Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:godRj.227069$pM4.124239@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nospam.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:1r09ls.v0r.17.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Irish Mike" <mjostar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:%VbRj.11592$V14.11334@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> I've had this discussion with enough atheists to know it's pointless.
>>
>> Oh, but it isn't pointless. There is nothing pointless about showing
the 
>> BAAWAAAAAAWAAAAH Knights of atheism that atheism is inconsistent and 
>> illogical. I do it all the time, but they do so hate to admit it.
>>
>> There is much fun to be had in getting an alt.atheism atheist to define
a 
>> level of evidence for a Metaphysical X that does not entail a logical 
>> error on the part of the atheist. alt.atheism arheists are collectively

>> witless to the idea that it is illogical to demand physically
substantive 
>> evidence of something that has no physical substance, and they will
avoid 
>> that truth at all costs.
>>
>> The point being, atheism is prima facie illogical, whereas theism is 
>> provably logical, therefore the burden is on the atheist to articulate
a 
>> logical, consistent, coherent framework for their personal atheism, and

>> they all have different ideas of what atheism is.
>>
>> The funny part is, there is no logical, consistent, coherent framework 
>> for any kind of atheism. The boot is on the other foot. You just have
to 
>> know where to aim it.

You are in effect saying that something exists if I can't prove it does
not 
exist.

This is pure illogic. It is logical to assume something does not exist if 
there is NO
OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for its existence!