revolution saint

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.

So what attributes would you say make him worth signing?

Indeed and in any of those four games did he do anything?

OK, based on what you've seen so far would you sign him? I'm sure you'll probably come out with the "I trust Nigel" line but frankly IMO Stephens really hasn't done anything - if he was 5 years older most people would be slagging off his performances so far. I just don't see any natural attribute he has that will get better, apart from gaining experience which will make him an average L1 player. If he can't hack it in a very good league 1 team then don't expect him to be better in a less competitive championship one. Obviously I don't rate him but even if we were a newly promoted side just looking to stave off relegation I wouldn't fancy signing him. To be fair you thought we should accept we weren't going to get automatic promotion........

Newspapers say he's wanted by Everton.

Oh come on, even in his first few games Morgan showed a range of passing that we hadn't seen for a while. Morgan and Dale Stephens are totally different players - if you're comparing them then it's age alone because it isn't on football ability.

Same. He hasn't really done anything noteworthy at all in his loan spell. If we did sign him I'd expect a lot of people to say banal things like "Does the simple things well" and "You only notice him when he's not there". Halfway through the season that would be replaced by "largely anonymous for most of the game....why did we sign him?"

I read an article years ago that said most people thought waiting list durations were far too long and that their perception of the NHS was was a poor one. When they were asked about their own personal experiences (or people they knew) then their responses were overwhelmingly positive. As I say this was years ago and under Tory rule although I'm not trying to make a political point here - merely that what is perceived as recognised wisdom (in this case "waste") doesn't always stack up or backed up by evidence. I did a year in the NHS and my own personal experience was that the vast majority of staff worked incredibly hard and IMO was probably the closest culture to a private industry as any of the public sector employers I've worked for. There were very real targets that had to be achieved and no cultural acceptance of failure. Personally I think that the work done on reducing waiting list durations has been incredible - we seem to forget that every election was dominated by this subject but now it's hardly mentioned. This work was largely done by administrators and managers and enable clinicians to do what they are best at, which is being clinicians. It also seems fairly obvious to me that in most cases trained administrators and managers are best at doing the administrative functions of the NHS - and they get results. Ironically the most waste I saw during my time was with PFI, and large IT projects involving the private sector and that was due to large handcuffed contracts that didn't make any financial sense. Just to even the score a bit I then went on to join the civil service - now there is a world of difference between the NHS and the civil service and at times I'd be hard pressed to defend them against the charge of waste or having a culture that prevented getting things done.