Joensuu

Fair enough, but doesn't believing in something that there simply isn't evidence for, just because they hypothetically might be found to exist at some point in the future, not strike you as a little odd?

Just a thought, but which of these two entities is there more evidence for the existance of: 1) God 2) Al Mirage of Skatesville

So basically you are saying that this creator lives within a part/version of a/the universe which is so far beyond our comprehension that all logic is turned on its head. Therefore, we are essentially debating a object which doesn't obey any of the laws of science that we do, can't be described, has never been seen, has left no trace of itself... ... right.

Is it really enough for believers to know that their chosen deity can only possibly exist because of the impossibility of disproving a non-existant entity? Of course, by the same logic any unfounded claim has merit, Elvis is alive, and mermaids have wings. Why not worship car salesmen? They might not have mystical powers, but at least there is some evidence that they actually exist.

You might be right. God might be lurking in an alternative dimension. My money would be on people having the same debate in 30 years time though, as my guess would be the advances in science over that timeframe won't reveal a hidden God, but will merely continue to offer 'him' less places to hide in. Science can't ever disprove something that doesn't and hasn't ever existed - that's simply not possible. I do like Russell's teapot though. If (as many believers seem to be arguing) atheists should actively find proof against the existance of a deity, why do those same believers not actively find proof agaisnt the existance of a indetectable orbiting teapot? There is as much evidence for the existance of both. I'd argue that all theories without evidence to back them should be dismissed as fiction, only to be given credence if at any stage in the future, evidence is found to back up their claims. As such, IMO, until evidence is found to the contrary, all Gods (from the bearded to the teapot-shaped) simply don't exist.

No, there is strong evidence for the origins of the planet, atmosphere, environment and for people (and hotly debated theories around the orgin for the universe). I assume you have equally strong evidence that these were created by a deity? Thankfully, we can indeed make good use of our independent thought, and not limit ourselves to believing in series of unevinced 'answers'.

Not at all. This is scientific method in motion. Substantiated theories are retained, flawed ones are dropped. It is highly likely that new theories will continue to replace old ones. However, the probability that a new theory will find evidence of a specific deity is remote. As a de facto Atheist, I accept that there is a chance that a deity exists, it's an infinately remote chance (considering our current absence of evidence), but it's a chance nonetheless. I'm not precluding the remote chance that there is a deity. I am saying that with the combinded scientific knowledge of all of humanity we currently haven't found a shred of evidence which would suggest there is a deity. There are however good theories to explain why most of human society finds creating and believing in their own deity to be desirable. You sum it up perfectly in your last few words. Questions, not answers. Science provides the former, religion ignores the evidence, and attempts to provide the latter.

Interesting point Turkish, brings up a whole seperate debate on the merits and flaws of the UK legal system. If you don't mind me asking, what's your personal view on the case itself? Would you make for a less-biased jury member? Or have you already made up your mind (one way or another)?

IMO, this is absolutely fundamental. The basis of all modern science is evidence. Without evidence to support it, the theory becomes nonsense. The onus of evidence is upon those who claim their theory to be true, not upon the people who point out that they have no evidence. If I proposed to the world that an undetectible cloaked alien shaped like a bloated Henry Redkrapp was controlling the minds of all of our global leaders from an invisible underwater dungeon, would the onus be on me to evince by claim, or upon the rest of the world, who so far haven't found evidence to disprove my claim? Yes people have the right to belive what they want to, but you are confusing 'evidence' with personal opinions here. There simply isn't a shred of evidence. And again, it is the people making the outlandish claims that have to evince them, not the people who point out that they are lacking evidence. You're right here. Although, for the record, there aren't many people who 'believe' that there is no God, we are a tad more certain than that. Sure, 2000 years ago, something happened. But there are plenty of other significant years: c. 500 years ago Sikhism was founded 1,389 years ago Islam was founded c. 2,500 years ago Buddhism was founded c. 3,300 years ago Judaism was founded c. 3,500 years ago Hinduism was founded People will argue that in all of these years 'Something significant happened' - but that isn't evidence. I assume you are suggesting that Christians require 'proof' that the deity they believe in doesn't exist. Why? Again you seem to be misinterpreting the onus of proof. It is impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist - it would be a fruitless exercise. You are right here. Although I do find your seperation of 'believe in God' from 'Human politics and the manipulation/control of the masses' troubling. IMO they are one in the same. IMO a view is only 'extreme' if it isn't substantiated. I'm sure when Einstein first suggested his views he was considered 'extreme'. But the more a view is backed up with evidence the less extreme it becomes. We are all welcome to our own beliefs, but please don't confuse a 'belief' in human research and science with a 'belief' in a deity. These aren't mutually incompatible things; many people believe in both. So yes, both are 'belief', but with a vast void between them: to dismiss God, is akin to dismissing alien-probing tales as myth; whereas to dismiss science is akin to dismissing the tangible world we see around us.

Blimey, I'd assumed you understood the debate. Mustn't jump to assumptions eh?

I would have thought you'd have found that out by now. At half time the score currently stands at Self interest 1 Democracy 0

So the Torys have c. six times as many MPs as the Lib Dems. Did they get six times as many votes? [Answer: Not a chance! 6.8 million Lib Dem vs 10.7 million Tory. Oh, but I guess it's only fair to ignore the views of those 6.8 million people if you don't agree with them eh Dune?]

IMO: Promotion - Outstanding Playoff place - Good season Top half finish - Okay. If I were a betting person, my money would be on a finish between 7th and 11th. Lower - Dissapointed.

IMO Brussels is alright. It's pretty enough in the centre - the Grand Place is definately worth seeing. There are okay views from the hill near the central law courts. The beer is obviously fantastic, and not too terribly priced. However, the price of food is expensive, expect at least £15-20 per meal. After you've seen the central sites, you quickly run out of things to do. If you do go (and are under say 40), make sure you try http://www.deliriumcafe.be/ - it might not be your cup of tea, but I enjoyed it.

Tough decisions, and I think all of them could go either way. I'd imagine various non-football factors will determine who stays and who goes. Wage demands, impact on dressing room, mentality, interest from other clubs, physio reports, players we are bringing in etc will all need to be assessed before decisions will be made. As such I won't be surprised to see any of the out of contract players stay or go (apart from Pulis that is).

But CHDAJFU?

The Lib Dems were in a mess from the second they agreed to a coalition. Their only sensible option was to abstain, and let Cameron form a minority government. Lib Dem voters were increadibly dissapointed with the coalition agreement, and would only have found it acceptable had the Lib Dems managed to exact a much greater reward from the Tories. IMO, a fully supported, and whipped passing of PR through the Commons would have kept the Lib Dem voters on-board. As it is, Lib Dem voters feel that their party hasn't achieved anything positive from the current coalition. They are angry with the leadership for having sold the party's strong principles. While some liberal voters are borderline Labour supporters (and a handful are close to the liberal wing of the Tory party), most liberal voters would find voting for either party objectionable. The Green party is likely to benefit the most from the Lib Dems implosion (if only we had a Green candidate here). The one redeming factor for the Lib Dems is that most blame isn't directed at the party, but is instead pinned on Clegg's shoulders. Oust Clegg, and the half of the voters who have abandoned the Lib Dems will probably return.

We sure do Lord D. Although, a system in which votes only really count in a tiny number of seats. Live in Leeds or the New Forest - whoever you vote for your vote is wasted before it has been cast. The benefit of constituencies is that local issues can be championed at a national level. However, as countries who have already progressed to PR have found, if there a votes to be won from local issues, politicians are still happy to champion them. The major drawback of constiuencies are that they dramatically skew the vote, how can it be right that a party like UKIP can receive more votes than the Green party, but end up with fewer MPs? What a mess!

Unfortunately, you are probably right. The electorate really can be that easily manipulated.

No comment hypo.

Colin, you have fallen for one of the NoToAVs little traps there. Under FPTP votes don't hold the same weight, the weight is determined by which constituency you live in. Under FPTP, your vote only really counts in a tiny number of seats. Live in say Liverpool or Sheffield (not Hallum), and irrespective of who you want to vote for, your vote doesn't count. Whereas, under AV, all votes do count, and count once. AV doesn't allow you to vote twice, whatever the No campaign may have suggested.

Well, the result certainly demonstrates the idiocy of the electorate. Had PR been offered the outcome might have been different. It looks like we will have to continue with our flawed voting system for years to come. If only people had voted on the relative merits of the two systems, instead of on bias and personality. That way the outcome would have been very different. Oh well, back to campaigning for a fairer democracy.

Statistically that would suggest you are female and at least in your fifties or sixties. You also probably enjoy wearing shoulder-padded blouses, talking about how much your eldest child earns, blaming 'others' for all of your ills, and boasting about the minor gentry you once hob-nobbed with.

I'd rather keep the sash.

I got infracted for defending Cortese when this board seemed to be fairly unanimously against him. Sure, suggesting that those attacking him were actually attacking Saints, and were in my eyes floating sediment might have had something to do with it... Anyhow, i'm, convinced we are incredibly lucky to have such a superb chairman, and hope he keeps our club progressing at the same rate next season.