Gmogger
Gold
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2023
- Posts
- 998
- Reputation
- 1,212
The Anti-dogmatic Gate
The Concept of 'God' is a war on logic & rational mind, The most abstract concept the man has ever created is the concept "God" a supposed all knowing, all perfect, all powerful and all loving deity that you cannot see, touch, comprehend that somehow exists outside of space, time, matter who dictates human intervention, has a personality, hides his existence and relies on a 'beliefs' as metric that would determine whether you will end up in a pit of hell fire for eternity or an eternal state of Joy, All this with the existence of 'Free will' that supposedly grants humans the will to choose between Good & Bad, This thread is all you need to know that such being not only does not exist but also that he 'Cannot' exist fundamentally, all using logic, math and reasoning, Something that cannot be broken or subdued or agued against but can only be presented, Note that we are debunking the existence of an Theistic-Religious God to be more precise the Abrahamic/Biblical God (Abrahamic Theory) who is seen as an personal energy that is sentient, self aware and existing externally who determines human lives
Simplest Method
A simple yet effective way to disprove any concept or idea is using the Modus Tollens methodology. This logical argument asserts that if certain conditions are necessary for a concept to be true, then disproving one or more of those conditions is sufficient to disprove the entire concept. A basic example is the definition of a human being: all human beings possess consciousness and are mortal. If someone does not have consciousness, is immortal, or possesses both or either of these characteristics, then that individual is, by definition, not human. A more precise example is a square, which requires all four sides to be of equal length and all four angles to be equal. If a quadrilateral does not have all sides equal, then it is, by definition, not a square. Extending this to the concept of God, as defined by religious adherents, God is considered a deity who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Disproving any one or more of these conditions disproves the entire concept. Therefore, if a being possesses all other attributes but is not all-knowing, then that being is not God. Similarly, if a being is all-knowing but not all-powerful, that being is also not God. If a being is all-knowing and all-powerful but not all-loving, that being is again not God, as the very definition of God, according to believers, includes the attribute of being "all-loving."
Christianity Proves God Does Not Exist
The whole Christian narrative is a big paradox-breeding machine when taken literally, to the extent that it seems unworthy of being presented even as a fictional story due to it's lack of logical coherency, let alone as eternal truth. It does, however, hold metaphorical meaning, which is rational and is supposed to be just that. But playing by the rules, the fact that God allows people to go to hell is proof that God cannot be "all-loving." Now, the common argument presented is that this is a consequence of "free will" granted by God, but the concept of "free will" itself is fundamentally and equally flawed when viewed with an open mind. We will delve into that later. But getting back to the point, if God cannot stop people from going to hell because of "free will"—a system he himself put in place—and somehow he cannot stop or rule against it to save his very own creations from the worst fate imaginable, eternal torment, then it would also mean God is not all-powerful. The whole Christian narrative is tied with a very thin string of "free will," a complex term that is maintained so people stop questioning. Once people break that string, it is impossible to revert back.
Free will and God cannot coexist. The existence of one necessitates the non-existence of the other and creates another infinite paradox. The whole concept of "free will" is an impossibility with the existence of God. Free will states that God allows people to choose, and depending on their choices combined with chosen beliefs, they are either sent to suffer for eternity in hell or to enjoy in heaven. But there is a problem that can be addressed with an example. Since we believe "God is all-knowing," didn't God foresee Hitler causing mass genocides and eventually going to hell as per the rules? If God is all-knowing and did foresee Hitler's eventual sins, then he never actually had "free will"; everything was unfolding the way it was foreseen in the mind of God even before Hitler was born. So either free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, and God is all-knowing, meaning you choose what was already foreknown and foreseen (but that would then mean God is not all-loving and all-powerful since those who will inevitably go to hell will do so, which defeats the purpose of Jesus and his own narrative, and that even God himself cannot stop the predetermined reality), or the alternative concept is that God is not all-knowing and does not know what humans will choose. Either way, it disproves the concept of God from every possible angle. Free will disproves the existence of God, and the non-existence of God disproves free will.
Secondly, consider the flaws in the narrative: Lucifer grew in pride and rebelled against God in heaven. Again, hypocritically, God did not foresee that in the all-perfect heaven with all perfect angels. Secondly, placing a system where humans are born in a flawed world where God hides his nature and relies on beliefs as a metric of punishment or salvation—wouldn't an all-knowing God at least know that true belief comes from within? There is no reason why a human being would not choose heaven if it existed, an eternal world with no suffering. But what stops a man from even rejecting God and Heaven? The nonexistent evidence and irrational narrative surrounding it. Those who can see through the veil have no choice but to not "believe" in the narrative. True belief is not a choice; it comes from inner conviction. The only way is to deceive oneself and believe things one knows are not true, meaning to go against one's own rational mind and constantly lie in fear of a supposed hell. Is that what a God would want: compliance through fear and lies? Of course not. Such a god would perfectly describe "Satan," let alone an all-loving being. Also, let's not discuss his other immoral acts, like ordering Saul to annihilate the Amalekites, sparing no one, not even infants or livestock, or causing mass genocide with floods and killing everyone except for Noah and his family. To consider this archetype "all-loving" is a crime against the rational mind. Again, most people "believe" in God because of fear of hell or the temptation of heaven. Remove hell and heaven from the equation, and it would be ridiculed more than the flat-earth theory. The very word "belief" means that they are not convinced. You "know" the sun and the moon; you don't believe in the sun and moon. I don't believe in the non-existence of God; I know it.
To conclude, the very own narrative of Christianity proves the non-existence of God more than anything else. God being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving creates an infinite paradox. If the Christian narrative is true, then God truly cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. But if God is actually all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then the narrative cannot be true. If the narrative cannot be true, then God cannot be real. Either way, it can be said with 100% certainty that the God described in Christianity or other Abrahamic religions does not and cannot fundamentally exist, no matter how you try to position it.
Reason & Logic Proves God Does Not Exist
The principle of sufficient reason & Occom's razor
The principle of sufficient reason, states that everything must have a reason or cause for it be existing or unfolding. or in simple terms a creation must be a creator and reason for it to exist, If everything requires a cause or a creator, then God, as a being, must also require a cause or a creator. People often posit God as the uncaused first cause, an exception to this principle. However, asserting an exception without sufficient justification violates the principle itself. If we allow for one exception to the principle of sufficient reason, there is no logical basis for preventing further exceptions. This leads to an arbitrary and inconsistent application of causality, undermining the principle's explanatory power. Why should God be exempt from the need for a cause while everything else in the universe is subject to it? Simply declaring God as "uncaused" does not constitute a sufficient reason; it is an assertion without justification, if God a supernatural being that you cannot see, touch, comprehend can be uncaused without a creator then the Universe which is observable itself can be uncaused cause too, a simpler explanation is already present, hence there's no reason for a 'God' to exist as existence will always choose the simplest path and the existence of God introduces a significant and complex assumption, Existence itself is self-sufficient without having a conscious creator in place: a supernatural being existing outside of the natural world, possessing extraordinary powers and attributes. This assumption adds a layer of complexity to explanations of the universe that is not necessary.
As previously stated, If God desires a personal relationship with humanity, as many religions claim, then his apparent absence and lack of clear, unambiguous communication is contradictory. Why would an all-loving God hide himself, requiring faith rather than providing clear evidence of his existence? This hiddenness leads to widespread doubt, confusion, and even disbelief, ultimately resulting in the very damnation he supposedly seeks to prevent. A truly benevolent God would presumably make his existence undeniable, eliminating the ambiguity that leads so many astray. The fact that his existence is a matter of faith, not demonstrable fact, contradicts the idea of a God who actively seeks a relationship with humanity.
Jesus' Story Proves God Does Not Exist
The narrative of Jesus's birth, life, crucifixion, and resurrection is interpreted allegorically as a representation of inner spiritual transformation. This interpretation posits that the story is not a literal historical account but a symbolic depiction of an internal process, connected to the concept of raising "Christ oil"—a literal brain fluid believed to awaken dormant brain cells. The descending of brain fluid from the spinal cord into the sacral plexus and its subsequent ascent back up into the brain, traveling along the 33 vertebrae, is presented as a direct, one-to-one mirroring of the literal story of Jesus. This theory equates the fluid, often referred to as "Christ oil" (derived from "Christos," meaning "anointed"), with the essence of Christ himself. The descent is likened to Jesus's birth in Bethlehem (symbolically represented by the sacral plexus, the "House of Bread" where this nourishing fluid resides), and the subsequent ascent through the 33 vertebrae is seen as a parallel to Jesus's 33-year lifespan. This journey involves various symbolic stages, including the fluid's interaction with the vagus nerve being interpreted as the crucifixion, its temporary presence in the cerebellum as Christ's time in the tomb, and its final arrival at the pineal gland/optic thalamus as the resurrection and awakening of "Christ Consciousness." Even the encounter with the Devil is reinterpreted as the temptations and distractions encountered during this internal ascent. This framework attempts to map the entire Jesus narrative onto a supposed physiological process within the human body, the 1:1 Mirroring of the Journey cannot be classified as 'Coincidental' however This thing requires separate new thread, but it fundamentally clashes with the literal reading of the Christian narrative. Taking the story literally presents numerous logical and moral contradictions.
The most glaring contradiction arises from the idea that God impregnated himself into his own creation (Mary), then lived as Jesus to teach about himself, and finally sacrificed himself to himself for sins he himself condemned humanity for. This creates a logical loop: God is simultaneously the impregnator, the impregnated, the teacher, the sacrificed, and the recipient of the sacrifice. This self-referential act denies its necessity and purpose. If God is truly omnipotent, why would such a convoluted and self-inflicted process be required for forgiveness? A simple act of divine pardon would seem sufficient. The need for a blood sacrifice, especially a self-sacrifice, contradicts the concept of a merciful and forgiving God.
Furthermore, the literal interpretation raises questions about divine foresight and God's omniscience. If God is all-knowing, why did he not foresee the need for his own incarnation and sacrifice? The very act of sending Jesus implies a reactive measure, a response to a problem God either did not anticipate or chose not to prevent. This contradicts the notion of divine omniscience, which implies complete knowledge of all past, present, and future events. If God knew from the beginning that humanity would sin and require such a sacrifice, then the entire sequence of events, including the fall of humanity and the subsequent need for redemption, was preordained by God himself. This casts doubt on the concepts of free will and divine justice, as humans are essentially being punished for actions that God foresaw and, in a sense, orchestrated.
The idea of a blood sacrifice as a requirement for forgiveness also presents a moral problem. Why would a loving God demand such a violent and gruesome act as a condition for reconciliation with humanity? This concept seems more aligned with ancient pagan practices of appeasing wrathful deities than with the teachings of a compassionate and merciful God.
Conclusion
No amount of historical accuracy or empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus or God can override a set of rationally derived contradictions within the core tenets of Christian theology. Even if historical figures resembling Jesus existed or if some phenomena could be interpreted as divine intervention, the internal inconsistencies within the narrative itself, such as the direct parallel between Jesus's life and the alleged "raising of Christ oil" (a process of internal spiritual transformation), coupled with the logical impossibility of a being possessing all traditionally ascribed divine attributes, effectively dismantle the narrative's claim to truth. The fact that Jesus's story can be so readily mapped onto an internal, physiological process suggests a symbolic or allegorical origin, not a literal historical one. This mirroring, combined with the logical impossibility of God's existence as traditionally defined, exposes the true function of the religion: not to convey objective truth, but to promote blind faith, unquestioning obedience to authority, and a sense of self-degradation and inferiority on a spiritual level, coupled with a paradoxical focus on the importance of the physical body (as the supposed vessel of this "Christ oil"). This emphasis on both spiritual inadequacy and physical importance creates a psychological tension that reinforces dependence on the religious system. This manipulation of the human psyche is demonstrably effective, as evidenced by Christianity's continued growth at a rate of 12.8% annually, demonstrating the insidious success of this deception in creating a hive-mind mentality where critical thinking is suppressed in favor of dogmatic adherence
My next thread will explore the raising of Christ oil in greater detail, real meaning of God, Mathematical God, Oneness, seeking to uncover the truth about reality and the universe's origins through methods that transcend both religious interpretations and flawed scientific theories
Summoning Intellectuals and few Ignorants
@Tabula Rasa @iwannabebreathtakin @jattlife @King Solomon @mewcel420 @kingsosa @Bliss @PARISIEN @kvn @nope @swt @nuisance @orman @übermog @BigJimsWornOutTires @Esteban1997 @RapeAllFemales @Gaygymmaxx @RomanianZaddy @abdi911 @Regressive @wishIwasSalludon
The Concept of 'God' is a war on logic & rational mind, The most abstract concept the man has ever created is the concept "God" a supposed all knowing, all perfect, all powerful and all loving deity that you cannot see, touch, comprehend that somehow exists outside of space, time, matter who dictates human intervention, has a personality, hides his existence and relies on a 'beliefs' as metric that would determine whether you will end up in a pit of hell fire for eternity or an eternal state of Joy, All this with the existence of 'Free will' that supposedly grants humans the will to choose between Good & Bad, This thread is all you need to know that such being not only does not exist but also that he 'Cannot' exist fundamentally, all using logic, math and reasoning, Something that cannot be broken or subdued or agued against but can only be presented, Note that we are debunking the existence of an Theistic-Religious God to be more precise the Abrahamic/Biblical God (Abrahamic Theory) who is seen as an personal energy that is sentient, self aware and existing externally who determines human lives
Simplest Method
A simple yet effective way to disprove any concept or idea is using the Modus Tollens methodology. This logical argument asserts that if certain conditions are necessary for a concept to be true, then disproving one or more of those conditions is sufficient to disprove the entire concept. A basic example is the definition of a human being: all human beings possess consciousness and are mortal. If someone does not have consciousness, is immortal, or possesses both or either of these characteristics, then that individual is, by definition, not human. A more precise example is a square, which requires all four sides to be of equal length and all four angles to be equal. If a quadrilateral does not have all sides equal, then it is, by definition, not a square. Extending this to the concept of God, as defined by religious adherents, God is considered a deity who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Disproving any one or more of these conditions disproves the entire concept. Therefore, if a being possesses all other attributes but is not all-knowing, then that being is not God. Similarly, if a being is all-knowing but not all-powerful, that being is also not God. If a being is all-knowing and all-powerful but not all-loving, that being is again not God, as the very definition of God, according to believers, includes the attribute of being "all-loving."
Christianity Proves God Does Not Exist
The whole Christian narrative is a big paradox-breeding machine when taken literally, to the extent that it seems unworthy of being presented even as a fictional story due to it's lack of logical coherency, let alone as eternal truth. It does, however, hold metaphorical meaning, which is rational and is supposed to be just that. But playing by the rules, the fact that God allows people to go to hell is proof that God cannot be "all-loving." Now, the common argument presented is that this is a consequence of "free will" granted by God, but the concept of "free will" itself is fundamentally and equally flawed when viewed with an open mind. We will delve into that later. But getting back to the point, if God cannot stop people from going to hell because of "free will"—a system he himself put in place—and somehow he cannot stop or rule against it to save his very own creations from the worst fate imaginable, eternal torment, then it would also mean God is not all-powerful. The whole Christian narrative is tied with a very thin string of "free will," a complex term that is maintained so people stop questioning. Once people break that string, it is impossible to revert back.
Free will and God cannot coexist. The existence of one necessitates the non-existence of the other and creates another infinite paradox. The whole concept of "free will" is an impossibility with the existence of God. Free will states that God allows people to choose, and depending on their choices combined with chosen beliefs, they are either sent to suffer for eternity in hell or to enjoy in heaven. But there is a problem that can be addressed with an example. Since we believe "God is all-knowing," didn't God foresee Hitler causing mass genocides and eventually going to hell as per the rules? If God is all-knowing and did foresee Hitler's eventual sins, then he never actually had "free will"; everything was unfolding the way it was foreseen in the mind of God even before Hitler was born. So either free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, and God is all-knowing, meaning you choose what was already foreknown and foreseen (but that would then mean God is not all-loving and all-powerful since those who will inevitably go to hell will do so, which defeats the purpose of Jesus and his own narrative, and that even God himself cannot stop the predetermined reality), or the alternative concept is that God is not all-knowing and does not know what humans will choose. Either way, it disproves the concept of God from every possible angle. Free will disproves the existence of God, and the non-existence of God disproves free will.
Secondly, consider the flaws in the narrative: Lucifer grew in pride and rebelled against God in heaven. Again, hypocritically, God did not foresee that in the all-perfect heaven with all perfect angels. Secondly, placing a system where humans are born in a flawed world where God hides his nature and relies on beliefs as a metric of punishment or salvation—wouldn't an all-knowing God at least know that true belief comes from within? There is no reason why a human being would not choose heaven if it existed, an eternal world with no suffering. But what stops a man from even rejecting God and Heaven? The nonexistent evidence and irrational narrative surrounding it. Those who can see through the veil have no choice but to not "believe" in the narrative. True belief is not a choice; it comes from inner conviction. The only way is to deceive oneself and believe things one knows are not true, meaning to go against one's own rational mind and constantly lie in fear of a supposed hell. Is that what a God would want: compliance through fear and lies? Of course not. Such a god would perfectly describe "Satan," let alone an all-loving being. Also, let's not discuss his other immoral acts, like ordering Saul to annihilate the Amalekites, sparing no one, not even infants or livestock, or causing mass genocide with floods and killing everyone except for Noah and his family. To consider this archetype "all-loving" is a crime against the rational mind. Again, most people "believe" in God because of fear of hell or the temptation of heaven. Remove hell and heaven from the equation, and it would be ridiculed more than the flat-earth theory. The very word "belief" means that they are not convinced. You "know" the sun and the moon; you don't believe in the sun and moon. I don't believe in the non-existence of God; I know it.
To conclude, the very own narrative of Christianity proves the non-existence of God more than anything else. God being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving creates an infinite paradox. If the Christian narrative is true, then God truly cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. But if God is actually all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then the narrative cannot be true. If the narrative cannot be true, then God cannot be real. Either way, it can be said with 100% certainty that the God described in Christianity or other Abrahamic religions does not and cannot fundamentally exist, no matter how you try to position it.
Reason & Logic Proves God Does Not Exist
The principle of sufficient reason & Occom's razor
The principle of sufficient reason, states that everything must have a reason or cause for it be existing or unfolding. or in simple terms a creation must be a creator and reason for it to exist, If everything requires a cause or a creator, then God, as a being, must also require a cause or a creator. People often posit God as the uncaused first cause, an exception to this principle. However, asserting an exception without sufficient justification violates the principle itself. If we allow for one exception to the principle of sufficient reason, there is no logical basis for preventing further exceptions. This leads to an arbitrary and inconsistent application of causality, undermining the principle's explanatory power. Why should God be exempt from the need for a cause while everything else in the universe is subject to it? Simply declaring God as "uncaused" does not constitute a sufficient reason; it is an assertion without justification, if God a supernatural being that you cannot see, touch, comprehend can be uncaused without a creator then the Universe which is observable itself can be uncaused cause too, a simpler explanation is already present, hence there's no reason for a 'God' to exist as existence will always choose the simplest path and the existence of God introduces a significant and complex assumption, Existence itself is self-sufficient without having a conscious creator in place: a supernatural being existing outside of the natural world, possessing extraordinary powers and attributes. This assumption adds a layer of complexity to explanations of the universe that is not necessary.
As previously stated, If God desires a personal relationship with humanity, as many religions claim, then his apparent absence and lack of clear, unambiguous communication is contradictory. Why would an all-loving God hide himself, requiring faith rather than providing clear evidence of his existence? This hiddenness leads to widespread doubt, confusion, and even disbelief, ultimately resulting in the very damnation he supposedly seeks to prevent. A truly benevolent God would presumably make his existence undeniable, eliminating the ambiguity that leads so many astray. The fact that his existence is a matter of faith, not demonstrable fact, contradicts the idea of a God who actively seeks a relationship with humanity.
Jesus' Story Proves God Does Not Exist
The narrative of Jesus's birth, life, crucifixion, and resurrection is interpreted allegorically as a representation of inner spiritual transformation. This interpretation posits that the story is not a literal historical account but a symbolic depiction of an internal process, connected to the concept of raising "Christ oil"—a literal brain fluid believed to awaken dormant brain cells. The descending of brain fluid from the spinal cord into the sacral plexus and its subsequent ascent back up into the brain, traveling along the 33 vertebrae, is presented as a direct, one-to-one mirroring of the literal story of Jesus. This theory equates the fluid, often referred to as "Christ oil" (derived from "Christos," meaning "anointed"), with the essence of Christ himself. The descent is likened to Jesus's birth in Bethlehem (symbolically represented by the sacral plexus, the "House of Bread" where this nourishing fluid resides), and the subsequent ascent through the 33 vertebrae is seen as a parallel to Jesus's 33-year lifespan. This journey involves various symbolic stages, including the fluid's interaction with the vagus nerve being interpreted as the crucifixion, its temporary presence in the cerebellum as Christ's time in the tomb, and its final arrival at the pineal gland/optic thalamus as the resurrection and awakening of "Christ Consciousness." Even the encounter with the Devil is reinterpreted as the temptations and distractions encountered during this internal ascent. This framework attempts to map the entire Jesus narrative onto a supposed physiological process within the human body, the 1:1 Mirroring of the Journey cannot be classified as 'Coincidental' however This thing requires separate new thread, but it fundamentally clashes with the literal reading of the Christian narrative. Taking the story literally presents numerous logical and moral contradictions.
The most glaring contradiction arises from the idea that God impregnated himself into his own creation (Mary), then lived as Jesus to teach about himself, and finally sacrificed himself to himself for sins he himself condemned humanity for. This creates a logical loop: God is simultaneously the impregnator, the impregnated, the teacher, the sacrificed, and the recipient of the sacrifice. This self-referential act denies its necessity and purpose. If God is truly omnipotent, why would such a convoluted and self-inflicted process be required for forgiveness? A simple act of divine pardon would seem sufficient. The need for a blood sacrifice, especially a self-sacrifice, contradicts the concept of a merciful and forgiving God.
Furthermore, the literal interpretation raises questions about divine foresight and God's omniscience. If God is all-knowing, why did he not foresee the need for his own incarnation and sacrifice? The very act of sending Jesus implies a reactive measure, a response to a problem God either did not anticipate or chose not to prevent. This contradicts the notion of divine omniscience, which implies complete knowledge of all past, present, and future events. If God knew from the beginning that humanity would sin and require such a sacrifice, then the entire sequence of events, including the fall of humanity and the subsequent need for redemption, was preordained by God himself. This casts doubt on the concepts of free will and divine justice, as humans are essentially being punished for actions that God foresaw and, in a sense, orchestrated.
The idea of a blood sacrifice as a requirement for forgiveness also presents a moral problem. Why would a loving God demand such a violent and gruesome act as a condition for reconciliation with humanity? This concept seems more aligned with ancient pagan practices of appeasing wrathful deities than with the teachings of a compassionate and merciful God.
Conclusion
No amount of historical accuracy or empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus or God can override a set of rationally derived contradictions within the core tenets of Christian theology. Even if historical figures resembling Jesus existed or if some phenomena could be interpreted as divine intervention, the internal inconsistencies within the narrative itself, such as the direct parallel between Jesus's life and the alleged "raising of Christ oil" (a process of internal spiritual transformation), coupled with the logical impossibility of a being possessing all traditionally ascribed divine attributes, effectively dismantle the narrative's claim to truth. The fact that Jesus's story can be so readily mapped onto an internal, physiological process suggests a symbolic or allegorical origin, not a literal historical one. This mirroring, combined with the logical impossibility of God's existence as traditionally defined, exposes the true function of the religion: not to convey objective truth, but to promote blind faith, unquestioning obedience to authority, and a sense of self-degradation and inferiority on a spiritual level, coupled with a paradoxical focus on the importance of the physical body (as the supposed vessel of this "Christ oil"). This emphasis on both spiritual inadequacy and physical importance creates a psychological tension that reinforces dependence on the religious system. This manipulation of the human psyche is demonstrably effective, as evidenced by Christianity's continued growth at a rate of 12.8% annually, demonstrating the insidious success of this deception in creating a hive-mind mentality where critical thinking is suppressed in favor of dogmatic adherence
My next thread will explore the raising of Christ oil in greater detail, real meaning of God, Mathematical God, Oneness, seeking to uncover the truth about reality and the universe's origins through methods that transcend both religious interpretations and flawed scientific theories
Summoning Intellectuals and few Ignorants
@Tabula Rasa @iwannabebreathtakin @jattlife @King Solomon @mewcel420 @kingsosa @Bliss @PARISIEN @kvn @nope @swt @nuisance @orman @übermog @BigJimsWornOutTires @Esteban1997 @RapeAllFemales @Gaygymmaxx @RomanianZaddy @abdi911 @Regressive @wishIwasSalludon
Attachments
Last edited:
which no actual professional academic takes seriously 
