Re: EVIDENCE OF GODS

"duke" <duckgumbo32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:882sq3l0easvh7p4sqpn7coa32v831uvo3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:55:54 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckgumbo32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:l9fpq3thpacr8ndvhnk147svp990u7riv2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:25:07 -0600, "The poster formerly known as
>>> Colleyville
>>> Alan" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"duke" <duckgumbo32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:8uloq3lhtpjipm4o3493q6mq0q3743juvr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Huh?  Who looks at convincing evidence and chooses "not to believe"?
>>>
>>> A theist accepts the evidence/an agnostic is unsure of the evidence/an
>>> atheist
>>> rejects the evidence.  All have the same evidence.
>>>
>>> An atheist goes into the game with no sup****tive evidence for his
>>> rejection.
>>
>>If you have evidence what is it???
>
> History, big bang.

that's called SCIENCE duke, unlike the bull**** ramblings of superstitious

cave dwellers and goat ****ers. It's not the horse**** you spout of some 
all-powerful asshole sky pixie

>
> duke, brainwashed chriatian nutcase