arbitrary reasons.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 7:58 PM
"Utter rubbish. I'd rather take a class that was poorly funded with a shoddy lecturer, than one where I'm taught blatant untruths and prevented from finding out that I'm being hoodwinked. The students at PCC aren't allowed in public libraries! In most universities you don't need to go to public libraries- all the references you'll require are at you findertips."
Ha! I take it you have never been to PCC.
Believe the same lies from the same people that tell you that you came from monkies.
Posted by: Carlie | September 28, 2006 8:03 PM
Yamil, do you trust your daughter so little that you must lock her away at a Christian institution to prevent her from making her own choices? Do you not believe that she could keep her own sense of purity and religion in the midst of secularism? Do you think that she would actively avoid the multitude of Christian organizations at a secular college and go straight for frat row? Do you think that her faith is so shaky, so fragile, so nebulous that any contact with the outside world will destroy it? Do you hope that she never gets a job outside of a religious institution, and never meets the great unwashed nonchristians of the world, because if she did she would immediately give in to their siren call of worldliness and forsake all of your teachings?
You give your daughter very little credit. I hope that someday she realizes how patronizing you are.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 8:03 PM
So the conclusion of the whole matter is that everyone knows that Christian education is far superior than secular education. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Ever since prayer and the Bible have been banned from public education and evolution took its place, the quality of education has significantly dropped. All you have to do is walk to any school and look at all the police officers that we have to higher to maintain some sense of control and compare that to 50 years ago when The Bible was encouraged.
You can't teach kids that they are animals and expect them to act like human beings.
You can mock PCC for its silly rules, but you cannot deny that Christianity have done more to advance civilization than any evolutionist.
Posted by: Carlie | September 28, 2006 8:05 PM
And for god's sake, learn how to spell "monkeys". You're making my eyes bleed.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 8:08 PM
Carlie,
Would you allow your daughter to go to a SID infested whorehouse of a college?
Answer me that and I will answer yours.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 28, 2006 8:11 PM
Nah. I will answer you anyway.
My daughter would not go to such a pagan college.
Besides she is not stupid enough to be taught by someone who thinks his grandad came from monkIES.(wink-wink)
She will make that decision without me.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 28, 2006 8:15 PM
Oddly enough, the only people who have ever suggested that I came from monkeys were Creationists. People who are knowledgeable about evolution usually make the distinction between monkeys and apes, and the relevant distinction between apes and our proto-simian ancestors.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 8:17 PM
So the conclusion of the whole matter is that everyone knows that Christian education is far superior than secular education. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
depends on the rocket scientist.
are you a rocket scientist, there, yamil?
ever take a gander at the statistics that don't actually support your erroneous claim?
or are statistics also the realm of rocket scientists, pray tell?
whee! let's play whack a mole.
are you offering yourself as the example of superior xian education?
LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2006 8:24 PM
Would you allow your daughter to go to a SID infested whorehouse of a college?
which college is that? I must have gone to the wrong ones!
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 28, 2006 8:50 PM
The problems of SIDS, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion are actually documented to be worse for Bible-belt areas, "Red" states and counties, and those who have not been "exposed" to reasonably-factual sex education.
Sorry about that, Yammer-all-you-want.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 28, 2006 9:02 PM
What does Sudden Infant Death have to do with anything?
Oh, wait - perhaps he meant Sexually Tranmitted Disease. Us edumacated libruls usually appreviate that as STD.
Posted by: GH | September 28, 2006 9:09 PM
But she has apparently been indoctrinated by enough uniformed people that she will never be remotely educated about a powerful idea in science.
And as her father you should be ashamed as you have not carried the water correctly.
That is so stupid as to defy mere words. It wasn't until we through of the cloak of religion and let enlightenment thinking progress that we even made it this far. How can one be so willfully ignorant?
Why on Earth is it hopeless?
Posted by: Carlie | September 28, 2006 9:21 PM
Would you allow your daughter to go to a SID infested whorehouse of a college?
Answer me that and I will answer yours.
According to your criteria, I teach at one, and attended two others. Strangely enough, I never got an STD (which I assume you meant, not that it was infested with babies dying of crib death as you typed), and never got paid for sex. In fact, I was far too busy at my state university spending Monday nights at Baptist Student Union leadership council meetings, Tuesday nights at Bible study small group, Wendesday nights at church choir practice, Thursday nights at college worship service, every other weekend touring small rural churches with said choir, and Sunday mornings at church to notice any whoring going on.
For that matter, my fundamentalist parents weren't in the least apprehensive about me attending that den of iniquity, because they trusted that I could take care of myself and could make my own decisions about right and wrong. So again, do you trust your daughter or don't you?
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 28, 2006 9:26 PM
Dang, Caledonian, he even suckered me into using his incorrect acronym! Thanks for catching that.
Now, Yamil, as long as you're idling about the place, be of some use would you? That's a good troll!
Since you undoubtedly have access to segments of the, er, science establishment, not to mention the literal-Genesis-believing boobs, er, public, that we do not, I'm hoping you can help us with our latest charitable endeavor--
Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!
Posted by: Caledonian | September 28, 2006 10:38 PM
Isn't the real problem that he's suckered us into responding at all?
I genuinely dislike putting people on ignore lists - it's so easy for someone to offend unintentionally, or be misunderstod, or mistaken about a particular point, particular on the Internet - but there are some people that are just lost causes. Unfortunately, I don't have the self-restraint necessary to ignore their filth myself.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 10:19 AM
He's such a DFW he's entertaining.
I actually tried to have a conversation with him. But he's not up to the challenge.
The fallacies he believes in are so freaky and he has not ability for introspection.
Religion and the lies he believes are all he needs.
To him science is evil. Secular education is evil. Liberals are evil.
He's got it all worked out.
Ignorant git.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:09 AM
"But she has apparently been indoctrinated by enough uniformed people that she will never be remotely educated about a powerful idea in science.
And as her father you should be ashamed as you have not carried the water correctly."
Science. Ha! Theory. Their has not been one evolutionists that has progressed civilization through this theory. In fact you name any major scientist in history and none of them were evolutionists. Even the greatest Scientist of our time: Albert Einstein did not need Evolution to make a break in Science. In fact he gives the glory to his Creator for his breakthroughs.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:11 AM
"Oddly enough, the only people who have ever suggested that I came from monkeys were Creationists. People who are knowledgeable about evolution usually make the distinction between monkeys and apes, and the relevant distinction between apes and our proto-simian ancestors."
Yes technacalities. Excuse me. I forgot. Some of you came from monkies and others came from apes. You can pick and choose I guess where you came from.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:15 AM
"are you offering yourself as the example of superior xian education?"
Hmmm. You believe you came from monkeys. I believe that I was created by God.
Yes.
"xian"? Ha!
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 11:17 AM
From a PCC comment board:
"PCC is a place where you are to grow spiritually, regardless of how you perceive God would have you to grow. There is a tremendous importance placed on acting spiritual, with the foolish notion that acting spiritual makes you spiritual. The administration and middle level of authority is ignorant of student needs and absorbed in supposed "spiritual growth" This college is not one I would recommend to anyone unless I wanted to get rid of them. The gestapo system of government we thought dead with Hitler and Stalin is still very much alive, and one need not go any further than PCC to find it. My every move is monitored and I believe that were it possible for the school to monitor my thoughts, they would. This is not Christianity and Christian liberty, it is communism and self-righteousness, and there is no other word for it than disgusting."
http://www.studentsreview.com/FL/PCC_comments.html
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 11:18 AM
I'm pretty sure that your parents and to bang uglies to create you.
God had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 11:25 AM
Hey look. It's a pep rally at PCC.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1703504
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:29 AM
"The problems of SIDS, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion are actually documented to be worse for Bible-belt areas, "Red" states and counties, and those who have not been "exposed" to reasonably-factual sex education."
Where did you learn that. Let me guess from the same people that told you your greatest grandad is a monkey. Figures.
If you want a more honest statistic I reffer you to below:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends2004-map.gif
The devastated truth is that you have more problems with STDS in any secular college that you will ever have at PCC or any other Christian college.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 11:29 AM
PCC rules:
You may not go bare-foot in the halls or lounge.
You may not sing "too loud" during prayer group.
The blinds in your room must be closed after dusk.
You may not open your window.
You may not adjust your thermostat.
You may not wipe "boogers" on the wall. This is being cracked down on.
http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/rules.htm#DORM%20RULES:
Glad to hear those "boogers" will not be tolerated anymore.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:32 AM
"Of all the reported STD's in CA: 29% are among 15-19 year olds and 74% are among 15-24 year olds. While teens and young adults have the highest rates, STDs are equal opportunity diseases affecting adults of all ages, races, and cultures."
Think about this next time you go to your whore houses during spring break and act like a bunch of horny monkeys.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 11:34 AM
More rules:
You may not go to Cordova Mall after 5:00 p.m.
There are a myriad of restaurants the students are not allowed to go to, although faculty and staff frequent them (more specifics on campus).
Freshmen/Sophomore women must leave campus in groups of three or more. Junior/Senior women, in groups of 2.
No more than twenty students may meet off-campus without specific permission.
Males and Females are to use separate public beaches and may not go to the popular Pensacola Beach or to the nearby Boardwalk.
You may not go to a public library.
You may not go onto the campus of any other college in the Pensacola area.
Women are not allowed to hold off campus jobs. (All school jobs during the year pay minimum wage or below)
http://www.pensacolachristiancollege.com/rules.htm#DORM%20RULES:
Very demeaning to women. Unbelievably controlling, really. This is positively Talibanic!
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 11:40 AM
Hahahahaha, I mean this guy is funny.
I hate to tell you fellas but I'm pretty sure this Yamil person is not a real individual in the sense that he can't believe he is
1. educated
2. believe he has any understanding of what he is saying.
He is a parody. Has to be. No one can be this stupid can they?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 11:40 AM
Hey there's this crazy invention that prevents almost all STDs... it's called a condom!
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:41 AM
"For that matter, my fundamentalist parents weren't in the least apprehensive about me attending that den of iniquity, because they trusted that I could take care of myself and could make my own decisions about right and wrong. So again, do you trust your daughter or don't you?"
And where are you now. Certainly not in church. You've probably left everything that your parent's instilled in you to fornicate with your boyfriend.
Lady, that is nothing to brag about. You left God for worldview that teaches you that you came from monkeys.
But, I guarantee you that your parents are still praying for you. I gurantee you that Jesus still loves you. And after you spend all your living, you will not have the world their to help you.
It's a story that has been played 100 times over and over again.
Apparently, your parents trusted you too much. But the issue is not about trust its about love. I doubt you would allow your 2 year old to play outside by himself. Yes, you love him enough to place restrictions enough to protect him from harm.
But of course, you do not like restrictions do you?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:44 AM
"Dang, Caledonian, he even suckered me into using his incorrect acronym! Thanks for catching that."
I told you are a sucker. Just like they suckered you to believeing that you came from a monkey.
Posted by: JimC | September 29, 2006 11:46 AM
Yamil you keep saying this again and again:
One many believe in God and understand science. And 2 if I had to choose my relatives I have no problem with them being a monkey even though that is not even remotely what the theory says but why try to educate a 'person' like yourself. Bathe in your stupidity just be aware of the fact that you are willfully ignorant.
Your attitude speaks to a general dislike for nature of which we are a part. I have no problem having a kinship with other organisms.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 11:46 AM
Rules are nothing without knowledge and experience.
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 11:48 AM
Yeah all that evidence and testable predictions sure did sucker in many.
Oh and this is incorrect:
Einstein thought nature was God you dolt. He rejected all religions.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 11:50 AM
No one can be this stupid can they?
are you sure you've spent time on this blog?
Yamil isn't even the worst I've seen, here or on PT.
go check out the AFDave threads in the ATBC area on PT.
that guy will make you say:
"Argh! The Stupid! It burns!"
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 11:50 AM
"To him science is evil. Secular education is evil. Liberals are evil."
Ha! Nice try.
All of out greatest scientists acknowledged their Creator. It's not science that's evil. It's evolution that's evil. Evolution is a theory, nothing else. It can never be a Science because it can never be tested nor observed. I hate to break it to you, but you guys have more faith than I do.
Secular education is evil. Well, if its foundation is evolution than yes. You are learning.
Liberals are evil. Some. Their greatest problem is that they have a fanatical hatred towards God.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 11:50 AM
For Yamil:
http://www.uky.edu/PR/UK_News/Resources/90902art/janegoodall.jpg
http://x6c.xanga.com/1beb7557c553047951442/z32261072.jpg
http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/57BUSH.jpg
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 11:55 AM
not science that's evil. It's evolution that's evil.
Yamil is evil.
prove it's not so.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 12:01 PM
Here's some facts about STD's and those teens who pledge abstinence.
Apparently Christian Teens are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex to maintain their "virginity". And less likely to use condoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginity_pledge
However, scientific studies show that young adults who make an external commitment or pledge to maintain their virginity until marriage have similar rates of STIs as those who have not made an external commitment. [2], [3] Other studies show that the effects of virginity pledges typically include the delay of vaginal sexual intercourse by 12 to 18 months, but with decreased likelihood of condom use at the first encounter. [4] A 2005 Harvard study of virginity pledges showed that the pledges have little staying power among those who take them, with half the adolescents who signed the public promises giving up on their pledges within a year. [5]
"In the end, such pledges are counterproductive to developing habits of lifetime sexual responsibility. When they broke the promise, as almost all did, these fallen angels were less effective contraceptors than their peers who had become active earlier. The study of Philadelphia middle schoolers reported in the JAMA educed the same results." (Harmful to Minors, 113)
Additionally, those who commit to sexual abstinence are more likely to participate in oral and anal sex than those who have not made that commitment. These methods of intercourse carry no risk of pregnancy, but, when unprotected, still allow the transmission of STIs.
According to one study [6], those who make the pledge but later violate it are likely to deny ever pledging and many who were sexually active prior to taking the pledge deny their sexual history and underestimate their risk of having STD's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48509-2005Mar18.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/08/MNGPHIN8IF1.DTL
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:01 PM
"Einstein thought nature was God you dolt. He rejected all religions."
I find it quite humorous how the only thing you guys can come up with is calling me stupid, ignorant. And then you have the audacity to say stuff like the above quote.
GH you have been stupified by the God-hating skeptic.
Their is unquestionable proof that Einstein believed in his Creator. This is clearly reflected in an interview which Einstein later in life gave to an American magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, in 1929:
"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"You accept the historical Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:02 PM
And where are you now. Certainly not in church.
are you in church right now, evil Yamil?
you must have abandoned your god to spend time writing your evil, insane missives at the keyboard of your computer.
I think you should go perform some corporal mortification, right now!
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:03 PM
"On the subject of Einstein and God Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian."
Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Albert Einstein, Z ürich, 1979, p.12, cited by Max Jammer, op. cit. p. 54: "Einstein pflegte so oft von Gott zu sprechen, dass ich beinahe vermute, er sei ein verkappter Theologe gewesen."
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:07 PM
Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" Einstein replied as follows:
I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
Denis Brian, Einstein, A Life, New York, 1996, p.128
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 12:08 PM
I don't hate god. There is no god. It's like hating Santa Claus or unicorns. What's the point?
Do you believe that DNA exists Yamil?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:09 PM
Here let me refer to a very interesting letter, recorded by Helen Dukas, which Einstein wrote to a child who asked him whether scientists prayed.
I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. 33
Dukas and Hoffmann, op. cit. p. 32f. of Princeton Theological Seminary.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 12:10 PM
Quote war!
Enistein: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
Einstein: "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 12:11 PM
Einstein on birth control: "I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet."
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:11 PM
you're insane.
you do know that, right?
just wanted to make sure.
Posted by: Carlie | September 29, 2006 12:15 PM
Yeah, state university really sends people downhill. Like my friend who became a pastor. Or the two who became youth ministers. Or the one who became an overseas missionary. Or the one who became a local minister giving sermons in Russian for the immigrant community. Attending a state college really sent them to hell in a handbasket, didn't it?
Admit it, Yamil, you're scared of life outside your house. And you're strangely fascinated and obsessed with the sex lives of others, based on your comments.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:16 PM
"I don't hate god. There is no god. It's like hating Santa Claus or unicorns. What's the point?"
Yes you do. If you deny the existence of your son or your father, you do so for no other reason but because you hate him my friend.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 29, 2006 12:17 PM
Jeebus, people. I know you've all hooked a big one here, but is it really worth all of the effort of reeling this thrashing beast into the boat, only to discover you've got a trash fish that rots as you look at it and isn't even fit for fertilizer in the garden?
Play a little longer if you want, but I think that insulting my students by calling them diseased whores is grounds for banning the fool, and I may not have patience for him much longer. Besides, all he's doing here is confirming my worst sentiments towards Christians...and those don't need reinforcing at all.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 12:18 PM
Einstein: "The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other."
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:20 PM
getting back to GH's disbelief in the personage of the evil Yamil...
GH, if folks like Yamil didn't exist, this thread would never have seen the light of your monitor.
Pensacola Christian never would have been founded.
so not only is Yamil unlikely to be unique, he must be actually commonplace in Pensacola.
btw, isn't that where Katherine Harris hangs?
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 12:21 PM
He is a parody, has to be.
No one would deny the existence of people they see daily, an invisible being is not even analogous.
Oh and Einstein certainly wasn't a Christian and you can't make him one Yamil.
I think you are an evil man.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:22 PM
Carlie,
I have friends that attended State Universities as well and are doing quite well. But you know that the environement is pagan. And I am sure that your friends would say the same thing.
And if you are trully a Christian, I find it quite disturbing that you should side with infidels rather than reproving their error.
It goes to show how far away from God you have really gone.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 12:23 PM
My friend you understand neither science nor atheism.
Please try and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Just so you don't sound like a complete idiot.
At least try to understand the thing you don't believe.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:25 PM
I think you are an evil man.
see, Yamil?
my theory that you are in reality, evil, is gaining ground.
the evidence is just pouring in.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:25 PM
Well if you want to ignore Einstein's own testimony than it goes to show you your darkened spiritual state.
And it serves to prove my point that people do not believe in God because they cannot believe in God, they do not believe in God because the do not WANT to believe in GOd.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:31 PM
"No one would deny the existence of people they see daily, an invisible being is not even analogous."
Yep but you are sure quick to believe in the apeman, though noone in recorded history has seen one.
You are sure to believe in the big bang even though yu have never seen one.
You even are willing to believe that your granddad is a monkey, though you cannot trace your geneology that far.
You believe that you are evolving though you have never experienced and evolutionary process.
It goes to show you that you do not believe in God because you cannot believe in him. You do not believe in God because you DO NOT want anything to do with him.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:32 PM
And if you are trully a Christian, I find it quite disturbing that you should side with infidels rather than reproving their error.
infidels?
that's it, I'm calling homeland security on that Yamil terrorist!
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 12:32 PM
Yamil you are ignoring Einsteins words as well. And far more clear words. As a Christian you should value honesty and it is clear that you do not.
This is why you fail as a Christian. You should seek the truth rather than uphold dogma and create division. You fail on both accounts.
I can see you willfully choose not to believe in Allah and as such you will burn in hell forever. You do not want to believe in Allah.
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 12:33 PM
Yamil you are ignoring Einsteins words as well. And far more clear words. As a Christian you should value honesty and it is clear that you do not.
This is why you fail as a Christian. You should seek the truth rather than uphold dogma and create division. You fail on both accounts.
I can see you willfully choose not to believe in Allah and as such you will burn in hell forever. You do not want to believe in Allah.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:36 PM
The devastating truth is that noone in this bored can give one positive contribution that evolution has made to society.
And noone can think of any major scientific breakthrough that resulted from the theory of evolution.
Posted by: Carlie | September 29, 2006 12:37 PM
Sigh. So many ignorant statements by one person, so little time to combat them by those of us who are gainfully employed and have better things to do. It's like a Medusa. Cut off one wrong statement, and seven others rise up to take its place.
I still like the Doonesbury idea- have a form at the doctor's office, Creationist or not. Creationists don't get any new classes of antibiotics, because evolution didn't happen and bacteria are therefore not antibiotic-resistant. Could take care of the problem fairly quickly, one way or the other.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:38 PM
HA! An atheist Muslim. That's a new breed.
Is that another concept of evolution?
Ha! Thanks for the laugh
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 12:38 PM
We have their bones doofus.
We have evidence for that also.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:39 PM
bored
why yes, I am now that you mention it.
do your frequent misspellings represent the triumph of your xian education, evil terrorist Yamil?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 12:39 PM
Anyone ever see a dinosaur or a mammoth? But we know they existed.
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 12:40 PM
I'm not an atheist Yamil.
Never said I was.
But you are willfully choosing not to love Allah and you will be punished for it.
Posted by: Carlie | September 29, 2006 12:41 PM
I haven't ever seen Moses. Or Noah. Or Abraham. Or Peter, James, or John. Or Jesus. Therefore, by Yamil's standards....
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:41 PM
Yep. Everyone has evidence. I am sure that one can come up with evidence for the existence of Santa Claus as well.
We will be seeing his sleigh and reindeer pretty soon.
Ha! Bones? Ha!
You have been stupified.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:44 PM
Therefore, by Yamil's standards....
Yamil has standards?
I coulda swore he was just winging random insanities.
Of course, I guess even evil terrorists like Yamir can adopt some sort of standards.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:44 PM
"evil terrorist Yamil"
Yes, the truth is terrifying is'nt it. But you can choose not to believe that you came from a monkey. That's the easisest solution.
Posted by: Carlie | September 29, 2006 12:44 PM
How about, oh, all of agriculture? Directed evolution in action, thanks.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:47 PM
Yes, the truth is terrifying is'nt it. But you can choose not to believe that you came from a monkey. That's the easisest solution.
you do realize you're completely insane, yes?
You understand that we aren't discussing anything with you, just making fun of you flinging your poo about your cage?
just checking.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 12:48 PM
"I haven't ever seen Moses. Or Noah. Or Abraham. Or Peter, James, or John. Or Jesus. Therefore, by Yamil's standards...."
Actually that is you and your infidel friends standards Carlie. Read the post. You reject God on the basis that you have not seen him.
you are sure quick to believe in the apeman, though noone in recorded history has seen one.
You are sure to believe in the big bang even though yu have never seen one.
You even are willing to believe that your granddad is a monkey, though you cannot trace your geneology that far.
You believe that you are evolving though you have never experienced and evolutionary process.
It goes to show you that you do not believe in God because you cannot believe in him. You do not believe in God because you DO NOT want anything to do with him.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 12:49 PM
I vote for disemvoweling.
Nothing of substance is being offered by Yamil.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 12:50 PM
Genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
That's one major contribution of the theory of evolution.
You do believe in heredity don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:52 PM
I vote for disemvoweling.
yeah, he's starting to repeat himself verbatim.
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 12:52 PM
Yamil the simple fact remains that you do not believe in the correct version of God. You do not believe in in Allah because you DO NOT want anything to do with him.
You will be punished.
Posted by: GH | September 29, 2006 12:54 PM
As fun as it is it has gotten boring and he clearly is not going to offer much.
Disemvoweling is in order.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 12:54 PM
You do not believe in in Allah because you DO NOT want anything to do with him.
You will be punished.
yeah!
no virgins for you, terrorist!
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 12:55 PM
He's of the Kent Hovind school of thought. Sorry. School of Non-Thinking and Subterfuge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovind
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:02 PM
Just for the record, I don't think Yamil is evil. He just believes in alot of bullshit and is surrounded by people who think the same way. He's so far from any truth he has to lash out and defend his beliefs. He is a closeminded person, and I'm sure he likes it that way. It's comforting and reassuring. That's what ignorance is.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 1:03 PM
From that Hovind site: "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief."
I'm evidence for evolution. Me.
Show me the money, Kent!
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:09 PM
"Genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
That's one major contribution of the theory of evolution.
You do believe in heredity don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity"
Steve, you are a good googler but not a good researcher.
The only thing William Bateson did is create the word. That can hardly be considered a breakthrough. The "Father of Genetics" is Gregor Johann Mendel. And he happened to believe in God.
Try again.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:10 PM
And here's some great quotes on ignorance.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignorance
I like these.
"If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man alive."
"You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and still come out completely dry. Most people do." ~Norman Juster
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right." ~Mark Twain
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:13 PM
"Just for the record, I don't think Yamil is evil. He just believes in alot of bullshit and is surrounded by people who think the same way. He's so far from any truth he has to lash out and defend his beliefs. He is a closeminded person, and I'm sure he likes it that way. It's comforting and reassuring. That's what ignorance is."
So you believe you came from a monkey and you sorround yourself from people who believe they came from monkey's.
Hmmm. I rather be in my group.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 1:14 PM
Hmmm. I rather be in my group.
see, Steve?
He prefers to be evil.
told ya.
Posted by: Carlie | September 29, 2006 1:17 PM
Yeah, I'm getting tired now, too. Repeating one's own comments without addressing anything brought up by anyone else makes for boring. There's close-minded, and there's sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalala", and Yamil is clearly the latter. Besides, we've now wandered far from the original topic, which is what a shithole PCC is for offering a substandard education under the cloak of Jesus. The point of the original post wasn't even aimed completely at the weirdness of the religiosity of the place, but at the fact that they are not accredited and don't plan to try, yet bill themselves as a good place to spend all your money on a "degree" that turns out to be completely worthless.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:18 PM
Kent Honvind. Yes I am of his group. Noone can take his challenge, because its impossible to prove evolution.
You need more faith than me to believe in evolution.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:19 PM
You do know that you can be a scientist and a christian and understand that evolution is a fact. You just can't seem to put that all together.
Just because a scientist is a christian doesn't mean thier theories aren't based on evolution or support the theory.
In his paper "Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden" ("Experiments in Plant Hybridization"), presented in 1865 to the Brunn Natural History Society, Gregor Mendel traced the inheritance patterns of certain traits in pea plants and showed that they could be described mathematically. Although not all features show these patterns of Mendelian inheritance, his work suggested the utility of the application of statistics to the study of inheritance. Since that time many more complex forms of inheritance have been demonstrated.
The significance of Mendel's work was not understood until early in the twentieth century, after his death, when his research was re-discovered by other scientists working on similar problems.
Mendel did not understand the nature of inheritance. We now know that some heritable information is carried in DNA. (Retroviruses, including influenza, oncoviruses and HIV, and many plant viruses, carry information as RNA.) Manipulation of DNA can in turn alter the inheritance and features of various organisms.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:25 PM
He chooses to be ignorant. Not really a surprise. Sad though.
What can you say to a young earth creationist who probably believes we're in the end times...
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:26 PM
"The point of the original post wasn't even aimed completely at the weirdness of the religiosity of the place, but at the fact that they are not accredited and don't plan to try, yet bill themselves as a good place to spend all your money on a "degree" that turns out to be completely worthless. "
Yes you are right. But this is coming from someone who never attended PCC and who probably has no idea of the terms of accredidation nor of historic-traditional educational values.
The quality of education has nothing to do with acreditation. Especially coming from an agency that tries to kick God out of the public arena.
So a god-forsaken, STD infested, spring-break whoremongers, institution is accredited. That makes it ok.
Ha!
You take any law student or med student from PCC and compare its tests to most of secular universities you will find that.
If I was able to do the research I would.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:27 PM
"The point of the original post wasn't even aimed completely at the weirdness of the religiosity of the place, but at the fact that they are not accredited and don't plan to try, yet bill themselves as a good place to spend all your money on a "degree" that turns out to be completely worthless. "
Yes you are right. But this is coming from someone who never attended PCC and who probably has no idea of the terms of accredidation nor of historic-traditional educational values.
The quality of education has nothing to do with acreditation. Especially coming from an agency that tries to kick God out of the public arena.
So a god-forsaken, STD infested, spring-break whoremongers, institution is accredited. That makes it ok.
Ha!
You take any law student or med student from PCC and compare its tests to most of secular universities you will find that.
If I was able to do the research I would.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:32 PM
Steve C,
"Just because a scientist is a christian doesn't mean thier theories aren't based on evolution or support the theory."
Then he gives a long quote that has nothing to do with the hypothesis given.
Ha!
But, to make you feel better inspite of your incoherent thoughts, I do agree with you. Their are some Christians that try to reconcile God with evolution. This, of itself is an oxymoron. But at least they give the glory to their Creator.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:33 PM
Can you get into law school without a degree from an accredited college?
Is a good LSAT score all you need? Just curious.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:39 PM
I posted the information about Mendel to give context to how his research lead to Genetics which supports the theory of evolution.
Mendel's religion is irrelevant. Also Evolution makes no statement about god or the origins of life.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 1:39 PM
So a god-forsaken, STD infested, spring-break whoremongers, institution is accredited. That makes it ok.
Hey, why don't the just institute a chastity belt policy at PCC? Then the women could go to the mall and open their windows in the evening withour fear of intruders seeking to "rob" them of their virginity.
http://www.needmorestuff.com/chastitybelt.htm
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 1:40 PM
But, to make you feel better inspite of your incoherent thoughts,
as John Stewart would say...
WHAAAA???
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:48 PM
What it comes down to is that Yamil wants his daughter to go to PCC in order to protect her "purity". Seems like a ridiculous reason for choosing a school.
Choosing a school based on whether or not she can trust herself alone with young men.
Bizarre.
Posted by: RavenT | September 29, 2006 1:49 PM
That just says it all, doesn't it?
Posted by: Carlie | September 29, 2006 1:49 PM
"and who probably has no idea of the terms of accredidation"
I was on one of the subcommittees writing up the report for the accreditation team when my school went through it last year, so you strike out there. I know very well the terms of accreditation. Yes, it has a lot to do with the quality of education, not surprisingly. As for your other assertion, there are many religious schools that are accredited; PCC can't hide behind God as an excuse there.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:49 PM
"Jeebus, people. I know you've all hooked a big one here, but is it really worth all of the effort of reeling this thrashing beast into the boat, only to discover you've got a trash fish that rots as you look at it and isn't even fit for fertilizer in the garden?
Play a little longer if you want, but I think that insulting my students by calling them diseased whores is grounds for banning the fool, and I may not have patience for him much longer. Besides, all he's doing here is confirming my worst sentiments towards Christians...and those don't need reinforcing at all."
And I suppose that allowing them to cuss and spew out lies about a college they probably never heard of
So you are the godless infidel that is teaching its students that their granddad is a monkey.
Well, tell me sir.
What good contribution has the THEORY of evolution done for society?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 1:51 PM
I'm hungry. Have a headache and I'm tired of feeding the troll. Time to feed myself.
Love my godless nyc liberal life though. :)
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:52 PM
Carlie,
Glad to hear. Maybe you can educate me.
What are the basic requirements of accredidation?
Does an institution have to teach evolution for it to be accredited?
Does one have to teach that their is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality?
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 29, 2006 1:53 PM
Yamil, you are a crazed and ignorant, self-insulating weirdo, mumbling and drooling over your keyboard in your obsessive jealousy of guys who actually know how to engage in everyday social interactions competently enough to meet and form relationships with healthy young women.
But that's okay, dude! There's hope for (almost) everyone. All is forgiven, so long as you just--
Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2006 1:54 PM
So you are the godless infidel that is teaching its students that their granddad is a monkey.
godless infidels are what muslim terrorists call westerners.
I still claim Yamil's an evil terrorist, trying to disguise himself as an evangelical xian.
he's cruisin' for a bruisin PZ.
I seriously doubt anyone would miss the misguided monkey.
toss 'im.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 1:57 PM
Funny,
Mr George quoting Einstein on everything else except on the topic at hand.
The fact is that Einstein believe in his Creator. Something that you refuse to do.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 2:02 PM
Can you get into law school without a degree from an accredited college?
Is a good LSAT score all you need? Just curious.
Yep. Technically you do not have to even go to college so long as you get a good score on the test.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 2:04 PM
Mendel's religion is irrelevant. Also Evolution makes no statement about god or the origins of life.
Ha! Did you ever hear about the BIg Bang?
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 2:06 PM
So the conclusion of the whole matter is that everyone knows that Christian education is far superior than secular education. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Ever since prayer and the Bible have been banned from public education and evolution took its place, the quality of education has significantly dropped. All you have to do is walk to any school and look at all the police officers that we have to higher to maintain some sense of control and compare that to 50 years ago when The Bible was encouraged.
You can't teach kids that they are animals and expect them to act like human beings.
You can mock PCC for its silly rules, but you cannot deny that Christianity have done more to advance civilization than any evolutionist.
Posted by: RavenT | September 29, 2006 2:09 PM
Mr. Raven actually teaches LSAT prep, so he knows specific facts about which Yamil is speculating. While what Yamil says is technically true (as Yamil concedes), the law school admissions landscapes is so competitive that even a high score is not enough for the best schools. And your likelihood of getting that high score without attending college is less (not zero, of course), because the test itself draws on the kinds of reading and test-taking skills reinforced in college.
So if you're willing to settle for the lower tiers of law school, it could conceivably work, but the strategy has almost zero chance of success for a high-quality law school. It's odd to advocate hamstringing yourself in a competitive marketplace, but that's what Yamil is doing.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 2:11 PM
Yamil, Einstein would consider you a supreme idiot.
The Taliban, on the other hand, would welcome you with open arms.
Your attitude towards women is incredibly offensive. You have inspired me to read more about the fundie movement's efforts to exert control over women's lives. I'm going to start with this:
Betty A. Deberg
Ungodly Women: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism (Three Indispensable Studies of American Evangelicalism)
"DeBerg's 1990 work announced with clarity what the primary sources had long been trumpeting, if scholars had only noticed that the rise of American fundamentalism was inextricably tied to men's anxieties about retaining their dominant status over women. No book has ever shown with greater precision (or volume) of documentation just how thoroughly saturated with gender concerns the literature of early fundamentalism was.... Ungodly Women is today what it was at its original publication in 1990: the best examination of gender and fundamentalism ever written." --
Valarie Ziegler, DePauw University
I don't even want to know what you think about homosexuality.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 2:12 PM
The big bang. Yup heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Has nothing to do with the evolution of life on earth though.
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.
Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).
The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began -- calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) -- and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory.[1]
From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[2] The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory.
Posted by: Zbu | September 29, 2006 2:18 PM
Let me sum up what this troll is saying every single time:
"It's true! My mommy said it's so!"
Look upon Yamil, for his life has pretty much been squandered. What a pathetic life.
Posted by: Carlie | September 29, 2006 2:32 PM
"Technically you do not have to even go to college so long as you get a good score on the test."
So you're admitting that PCC is at best equivalent with not ever going to college?
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 29, 2006 3:24 PM
Yamil, I want you to take a deep breath, step away from that keyboard!--just for a moment, long enough to take a good stretch--then look around your squalid, plain, cheaply-furnished dorm room, gradually allowing your eyes to focus on middle distances, and then take a good hard look out the window (just ignore the "security" bars that PCC windows doubtless have) at the beauty of the natural world all around you--the world that your God built just for you (might as well enjoy it while you're here, in whatever few non-salvation threatening ways may be allowed)...
Okay. You may now reapproach the keyboard.
All right. Please now address a critical issue you have persisted in ignoring: What about Noah's gerbils*!?!
These innocent, fuzzy, and friendly creatures are critically threatened by ongoing events in Iraq, yet--because of their unique range--a comparison of their genome with that of other gerbil species with broader or different ranges could provide crucial support for literalist interpretations of Genesis: a direct test of the reality and date of the Noah's ark story!
So, all our profound differences aside, this oughta be an issue even a self-deprived, delusionary, and disingenuous tub-thumper like yourself could get behind. Something that might actually accomplish something to elucidate the existence of your lord and savior! Unlike fruitlessly wrangling with this here horde of evil atheist evil-oo-shunists and spring-break hoors. Now get out there and--
Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!**
___________
*G. mesopotamiae, with a distribution confined to "Biblical" Mesopotamia, site of--among other things--Abraham's alleged birthplace, Ur of the Chaldeans.
**Bumperstickers should be available shortly.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 29, 2006 4:23 PM
Holy cow. I turn my back for a few minutes, and look what happens. Tsk.
Disemvowel? No. This should be preserved. This shows us what we're up against. There are plenty of Yamils out there who are out to destroy the fruits of the Enlightenment (including the America of Jefferson and Madison) with their Dark Age mentality. Hiding it doesn't mean it's gone.
Misogynist reactionary radicals like Yamil, a person who hates Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Thought, Knowledge, and (obviously) Women - indeed, who hates any person or thing that does not conform to whatever dogma is scratched on the wall of his finite and lightless little cell - may need to be kept on the radar.
I am a junior at a private college for women. Like Carlie, I am not now and have never been a whore, have never had an STD (and what business is that of yours?) Yamil? Who are you to say otherwise? Who are you to slander people you've never met and about whom you know absolutely nothing? Who are you to bear false witness against me? Who are you? Who? What gives you the right?
You should be ashamed of yourself. You're indecent and immoral.
Ha!
Posted by: Kseniya | September 29, 2006 4:25 PM
Ok, done feeding the troll. All y'all can get out your red pens now. ;-)
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 4:53 PM
George,
I think you should allow Einstein to speak for himself. Just because you think I am an idiot does not make me one anymore than you teaching kids that their parents were monkeys at one time make them monkeys.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." [pg. 153, Calaprice, Quotable Einstein]
"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929; [pg.147, Calaprice]. (Spinoza believed the more one studies and understands the universe the better one understands God)
"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." [pg. 58, Mayer, Bite-size Einstein]
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." [Letter to a child who asked if scientist pray, January 24, 1936; pg. 152 Calaprice]
"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." or sometimes quoted as "God does not play dice with the universe." [pg. 56, Mayer]
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." [Albert Einstein, The World as I See It American Institute of Physics Online]
In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of the priests." [pg.153 Calaprice]
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
"What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind." [pg. 56 Mayer]
"The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior." ["Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein Online]
"The relativity principle in connection with the basic Maxwellian equations demands that the mass should be a direct measure of the energy contained in a body; light transfers mass. With radium there should be a noticeable diminution of mass. The idea is amusing and enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading me up the garden path - that I cannot know." [Letter to Conrad Habicht in 1905, pg. 196 Folsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography]
I think Einstein would differ with you in many aspects. I think he would pity you.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 4:57 PM
George wrote:
"The Taliban, on the other hand, would welcome you with open arms."
Actually the Taliban would welcome you way before they would ever welcome me.
Nice try.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 5:06 PM
Einstein isn't lauded for his religious views today.
At bottom, no one really cares about those views.
They care about his discoveries in physics.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:06 PM
George wrote:
"Your attitude towards women is incredibly offensive. You have inspired me to read more about the fundie movement's efforts to exert control over women's lives. I'm going to start with this:"
I have not even said anything about women. For a college professor you surely lack intellectual honesty. Especially that half quote you gave about Einstein. The full quote is stated above.
And it seems to me that you have no idea of what Evangelical Fundamentalism is. Just because something has the fundamentalist does not mean that they are associated with me.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 29, 2006 5:08 PM
Yamil, what exactly do you have against gerbils?
What wrongs have gerbil-kind ever done to you?
Speak plainly and directly, as Jesus would have wanted you to do:
Are you for Noah's Gerbil?
Or are you just against God, despite all your claims to the contrary?
These are pretty simple and straightforward questions, ones that even you ought to be able to answer.
The gerbils of the Mesopotamia are watching...!
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:10 PM
George wrote:
"Einstein isn't lauded for his religious views today.
At bottom, no one really cares about those views.
They care about his discoveries in physics."
Well at least you are digressing a little. But the point of the matter is that every major Scientist that made a breakthrough in science acknowledged his Creator.
Evolution has done nothing to contribute society other than provide a system wherby the skeptic can feel good in his skepticism.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:14 PM
"The big bang. Yup heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Has nothing to do with the evolution of life on earth though."
Yep that's why every introductory book about evolution mentions the big bang.
Nice try. Maybe next time.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:21 PM
"I am a junior at a private college for women. Like Carlie, I am not now and have never been a whore, have never had an STD (and what business is that of yours?) Yamil? Who are you to say otherwise? Who are you to slander people you've never met and about whom you know absolutely nothing? Who are you to bear false witness against me? Who are you? Who? What gives you the right? "
I am sorry. I must be politically correct. You are a godless fornicator.
Hopefully that is better.
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 5:23 PM
I don't see how anyone could support a place like this:
"They are very very very conservative, and they are insanely strict.
[...]
And they employ spies to make sure that you follow their rules 24/7. I'm serious; they hire people who do nothing all day except stand around and watch the students looking for misdemeanors. They hire people who do nothing all day but drive around town and check on students who are off campus to make sure that they aren't overstaying their passes. Yeah, you have to have a pass to leave campus at any time.
If you get too many demerits, they will appoint someone to follow you to all your classes and to every meal and to church. This is called being "shadowed", and their job is to make sure that you don't speak to certain people or speak of certain things that could be detrimental to the college.
I've known them to wait until all the students are out of their dorm rooms, and make routine checks looking through students' belongings to see if they are hiding rock music or jeans.
If you are at all concerned about a college being too restrictive and conservative for you, then PCC is not for you. They are strict to the point of tyranny. Almost all of the people in authority don't care about the students; all they care about is rules and their image. Many of their policies are un-Biblical (encouraging students to rat out other students creating an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion) and they are sadly devoid of Christian charity, mercy, and love."
http://www.studentsreview.com/FL/PCC_comments.html?d_school=Pensacola%20Christian%20College&selected=Casual%20Comments
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:23 PM
So the conclusion of the whole matter is that everyone knows that Christian education is far superior than secular education. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Ever since prayer and the Bible have been banned from public education and evolution took its place, the quality of education has significantly dropped. All you have to do is walk to any school and look at all the police officers that we have to higher to maintain some sense of control and compare that to 50 years ago when The Bible was encouraged.
You can't teach kids that they are animals and expect them to act like human beings.
You can mock PCC for its silly rules, but you cannot deny that Christianity have done more to advance civilization than any evolutionist.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 5:26 PM
Do you understand what the Big Bang theory is?
Do you understand what evolution is?
I mean... even if you don't acknowledge that they are true as observed through science, do you at least understand the concepts that you disagree with.
I suspect if it's not in the bible you don't need to.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 29, 2006 5:31 PM
How is secular education inferior to a christian education?
You just keep repeating yourself, with no evidence or facts.
I could say secular universities are superior because the girls are hot and sexually active.
My reason is as good as yours. Has nothing to do with the education value of a college though.
Posted by: RavenT | September 29, 2006 5:33 PM
Must be a big relief to drop the effort of that "they'll know we are Christians by our love" pretense, isn't it?
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 29, 2006 5:37 PM
Yamil, stop evading the key issue here (and, please, moron, whatever you think about us "godless fornicators," stop merely re-posting your previous posts--not only does that suggest that you are left with nothing new to say in response to new points from your fellow discussants, but it's abominable internet etiquette).
Again, the key issue is Noah's gerbil.
Are you for or against this innocent Biblical creature that could provide crucial evidence substantiating your worldview?
I understand that it's a bit disconcerting to realize that a mere gerbil could give better evidence on behalf of Genesis by far than you have managed to do, but get over yourself. After all, Jesus counsels humility.
Are you pro-gerbil? Or anti-god?
Simple questions, guy. What's the big problem you seem to be having with coughing up a coherent response?
Posted by: George | September 29, 2006 5:40 PM
Christianity have done more to advance civilization than any evolutionist.
You are comparing a concept to a class of persons. That's not going to work. I could say:
Science has done more to advance civilization than any bible-thumping fundie.
(by the way, I'm not a professor. Stop making assumptions)
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:52 PM
"How is secular education inferior to a christian education?
You just keep repeating yourself, with no evidence or facts."
Just walk into any Christian school and walk into a public school and you will see a world of difference.
You know that. Everyone knows that. Its a undisputable fact. Christian education is 2 grades above public education and that's if you can get the cops in public schools to control the kids.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:55 PM
"You are comparing a concept to a class of persons. That's not going to work. I could say:
Science has done more to advance civilization than any bible-thumping fundie."
This is what you call the semantics game.
Theocentric science has done more for civilization than any evolutionary hypothesis. That's why you cannot come up with one beneficiary contribution that evolution has made for society.
Nada. Zipo.
Posted by: Yamil Luciano | September 29, 2006 5:57 PM
"So the conclusion of the whole matter is that everyone knows that Christian education is far superior than secular education. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Ever since prayer and the Bible have been banned from public education and evolution took its place, the quality of education has significantly dropped. All you have to do is walk to any school and look at all the police officers that we have to higher to maintain some sense of control and compare that to 50 years ago when The Bible was encouraged.
You can't teach kids that they are animals and expect them to act like human beings.
You can mock PCC for its silly rules, but you cannot deny that Christianity have done more to advance civilization than any evolutionist."