Birthday • 1992-01-12 Gender •
Female Location • Phoenix. Member Since • 2005-10-13 Occupation • A sales representative at the U-HAUL international call center. Real Name • My real name is Sarah.
Personal
Achievements • I'm not sure. Anime Fan Since • Since I was in 4th grade. Sailor Moon did it. Favorite Anime • Anything that has a good story line. Believe me, there's a lot of Anime's out there that are shit. Goals • Really, right now, I'm just waiting for him. Hobbies • I am a Junior at Metropolitan Arts Institute for Drawing, 2D3D, Photo, and Guitar. I used to play Eb Alto Saxophone, and Eb Baritone Saxophone. Talents • Acting, Drawing, Playing Guitar, Volleyball.
myOtaku.com: anime art fan
Welcome to my site archives. 10 posts are listed per page.
i drew this on paint sorry i cant shade very well ^^' so i didnt shade it
i drew my favorite person in the whole world on paint ^^ i drew him gorillaz style though lol i think i did an aweful job tho ~_~
love you Bill
im a capricorn. most of them are true and the others i have not yet found out. comment with wat urs is and tell if its correct about you
There's no turning back.
Repost this in a new bulletin with your
zodiac sign or you'll get bad luck and
lose the person you dearly love most!
LiBRA *
-- Very pretty.
-- Very romantic.
-- Nice to everyone They meet.
-- Their Love is one of a kind.
-- Silly, fun and sweet.
-- Have own unique sexiness.
-- Most caring person you will ever meet
-- the most irresistible
-- someone loves them right now.
-- Always gets what he or she wants.
-- BY FAR the BEST in BED.
-- Very sexy
-- Can be mean.
-- Coolest
-- GREAT friend
-- Rare to find.
-- Addictive
-- Great kisser.
-- One of a kind.
Scorpio*
-- Can be mean.
-- EXTREMELY sexy.
-- Intelligent.
-- Energetic.
-- Predict future.
-- Most erotic.
-- Freak in bed.
-- GREAT kisser.
-- Always get what they want.
-- Attractive.
-- Easy going.
-- Loves being in long relationships.
-- Talkative.
-- Romantic.
-- Caring.
-- Artistic
-- NICE!
ARiES *
-- Outgoing.
-- lovable
-- Spontanious.
-- Not one to FUCK with.
-- Erotic.
-- Funny.
-- Can get abnoxious
-- Take you on trips to the moon in bed.
-- excellent kisser
-- EXTREMELY sexy.
-- Loves being in long relationships.=)
-- Addictive.
-- Loud.
-- best in bed
AQUARiUS *
-- Trustworthy.
-- Sexy.
-- Talkative.
-- Great kisser.
-- One of a kind.
-- Loves being in long-term relationships.
-- Extremely energetic.
-- unpredictable.
-- from the future.
-- Great listeners
-- will exceed your expectations.
-- Not a Fighter, But will Knock your ass OUT
-- Outgoing
-- Down to earth
-- Addictive
-- Rare to find.
-- Sensitive at times
-- Very caring and cares about people's feelings
-- Attractive
-- Amazing in bed
GEMiNi *
-- Nice.
-- Love is one of a kind.
-- Great listeners
-- Very Good in bed.
-- Lover not a fighter, but will still punch your lights out.
-- Trustworthy.
-- Always happy.
-- Loud.
-- Talkative.
-- Outgoing
-- Very forgiving
-- Loves to make out
-- Has a beautiful smile
-- Generous
-- Strong
-- Ultra sexy
-- The Most Irresitible
LEO *
-- Great talker.
-- Sexy and passionate.
-- Laid back.
-- Knows how to have fun.
-- Is really good at sex!
-- Great kisser.
-- Unpredictable. fo real
-- Outgoing.
-- Down to earth.
-- Addictive.
-- Attractive.
-- Loud.
-- Loves being in long relationships.
-- Talkative.
-- Not one to mess with.
-- Rare to find.
-- Good when found.
CANCER *
-- MOST AMAZING KISSER.
-- Very high sex appeal.
-- Great in bed ...
-- Love is one of a kind.
-- Very romantic.
-- Most caring person you will ever meet!
-- Entirely creative
-- Random and proud of it
-- Great tellin stories
-- Not a Fighter, But will Knock your lights out
PiSCES *
-- Caring and kind
-- Smart.
-- Center of attention.
-- Too Sexy, DAng IT.
-- Very high sex appeal.
-- Has the last word.
-- The best to find, hardest to keep.
-- Fun to be around.
-- Freak in the sheets
-- Extremely weird but in a good way.
-- Super good in bed.
-- Good Sense of Humor!!!
-- Thoughtful
-- A partner for life
**CAPRiCORN **
-- *Nice
-- Sassy.
-- Intelligent.
-- Sexy.
-- Predict future.
-- Irrestible, awes0me kisser.
-- *Loves being in long relationships
-- *Great talker.
-- Loves to own Gemini's in sports
-- *very funny
-- *loves to joke
-- Loves to be your first, so you'll never forget
-- High sex appeal.
-- Are the most sexiest people on earth!
-- Have own unique sexiness.
-- Hard to forget
-- Rare to find!
-- Addictive.
-- Attractive.
-- Loud.
-- Loyal.
-- Easy to talk to.
-- Very pretty.
-- Very romantic.
TAURUS *
-- Aggressive.
-- Freak in bed.
-- Rare to find!
-- Loves being in long relationships.=)
-- Likes to give a good fight for what they want.
-- Extremely outgoing.
-- Sexy as ........
-- Loves to help people in times of need.
-- Very popular
-- Outstanding kisser.
-- Very funny
-- Awesome personality
-- Sexual as "F**k!
-- Most caring person you will ever meet!
-- One of a kind.
-- Not one to fuck with.
-- Are the most sexiest people on earth!
ViRGO
-- Dominant in relationships.
-- Sexy.
-- someone loves them right now.
-- FreakY in bed.
-- Always wants the last word.
-- Caring.
-- Smart.
-- Addictive.
-- Attractive.
-- Loud.
-- Loyal.
-- Easy to talk to.
-- Hard to forget
SAGiTTARiUS *
-- Spontaneous.
-- Horny.
-- Freak in Bed.
-- Amazing n Bed..!!!
-- Did I say Amazing in Bed?
-- The kind of person you wanna be with....
-- Never stops thinking of sex Comments (2) |
Permalink
hey i can code kinda good!!!! and the comics called the adventures of BOB and MAX
heres the intro
what do you guys think?
INTRODUCTION
the adventures of bob and max are merely comics spawned from my boredom.
Bob and max are roomates forced to live with eachother, while a part of them dies every day. max being a neat freak goody two shoes is constantly critisizing bob for being untidy and a jackass. we find bob being driven crazy juist 4 minutes after they finished moving in. we stand by listening with awe and amazement as we briefly interview them about the experiences they had after living with eachother for a while. interviewer: so bob, max, how do you feel about being roomates?
BoB: Honestly this little experience has made me realize something about myself. that i hate YOU ALL! When is this stupid interview gonna be over? i gots things to do!
Max: uhm no comment i fear for my life.
interviewer: Okay then, if you could've changed anything about this experience what would you change?
BoB: If i had known the pain this caused me i wouldve taken all things of value in that little apartment flat and high taled it!
Max:I wouldve changed bobs atitude and gotten him some profesional help!
BoB: YOU WOULD you pansy!! youre lucky i dont slit your throat right now!
Interviewer: Well did you guys do anything you now regret?
BoB: Screwing max's cat. the damn bastard gave me worms!
¡Vnoun, plural -nies.
a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.
recently i have been thinking about religion. i dont know why. this kid today asked me what my religion was and i didnt know and then i thought "hey i dont really think there is a god like in christianity... so what is my religion?"
there is a religion in where they dont believe in a god.
it is called Agnosticism. its not the same as athiests. heres some information i found on agnosticism on wikipedia so heres some handy little nuggets of knowlege for you to crunch on. and remember i havent decided my religion yet lemme know what you think.
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that value certain claims as truth¡Xparticularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities¡Xis unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism¡Xthese are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Agnostics may claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements. Some claim that there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because even theists do not claim to know God exists, only to believe it, and many even agree there is room for doubt; and atheists in the broader sense do not claim to know there is no God, only not to believe in one.
Contents
[hide]
1 Variations
2 Philosophical opinions
2.1 Thomas Henry Huxley
2.2 Robert G. Ingersoll
2.3 Bertrand Russell
2.4 Logical positivism
3 References
4 See also
5 External links
[edit]
Variations
More than most expressions of philosophical position, agnosticism has suffered from terminological vagaries. This often stems from the distinction (or lack thereof) between the words "belief" and "knowledge". Some consider them to be the same. (E.g.: "I believe god exists" = "I know god exists" = "I affirm the truth-value of the statement 'god exists'"). Others consider them to be different (E.g.: "I believe god exists" can still mean "I don't know if god exists" or "I cannot affirm the truth-value of the statement 'god exists'").
Data collection services[1][2] often display the common use of the term, distinct from atheism in its lack of disputing the existence of deities. Agnostics are listed alongside secular, non-religious, or other such categories.
Other variations include:
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)¡Xthe view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)¡Xthe view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism¡Xthe view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
Ignosticism¡Xthe view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.
Model agnosticism¡Xthe view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)¡Xthe view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
Agnostic spiritualism¡Xthe view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.
Agnostic atheism¡Xthe view of those who do not know if God does or does not exist, and who do not believe in God.[3]
[edit]
Philosophical opinions
Among the most famous agnostics (in the original sense) have been Thomas Henry Huxley, Robert G. Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell.
[edit]
Thomas Henry Huxley
Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively:
I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter. . . .
It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions. . . .
That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.
And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:
I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I¡Xwho am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds¡Xhave to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.
Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:[4]
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.
Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established Jewish and Christian doctrines. Agnosticism should not, however, be confused with natural theology, deism, pantheism, or other science positive forms of theism.
By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). While A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable.
[edit]
Robert G. Ingersoll
An Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a well-known and sought-after orator in 19th century America, and who has been referred to as the "Great Agnostic."
In an 1896 lecture titled Why I Am An Agnostic, Ingersoll related what led him to believe in agnosticism and articulated that belief with:
Is there a supernatural power -- an arbitrary mind -- an enthroned God -- a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world -- to which all causes bow? I do not deny. I do not know -- but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man.
I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all -- that there is no interference -- no chance -- that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.
Is there a God? I do not know. Is man immortal? I do not know. One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.
In the conclusion of the speech he simply sums up the agnostic belief as:
We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know.
[edit]
Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell's pamphlet, Why I Am Not a Christian, based on a speech delivered in 1927 and later included in a book of the same title, is considered a classic statement of agnosticism. The essay briefly lays out Russell¡¦s objections to some of the arguments for the existence of God before discussing his moral objections to Christian teachings. He then calls upon his readers to "stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world," with a "fearless attitude and a free intelligence."
In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in which he characterised himself as an agnostic. He said:
The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion concerning the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have gathered, is a negative one on this matter.[5]
However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states:
That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can.[6]
In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
However, later in the essay, Russell says:
I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.
Note that he didn't say "supreme" or "supernatural" intelligence, as these terms are metaphysically loaded.
For Russell, then, agnosticism doesn't necessarily assert that it is in principle impossible to know whether or not there is a God. Moreover, "An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists."
[edit]
Logical positivism
Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, are sometimes thought to be agnostic. Using arguments reminiscent of Wittgenstein¡¦s famous "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent," they viewed any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value and were deemed to be without meaning. But this includes all utterances about gods, even those agnostic statements that deny knowledge of gods is possible. In Language, Truth and Logic Ayer explicitly rejects agnosticism on the grounds that an agnostic, despite claiming that knowledge of gods is not possible, nevertheless holds that statements about gods have meaning. This position, however, is valid only in the case of agnostics who define their agnosticism in this fashion. Ignostics define agnosticism in a manner consistent with the logical positivist view, holding theism to be incoherent.
[edit]
References
^ http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious
^ http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2122.html
^ Cline, Austin. Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?. Retrieved on 2006-09-24.
^ Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays, 237-239. ISBN 1-85506-922-9.
^ Russel, Bertrand. Collected Papers, Vol 10, 255.
^ Collected Papers, Vol. 10, p.258
Man's Place In Nature, Thomas Huxley, ISBN 0-375-75847-X
Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, ISBN 0-671-20323-1
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume, ISBN 0-14-044536-6
Language, Truth, and Logic, A.J. Ayer, ISBN 0-486-20010-8
Atheism, the Case Against God, George H. Smith, ISBN 0-87975-124-X
[edit]
See also
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Agnosticism
Nihilism
Existentialism
God
Rationalist movement
Religion
Religiosity
Secularism
Skepticism
Russell's teapot
Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism
List of agnostics Comments (2) |
Permalink
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
teribly sorry guys i have not posted in a long time
sorry i have nothing to say besides happy birthday bill
turning 17 today
lemme know how your bday went
the world is caving in on meeeee... i think i might make a song about that..... DONT STEAL IDEAS
i was grounded on sunday for doing nothing and my mother was so pissed off that she put a password on the freaking computer so theres a slim chance that i will get on the computer at home. no time to read your messages, but i d have time to type all ithat i can before school starts. i am in the school computer lab.
but anyway
i was grounded from everything music computer, videogames even my sketchbooks which really messed me up, so all i had to do was to do chores and write in a diary... but i digres.
monday was wierd. first my grandparents get rearended on the freeway on the way down to phoenix and then some punk sets all the garbage cans in our alley on fire!!!! it was freaky, theyre all melted to the botom in our alley and it smelled for like half an hour. and my dad was so pissed because a long time ago someone lit th shrubery on our back fence on fire and it almost burned the house down.
idk there be a lot of freaks here.
i think im becoming sick. probably i caught the cold my cousin had. i waas so mad. i was miserable at school i was like a zombie but i still did well in class. cruise control on the brain doenst really effect me much, only emotional cruise control.
must stop typing for now, Comments (0) |
Permalink
i drew this on paint sorry i cant shade very well ^^' so i didnt shade it 
recent drawings 
