web
counter
 

Losing My Religion

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (90)



mc.jpg

I didn’t come from a particularly religious family (in fact, you could say the opposite). But I grew up in the heart of the Bible belt, so I felt — particularly during junior high school — all the societal pressures of Christianity. Outside of my family, everyone I knew attended church, and I often felt alienated by my lack of faith. So I decided, for lack of a better way to fit in, that I’d, too, become religious. I would devoted myself to Christ. I would familiarize myself with Jesus and his teachings, and if the hold never took, I’d at the very least fake it.

I met with a youth pastor at a popular church in town, the church were my girlfriend and many of my classmates attended. Rick was his name — he was the cool kids’ youth pastor. He was young, and spent much of his time hanging out with the popular students in my school, doing whatever it is that youth pastors do. I spoke to him one Sunday after church, briefly, and explained to him that I was ready to devote myself to God. Get saved. Hand over my brain. We set up an appointment for him to come by my house the following week and begin the process of “allowing Jesus into my heart.”

On the scheduled day, I watched out my window, and waited for him to arrive. Fifteen minutes past the appointed time, I saw him slow up near my house, look up into my yard, and then quickly drive off. It turned out that Rick, though he was in his early 20s, was no different than everyone else in junior high: Obsessed with status and popularity. He saw the dump I lived in; that it was located in the worst part of town; and he skedaddled, fearing — I can only assume — that the cockroaches would attack him during our meeting.

I returned to that church the following Sunday. in deference to my girlfriend. But after the service, an older minister took me aside and asked if I wore an earring because I was rebelling against my parents. I told him my father also wore an earring. He asked me not to return to the church again.

It was then that I officially gave up on Christianity and religion. Perhaps unfairly, I would forever associate Jesus with that moment — in my mind, religion had become inextricably linked with the same contingent of people in my junior high who would’ve ostracized me if I’d ever revealed where I lived to them. Even God was a status competition, and I had not warranted admission into the upper circle.

My dalliance with religion essentially began and ended that week. But Carlene Bauer — the author of Not that Kind of Girl — wrestled with her faith most of her life. Not that Kind of Girl is an unusual memoir: Unlike a lot of books that track a person’s path toward faith, Not that Kind of Girl is about a woman’s loss of it. About the way she — instead of pushing doubts aside — would eventually embrace them.

Bauer grew up in an evangelical Christian family in southern New Jersey. She spent much of her early youth in private religious schools, only to wind up at a public high school, forced to deal with peers who were opting out of religion in favor of goth phases and parties. In college, while most everyone else — including her younger sister — was going out, getting drunk, and getting laid, Bauer immersed herself into literature, into class, and struggled to square both her education and her friends’ ideas of religion with her own. At her Baltimore college, she remained steadfast. Despite a series of boyfriends, she refused to have sex, breaking off most of her relationships before they got to that point. It’s difficult to say, however, whether religious was the motivating factor behind her decision to remain chaste, if it was a convenient excuse for a burgeoning feminist with issues with men, or if she was simply uncomfortable with the idea of sex.

It wasn’t until she moved to New York City and began her career in publishing, however, before she really began living her life. While Bauer remained a virgin well into her 20s, she slowly began to embrace life. Her relationship with God faded away, and parties, alcohol, relationships and eventually sex began to take its place.

Not that Kind of Girl feels less like a memoir and more like an extended, well-thought out late-night conversation— a series of anecdotes shared while lying in bed with a new partner, recounting your life. As she described it herself, “they weren’t stories,” so much as they were “a pile of false starts.” Men would come into her life, and just as soon as we, the reader, had gotten attached to them, they’d exit stage left and another would come along.

It doesn’t detract anything from the memoir, however, because her dealings with men — and most people, in general — are tied together thematically by her faith and the growing lack thereof. It’s a fascinating journey relatable for many — watching as Bauer attempts to reconcile her religious upbringing with her growing love of pop culture, and her increasingly liberal leanings. She never attempts, however, to take the easy way out — to cast aside her faith as incompatible. She thinks and over-thinks it, backing up her reason with references to Sylvia Plath, the Smiths, R.E.M., and Simone de Beauvoir.

I’m not particular accustomed to this type of memoir — I’m used to reading about the lives of people dealing with stints in rehab, the death of parents, sexual abuse, or racial and gender-identity obstacles, replete with harrowing or hilarious tales of woe. Not that Kind of Girl is a far more introspective memoir: A clever and engrossing look inside the sharp and spinning mind of Carlene Bauer. She eschews melodrama and histrionics in favor of extended self-reflection, and manages to do so without coming off as a solipsist. She’s wry and amusing, but never self-deprecating.

In giving up her religion, Bauer also comes to terms with the notion that romance is not always storybook, nor does it need to be. And I don’t want to reveal too much about how Not that Kind of Girl ends, but I do know this: She’s currently dating a frequent contributor to this site, and the publisher of The Second Pass, John Williams. My guess, after reading her intellectually stunning and thought-provoking memoir, is that it’s a rewarding, if not exceedingly challenging, relationship.









Boys Don't Cry Review | The Conversation Review













Comments

So when are we going to get to sink our teeth into your memoir?

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at September 8, 2009 4:41 PM

Let's not too narrowly define "embracing life" now, shall we? I'm intrigued, and I'm more than a little mollified, but that's something I learned to get used to and to combat a long time ago. Otherwise good review. Pajiban honesty, as usual, is appreciated.

Posted by: coryo at September 8, 2009 4:52 PM

"It’s a fascinating journey relatable for many — watching as Bauer attempts to reconcile her religious upbringing with her growing love of pop culture, and her increasingly liberal leanings."

This is a really important sentence. I didn't know until I moved to the US that liberal beliefs and pop culture had to be reconciled with having religion. While other countries have their culture wars, it strikes me that there is this extreme version of Christianity here that just doesn't exist anywhere else (and believe me, growing up in Ireland in the 1980s, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to extreme versions of Christianity, you really haven't lived until you've been hit on by a member of Opus Dei).
It's inconceivable to me that a "pastor" would even notice an earring let alone comment on it to a parishioner.

I read a quote a while ago (don't know who to attribute it to):
"Good men mostly do good things, bad men mostly do bad things. For good men to do bad things, that takes religion"

Posted by: PaddyDog at September 8, 2009 4:57 PM

As perhaps one of the 4 christians who frequent this site, let me say that it is utterly embarassing for "our side" that all the really compelling memoirs are written by non-believers.

And for the record, Dustin, I hope those people who used Jesus like a status symbol against you get what all religious hypocrites get, and that you who have been hurt by them get something much better.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at September 8, 2009 5:19 PM

hater,
Thanks for the quotes.

Posted by: coryo at September 8, 2009 5:29 PM

It's inconceivable to me that a "pastor" would even notice an earring let alone comment on it to a parishioner.

Try growing up in Arkansas. My Dad, god bless him, has left at least two churches because they ran pastors out of town for various reasons. Now he just attends Mass with my Mom, though he'll never convert to Catholicism. Where I live now, they told a preacher(or something) who was about to become an "elder" in his church that he needed to break up with the woman he was dating because she was a divorcee. And the same thing happened to another preacher from my home town. Not that these examples are the same, because the preacher is usually getting the short end of the stick, but it shows how serious people take that shit around here. They talk a lot about love, but a lot of it is really more show. It's all stunningly hypocritical, but that's the fun/horror of living in the Bible Belt!

I finally shrugged off the last semblance of religion(Catholicism) about a year ago. There, but for the grace of God, go I.

Posted by: pissant at September 8, 2009 5:39 PM

Is this going to be available at Chapters or another place that'll stock it's shelves in BC?

It took me a long time too, to reconcile why I couldn't follow any more. I figured there was a bigger risk in living my life as though there was a second chapter I had to endlessly prepare for. Why not just live right, and let the chips fall the same way they did when I made my first yowl?

But the Christian upbringing I had was full of the most wonderful people - I'm sorry yours betrayed you, D. Mine just shrugged at the 'logic battles' and 'excitable attire'. My principal even rolled her eyes at me when I asked her why she was an 'ex' nun.

Posted by: replica at September 8, 2009 5:51 PM

I'm a Memphis girl, Dustin, and so consider myself having grown up virtually around the corner from you. I never dallied in superstition, myself, (having been a ready-made realist upon entry into this world, it seems) but I know what it's like to be what appears the lone hold-out in a race toward Jesus' loving bosom. This sounds like a good read, thanks. I've always wanted to know what it's like from the "other side."

Posted by: A Marie at September 8, 2009 5:52 PM

Yea, Rowles, your story made me want to vomit all over those hypocrites. I'm amazed and appauled by how true the Gandhi quote "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ," still remains true.

Seriously, little pharisees like that piss me off.

And hater, right there with you. I could go on and on about how said it makes me to see a total lack of love in the modern church today, but unfortunately work is leaving me with a migraine and a lack of time. Suffice it to say this book does look interesting, but hater I've also heard really really great things about Blue Like Jazz for engaging believer memoir from a nonobnoxious perspective, but I can't verify because it's currently sitting on my shelf.

Because I suck.

Posted by: Kayanne at September 8, 2009 5:52 PM

You've lived one of the most interesting life's I've ever read about, Dustin, you should really think about that whole memoir thing. But I'd wait awhile, until after your son goes off into the world, you'll get some good perspective then.

I'm glad this book was written, too often has the spotlight on atheism gone to stonewalling fuckwits like Bill Maher, I'm not an atheist, but I want to believe that every religion (atheism counts as a religion) can express themselves intelligently. Otherwise, I just won't be able to listen to anything you say.

If you can do that, it wont matter what you believe in, the people worth knowing will respect and care for you.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2009 5:56 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: God and I get along, it's churches I have problems with.

And not all churches, and not all Christians. I AM a Christian, much as it doesn't jive with my "lifestyle."
But I can't get over my youth pastor telling all the other kids I was evil because I was wearing too much black. I was 13. It was 1993. It's what you did. Flannel happened the year after that. I'm sorry you had a similar experience, Dustin. I think you'll find that it's not rare, which is really sad.

And I've seen tons, absolute gobs of loving, sweet, Christian people. But they aren't very attention-worthy and don't make as much noise as the assholes.

Posted by: myysharona (formerly Sharon) at September 8, 2009 6:03 PM

You've lived one of the most interesting life's I've ever read about, Dustin, you should really think about that whole memoir thing. But I'd wait awhile, until after your son goes off into the world, you'll get some good perspective then.

Pssssst! George, I do believe he already done wrote it. Yes, I said "done wrote." No, I will not apologize for it. Besides, if he wants to memoir the chronicles of being a parent to Axl Rowles he can do that in the sequel. Or write like an LOTR type saga of his young'n's journey.

/end stage whisper

Posted by: Kayanne at September 8, 2009 6:06 PM

I "raised in the church," which is what "we" call it when your parents take you every sunday, your opinions be damned, from childhood through high school. I went to a private Christian school in north jersey until we moved when I was in 8th grade, and Christian education became too expensive. When I was caught smoking copious amounts of weed and taking hallucinagens for the second time in late highschool I was sent away to a fundamentalist rehab that was a year long and included classes and manual labor. (Google "Teen Challenge" for an idea.) After rehab, I attended a Christian college in Michigan, graduated and currently have settled in west Michigan in a city that the Christian Reformed Church houses its headquarters in.

After all of this I'm struck by one very painful truth; There's a vast divide between the man and person that Jesus Christ was and what he calls us to be and what our current institutionalized churches generally teach and practice. The fact that in my area a "mega church" can spend $20 million on building a new sanctuary with plasma screens so that they can feel better about getting their weekly dose of religion, rather than spending it on outreach or helping those that truely need it makes me sick to my stomach.

The key is to realize that there's an enormous gulf between "faith" and "religion." Faith says I'm going to search for truth in life, and not believe in platitudes. I'm going to follow the good in life as best I know how. Religion says you have to follow these rules, or we will never accept you for who you really are. Which, incidentally, was all that Jesus was actually about. The disciples were fishermen and dirty with filthy habits and language. (Think longshoremen.) His female followers were mostly ex-whores. If they showed up to go to church in America today, most places would flat refuse to let them through the door.

I know who I am and what I believe in. I still think James Dobson is evil and that Jerry Fallwell probably has his own circle of hell.

"Not all who say to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter my kingdom."

Posted by: Roaddog at September 8, 2009 7:36 PM

I was raised Roman Catholic by a father that was in seminary school when he met my mom. He not only fostered my faith, but also my love of science (if he wasn't married, my old man would have made a hell of Jesuit). But alas, he made a massive mistake and sent me to a Catholic High School after I got a leg and arm broken in a fight (he had sent all us kids to public school). There I learned from Sister Judith that someone can dedicate their life to a religion and have no fucking clue as to its most basic tenets. Not only was she ignorant of Church doctrine(she continued to rail against evolution despite Pope Bulls supporting it since 1960), she was downright brutal (utilizing physical and mental abuse) but most frustrating to me... her Latin comprehension was downright terrible. For a woman that ranted about Vatican II council damning the church, it wasn't like she had the fucking vocabulary necessary to actually follow the Latin Mass. One of the vilest, most ignorant, evil person I have ever met in my life.

Add in the fact the church moved a pedophile priest to our parish and kept him there for five years without mentioning it and letting him run the fucking youth ministry, and I pretty much just walked away from the entire mess altogether. Religion is just the unnecessary bureaucracy of faith...

Posted by: Diablo at September 8, 2009 8:22 PM

This continues to make me sad. Why pop culture/art/music have to be constantly placed in opposition to faith is utterly beyond me: sure, many great works have been written/performed/constructed as a reaction to religious institutions, but many of the greatest works of Western AND Eastern art have been created as works of praise - symphonies, operas, temples, statues, paintings, love songs, you name it!

These asshats who assert that the very act of life or expression is a sin are, in my opinion, the very asshats Jesus is said to have actively thrown out of the temple - people whose self-interest was corrupting a message that should be inherently beautiful.

All of this to say: I hate it when these asshats ruin it for the rest of us.

Also I like to write the word "asshat."

Posted by: Tammy at September 8, 2009 9:29 PM

"I finally shrugged off the last semblance of religion(Catholicism) about a year ago. There, but for the grace of God, go I."

Please, oh please tell me that was written without irony.

Figgy: take note. Eloquence.

Posted by: PaddyDog at September 8, 2009 9:40 PM

I love you guys.

Love.

Posted by: coryo at September 8, 2009 11:59 PM

Apparently that "hook the cool kids" brand of ministering is called Young Life, and one of my favorite bloggers ever did an awesome takedown on it:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/08/wylie-why-young-life-is-evil.html

Posted by: barabajagalla at September 9, 2009 3:58 AM

Its hard enough trying to figure out how to be a good person without having to deal with all the arbitrary trappings that come with organised religion (seriously, how is it immoral to not go to confession during advent, for example? Why is that even on the same list as lying, cheating and stealing?)

Anyway, so that's one of the big reasons why I stopped believing. It seemed like the rules and rituals were just a distraction from the morality, which was supposed to be the main thing after all.

Posted by: saartjie at September 9, 2009 4:00 AM

"I'm glad this book was written, too often has the spotlight on atheism gone to stonewalling fuckwits like Bill Maher, I'm not an atheist, but I want to believe that every religion (atheism counts as a religion) can express themselves intelligently. Otherwise, I just won't be able to listen to anything you say."
Posted by: George at September 8, 2009 5:56 PM

And creationism/intelligent design is science, condoms help spread HIV, and distress of the spine is the source of all human malady.

Atheism is a simple descriptor. All it means is a lack of belief in deities or a belief that there is no god (though the latter does not mean an outright rejection of the possibility). There is no moral code, no system of ethics that comes with being an atheist. Atheists can be humanists, secularists, nihilists, fatalists, racists, PETA supporters, vegans, newage believers, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and everything in between. Atheism means one thing, and one thing only.

Hopefully you won't trot out that tired old bullshit in the future.

p.s. Yes, Bill Maher is an atheist. He also supports PETA. Yes, he's a fuckwit. He's still got nothing on Falwell, Khomeini, or Kim Il-sung.

Posted by: Samuel Erikson at September 9, 2009 6:30 AM

The books sounds interesting. I must admit that I find the tales of the loss of religious faith quite interesting. So many different ways to reach the same conclusion.
George, atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is adhering to the standards of scientific reasoning when it comes to the matters of "faith".
I see that many people here make a difference between religion and faith. I must admit that I don't see the difference. If you believe, you must believe in something, and this something is defined by religion - be it Jehova, Allah or Thor. Which god do you believe in if you don't believe in the god prescribed by religion?

Posted by: astounded at September 9, 2009 6:53 AM

"Atheism is adhering to the standards of scientific reasoning when it comes to the matters of "faith"."
Posted by: astounded at September 9, 2009 6:53 AM

Raëlians are technically atheistic. They still have unreasonable faith in something, just not in a deity.

Posted by: Samuel Erikson at September 9, 2009 8:40 AM

I think Diablo's comment is great.

Attending a Catholic University I met several really intelligent and down to earth people of faith who showed a depth of compassion and understanding that humbled me. Then again, there are the negative examples who convince themselves they have the authority of God behind them and try to force it on anyone they have power over.

Also, I think this quote is great:

"Religion is just the unnecessary bureaucracy of faith.

Is that your own? That's the kind of pithy aphorism you might expect to see from Twain or Oscar Wilde. Well said.

Posted by: Yossarian at September 9, 2009 9:02 AM

Blue like Jazz is a trite little book by a hipster who has an adolescent view of faith and doubt. You can tell because his other 9 books are obscure at best.

It's sad because the last really great Christian memoir is St. Augustine's Confessions -- which is 1500 years old, if you can believe that. Everyone else since him has forgotten that great theology causes a great life, not a great 6-volume work on systematics.

You could try C.S. Lewis' A Grief Observed, but I don't think I'd give you a nickel for the rest of his non-fiction.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at September 9, 2009 9:35 AM

I don't really understand the American brand of Christianity, and as a Catholic, I am at times offended by it. I feel like it is demeaning by beliefs by turning it into some strange dress code.

Posted by: rona at September 9, 2009 9:38 AM

Is atheism a religion? I dunno -- does atheism seek to explain the meaning of human life and then prescribe a way to live because of it?

The atheist who say "no" to the latter question has tacitly accepted western theism as his ethical system, and that doesn't make him much of an atheist: it makes him an extremely lazy and anarchical christian.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at September 9, 2009 9:40 AM

"Is atheism a religion? I dunno -- does atheism seek to explain the meaning of human life and then prescribe a way to live because of it?

The atheist who say "no" to the latter question has tacitly accepted western theism as his ethical system, and that doesn't make him much of an atheist: it makes him an extremely lazy and anarchical christian."
Posted by: hater from siloam springs at September 9, 2009 9:40 AM

You clearly did not read my earlier post, you shit-for-brains-junkie-dogfucker.

Posted by: Samuel Erikson at September 9, 2009 9:53 AM

And it was a science/religion issue that finally made me post (Hi. Long time lurker. Yada yada yada).

Let me preface this by saying that I am, in fact, a scientist and an agnostic.

@astounded (and Samuel Erikson):
"George, atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is adhering to the standards of scientific reasoning when it comes to the matters of "faith"."

Not at all. Scientific reasoning can ONLY lead to agnosticism. The existence of a deity is untestable with our current understanding, therefore rejecting it out of hand is a perfect example of Type I Error.

Remember how science works. We don't "prove" things, we disprove them.. We reject hypotheses that don't stand up to inquiry, and suggest an alternative. That alternative stands until someone's inquiry knocks it down.

Human history and the scientific method both dictate that the null hypothesis must be "God exists." And it is incumbent upon those challenging the notion to find sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Rejecting the null without evidence tends to be seen as a problem.

You can reject specific religions all you want. I certainly have. You can reject religious readings of history and specific religious texts based on history, paleontology, etc. Nothing drove the Catholic school nuns crazier than trying to square dogma with science when I was a precocious, inquisitive, and irritating 8 year old. But you can't reject the basic notion of Faith or Eminence with science. There is no evidence. No testability. There is nothing for science to grab a hold on.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of science to claim that atheism is any more or less "scientific" than faith. (A misunderstanding that is frequently perpetrated by scientists, for maximum irony)

Faith is believing something without evidence.

Atheism is disbelieving something without evidence.

Both are equally unscientific.

When we have a way to gather evidence on this subject, you can consult science. Until then, strap on a pair, philosophically speaking, and own your fundamentally religious assertion that there is no deity. Science can't carry that ball for you.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at September 9, 2009 10:14 AM

I believe the common term for what I am is agnostic. Something along the lines of believed there is some sort of higher being out there, without limiting him/her/it to specific characteristics, acts, names or other associations.

I was baptized Catholic and grew up as such until I was about 8 or 9 years old, when my younger sister was born and made too much noise in church. We went for the major holidays for a while, with the intention of returning to regular church-going when Molly got older.

It never happened (my parents were never the religious types, my mother actually somewhat the opposite, having a bad experience growing up in a Catholic school I believe). And it never really bothered me, as church and CCD had always been something where I listened to what was being told to me, but never really absorbed it. Kinda like reading a history textbook, memorizing the names and dates of key events and battles for a test, then promptly forgetting it all the second you leave the classroom. So for the rest of my youth I had the unique (within my set of friends anyways) experience of feeling out my beliefs (and do believe there is a difference between faith/beliefs and religion), and what they may be, on my own. (for the record, I am a firm believer in science and Darwin and natural evolution and all that jazz)

I ended up with the opinion that there is something out there, but the versions of God/Jesus/etc linked to various world religions never meshed with me. Oddly (and rather appropriately) enough, I think my belief is best summed up by the Futurama episode where Bender gets flung into space and meets a cosmic star system which represents a higher being of sorts. Something along the lines of “If you’ve done it right, they’ll never know you did anything at all”. I am still working out most things…and think I will be for the rest of my life.

But I can see the appeal of religion, and admire those who can stick to their guns in the face of growing adversity. I always liked the firm belief that things will turn out alright, and the happiness in the most dire set of circumstances that can arise from that. However, I do agree with most commenters here that the extreme side to these things can turn ugly rather quickly, and I think that is one of the reasons organized religion has a bad name.

Posted by: bethy at September 9, 2009 10:45 AM

"@astounded (and Samuel Erikson):
"George, atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is adhering to the standards of scientific reasoning when it comes to the matters of "faith"."

Not at all. Scientific reasoning can ONLY lead to agnosticism. The existence of a deity is untestable with our current understanding, therefore rejecting it out of hand is a perfect example of Type I Error."
Posted by: ZombieScientist at September 9, 2009 10:14 AM

Where did I make a claim about scientific reasoning relating to atheism? I think I made it pretty clear that atheism is ONLY a lack or disbelief in a deity:

"Atheism is a simple descriptor. All it means is a lack of belief in deities or a belief that there is no god (though the latter does not mean an outright rejection of the possibility)."
Posted by: Samuel Erikson at September 9, 2009 6:30 AM

Technically speaking, I guess I'd be an agnostic atheist, which simply means that while I lack a belief in a deity, the possibility of existence is there. Of course, I also call myself an antitheist, because even if there were some kind of deity, I would not worship it.

"Not at all. Scientific reasoning can ONLY lead to agnosticism. The existence of a deity is untestable with our current understanding, therefore rejecting it out of hand is a perfect example of Type I Error.

Remember how science works. We don't "prove" things, we disprove them.. We reject hypotheses that don't stand up to inquiry, and suggest an alternative. That alternative stands until someone's inquiry knocks it down.

Human history and the scientific method both dictate that the null hypothesis must be "God exists." And it is incumbent upon those challenging the notion to find sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Rejecting the null without evidence tends to be seen as a problem."
Posted by: ZombieScientist at September 9, 2009 10:14 AM

That's a rather extraordinary claim. Got any evidence/credentials/sense to back that up?

Posted by: Samuel Erikson at September 9, 2009 11:28 AM

Samuel -- I think you don't really know anything about the history or atheism philosophically, and you don't know your own atheism introspectively.

That is to say: I see your shit-for-brains-junkie-dogfucker, and raise you extraordinary-ballsack-sweat-kisser with a human centipede chaser.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at September 9, 2009 12:28 PM

I have to apologize for posting from work and therefore not having time/space to thoroughly edit what I wrote.
"George, atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is adhering to the standards of scientific reasoning when it comes to the matters of "faith"." - I will still stand by my guns but modify it to a degree - Sam Erikson was right - the correct technical term would be agnostic atheist. I would believe in a god if there were one shred of evidence. What is more important, however, is Zombie Scientist's claim that science has nothing to do with religion. I disagree wholeheartedly.
1)Religions and their myths were a way to explain the world to people. Seeing that most of them were created way back in the childhood of human race, they are understandably naive and wrong on so many scientific facts. Science has in the mean time taken over the task of explaining away the world to people, one mystery at the time, thus making religion obsolete.
2)Religion is mis-using their "science" to meddle in this world's affairs - and I needn't go further than saying intelligent design and AIDS, Africa, condoms.
I find your belief that science has nothing to do with religion very insulting to science. Would you believe any type of expert (say, a mechanical engineer) to construct a car for you based on some 3000 years old world view? Why do we allow people who doubt the basic advances in science to have any say in our lives and politics?

Posted by: astounded at September 9, 2009 12:41 PM

Serious arguments about religion, philosophy and science usually go better if you don't call your opponent a "shit-for-brains-junkie-dogfucker". Just sayin'.

However, "extraordinary-ballsack-sweat-kisser with a human centipede chaser" is awesome. I say we get as much mileage out of the human centipede as possible.

Posted by: MM at September 9, 2009 1:18 PM

And creationism/intelligent design is science, condoms help spread HIV, and distress of the spine is the source of all human malady.

One thing I have always been amazed by is the knee-jerk reactions of some avowed atheists whenever someone dares calls it a religion.

Science has in the mean time taken over the task of explaining away the world to people, one mystery at the time, thus making religion obsolete.

ZombieScientist has it right: science is a way of describing the universe around us. it is not nor should it ever be a replacement for a belief system. You know what happens when "science" is used for that? Eugenics. Nuclear weapons, Ethnic cleansing.

"But wait," some of you might say, "you can't blame science for that. It was just assholes manipulating things for their own way." Exactly the point. Science is, as it's most elemental form, objective. It has no commandments, no heaven or hell, no limitations. It only has the ethics and morals we impose on it. So the question becomes: where do we get these morals in the first place.

Some people use religion. Some don't. But science, by itself, is not an option. True, most people don't believe the sun is a chariot of flame being pulled across the sky or that humans sprang from rocks tossed behind a pair of deities during a stroll, but that is only because science allowed us to supplant the flawed theory (myth) with a result stemming from observed results.

For all the people putting so much on science as an alternative to religion, it still has yet to answer all of the same questions? Can science tell us definitively what is the true nature of good and/or evil? Or what gives us those unique characteristics most consider a soul? As long as it cannot, religion still will have a place in our culture, for good or bad.

Would you believe any type of expert (say, a mechanical engineer) to construct a car for you based on some 3000 years old world view? Why do we allow people who doubt the basic advances in science to have any say in our lives and politics?

Well that just proves his point, though. That engineer isn't mixing science and religion; he is replacing the former with the latter. The mere act of that shows how science isn't designed for that. He can't sudden;y change the laws of physics; either he builds the car using them, or he builds it using his beliefs. And even then he would be doing so of his own regard, since there is nothing about car design in the Bible.

Plus, there is nothing in that "3000-year-old world view" that outright forbids the science involved. As it has been said, the Catholic church has long accepted evolution (while some sparse groups don't), and there are many quite educated scientific minds that have no problem with their faith. It only becomes a problem when you try to answer the questions of one with the other.

Posted by: Vermillion at September 9, 2009 1:24 PM

What type of credentials would you like, Samuel? I have multiple degrees in biology and psychology and over a decade spent working in scientific laboratories as a technician, graduate student, and research associate. I've taught classes at Ivy League institutions on subjects ranging from statistics to abnormal psychology to neuroanatomy. I almost keyed Steven Pinker's car once when we are the same conference (mainly for being such a nativist, humanocentric twit that it has set cognitive science back decades), but realized I'd only be hurting the rental company (that sort of slow grasp of social and financial consequences more or less proves I'm an academic at heart).

I'm wondering if we're all working from the same definitions here. "Agnostic atheism" is a contradiction in terms. You can be one or the other, not both.

Agnosticism is thinking that the truth about theology, afterlife or the existence of deities is unknown. There is no "belief" necessary. It is the position that without evidence, there's no way to make a decision.

Atheism is specifically thinking that deities do not exist. A position on the issue has been chosen without any evidence. That is a belief.

Science is about OBSERVABLE FACT and EVIDENCE. There are no observable facts about whether or not deities exist. Not having any evidence at all in either direction is NOT the same thing as having negative evidence. Since there is zero positive or negative evidence, and science is grounded in evidence..... where does that leave us?

Science CAN tell you that, for example, the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis is not a factual story. We have evidence on that. Science CANNOT tell you whether or not there is a god or gods. Can't do it.

Until we can reject EVERY religious experience by finding physical, provable causes (or at least do so with sufficient statistical probability... the commonly accepted standard is rejecting the null hypothesis with only a 0.05% chance of error, the infamous p

The real issue here is that science and religion are entirely compatible and capable of co-existing peaceably.... as long as people don't try to set up scientific dogma on philosophical issues that we have no evidential pull on. When you start making dogmatic statements with no evidence, you become a religion. And then the other religions want to fight it out with you.

Screw that noise. I think we can get more work done without that Sturm und Drang, thanks.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at September 9, 2009 1:54 PM

Bah! html coding prevented me from making a "p less than or equal to 0.05" reference, and cut off the rest of the paragraph to boot.

Let's all pretend that I made an incredibly telling point in the cut off sentence, k?

Posted by: ZombieScientist at September 9, 2009 1:59 PM

Vermillion: "So the question becomes: where do we get these morals in the first place.

Some people use religion. Some don't."

Seeing that agnostics and atheists don't run around killing and raping, maybe we can agree that this implies that humanity doesn't get their cues on morality from religion and that morality is an innate human characteristic. After all, people who wrote all the "holy" books were human. In fact, I would argue that the "morality" one can find in the "holy" books is far from what we understand as morality today. (Thou shalt not kill didn't apply to all the peoples living near the Hebrews, only to Hebrews themselves, not to mention the horror that is offered as guidance in Q'aran). And, if there is another source of morality available to humans, why use a vessel as tainted as religion to reach it?
I never suggested that science should replace religion, merely that religion is unnecessary.
Regarding the religions' constant concessions to modernity and science, such as admitting that evolution took place? I find creationists much more intellectually honest. They don't say "Well, science has disproven this bit of the Bible, we'll say that the Book of Creation was written as a metaphor. But that part about the holy ghost and immaculate conception? No, that really happened." They say that science is completely at odds with religion and stick with this. I appreciate that much more than people who pick and choose in their holy books and then say that the Bible is the ultimate source for morality. Personally, I find the Greek mythology much more engaging than a bastard god who makes people kill their own children just to make a point about his self-importance.

Posted by: astounded at September 9, 2009 2:02 PM

Thanks for that link, barabajagalla.

And hater, thank you so much for that bit about Blue Like Jazz. I had a "friend" (see: unfortunate acquaintance) who told me it was the most theologically and morally challenging book he had ever read. I had to wonder if there had been some mass book burning in the neighborhood that I hadn't heard about yet.

ZombieScientist, I'm glad you are finally here.

astounded, people run around killing and raping. Human beings.

I'm more impressed with Pajiba, guys. I feel that everyone here is being more or less reasonable, and that's saying something considering the nature of the discussion.

Posted by: coryo at September 9, 2009 4:52 PM

Seeing that agnostics and atheists don't run around killing and raping, maybe we can agree that this implies that humanity doesn't get their cues on morality from religion and that morality is an innate human characteristic.

Wha-a-at? I really have to question whether we're talking about facts at this point since Soviet and Chinese socialists are probably the big winner in the history of people-killing, and they were all atheists. I'm not saying that people holding up a cross didn't do their fair share of innocent blood-letting, but I am saying that we have to at least be honest on both sides and admit that the human track record does not really say that one kind of religion is any less bloody than another kind of religion -- atheism included.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at September 9, 2009 5:32 PM

ZombieScience, obviously the existence or not of a supernatural force is a huge proposal to prove or disprove, and it would be hard to come up with an experiment or set of experiments that would do the trick if you know what I mean, so I suppose you're right when you say we have absolutely no evidence, positive or negative. I mean, I can't see someone starting their paper off:
Hypothesis: God exists
Method: TBA
Materials: bunson burner, length of string (7 cm), water (650 ml),

and so on.

But what about all those experiments that don't attempt the big, central question, but try to prove or disprove the smaller and more peripheral questions that may eventually lead to being able to attempt to ask the big, central question? For example those people who tried to scientifically test whether or not praying for hospital patients would speed their recovery. Now I know that their question really had bugger all to do with God's existence, but what I'm trying to ask is, do those sort of experiments that sort of grapple with religious questions count at all on the great scale scientific evidence?

I don't know if my question makes any sense; I was considering saying that English is my second language but that would be a lie, and I don't want to make baby Jesus cry.

Posted by: Khan (ghost of) at September 9, 2009 5:55 PM

hater from siloam springs: "Wha-a-at? I really have to question whether we're talking about facts at this point since Soviet and Chinese socialists are probably the big winner in the history of people-killing, and they were all atheists"
Really? You will pull out the Stalin card?
I believe that whenever people treat something or someone as a deity, shit ensues. The same thing happened with Stalin - he was given the status of a deity and absolute power.
And I would like to state again that atheism is not a religion - there's no leader, no holy book, no set of rules mandated by a "higher" power - simply individuals aware of their mortality, relying on their common sense to make the best of their one life. Much more frightening and liberating than counting on a chance of a do-over in an afterlife...

Posted by: astounded at September 10, 2009 2:53 AM

I believe that whenever people treat something or someone as a deity, shit ensues. The same thing happened with Stalin - he was given the status of a deity and absolute power.

Ah, but that isn't what you put forth. You said:

Seeing that agnostics and atheists don't run around killing and raping, maybe we can agree that this implies that humanity doesn't get their cues on morality from religion and that morality is an innate human characteristic.

Stalin was not a deity, except in his own mind. It can be scientifically proven he existed. There is proof he bullied, tortured, and all around dicked over his followers. For someone to deny his very existence (that seems to be the default criteria here) is foolish. The discussion was about a being or beings that can't be proven to exist. And since there were indeed atheists by your definition, then your point was refuted.

I agree that extremists of any creed are dangerous beings, but that does not mean the creed itself is dangerous. To believe so would be to buy into the very heretical rantings of terrorists and oppressors. You give the credence, and therefore power, when you state that their stances are in any way the norm or default setting for their chosen veil or religious fervor. Religion doesn't create lunatics, it is just another excuse for their brand of crazy.

As far as morality being innate, for one thing, can it be scientifically proven as such? If so, then what goes wrong? Is there a way we can scientifically induce or replace the missing morality in serial killers and rapists?

Regarding the religions' constant concessions to modernity and science, such as admitting that evolution took place? I find creationists much more intellectually honest. They don't say "Well, science has disproven this bit of the Bible, we'll say that the Book of Creation was written as a metaphor. But that part about the holy ghost and immaculate conception? No, that really happened." They say that science is completely at odds with religion and stick with this. I appreciate that much more than people who pick and choose in their holy books and then say that the Bible is the ultimate source for morality.

Who are these people you mention? Because I certainly never heard of them. As far as the holy ghost (the piece of teh divine inside of us) and the immacualte conception, these are traits stemming again from things that cannot be scientifically proven. Without a definition of what a god can or cannot do, who can say what is possible and what isn't? Unless you can show how we don't have a piece of God in our souls, or that a deity cannot impregnate a woman without vaginal sex. You know any deities up for it? Because that would be one interesting non-sex tape. Unless you can track down viable and official samples of the relevant DNA for a paternity test.

That isn't finding creationists more or less intellectually honest. That is going after an easy target. It is simply easier to dismiss a creationist than it is to engage someone who doesn't regard the Bible as absolute truth. The Bible was designed by committee, books voted on as canon. And that was AFTER thousands of years of oral tradition before even being written down. Anyone who says the Bible is 100% true is deluding themselves. And at least there are those who can accept that and still see the wonder and beauty in the text.

Personally, I find the Greek mythology much more engaging than a bastard god who makes people kill their own children just to make a point about his self-importance.

Really? You complain about a self-important god...by comparing him negatively to the Greek pantheon? Especially in the child-killing arena?

And I would like to state again that atheism is not a religion - there's no leader, no holy book, no set of rules mandated by a "higher" power - simply individuals aware of their mortality, relying on their common sense to make the best of their one life.

Ah, but there is an overall creed. Sure, there are different kinds of atheists (Buddhists are a far sight from someone like Hitchens), but the same basic belief is still there. And since it seems to be so easy o lump religious people together, why can't it be true for the godless?

And again, this insistence that atheism isn't a religion is doing your argument a disservice. You compare it to religions, you actively work to adhere to it, and yet it shouldn't be considered one? Especially when there are actual belief systems that are technically atheist (again, Buddhism and ancestor worship)?

Posted by: Vermillion at September 10, 2009 8:35 AM

I was raised a Christian in a small country church (Pentecostal, for inquiring minds), went to church, youth groups, youth conventions, etc.
I then moved to the city. Hello culture shock!
My sister, her husband and I tried to find a church. We thought we'd found one. We knew the pastor, he was a great teacher. We joined a bible study group. Amazing people with hearts of gold in the "ghetto" part of town. All of them had their issues, but yet we understood and grew to love meeting every week for our study.

Then we tried to join the Young Adults group. We had known most of the members from our previous Youth Group down home. They all lived in a very swanky part of the city, and/or were married with a kid on the way. We weren't "good" enough for them, we weren't rich, and we didn't live off of mommy or daddy" or wear brand names.The horror!
So no one talked to us for the 2 hours we were there, never included us in their converstations. The church members never embraced us. Only the few members of our bible study group always came over and said hi and gave us hugs.
I have grown very disillusioned with the "Church". I still believe in my faith, in my morals, and try to live my life as best I can. It's lonely; I really enjoyed the bible study and the new friends, but we left the church because of their coldness and unwillingness to embrace new members into the fold. It was a very lonely church to be in. And then the pastor revealed he had been stealing from the church coffers.
Other "religions" have dress codes (!) where the women have to wear dresses and skirts, and the men suits. Granted, I wouldn't show up to church wearing a cleavage showing thigh high dress, but I'll be damned if I HAVE to dress a certain way to be accepted into a church. Jesus never once said "Dress this way or you will be going to hell"
I have a relationship with God, not a "religion"
And I think I'll keep it that way. At least I'm not judged by people who are no better than me in God's eyes.

If churches want to expand their memeberships, maybe they had better take a look at their own lives and stop making judgements about how people look or what they wear and start actually following Jesus' commandments!

Posted by: Fyndy at September 10, 2009 2:58 PM

I grew up in a fundamentalist/evangelical Baptist home. I love my parents deeply,but they are so narrow and rigid in their thinking that they can't see the forest for the trees. They can't see what's really important. They can't grow or change...and, in fact, I think they see something very "holy" or devoted about refusing to change or grow. They are in a "silent war" with my niece right now because she got a small tattoo put on her foot last week. I am not Baptist now...I go to an Anglican church, where I have found much less judgementalism and much more focus on my own personal faith. It makes me sad, even though I understand it, that people can't separate God/Jesus from the way practicing Christians behave and relate to them. I do understand...I just think that God is as disappointed in the guy who rejected you because of your address or your earring as you were/are. I am still a Christain, having survived all of my own synicism and questioning and rebelling and wondering and thinking and reading. But...I look very different from my parents and the people I grew up around in church. Since I do believe in God...I cannot help but be really sad about some of the experiences some of you have had with Christians. I don't mean to imply that I have it all figured out. I understand the conclusions you have reached, but for me, I guess I choose to believe in God, in Christ...but not so much in Christians.

Posted by: Sharon Wiley at October 4, 2009 10:05 AM

Some of the pictures were not displaying correctly but, the website still looks great. adore the theme! great post btw.

Posted by: Al Polansky at June 21, 2010 1:11 PM

If you don't get in then, you should reapply again. During your time off, you should study harder for your DAT, probably get your masters in public health or a masters in biology, so you look like a better candidate. with a B.S. in Biology, you cannot do too much but be a lab tech and they do not get paid well.

Posted by: implants at affordable cost at June 29, 2010 12:01 AM

Nice Blog! see Mine at My Blog

Posted by: Habbo at August 4, 2010 7:39 AM

Then finally a great post in relation to the subject, continue the great work and therefore I hope to read even more from you in the future.

Posted by: Jerry at September 13, 2010 2:15 AM

I added Google Reader to your site when I have spare time try to follow.

Posted by: can i get a loan at November 11, 2010 5:00 PM

While this matter can be very difficult for most people, my view is that there has to be a middle or common ground that we all can find. I do appreciate that you've added relevant and intelligent commentary here though. Thank you!

Posted by: hedge fund investors at November 12, 2010 1:10 PM

Your website came up in my search and i prompted by what you may have printed during this subject. I am currently expanding my research and therefore can't lead further, even so, I've bookmarked your website will probably be returning to keep up with any rising updates. Just like it and thanks for admitting my remark.

Posted by: schwinn spin bikes at November 13, 2010 10:16 PM

When one weighs the issue palm, i've to agree with your conclusions. You distinctly show knowledge about this issue and i have much to discover after reading your article.Lot's of greetings and that i is for any further updates.

Posted by: small gas grills at November 18, 2010 3:37 AM

Thanks for posting this article. I'm definitely frustrated with struggling to search out pertinent and intelligent commentary on this subject. Everybody now goes to the very far extremes to either drive home their viewpoint that either: everyone else in the planet is wrong, or two that everyone but them does not really understand the situation. Many thanks for your succinct, relevant insight.

Posted by: divorce application form at November 21, 2010 2:23 PM

Article is pretty interesting. Thanks so much! We have enough gun control. What we need is idiot control.

Posted by: loft conversions at November 24, 2010 3:15 AM

Do you always delete negative post Haikus are easy. But sometimes they don't make sense. Refrigerator.

Posted by: Bridging at November 24, 2010 3:52 AM

Thanks for the share, I have been readin online all day and this was actully worth reading. Thanks

Posted by: world of warcraft gold at November 30, 2010 2:18 AM

While this matter can be very difficult for most people, my belief is that there has to be a middle or common ground that we all can find. I do value that you've added pertinent and sound commentary here though. Thank you!

Posted by: aircondition unit at December 4, 2010 7:42 PM

While this matter can be very tough for most people, my notion is that there has to be a middle or common ground that we all can find. I do treasure that you've added relevant and intelligent commentary here though. Very much thanks to you!

Posted by: carpet stain remover at December 5, 2010 8:26 PM

Sweet, last but not least a place up that fulfills my research. So many folks get th is subject wrong. You are a wonderful thinker.

Posted by: GHDS at December 12, 2010 2:53 AM

Alcoholism is a behaviour pattern characterized by uncontrolled drinking of alcoholic beverages to the extent of impairing health and social functioning.

Posted by: Cold sores at December 20, 2010 10:18 AM

Why change not seen this tract before? Very pleasant and informatory.

Posted by: Kathie Brunzel at December 28, 2010 5:15 AM

I never get tired of viewing your posts- they’re so many awsome things, that i forget and you write about them

Posted by: retirement at December 30, 2010 12:32 AM

There's a major risk if the tree or trees usually are not strong sufficient. You'll find various tree house kits available that make the entire house building activity amusing as well as a fantastic learning expertise for kids. This provides the young children two areas to have fun in... With of one's ' trees now having the beginning of a wood frame you take your two ' pieces and insert them at both ends on the inside of the trees. This great family members activity is straightforward and enjoyable.

Posted by: Amy at December 30, 2010 12:37 PM

This is a character that's seen Lord Ichimonji destroy his castle when she was young, and now that she has her son(s) right in the palm of her hand, she'll have her revenge in guise of ego-feeding.

Posted by: cam site breda at January 7, 2011 10:24 PM

Awe promises and you'll lie near your intelligence

Posted by: farmville at January 10, 2011 9:21 PM

Anne Hathaway's dress was brilliant, except I'd almost certainly lose the shoulder pads. I might be wrong about how the dress would look without them, but I just hate shoulder pads :)

Posted by: Thurston at January 17, 2011 1:41 PM

You have some honest ideas here. I done a research on the issue and discovered most peoples will agree with your blog. After that early period, the Beatles evolved considerably over the years.

Posted by: online Allegra at January 18, 2011 7:02 PM

gr8 resrch bro…

Posted by: globe life insurance at January 19, 2011 4:34 PM

I feel like you could probably teach a class on how to make a great blog. This is fantastic! I have to say, what really got me was your design. You certainly know how to make your blog more than just a rant about an issue. Youve made it possible for people to connect. Good for you, because not that many people know what theyre doing.

Posted by: buy Zithromax online at January 21, 2011 9:15 AM

You have some honest ideas here. I done a research on the issue and discovered most peoples will agree with your blog. After that early period, the Beatles evolved considerably over the years.

Posted by: generic pills online at January 25, 2011 10:22 PM

Remember, I only reveal strategies that are totally legal and allowed and will never get you banned or require third-party programs, bots or illegal game hacks. Is losing your account and all your hard work worth trying to scam some points and a little money? I didn't think so...

Posted by: Karoline Downes at January 27, 2011 5:59 PM

That doesn’t need to be how you play this game because it’s more than possible to be among the very best in the world if only you load up on what you need from the start – the secrets in FarmVille Secrets.

Posted by: Tina Kenik at January 27, 2011 5:59 PM

While this issue can be very tough for most people, my opinion is that there has to be a middle or common ground that we all can find. I do appreciate that you've added relevant and rational commentary here though. Very much thanks to you!

Posted by: charcoal grill built in at January 30, 2011 12:30 AM

I could unquestionably use one particular.

Posted by: Cindy Raphael at February 1, 2011 4:08 PM

I added Google Reader to your site when I have spare time try to follow

Posted by: avril at February 7, 2011 6:41 PM

Blogroll links aint that great :P but i am not the admin… :P … Just Telling :P :D

Posted by: honeywell 51500 hepa filter at February 8, 2011 9:39 AM

Thank you for the shares in this blog. I will visit it again.

Posted by: ucak biletleri at February 9, 2011 3:47 AM

Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also...

Posted by: tomtom xl325-se gps at February 10, 2011 3:09 AM

Hello, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, Your blog looks good. Have a nice day.

Posted by: pool solar covers 16x32 at February 11, 2011 2:17 AM

You made a number of good points there. I did a search on the subject and found nearly all people will have the same opinion with your blog.

Posted by: zero friction marketing at February 11, 2011 9:02 PM

Great articles & Nice a site….

Posted by: hamilton beach tango blender including at February 18, 2011 4:29 AM

:O So mush Info :O … THis Is he MOst AMAzing SIte DUDe… :D

Posted by: vita mix 4500 turboblend at February 18, 2011 5:13 AM

my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not leave it with ‘we leave it to you to decide’.

Posted by: sbobet at February 18, 2011 5:20 AM

Hey! Just wanted to say how much enjoyed reading this.

Posted by: swine flu symptoms at March 3, 2011 7:47 PM

I am going to go ahead and bookmark this post for my brother for the study project for school! Wonderful article! This post truly made my day suknie na ślub.. Can I give you an opinion? I just wanted to take a minute to say thanks for posting this... The way you write make it truly trouble-free to read... Use a good day!

Posted by: kolory sukien slubnych at March 5, 2011 11:47 PM

If you can't hear me, it's because I'm in parentheses.

Posted by: gyms in york pa at March 5, 2011 11:56 PM

You have some honest ideas here. I done a research on the issue and discovered most peoples will agree with your blog. After that early period, the Beatles evolved considerably over the years.

Posted by: Cheap Clomid at March 6, 2011 11:08 PM

These are not only economic but also for many useful purposes. Whether medicines, meat, vegetables and even garbage, you can use them for anything, at any time.

Posted by: Replica Handbags From China at March 15, 2011 3:31 AM

I just now wanted to inform you about how much my partner and i appreciate every little thing you've discussed to help enhance the lives of folks in this subject matter. Through the articles, we've gone from just a novice to an expert in the area. It can be truly a gratitude to your efforts. Thanks

Posted by: zero friction marketing at March 16, 2011 4:30 PM

Excellent article, just another request, would you be able to explain the fourth paragraph in more detail please? Thanks

Posted by: stop sweating at March 18, 2011 9:41 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time