Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE)

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw

Yes, but you are only looking at a tiny section of the surface of things.

God is able to prevent evil, and He is doing so. Here is how He is doing it.

God formulated a plan whereby His Son came to live in the form of a man. The Son suffered all the punishment for all the evil that mankind has done, so that mankind can be saved for goodness... saved from death and the eternal destruction that it brings.

At the resurrection of the dead, those people who had believed in the Son, Jesus, in this life, will go into everlasting joy and bliss, with both the Father and the Son. Those who have not accepted the salvation offered by the Son, will go into the lake of fire where they will be "melted down" so that their evil is gone and their energy can be returned to God Who made and gave it in the first place.

Thus, there will only be good forever. Everything of this universe will pass away, and will even never be brought back into remembrance. Evil entirely gone. Good remaining forever.

Now, a thought for you to ponder. After you die, how much of this life will you remember?

[1714030449]

1714030449

[BADecker]

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

dood this is the question ,NEWTONS laws could have been made by anyone who did research ..but your fucking religion starts with only ONE
and that ONE is suspicious and LIAR,

If the One that you are talking about is God, He is absolutely NOT a liar. The fact that you say He is, shows that YOU are the liar.

So, let me ask a question. What causes brought you into the effect of being a liar. After all, it wasn't the plan of God that you be a liar.

[BADecker]

I believe in solipsism.

None of you are real and are made up by me, the only one who is!

Must be awful boring, talking to yourself all the time, and not being able to get any wise answers.

 

[BADecker]

well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.

The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.

But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.

[the joint]

well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.

The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.

But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.

Give it up dude,  you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves.  That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws." 

One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter.  If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize.  You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted.  Sorry, can't do that.

[BADecker]

well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.

The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.

But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.

Give it up dude,  you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves.  That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws." 

One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter.  If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize.  You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted.  Sorry, can't do that.

When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.

If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.

[the joint]

well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.

The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.

But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.

Give it up dude,  you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves.  That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws." 

One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter.  If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize.  You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted.  Sorry, can't do that.

When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.

If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.

Incorrect.  A theory is merely a description of the way something is.  Any natural law amounts to a theoretical description of that law.  In more refined disciplines, sure, you only need to worry about the application of those laws.  But what you're trying to do is prove the existence of an entity which allows for both the laws and the theoretical descriptions of those laws.  You can't just assume that the theoretical origins of these laws, and of theorization itself, are sound before trying to prove the existence of the entity which allows the creation of both the laws and their theoretical origins. 

[MakingMoneyHoney]

read the OT with an open mind.

Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".

I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it.

Good for you; unfortunately this is not sufficient, as I will explain:

I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien.

It's not true; the scribe Dharma is a Grandmother; the messenger Hatonn is GOD, he is the same as ATON, which is a name of God, and ATON speaks through the Journals with a different voice from Hatonn but they are the same, and Sananda is another messenger whose title mean "One WITH God", and he speaks in a different voice as well, then there are members of the Crew, and finally in the CONTACT newspaper there are writings from humans, and indeed many quotations from human writings are found in the Journals themselves.
Therefore, you are getting truth from the horse's mouth, via translation, as explained here:
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html

That's what I meant.

"Hatonn is: Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn-Aton.  I write through a “Translator”; communications through pulsed short-wave transmission.  This is not “psychic channeling nor hocus-pocus”. This is purely “physics” of frequency transmission, receiver termination of transmission and translation of the signal into the English language."

It is channeling and they try to act as if it's not.

Why don't you go and search yourself? I never claimed to have read them all! You can search for the phrase "other speakers" and any other phrase you can come up with!

So you've never read the whole bible and you've never read all the phoenix journals?

[BADecker]

well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.

The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.

But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.

Give it up dude,  you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves.  That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws."  

One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter.  If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize.  You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted.  Sorry, can't do that.

When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.

If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.

Incorrect.  A theory is merely a description of the way something is.  Any natural law amounts to a theoretical description of that law.  In more refined disciplines, sure, you only need to worry about the application of those laws.  But what you're trying to do is prove the existence of an entity which allows for both the laws and the theoretical descriptions of those laws.  You can't just assume that the theoretical origins of these laws, and of theorization itself, are sound before trying to prove the existence of the entity which allows the creation of both the laws and their theoretical origins.  

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.

7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

Note that although the first definition, above, suggests that theories are laws, more than one of the others suggest theory is fiction.

Note that the 3 laws, cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, are laws because of the abundance of observations to that effect, as well as the non-existence of opposition to those laws.

Much of modern physics is starting to be based on Quantum. Quantum is simply advanced probability. This means that the things that are proven by Quantum, have been proven because the researcher was searching for that kind of proof. If a researcher decided to use Quantum to prove the opposite of something already proven by Quantum, he could do that as well.

If a researcher proves pure random using Quantum, another researcher could much more easily prove the non-existence of pure random using quantum. But who is going to look for the non-existence of pure random through Quantum? Nobody, because we already have the law of cause and effect, which proves no pure random. There is no need to prove the non-existence of pure random by Quantum. But if somebody did, it would be a lot easier to do, and a lot firmer, because we already have the law of universal cause and effect.

[1aguar]

God requires spiritual fruit,
NOT religious nuts!

[BitNow]

God requires spiritual fruit,
NOT religious nuts!

What's a fruit?

I know trees.


Thank You.

[Vod]

God requires spiritual fruit,
NOT religious nuts!

Actually, I don't require either.

I will survive with our without your prayers.

[popcorn1]

1AGUAR,....SMART NICE PERSON BUT MIXES THE BIBLE WITH ALIEN AND EGYPTIAN TEACHINGS OF THE MEANING OF GOD

BITNOW....  HE IS A FUCKIN NUTTER AND A PLANTPOT WANTS TO KILL EVERYONE WHO WONT BELIEVE IN HIS WAY OF THE BIBLE

BADECKER... NICE PERSON BUT KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE GETS CONFUSED WITH SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE..

MMH....SMART NICE PERSON KNOWS THE BIBLE LIKE THE BACK OF HIS HAND
 BUT HE WILL DRIVE HIMSELF CRAZY TO MUCH RELIGION  

you guys or girls above...STOP PREACHING YOUR SHIT TO EACH OTHER NONE OF YOU WILL WIN
BECAUSE YOUR ARGUING OVER NOTHING.. SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST...

AT LEAST WITH AN ATHEIST WE ASK FOR PROOF AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED ..
YOU RELIGIOUS FREAKS CAN NEVER PROVE ANYTHING SO YOU ARGUE AND ARGUE TILL THE COWS COME HOME..A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME

PLUS THE TOPIC SAYS WHY DO ATHEIST HATE RELIGION ?
WE WANT TO KNOW WHY...
WE DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT VERSE SO AND SO SAID OR WHAT GOD SAID..
BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE TO AN ATHEIST

SO CHILL OUT ON THE GOSPELS OF WHO EVER ..ITS ALL BULLSHIT..
AND STOP TALKING BULLSHIT SAYING THERE IS PROOF OF GOD..

BECAUSE IF THERE WAS PROOF WE WOULD ALL BELIEVE IN GOD THE WHOLE PLANET

[the joint]

well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.

The only way I am defeated in this, a little, is that I DID have a little hope that you would understand that God has been proven by the 3 solid law of nature, cause and effect, universal complexity, and universal entropy.

But in my defeat, I have the comfort of knowing that it is by your own desire for your ignorance in this matter, that you have decided to remain ignorant.

Give it up dude,  you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves.  That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws."  

One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter.  If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize.  You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted.  Sorry, can't do that.

When you are using standard laws, there is no need to theorize. All that need be done is application.

If you can't put those 3 laws together to see that God exists, that's your problem.

Incorrect.  A theory is merely a description of the way something is.  Any natural law amounts to a theoretical description of that law.  In more refined disciplines, sure, you only need to worry about the application of those laws.  But what you're trying to do is prove the existence of an entity which allows for both the laws and the theoretical descriptions of those laws.  You can't just assume that the theoretical origins of these laws, and of theorization itself, are sound before trying to prove the existence of the entity which allows the creation of both the laws and their theoretical origins.  

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.

7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

Note that although the first definition, above, suggests that theories are laws, more than one of the others suggest theory is fiction.

Note that the 3 laws, cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, are laws because of the abundance of observations to that effect, as well as the non-existence of opposition to those laws.

Much of modern physics is starting to be based on Quantum. Quantum is simply advanced probability. This means that the things that are proven by Quantum, have been proven because the researcher was searching for that kind of proof. If a researcher decided to use Quantum to prove the opposite of something already proven by Quantum, he could do that as well.

If a researcher proves pure random using Quantum, another researcher could much more easily prove the non-existence of pure random using quantum. But who is going to look for the non-existence of pure random through Quantum? Nobody, because we already have the law of cause and effect, which proves no pure random. There is no need to prove the non-existence of pure random by Quantum. But if somebody did, it would be a lot easier to do, and a lot firmer, because we already have the law of universal cause and effect.

1)  Note that I've already given a base definition for what a theory is, and at a basic and fundemtal level.  If you think it should be different or more refined, or if you think the definition I selected, which applies to all dictionary definitions, is inappropriate, then argue why that's the case.

2) Okay, but that is beside the point I'm making, and irrelevant to it.  However, laws themselves are abstract.  We don't observe laws, but rather phenomena that obeys laws.  Hence, we discover physical laws inductively (I.e. Bottom-up reasoning).

3)  Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics haven't been successfully merged in a way that's acceptable by academics.  Quantum phenomena cannot be observed because they occur below the Planck scale, and are therefore metaphysical, not physical in a traditional sense.  In a peer-reviewed setting, there is no currently no means by which to soundly explain observable phenomena in terms of quantum mechanics and vice versa without a lot of skepticism.  There do exist such theories, but not everyone agrees on them.

4) Your conceptualization of cause and effect is a result of the theoretical context of time in which you place it (I.e. A linear one, from past to future).  This is a component of time, not all that time is.  Time is intertwined with space and momentum, and is a stratification of superposition.  Effects also "effect" their causes.  What I'm getting at here is that your demonstrated understanding of cause and effect is at a surface level, and you're not going to explain the fundamental nature of reality by solely analyzing its surface level interactions.

[1aguar]

1AGUAR,....SMART NICE PERSON BUT MIXES THE BIBLE WITH ALIEN AND EGYPTIAN TEACHINGS OF THE MEANING OF GOD

Well, thanks for the compliment; however, my teachings come from GOD OF LIGHT, so do not be confused about "mixing" of teachings, that is just a story you made up (without evidence) to dismiss the reality of what I offer; it is better to read them ALL than to close your mind and ignore the truth.

BECAUSE IF THERE WAS PROOF WE WOULD ALL BELIEVE IN GOD THE WHOLE PLANET

There is proof; you just choose to ignore it; there is already evidence that NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone, thus I conclude that your understanding of human consciousness needs to be re-evaluated.

The most common "skeptical" fallacy is to equate an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data.
People who believe in Materialism often try to discredit the empirical evidence for the afterlife by making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up their stories with facts. They don't even realize their stories are contradicted by facts because they never investigated the evidence in the first place.

i have told you 2 times its the brains way of making you comfortable before you die now you prove me wrong

I have 52 points of evidence that prove you wrong. Once you read through all of them, you will understand that NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.

I have a concise logical proof demonstrating that God exists based on definitions; please tell me which step of the proof you disagree with.

My proof defines God sufficiently, and yes it is based on external (observable, scientific) evidence; if my definition is missing something, you can point it out explicitly, hopefully after reading the proof carefully to understand the logic.

My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

My advice is to read ALL teachings and then you can judge in wisdom of knowledge and discern for yourself which one(s) are valid truth.

[1aguar]

subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.

Here is another example of the most common skeptical fallacy; your "story" is contradicted by empirical facts about NDE; the sensory perception that occurs in NDE is not an imagined event:

"From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

[MakingMoneyHoney]

MMH....SMART NICE PERSON KNOWS THE BIBLE LIKE THE BACK OF HIS HER HAND
 BUT HE SHE WILL DRIVE HIMSELF HERSELF CRAZY TO MUCH RELIGION  

Fixed that for you.

But I'm not going to be driving myself crazy. I'm chilled as a cucumber.

[BitNow]

MMH....SMART NICE PERSON KNOWS THE BIBLE LIKE THE BACK OF HIS HER HAND
 BUT HE SHE WILL DRIVE HIMSELF HERSELF CRAZY TO MUCH RELIGION  

Fixed that for you.

But I'm not going to be driving myself crazy. I'm chilled as a cucumber.

When God is missing, sex is important.


Thank You.

[popcorn1]

1AGUAR,....SMART NICE PERSON BUT MIXES THE BIBLE WITH ALIEN AND EGYPTIAN TEACHINGS OF THE MEANING OF GOD

Well, thanks for the compliment; however, my teachings come from GOD OF LIGHT, so do not be confused about "mixing" of teachings, that is just a story you made up (without evidence) to dismiss the reality of what I offer; it is better to read them ALL than to close your mind and ignore the truth.

BECAUSE IF THERE WAS PROOF WE WOULD ALL BELIEVE IN GOD THE WHOLE PLANET

There is proof; you just choose to ignore it; there is already evidence that NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone, thus I conclude that your understanding of human consciousness needs to be re-evaluated.

i have told you 2 times its the brains way of making you comfortable before you die now you prove me wrong

I have 52 points of evidence that prove you wrong. Once you read through all of them, you will understand that NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.

I have a concise logical proof demonstrating that God exists based on definitions; please tell me which step of the proof you disagree with.

My proof defines God sufficiently, and yes it is based on external (observable, scientific) evidence; if my definition is missing something, you can point it out explicitly, hopefully after reading the proof carefully to understand the logic.

My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

My advice is to read ALL teachings and then you can judge in wisdom of knowledge and discern for yourself which one(s) are valid truth.

ALL OF IT ...YOUR BABBLING ABOUT NOTHING..
I AM AN NDEs SO WHY DON.T I BELIEVE IN GOD..STOP FOOLING YOURSELF..
YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WILL ..BUT YOUR BELIEF SAYS YOUR NOT TO PUSH RELIGION ONTO ANOTHER .....SO STOP... BEFORE YOU TRIP UP ON YOUR OWN TEACHINGS..SHHHHHHH..
KEEP IT TO YOURSELF..

AND ATON IS ATEN..THE DISK OF THE SUN... SUN GOD  AKA RA...DO YOUR HISTORY..YOU RELIGIOUS NUTS NEED TO KNOW HOW AND WHY PEOPLE  FIRST STARTED TO BELIEVE IN GODS..MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER AND EARTH QUAKES ..

MY THOUGHT IS THE FIRST PEOPLE WHO HEARD THUNDER AND SEEN LIGHTNING MUST OF THOUGHT WHO DONE THAT?
I WHACK MY ROCKS ON ME CAVE AND STILL DON.T MAKE A NOISE LIKE THAT..WOW..
AND I BET THE NEXT TIME HE HEARD IT HE STARTED BOWING THINKING IT WAS SOMETHING HUGE..

PLUS HUMANS LOVE TO BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE..
LETS LOOK AT IT THIS WAY...SAY YOU LIVE WITH 100 PEOPLE...THERE WILL ALWAYS BE ONE WHO IS THE LEAST LIKED PERSON OUT OF THE 100..FACT..
SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THE THUNDER AND LIGHTING AS COME  
SOMEBODY AS SAID THAT IS THAT LITTLE SHIT WHO MADE THAT HAPPEN HE AS UPSET THE HUGE THING LETS KILL HIM..SO THE TRIBE SACRIFICED HIM TO THE WEATHER..ALL AS BEEN GOOD WEATHER WISE ..SO THEY START TO SACRIFICE PEOPLE BEFORE THE BAD WEATHER COMES..
THUS STARTING THE CREATION OF GODS...

WE ARE NOW IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND WE STILL DO THIS.
.BUT NOW WE SACRIFICE FOR WHOs GOD IS THE RIGHT GOD TO BELIEVE IN..VERY STRANGE...
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE MUSLIMS WILL TAKE OVER WITH THERE COOKOO RELIGION
BECAUSE THERE FUCKIN EVERYWHERE..FLOATIN BED SHEETS ALL OVER THE WORLD..

[popcorn1]

MMH....SMART NICE PERSON KNOWS THE BIBLE LIKE THE BACK OF HIS HER HAND
 BUT HE SHE WILL DRIVE HIMSELF HERSELF CRAZY TO MUCH RELIGION  

Fixed that for you.

But I'm not going to be driving myself crazy. I'm chilled as a cucumber.

SORRY SHE ..YOUR STILL SMART AND NICE THO..
BUT YOU STILL WASTE YOUR TIME READING ABOUT GOD..
READ ABOUT 3D PRINTERS HOW THEY WORK HOW TO BUILD ONE . ITS THE FUTURE