Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc728bjsr3985bditgr4l@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:041e149bdqeg16cungf2c4iqnd46gmtip0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ben Goren" <ben@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:1209438312_909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you'll  find that, once you provide  cogent definitions of
>>>>> those terms, every  one of them will be  objectively verifiable --
>>>>> in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
>>>>
>>>>Tough job.
>>>>
>>>>If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can 
>>>>verify
>>>>it's existence.
>>>
>>> That would be dishonest.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
> Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
> implicit in calling it "God".
>
> You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
> make her one.

Unless her name's Desiré :-)

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279