Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
> "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.

I think he's claiming to have a logical argument, although he didn't
include 
it.

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

You are replying to my post but not to my comment, so I'll reply to you 
nonetheless.

Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character exists, 
interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor, compassion,
courage, 
just to name a few. Many things can be known subjectively but still not be

objectively verifiable. It would be more logical to simply re****t that you

have seen no objective verifiable evidence of something and leave it at
that 
rather than to assume anything.