1. A symbol of importance to the science of witchcraft and the religion of paganism.
2. A fashion statement of teenagers who want attention.
2. A fashion statement of teenagers who want attention.
by Killing Kittens May 20, 2004
Take three impressive-sounding words that have nothing to do with each other and put them together. Then you have the title of the next Dimmu Borgir album!
by Killing Kittens June 23, 2004
A person who believes that the biblical account of Genesis is a literal, scientific document, and that all scientific knowledge of evolution and geology are mistaken and/or misrepresented by biased scientists. According to Creationists, the world was created in 6 days some 4 to 6 thousand years ago, God placed fossils into various depths of the Earth for no apparent reason (or that, since fossils are so rare, not all co-existing animals were fossilized together) all species where created individually (with allowance for individual variation and common design themes, but no common anscestry), that all life was harmonious before the fall of man (hence carnivores ate grass), that dinosaurs (which are said to be referred to in the bible as "leviathan" and "behemoth" and are supposedly represented in ancient art) lived at the same time as humans, and that they were whiped out in the biblical flood because they couldn't fit into Noah's Ark (or that he only fit the small ones, in which case some dinosaurs might be alive today).
To promote these views, creationists often misrepresent the data themselves, in an effort to discredit science and abuse it to validate their own beliefs. Hence, they are extremely critical of any and all (overwhelming) evidence that does not support their views while using bogus or equivocal data to prove theirs.
This doesn't work.
Any close, unbiased examination of the evidence reveals that nearly all of the creationist's claims are found wanting. I will not list those reasons here but will instead include a few links below.
Creatonists aim to keep the American public ignorant of evolution and science (which they have done a pretty good job of doing, as recent polls suggest) and desire that creation be taught in public schools along with evolution.
This would be about as ridiculous as teaching two different versions of the Holocaust in history classes (as some people claim that it never happened, and can back up this claim with phony evidence) or teaching an alternate flat earth theory (which another society can find "evidence" for) in geography.
That is not to say that there isn't a place for Genesis in the sphere of public education, but that would most likely be in courses involving theology, religion, culture, anthropology, and philosophy.
The moral here, of course, is that one shouldn't look to science to back up theology and vice versa.
Here are some links to learn the truth and why "creation scientists" are wrong (the links themselves can't be included because this site can't have words with more than 50 characters--wtf??). Go to a search engine and type in:
www.talkorigins.org
And perhaps Karl Thornley's page on Theistic Evolution for a few more good links.
To promote these views, creationists often misrepresent the data themselves, in an effort to discredit science and abuse it to validate their own beliefs. Hence, they are extremely critical of any and all (overwhelming) evidence that does not support their views while using bogus or equivocal data to prove theirs.
This doesn't work.
Any close, unbiased examination of the evidence reveals that nearly all of the creationist's claims are found wanting. I will not list those reasons here but will instead include a few links below.
Creatonists aim to keep the American public ignorant of evolution and science (which they have done a pretty good job of doing, as recent polls suggest) and desire that creation be taught in public schools along with evolution.
This would be about as ridiculous as teaching two different versions of the Holocaust in history classes (as some people claim that it never happened, and can back up this claim with phony evidence) or teaching an alternate flat earth theory (which another society can find "evidence" for) in geography.
That is not to say that there isn't a place for Genesis in the sphere of public education, but that would most likely be in courses involving theology, religion, culture, anthropology, and philosophy.
The moral here, of course, is that one shouldn't look to science to back up theology and vice versa.
Here are some links to learn the truth and why "creation scientists" are wrong (the links themselves can't be included because this site can't have words with more than 50 characters--wtf??). Go to a search engine and type in:
www.talkorigins.org
And perhaps Karl Thornley's page on Theistic Evolution for a few more good links.
"Did I tell you about my trip to the American Museum of Natural History?" I asked.
"No," she said, "That sounds wonderful."
"Yeah, I have a profound interest in all things prehistoric."
"I know," she said with a smile.
"You know, I really liked the section on human evolution," I began, almost immediately noticing her tense up a little.
"I don't believe in human evolution," she said.
"Fossils don't lie," I said.
"No," she said, "That sounds wonderful."
"Yeah, I have a profound interest in all things prehistoric."
"I know," she said with a smile.
"You know, I really liked the section on human evolution," I began, almost immediately noticing her tense up a little.
"I don't believe in human evolution," she said.
"Fossils don't lie," I said.
by Killing Kittens November 16, 2004
1. Belief in the spirit, soul, often as it relates to religious, sacred, or otherwise noncorporeal matters. A little metaphysics and philosophy are peripherally related as well, as its purpose is to give us perspective on life and what to do with it.
2. The application of any sort of philosophy, however defined, regardless of whether the person in question has any spiritual beliefs or not. This use of the word is so vague that it can be redefined to mean anything, even something that is completely materialistic.
2. The application of any sort of philosophy, however defined, regardless of whether the person in question has any spiritual beliefs or not. This use of the word is so vague that it can be redefined to mean anything, even something that is completely materialistic.
I'm sorry, "belief in the laws of science" is not spirituality. "Realising your own inner divinity" is not spirituality. "Being nice to people" is not spirituality. If you have no spiritual beliefs, you are not spiritual, simple as that.
Of course, one shouldn't be afraid to call oneself and atheist or agnostic. It doesn't mean you are shallow, immoral, closed-minded, intellectually dishonest, or anything of that sort.
Of course, one shouldn't be afraid to call oneself and atheist or agnostic. It doesn't mean you are shallow, immoral, closed-minded, intellectually dishonest, or anything of that sort.
by Killing Kittens November 17, 2005
1. A caricature of the Incredible Hulk with an over-large head, giant-sized tusks and muscled limbs so disproportionately thick he can't move them. He usually carries an obscenely large axe, and sometimes wears a silly horned Brunhilda helmet for good measure. His jaws are always agape in a permanent moronic grimace so we can see his yellowed tusks, but how he manages to close his mouth remains a mystery.
2. In the 1st and 2nd edition D&D game, a race of warlike humanoids with porcine snouts who are closely related to humans and can interbreed with them.
3. In J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth, a race of creatures that were once elves, but have been corrupted by the dark powers of Morgoth and serve Sauron and Sauroman during the war of the ring. They were, in a sense, Tolkien's critique of industrial warfare. Also known as "goblins".
2. In the 1st and 2nd edition D&D game, a race of warlike humanoids with porcine snouts who are closely related to humans and can interbreed with them.
3. In J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth, a race of creatures that were once elves, but have been corrupted by the dark powers of Morgoth and serve Sauron and Sauroman during the war of the ring. They were, in a sense, Tolkien's critique of industrial warfare. Also known as "goblins".
I play as an orc so I can take advantage of starting off with a 20 Strength as a 1st level barbarian with my Hackmaster +12.
by Killing Kittens July 18, 2006
A man who has rejected the societal notion of masculinity and chosen to define himself from the inside out instead, realising that traits such as empathy and nuturing are not actually limited to the female of the species, and nor are aggression and assertiveness limited to the male.
Despite this newfound revelation, however, there is still a strong genetic predisposition for humans to continuously behave as if we were animals seeking out the alpha male with those genes most suited for surviving in a hostile environment.
Often times, the average woman, whom society encourages to indulge in her weaknesses and surpress her strengths, is a self-loathing masochist who may appreciate the nice guy's friendship and understanding, but feels no attraction toward him because his insecurities remind her of why she hates herself. Therefore, she almost always seeks the dominant, aggressive, unempathic male with whom she can vicariously live to make up for her weaknesses. Of course, this inidividual, commonly known as a jerk, is also usually an egotistical, disloyal, and shallow person for whom societal dictates of masculinity will force him to disregard his mate's feelings and treat her as if she were beneath him.
Feeling emotionally unsatisfied, the female will then turn to her nice guy friend, whom she has long since castrated, for comfort, and complain to him about how men suck, except for him, and that he deserves a good girlfriend eventually except that it is never her or any other woman he might encounter.
Despite this newfound revelation, however, there is still a strong genetic predisposition for humans to continuously behave as if we were animals seeking out the alpha male with those genes most suited for surviving in a hostile environment.
Often times, the average woman, whom society encourages to indulge in her weaknesses and surpress her strengths, is a self-loathing masochist who may appreciate the nice guy's friendship and understanding, but feels no attraction toward him because his insecurities remind her of why she hates herself. Therefore, she almost always seeks the dominant, aggressive, unempathic male with whom she can vicariously live to make up for her weaknesses. Of course, this inidividual, commonly known as a jerk, is also usually an egotistical, disloyal, and shallow person for whom societal dictates of masculinity will force him to disregard his mate's feelings and treat her as if she were beneath him.
Feeling emotionally unsatisfied, the female will then turn to her nice guy friend, whom she has long since castrated, for comfort, and complain to him about how men suck, except for him, and that he deserves a good girlfriend eventually except that it is never her or any other woman he might encounter.
by Killing Kittens March 01, 2005
by Killing Kittens April 11, 2005