The atheist delusion. - a photo on Flickriver

What is atheism?
Modern atheists say that atheism is the non-belief in ALL deities (gods). They also say things like; atheism does not require any beliefs - similar to not believing in fairies. Some even say that atheism is like not being a stamp collector or not engaging in some other hobby.
However, many people would disagree with the idea that atheism doesn't require any beliefs, or is not in itself a type of ideology/religion. The Bible proclaims that such atheism is irrational nonsense (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God).

So which view is correct?

Is it rational or feasible to reject ALL deities, and could such a rejection be described as simply a non-belief, similar to not believing in fairies?
Rejecting all deities seems fine at first glance. However, if we bother to consider what it really means, we soon realise that rejecting ALMOST all deities could be feasible - BUT not EVERY deity, because there is one particular exception..

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that all deities (gods) are NOT the same. They can’t all be lumped together. There is one particular deity that is fundamentally different from all the others. There is one particular deity that it is not credible for any rational person to reject or dismiss. This may seem like a bold statement but, as we will see, it is not logically possible to reject the deity (God) that is regarded as the ‘Creator’ or supernatural, first cause of the universe.

Why?

Because, if you reject the supernatural, first cause, you have no option but to transfer all the creative powers and godlike attributes of the supernatural, first cause to nature or the natural/material realm. This means you effectively deify nature.
So by attempting to eliminate one deity - a supernatural, first cause (God) - you simply create another deity with similar, godlike powers (such as Mother Nature) to replace it.
Therefore, no rational person can honestly reject belief in a creator god. The only question is; which god best fits the bill of being the creator of the universe?
Is it the supernatural, first cause monotheists call ‘God’- or a natural, first cause - a material god of nature?

So we are left with the option of choosing which creator god (first cause) to believe in? Either - a supernatural, first cause (God) - or a natural, first cause (a material, pagan style god)? We do not have the choice or luxury of believing in neither, there is no other option. This reveals the atheist claim that it is rational, feasible or logical to reject ALL deities as completely bogus.

A most crucial question in this matter is ….
Why is there something rather than nothing?
It seems the most logical viewpoint would be the idea of eternal nothingness – i.e. total non- existence - that there is not, never was and never has been, the existence of anything. However, it is not that easy, we don’t have that option, because something definitely does exist and thus we are forced to face the question of why and how something exists here and now, rather than an eternal, infinite nothingness?
We are left with only two options for where the ‘something’ we know as the material universe came from? - It either came from:
1) An eternally, pre-existing nothingness.
OR
2) An eternally, pre-existing something.
The first option of something tangible/material arising of its own volition from absolute and complete nothingness is not logically credible. It is safe to say it is a certain impossibility. There is no rational argument that can be made for such a scenario. Which means that we are forced to accept the second option (an eternally pre-existing something) as the only credible possibility for the origin of everything that now exists.
If the ‘something’ that eternally pre-existed the material universe has always existed, it must be entirely self-sufficient in its ability to exist. Which means it is eternally self-existent, i.e. not dependent on anything else, other than itself, for its origin or its continued existence. It always has, and always will exist.
In other words, it is non-contingent and completely independent and autonomous. Nothing can effect, cause or prevent its existence in any way.
It also has to be the first cause of everything else that exists. Without it nothing else could exist.

What does science tell us?
Science tells us that all material entities are regulated by natural laws - natural laws are based on the properties of natural/material things. Natural laws allow scientists to make predictions concerning the behaviour of all natural entities. It is obvious that natural things can never exceed the limits of their own inherent properties which natural laws describe. One natural law, that is actually the founding principle behind all scientific research, is the Law of Cause and Effect. It tells us that every natural effect/entity has to have a sufficient or adequate cause. A causeless, natural entity is impossible according to science, science cannot entertain such a prospect, because scientific research is based on looking for a sufficient cause or causes of EVERY natural occurrence. Scientists expect every natural occurrence to be contingent - to be adequately caused. Science cannot look for non-causes. That would be a nonsense. The dilemma here for atheists is that the first cause of everything had to be uncaused, it had to be eternally self-existent, it could not be contingent, it could not be subject to the limits of any natural laws, it had to be entirely autonomous and self-sufficient. It could not rely on causes or anything else for its existence, it had to contain within itself everything it required to exist and furthermore to bring everything else that exists into existence.

Atheism is not just a rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, it is also the BELIEF (by default) in the only other option ... a NATURAL first cause.
Atheists may call their natural, first cause - a big bang, a quantum fluctuation of nothing, a singularity, a cyclical universe, a self-creating universe, string theory, or any other fantastical invention.
It makes no difference, because none of them can be UNCAUSED and none of them are ADEQUATE as a first cause of everything that exists in the universe. They are all contingent and all inferior to the end result, and consequently ALL are disqualified as possible, first causes by the Law of Cause and Effect.

So atheists simply transfer the creative powers, properties and qualities, that theists attribute to a Supernatural, First Cause (God), to a natural entity. In other words, they effectively deify matter/energy and credit matter/energy with godlike, creative powers. Thus atheism is simply a revamped version of the discredited beliefs of pagan naturalism.
Remember the pagan belief in the all powerful Sun god (Ra), or the Moon god, Mother Nature etc.? EXACTLY!

A natural first cause is an impossibility, there is no such thing as an UNCAUSED NATURAL event or entity.
That is not my opinion, it is the verdict of science, which is founded on the principle that every natural effect/event/entity requires an adequate cause. There is no exception to that rule. Which means any scenario atheists propose as a natural, first cause cannot be regarded as scientific. They are all unscientific nonsense.
People may be surprised to hear that, because we are conditioned by the popular media and incessant, atheist hype to believe that such proposed, natural causes are a scientific version of origins. It is complete hogwash, they all violate scientific principles without exception, and have got nothing to do with science. The public is being cynically conned and manipulated. All atheist, naturalistic, origin scenarios are based purely on ideology and the pagan religion of naturalism, and that is the true nature of atheism.

Pagan naturalism was soundly debunked by the onset of modern science and the understanding that all natural occurrences are contingent - that all natural occurrences MUST have an adequate cause and are subject to, and limited by, natural laws based on the inherent properties of matter/energy. The idea that nature/material things are some sort of power unto themselves - that they are all powerful, autonomous, non-contingent entities which can behave with impunity unrestricted by natural laws etc., that things can just happen the due to the vagaries of Mother Nature etc. was demonstrated by science to be nonsense. Regardless of this, modern atheists are intent on reviving pagan naturalism in a different guise. We have to wonder why?

The law of cause and effect is the basis of science. If you deny it, you step outside of science into the realm of metaphysics or magic. That is why atheist naturalism (which credits nature/matter/energy with autonomous powers, unfettered by the restraints and limitations of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws, which are intrinsic to nature) is really a religion. Even worse, it is not a rational religion, it is one which defies logic, science and reason.

The law of cause and effect (which is the fundamental basis of the scientific method) tells us that EVERY natural effect/event/entity has to have an adequate cause. The material universe as a whole is no exception. It had to have a beginning and a cause - it is a contingent thing, it cannot exist without causes. Therefore, it cannot possibly be UNCAUSED. It had to have a sufficient cause to bring it into existence). That is the verdict of science. Science can only look for adequate causes, not non-causes. That is the fundamental principle behind all scientific enquiry. Whereas, if we go back far enough, the very first cause of everything material had to be UNCAUSED (i.e. non-contingent and thus non-material) because it is the FIRST cause. No other cause could have preceded it. If another cause preceded it - it would not be the first cause, it would be only a secondary cause and not FIRST. So the first cause of the material realm couldn't be a natural, contingent entity. That would violate the law of cause and effect. Hence for anyone to propose that the first cause could be a natural thing is illogical, unscientific nonsense.

Atheists are very fond of repeating the claim that the idea of a creator God/religion is just a human invention.
Christians would say that the existence of a creator God is revealed and confirmed by His revelation to mankind. But whether you accept the revelation argument or not, the claim that God is a human invention is clearly wrong and silly. Because, regardless of revelation, the existence of God is an inevitable conclusion reached by logic and the application of natural laws and principles of science.
So rather than God being a human invention, the existence of God should be described as a discovery. Revelation, scriptures or religious texts are not essential for the knowledge that a creator God must exist. That is a true discovery that can be reached independently of revelation by any sensible, rational, objective person through simple logic and respect for natural laws and science.

What about the idea that our knowledge is limited, that we cannot know what took place at the beginning of the universe, we cannot know what laws existed? And therefore to propose a supernatural, first cause (God) as the Creator is just a desperate or lazy way of filling a gap in our knowledge? This is the so-called God-of-the-gaps argument.

If we trust science, we simply cannot propose a natural, first cause of the universe as a logical or scientific possibility. We do KNOW that for certain. There is no gap in knowledge as far as that fact is concerned. Our present knowledge is sufficient to rule out a natural, first cause of the universe as impossible according to well established, scientific principles.
The law of cause and effect makes scientific research possible. It is only possible because we trust the scientific principle that we can expect to find an adequate cause or causes for EVERY natural occurrence.
If, like atheists, we want to claim we don't or cannot know whether the universe had an adequate cause - or to claim that a natural first cause could be possible, we are ignoring science and stepping outside of science into fantasy.
That is ALL we need to know, in order to conclude that the atheist paradigm is fatally flawed.

The law of cause and effect is exactly that which, as the basic founding principle of modern science, demolished all pagan, naturalist religions, it demolished belief in the autonomous, creative powers of material things. Atheists apparently want to resurrect that belief.
Science is: 'knowledge' through seeking and discovering causes. If anyone claims a natural event happened without an adequate cause - they are anti-science.

Therefore, to say "we don't know" what laws existed at the origin of the material universe, as some atheists do, is utter nonsense. The law of cause and effect pertains to matter/energy and ALL natural occurrences - wherever they may be.
All natural events whether inside or outside of the universe are governed by the law of cause and effect. Just like gravity (which is an inherent property of matter), so the principle of causality is an inherent property of everything in the natural world. . Everything ... means all natural entities, events and effects. All natural things, by their very nature, are contingent, that is a fact, and they can't be anything else.
They can never act independently of causes, to say they can is to invoke magic, it is definitely not science.

That then, is our understanding of science, it is not just an opinion or assumption. It is the very basis of the scientific method that we can expect to find an adequate cause of every natural occurrence. To say that there may be some natural occurrences that are not subject to the law of cause and effect is to dispute the scientific method. So atheism has no valid, scientific argument, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Is it possible to know the attributes (or character) of God - the Supernatural, First Cause?

The evidence that a natural, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE (because it violates natural laws) should be sufficient for any rational person to conclude that the first cause could not be a natural entity, and therefore has to be supernatural. Furthermore, the first cause HAS to be adequate for the effect.
If an effect of the first cause is the universe, then that cause has to embody the potential and power to produce everything that exists in the universe. Nothing in the universe can be superior to that which ultimately caused the universe.

AN EFFECT CANNOT BE GREATER THAN ITS CAUSE.

Therefore - if there is life in the universe - the first cause or the universe MUST have life.
If there is intelligence in the universe - the first cause MUST have intelligence.
If there is consciousness in the universe - the first cause MUST be conscious.
If there is law in the universe - the first cause MUST be a lawmaker.
If there are morals in the universe - the first cause MUST be moral.
If there is justice in the universe - the first cause MUST be just.
If there is love in the universe - the first cause MUST be loving.
And so on ...
All the powers, properties and qualities that exist in the universe were created by the first cause, so the first cause must possess the ability to create those attributes. None of those attributes can be greater in any respect than the attributes possessed by that which created them. There is no conceivable natural, origins scenario that is adequate to account for every quality that exist in the universe. Which shows that the so-called big bang, singularity or any other proposed, natural, origins scenario is not possible as a first cause.

The Bible says we were made in the image of a Creator God who is the first cause of everything material, including us. The Bible thus reveals and confirms the SCIENTIFIC principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. We cannot have any properties or powers that are superior to that which caused the universe, we have inherited all our attributes from the first cause and are therefore made in the image of that cause (the Creator God, as described in the Bible).

Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that quantum mechanics or a so-called god-particle are the answer to the origin of the universe and of everything from nothing without the need for any cause?

We can say quite categorically that quantum effects haven't got anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.
Why?
It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause, micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.

However, the atheist mentality seems to be that if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible to a credulous public.
Just make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, and then people will believe anything is possible.
This is exactly the same little-by-little criteria that atheists apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

What makes them think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?
Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.

Atheists obviously think …. OK, people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, but what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That should sound much more plausible.
What if we could find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle (a substitute for God)? A supernatural, first cause (a creator God) would then be made redundant.
Problem solved - apparently!
People will think that, even if the problem of the origin of everything without a cause hasn’t been solved completely, at least 'science' is well on the way to solving it.
Of course, if anyone stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t possibly come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’, i.e. space/time.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved it and, predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shot themselves in the foot....
The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.
The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.

So atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.

Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Taken on: November 13, 2015

Tags:

truth in science

Atheism

paganism

naturalism

a c grayling

Richard Dawkins

chrisopher hitchens

militant atheists

atheist religion of naturalism

pagan revivalism

religion of naturalism

law of cause and effect

scientism

science and religion

British Humanist Association

Humanist association

secular humanism

humanist manifesto

secular humanist

Humanist

national secular society

Westminster skeptics

Professor Alice Roberts

brian cox

cause and effect

atheist pseudoscience

atheism and satanism

atheist propaganda

atheist naturalism

Sam Harris

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Fry

neo darwinism

the Dawkins Delusion

atheist religion

atheism debunked

secular society

natural laws

second law of thermodynamics

David Attenborough

the God Delusion

pagan revival

pagan gods

mother nature

creation

creation science

Bertrand Russell

new world order

illuminati

one world government

world conspiracy

Creator of the Universe

one world religion

Satanic conspiracy

Kate Smurthwaite

andrew copson

adam rutherford

peter singer

PZ Myers

Daniel Dennett

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Atheist Foundation of Australia

QED con

Carrie Poppy

Natalie Haynes

Andy Wilson

debunked

atheism refuted

refuted

atheists refuted

skeptics

Rosie Waterhouse

Jerry Coyne

London School of Economics « less

Sets appears in: • The evolution scam • Atheism - the religion of naturalism.

Groups appears in: • Quakers • Controversial more » • Religious Free-For-All • Towards A Logical Point of View • political views • No Rules • internet artists gallery • Philosophy • UK Flickr users • Conservative wingnuts • Christian Missions • Flickr Addicts • !FlickrSoup for Soul • Protests, Political Art, Democracy, Social Change • CHRISTIAN PHOTOGRAPHY • Anything fantastic - 1 pic / day • Christian Teens • Religion • Flickritis: over 87,000 waiting for a vaccine. • anything is ok • Christ & Culture • donald trump • Debates & Discussions • Christian Art • Anything But Monkeys! • Progressive Photojournalism • Christians in this World • FlickrToday (only 1 pic per day) • BELIEVERS IN CHRIST • 600 views or more • Prove a existência de Deus | Prove God's existence • 600 Views • Hippie Crib • ANYTHING ALLOWED!!!!!! • 3000 Views • People of Faith • Our Catholic Walk • Christian • Anything Goes No Limits • Intelligent Design • Politically incorrect • *** 2000 Photostream Views *** (Max 5 per month) • Christian Cultures • Catholicism • Anything Goes....But Your Toes!!!! • The Dictatorship • Your mind, your photos • Freedom From Religion • the truth is out there • CentralFlickr • Wrestling With God • Views: 5000 • Jesus Freaks • Religions • Twenty-something Christian Fellowship • Debate • A Global Perspective • * Religion * • tag whores • Catholic to the Max • Cause and Effect • minimum 500 views • minimum 700 views • minimum 250 views • minimum 1000 views • minimum 3000 views • Anything at all • !!!Everything!!!Every Photo!!! • Godly Creatives • Global Political Concensus • Jesus Youth • 777 • Jews for Jesus • BACK TO GOD!! • God Bless America • God's Evidence • Flickr conservatives unite!!! • 1 day we'll have the most photos on Flickr • Speaking of Faith • Multifaith • Antitheism - Secularism - Pro Education - War on Ignorism • Politics in Action • Message to the World • "I AM TELLING YOU A STORY HERE. CAN YOU SEE IT?" • Politics & religion • Visual art and the Christian faith • Catholic Culture • About Religion • Radical Young Catholics - In the world not of it • Christian Inspiration • Religious • A Shot a Day ... Or So • World Religions • V800 • V900 • V600 • YOUTH REVIVAL • † Jesus loves you イエス・キリストは私 • All Things Kick Ass • Rational Thought • Creationism • Fired up for Jesus! • Questions about God • Bible Belt • Art & Politics • God's Creation • "Smörgåsbord" (Unlimited Posting - Award 3) • The Donald • Catholic Photographers • Anything You Like • JESUS, JaVa"n"JaZZ • THE TRUTH • GLOBAL PEACE GLOBAL HEALING • "Unlimited Photos: No Rules" • Save America • ART BULLY • Fight Club - Politics & Society (project mayhem) • ConservaBlogs • TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL • The Republican Party • Scottish Christianity • Save the world. PEACE!! • Debate Unlimited • Baptist • Youth For Christ • Faith in Action • Jesus Son of God • Anything and everything!! • Religions - freedom of religion • Amazing Capture ***No Rules, No Banning, No Sweepers*** • Religious Art Created by You! • Anything here • TRUTH/HIM • Faith & Culture • christian arts • Anything, Anytime, Anywhere • Anything flickr • Sarah Palin • God's Intelligent Design • Christianity Discussion • christianity • Liberty Now! • Debate! • Faith from GOD • Sarah Palin Supporters • Pics with 500 Views • A Quiet Revolt • 100.000.000 Flickr Photos [No AI or SL] • PHOTOSHOP hobby • Skeptics • the fear of God. • BBC Around The World In 80 Faiths • God !!! Where Are You ? • Christians on Flickr • Christians of the World (Share Your Ministry) • Why God? • Catholic-Concepts.com • LORD GOD • Faith Based Pages • Anything & Everything • The Religious Left • Alternative Views • Tea Party Movement • Social and Philosophical debates • Photography for God • 50 MILLION PHOTOS • anything everything • ! The Flickr ! • Religion.. • A DEBATE • ***Flickr Global • ††The God belevers Group†† • Modern Christian Art • For His Glory • Flickr Free • All American Tea Parties • Genesis 1:31 • Fresh Conservatives • Christianity For A Purpose • The Freedom From The Freedom From Religion Foundation Foundation • CHRISTIAN PHOTOS -ARTWORK-DESIGN-ARTS-DIGITAL ART • Anything you would show your Grandparents. • Right~Wing~Whackos • Baptist Thoughts • Pledge of Allegiance = Nazi salute for National Socialism? • Anything & Everything //No post Limit! • I'm Losing My Religion • Political Discussion Group • Political Discussion Group: U.S News • Anglican Missions • FLICKERIANS • Christians-R-Us! • THE ( WORLD ) POLITICS GROUP: LIBERTY IS YOURS ENJOY • Christian Destiny • U.S. Politics and the World; Political Debate w/ FREE SPEECH • Photos Of Faith • Everything Free • Contemporary Religious Imagery • For God's Glory • 1 billion photos • I am Not Ashamed of the Gospel of Christ • Religion and Spirituality in Society Conference • [][][]Beyond time[][][] • The Christian Group • Anything as well as everything • Creation explored • RELIGIONEN, KULTUREN UND TRADITIONEN:"GOTT UND WIR MENSCHEN!" • GOD WITH US • FLICKR (Anything and Everything) • Modern Day Christendom • U.S. Politics and the World; Political Discourse • Patriot Action Network • THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN UNIVERSE • SHARING the WORD of GOD thru Flickr • Roman Catholicism and others • EVANGELISM & MISSION OUTREACH • 4 The Glory of God • Religions from the East and West... • Art and Faith • ` FLICKR ´ • Occupy • All Faiths & Religions • Free Apologetic Art • The Reason Rally • flickr (unofficial) • UltraCatholic • Invisible Pink Unicorn • Our True Religion • Religion in Scotland • Christianity ✞ • Orthodox Christianity • ☪ ✝ ☸ Religions ✡ ☬ ☯ • Belief of God • 1000+ views (No people, please) • Who is GOD? • Bible Belt: Unbuckled • Religion and Culture • the god particle • The truth is... • CHRISTIANS FOR LIFE AND GOD • proof there is a god • Proudly Pro-Life • 2,000 Views Unlimited 2000 • 300 Views Unlimited • 3,000 Views Unlimited 3000 • CREATION OF GOD & US • 800 Views Unlimited • 900 Views Unlimited • 600 Views Unlimited • 700 Views Unlimited • 1,500 Views Unlimited 1500 • Peace in the light of religion • Everything Creative • God the internet was invented by God • Inspiration and Motivation • anything you wish... • Everything & Everyone • Huffington Post Religion • The End of Faith • !*Flickr All Stars*! • fotografia sem limites unlimited photo • Flickr Worldwide - No Limit! • 3.000 / 3000 views at least (NO LIMITS, NO 30/60) • 500 views at least (NO LIMITS, NO 30/60) • 1.000 / 1000 views at least (NO LIMITS, NO 30/60) • 300 views at least (NO LIMITS, NO 30/60) • 100 views at least (NO LIMITS, NO 30/60) • 400 views at least (NO LIMITS, NO 30/60) • 200 views at least (NO LIMITS, NO 30/60) « less

Stats: 9,854 views / 2 comments

go back