Here we go again:
"if you had any string of wisdom you would have already known the answer to your question and would not need to ask it"
Well, I disagree with your definition of wisdom, but it IS a personal thing, so let's say I lack all wisdom. So what? How can one gain wisdom without asking questions? People aren't BORN with them, you know. At least I have the balls to ask.
"you could have got that [enlightenment]anywhere in a place of worship ,"
How do you figure? Do you think I could walk into a church and spout off like I've been doing? I'm looking for ANSWERS, not happiness. If the truth coincides with religion, great, then I can be enlightened AND correct. But I must be correct first. You, on the other hand, seem to merely be enlightened.
"you are soley here to contest an individuals faith"
Yes, I AM contesting people's faith here, to see if there's any meat to them. Are you saying I should accept Faith without questioning it? If a faith cannot survive a few fundamental questions then I don't think it's worth much.
"your reaction evidently expresses it more than I had intended it "
I disagree. I got angry because you claimed things without backing them up. I found it irritating.
"as for hawking being a genius then even a genius has to ask himself if he is a genius ,as he fails to prove his theories and waits for blackhole radiation to be discovered to honour him for the noble prize then you idol a person whom has built his reputation on the backs of others and these others seem to have built upon nothing but speculation ."
Here's the fatal flaw in your argument. You attack Hawkings for discovering things unproven, while you do the same things yourself, only with less of a foundation. At least Hawkings has math and logic on his side. Is he wrong? Maybe, but what difference does it make? His conclusions are based on observations and logic, yours on withful thinking.
As far as him building off the back of others: erm, isn't that what progress is all about? Why don't you write him a long letter explaining why he should have to reinvent the last 3000 years of science before he postulates anything new.
And, so save posting space, I'll deal with your other post, too.
"I am pretty fed up with those who create a discussion on who created God knowing that no one can answer it and knowing that such a question already has bagged them a ball in the corner pocket ,
If such a question has bagged me a ball in the corner pocket, why are you angry that I ask it? Because it's valid and because it may suggest that you're wrong? As I said, if a faith can't stand up against a few SIMPLE questions, that speaks volumes about its inherent worth.
"I guess its their way of knowing that they have a protective shell to crawl back too, but I will not tolerate such questions , do they really think that they can find a faith from typing upon a keyboard"
A protective shell? I make a legitamate argument which you or anyone has NO answer to, which you attack me even for ASKING, and it's a SHELL!? Why won't you tolerate such questions? If you had an answer, I could understand your anger. But you don't. You attack me as unwise for asking a question you can't respond to. You claim me and people like me have no respect for other beliefs because we challenge them.
If I truly had no respect for others' beliefs then I wouldn't come here armed with arguments to back me up, I'd use the general "I'm right, you're wrong, HAHAHA!" formula. I came here hoping to have my arguments debunked, hoping there was something I'd missed. I DO have respect for religious people. You think I don't because I currently disagree with them?
.....Why don't you explain faith to my unwise ears so I can see where you got your enlightenment. I'm waiting.