revolution saint

I took quite a few photos of the game today, mainly because I'm just getting into this photography lark and a mate was playing. Some of them came out OK and some didn't but if anyone was playing and would like them then pm me. Anyway, seemed like a decent day and everyone enjoyed it.

I'm in the same situation - the girl I worked with took Voluntary Severance in March, and isn't being replaced. The majority of her work has been passed onto me and I was busy enough as it was. When I asked what the plans were to cope with her absence I was told "We need to find ways of working smarter" - obviously this answer was delivered by a senior manager with no comprehension of the job I do (or desire to learn about it), or it's workload. It's a tricky situation as I like the job I do but it's a situation that hasn't been handled well.

DeGale Vs Groves stands out tonight and should be a good fight - personally think that DeGale will win and is rightly favourite. However, Groves has a good camp with David Haye and his trainer has a good record. Can't help thinking this will go the same way as when Maccaranelli met Haye and came out comprehensively second best though. Not holding out much hope on the Cleverly fight being that good - 3rd opponent in a week and 10 years younger and a better record suggests Cleverly should take this one comfortably. There's some good bets around though - Paddy Power are offering 5/1 on a KO for NC in rounds 1-3, and 3/1 in rounds 4-6. I really can't see it going beyond 6 rounds either.

This is me entirely. I don't want to mock, belittle or offend people with faith but I would like to know why they choose that faith (or as I suspect for the majority it was chosen for them). There's been a lot on this thread about people not liking the tone of the atheists agrument and maybe it is a bit belligerant but I haven't heard any defence so far of an organised religion belief system and why you would choose to believe that other than it makes you feel good (which like a drug is an effect of the belief and not the reason for choosing it). I don't think it's wrong to ask that question but I think I'll have a long wait for an answer.

No, it's not really naive to trust what can be proved and is constantly tested by peers. I could call your religious belief naive because it is based not on logic but on faith and your only validation of that is that I can't disprove it. Of course I'm willing to believe there are other alternative explanations but until you can come up with some evidence that they might be true then you can call me a non-believer. Anyway, serious question, why do you believe in God? Honestly. I can answer why I don't with quite logical reasons and, as I say, even then with compelling argument I could change my mind but I'm interested to know why people choose to believe in God (in a religious sense).

No there isn't a god. Now on a side issue do you believe in creationism and the resurrection?

Of course those are good points and there's no reason why they should be belittled but equally they should also be prepared to have those views questioned. I don't have any belief that I wouldn't be prepared to rationally defend.

Of course he's old fashioned - he's bloody ancient apparently. If you believe in the Christian version though why wouldn't you defend Creationism and resurrection - it's the word of god isn't it?

Of course they can believe what they want but I'd like to know why? Why choose something that if it wasn't called religion would be laughed at? I realise it makes them feel better, or gives them a purpose but that is the effect of believing and shouldn't be the reason for it.

I think the thing that annoys me most is that those beliefs are almost untouchable in that it's considered rude to question them. I've known some perfectly rational people who are religious but I can never really push them on it - and I really want to. Mostly because I find the beliefs in those myths incomprehensible and I've yet to find a decent answer. Most of the time all I get is, "I just have faith, and I just believe it OK?" and that frustrates me.

Of course I'd feel bad about ridiculing someone who had those beliefs but do you think an adult believing in Father Christmas wouldn't attract the same amount of ridicule?

To be honest now that the debate has moved on from whether a supreme being exists or not, I feel perfectly comfortable in criticising the beliefs in a traditional God. The Christian church has some quite absurd myths that I'll happily ridicule because they are preposterous. Anyone like to defend creationism, or resurrection? I could do with a laugh.

How could I ever provide evidence of something if it doesn't exist? It's impossible. How could I ever prove to you that God doesn't exist if he wasn't there - how would I do that? It would be far easier for a believer to come up with evidence of his existence if he did exist though and so far we've got faith and that's about it. Of course I'm not telling people there is no god in a dogmatic fashion - just that it appears as if he doesn't. It's perfectly valid for someone to believe in God just as it's equally valid for me to question that belief and ask why they believe and what they base it on. Fair enough isn't it?

Using this argument you can never, ever disprove anything. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist, and indeed I couldn't because how could I provide evidence of something if it didn't exist?

A cult that spawned a myth and eventually a best seller, that's all that happened 2000 years ago, nothing more.

No, you posed the question that God exists - I didn't. It's up to you to prove he does, and there is no evidence of that. I can't prove a negative because it's impossible therefore it must be up to you to prove that God is possible. What you got? Mere possibility? Not good enough - give me something more plausible than that. I do realise that you're only positing the possibility of the existence of God rather than saying he does but by following that argument you will never find an answer because there will always be a possibility however ridiculous, preposterous and lacking in evidence. No, it's up to you to show me something to prove even the possibility of his existence and there really isn't anything is there?

Ah but the thing is man invented god, or at least someone came up with the idea, so the burden of proof is on the person making the original thesis. No one denied God before he was thought of did they, because of course they couldn't. So it has to be up to the person who proposed that thesis to prove it, otherwise it's just a theory without evidence. And that's what God is - a theory without evidence. The great miracle is that anyone continues to believe in it.

As Russell rightly pointed out the burden of proof should be on those that say he exists and not those who say he doesn't. Is there any proof? No, because apparently it's all about belief. Have to say I think we're a little too tolerant of religion, and we're still too polite when meeting a god botherer to say "well, that's just a load of rubbish". I think the idea of a supreme being is an interesting concept with nothing so far to back it up - I think the myths ascribed to various "gods" are dangerous and at best encourage lazy thinking.

Centre mid in my opinion. Decent tackler, good passer, quick reactions and it seems a good work ethic. I'd love us to sign that mythical "midfield general" but sadly there aren't many around but Cork can be the closest to it.

Cork Mancienne Pilkington CMS Personally I think Cork would be a great addition and also, although expensive, a realistic target.

I'm going to watch but I don't expect a big crowd - apparently they're reading out the fans to the players. I phoned up and asked what time the match started, they said what time can you get here?

You're kidding right? Nothing wrong with Tonge but playing him in defence?

Not really - he's a fascist c*nt.

To be fair I'm willing to say it and get shot down for it......

Well it's all about opinions isn't it because I certainly didn't see anything worth getting excited about. Sometimes you can see a player and see that even if they're not the finished article that there's something there - I just didn't get that impression with him. Of course I could be wrong but all I've heard so far is he's clearly comfortable on the ball and has an eye for a pass. All I've seen is comfortable when playing a 5 yard pass.