why d4 is better than e4

IT IS NOT!

d4 is better than e4 only because you begin to have delusions....

I have e4 tattooed on the top of my left hand so when I hit someone they know whats up. 

When I first started playing people as good or better than me, I avoided e4 also. I was tired of getting beat. I was avoiding my weaknesses. I think d4 games are normally boring....

I am currently working to master the Ruy Lopez...

I would assume those who only will play d4

I slowed down playing e4 as much as i most like will see the Sicilian. Boring!  If it is not that then for sure they are setting up a trap. That may be the only reason. All this is in reference to as you play stronger players(almost forgot that detail).

actually, 1.d4 is equally as sharp and to me more interesting than 1.e4. This is especially demonstrated by the Petroff (Russian) Defence. and the Berlin wall.(my favorite drawing weapons) Find me an option of Black's in 1.d4 that leads to boring positions. (ie: not the exchange slav because white does not have to play that.)

If you're good enough to draw with the Berlin Wall, your rating is a farce. In order to draw with either the Russian or the Berlin, you need to have fantastic endgame technique. These are good drawing weapons for grandmasters perhaps, but certainly not for anyone under 2400. 

When Vladimir Kramnik came up with the Berlin Wall defense in 2000, it was a shock that Kasparov couldn't break it down. Even now, it looks like it shouldn't survive. It's an extremely difficult opening to control.

So, congratulations on your excellent playing strength. I look forward to seeing your rating catch up to your strength in the near future.

I was once an 1.e4 player but I realized that 1.d4 give me better results.

Against the opponents that were the same rank or against opponents who are 100 or more points higher ?

It isn't that I think that using e4 at the highest levels gives worse results than d4, but I have questioned whether it is perhaps easier to get there using it...

Against opponents with the same rating as me. If you're an e4 player you may also like to consider playing d4. If you get used to it, it will serve you well :)

Once I master the Ruy Lopez...my next goal is the Queen's gambit...

You don't master the Ruy Lopez, the Ruy Lopez masters you.

How do you come to that conclusion ?

Sicilian boring? Nah. Petrov drawish? Uh uh. The Ruy Lopez does master you ;). I scratch the checkmarks from my nikes and write e4 in its' place. e4 owns d4.

Vishy Anand has shown that the main line of the Petroff (Russian Defense in the rest of the world) is NOT drawish at all, at least for those rated under 2800 FIDE.

Here's today's game. The analysis is courtesy of Chessbase:

As long as you maintain that scattershot approach, your rating will remain under 1400 (standard time control). Focus on one main line as white, two answers to 1.e4 and 1.d4 each, and spend the rest of your time studying tacitcs and endgames. You may actually improve!

You can choose to be offended. I meant my suggestion earnestly. You can defend your rating however you please. What I said is still true.

It's a joke that hints at the incredible depth and breadth of theory that falls within the "Ruy Lopez": surely more than any single person will ever completely master!