From: Smiler. on
Olrik wrote:
> Le 2010-06-02 02:07, BURT a �crit :
>> On May 31, 9:40 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Le 2010-06-01 00:35, BURT a �crit :
>>>
>>>> On May 31, 9:21 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Le 2010-05-31 23:55, BURT a �crit :
>>>
>>>>>> Of course Hawking's atheist science uses ideas that will pass as
>>>>>> genius but really are far from it. They are nothing more than his
>>>>>> imagination. And he uses them to define that the universe started
>>>>>> without God.
>>>
>>>>> Define that "god" thing you're talking about.
>>>
>>>>>> He has gotten away with it. He is the biggest looser
>>>>>> and the world put him on the top of science. Shows you that all
>>>>>> of them are good for nothing. The world needs an inferior genius
>>>>>> to emulate.
>>>
>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>> God can't be defined.
>>>
>>> So the whole concept is useless.
>>
>> You cannot limit God to a concept.
>
> I just did. "god" is nothing **but** a concept. A cheap and easy, at
> that.
>>>> But as Stephen Hawking said we don't need Him.
>>>
>>> Why do you care about Stephen Hawking? Did he kill your dog? Stick
>>> to ideas, not people.
>>>
>>> Olrik- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> NO. I am an equal opportunity offender. Stephen Hawking's MO is
>> intimidation. He is an inferior genius and the world has elevated him
>> to the top of science. The world is as inferior as its hero. They
>> made him into God.
>
> No. He's a very good physicist, that's all. But his disease made him
> popular, sad to say.
>
>> So who is greater? Isnt the God maker superior to the
>> God he made?
>
> Did Hawking made a "god"????
>
>> That's the way it works with the world and science.
>
> You're mistaken, ignorant, or dishonest. Which one is it?
>

All three.

--
Smiler
The godless one.
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly
fit the prejudices of their believers.