🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 6, 8:39 am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 12:13 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JM" <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6db979c1-79a0-4d30-8eab-e33e41c81e40@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 4, 10:47 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>
> > <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Aug 5, 1:05 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 4, 3:54 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:147d2d46-ff33-4aac-b29a-7e24af243840@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > On Aug 3, 8:56 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
> > > > > >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com>
> > > > > >> >> wrote
> > > > > >> >> in alt.atheism:
>
> > > > > >> >>> On Aug 3, 8:12?am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>> On Aug 2, 8:53 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
> > > > > >> >>>>>> <rbwi...@juno.com>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote
> > > > > >> >>>>>> in alt.atheism:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 2:30?pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>> ...
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Discuss it with John after the resurrection.
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> No proof of this alleged "resurrection", is there?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> Well, actually there is. The apostles were witnesses of the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> resurrected Christ on two separate occasions.
> > > > > >> >>>>>> No evidence backs up your claim.
> > > > > >> >>>>> Well, I could send you a copy of the Bible if you want one.
> > > > > >> >>>> I have a Bible. ?There's no evidence in there to back up your
> > > > > >> >>>> claim.
> > > > > >> >>> John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of
> > > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > >> >>> week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were
> > > > > >> >>> assembled for
> > > > > >> >>> fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith
> > > > > >> >>> unto
> > > > > >> >>> them, Peace be unto you.
> > > > > >> >>> John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a
> > > > > >> >>> fire of
> > > > > >> >>> coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.
> > > > > >> >>> 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now
> > > > > >> >>> caught.
> > > > > >> >>> 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great
> > > > > >> >>> fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were
> > > > > >> >>> so
> > > > > >> >>> many, yet was not the net broken.
> > > > > >> >>> 12Jesus saith unto them Come and dine, And none of the
> > > > > >> >>> disciples
> > > > > >> >>> durst
> > > > > >> >>> ask him , Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.
> > > > > >> >>> 13 Jesus then cometh , and taketh bread, and giveth them, and
> > > > > >> >>> fish
> > > > > >> >>> likewise.
> > > > > >> >>> 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his
> > > > > >> >>> disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
> > > > > >> >> The Bible still is not evidence. I asked for evidence.- Hide
> > > > > >> >> quoted
> > > > > >> >> text -
>
> > > > > >> > The Bible is accepted as evidence in court.
>
> > > > > >> For what kinds of cases?
>
> > > > > > For all kinds of cases. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as
> > > > > > evidence in the monkey trial.
> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > All kinds if cases?
> > > > > You mean, "one type of case"?
>
> > > > No, a lawyer can attempt to introduce any physical object as evidence
> > > > in a court case.
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > Relevant evidence
>
> > > Al
>
> > Does the parents have to condescend to their children?
> > ==========================================
> > Is that supposed to be English?
>
> Well, he's doing the best he can. So far as I can make out what he is
> trying to say, it would seem he raises a moot issue: the parents, by
> BEING there, demonstrate their existence daily. The supernatural
> superspook demonstrates not, neither doth he spin, but if proof of his
> existence is important to him, he had better suck it up and have at
> it. No one else can do it as well as he, presumably, should he happen
> to actually exist.

An afterthought: being there for the children is practically the first
item of any definition of GOOD parenting. Since the semi-anonymous
"JM" proposes the analogy between a god and a parent, I suspect that
it is up to him to show us how this god's absentee "parenting" is
Good Parenting (and one would humbly expect that what a god does must
needs be far superior to the poor efforts of humans).