Am i the only mug in the world that thinks Arreola will win??

[Mikhnienko]

TS, The opposite of faith is evidence and logic.

Applying that to this fight, the only real attribute Arreola has is punching power but givin Vitali's chin and ability to fight at a distance that he dictates this would point to Chris's one asset being rendered impotent.

[Briandl]

I have to disagree.

While I do agree that he's got a slim chance, I think he has more attributes than just punching power. First of all yes he does have power but he has decent power in BOTH hands. He also throws in combinations and throws a good variety of punches, one of my faves is the left uppercut, straight right when the head pops up (Certainly harder to land against a bigger guy that actually fights bigger). He's also not saying he's going to do anything out of character for himself. A lot of guys say they'll do this and that but it's not something they typically do and they wind up not doing it, Chris will bring the fight because that's just what he does. Also he's younger.

All good attributes.

[Stickman]

Chris has a very legitimate puncher's chance. While Vitali's chin is as hard as they come (unquestionably the toughest beard in the division today, and a close race for best of all time), anybody can be KO'd, if they're caught in the right way, at the right time, with the right punch. And while the odds are heavily against Arreola landing this golden punch, he probably has a better chance than anyone who's taken on the Ukrane giant to date. Vitali is older, arguably slower, and this could end up being the fight where he loses concentration for that split second it will take to get caught unawares with a perfect hook on the point of the chin that puts Vitali's lights out.

The odds are against Chris, but I believe they're better than the 1% someone mentioned above....I think he has more like a 10% chance. Not great, but certainly there.

[J.R]

We'll see in a couple of hours

[El Angel]

I want him to win, but I don't think he will.

[tito yuca]

So how would you handle the question that was posed to me today... 'what is faith and what is the opposite of faith?' The thing that intrigued me about the question was the second part - what is the opposite of faith?

On the one hand you could argue (and I probably would) that faith doesn't really have an opposite. Some (Richard Dawkins, et al) would suggest that scientific rationalism has provided an opposite (or, at very least, an alternative) to faith, but I'm always struck, when talking to such people, by how many 'leaps of faith' they are still taking in their arguments. It's a well rehearsed point that science has not (and cannot) disprove the existence of God or the realm of faith, and so faith is still very much in the equation of the beliefs of even the atheist.

As I mused over this further though, I started toying with the idea that maybe the people closest to the opposite of faith are not the atheists, but the so-called 'people of faith' who think they've got everything sorted. An ultra-conservative theological viewpoint that claims to know all the answers (albeit through 'revelation') and has no room to be surprised or to have that knowledge challenged by further revelation is one that is closed to the mystery of God. Such a view has virtually pushed out the realm of faith, since everything is already black and white - all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted; here there is nothing to 'believe' by faith because we already 'know' everything.

It's an interesting idea and somewhat paradoxical that possibly the closest we know to the opposite of faith is not to be found outside the church in the academic lecture halls (which, after all, are given to the pursuit of knowledge and the recognition that there is always more to be discovered, so keeping alive the realm of faith), but is actually to be found inside the church amongst those who have jettisoned the realm of faith in favour of an unshakeable 'knowledge'. Interesting... but probably full of holes as far as theories go!

So? You also can't disprove Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, etc. Ever heard of Russell's teapot? The burden of proof lies on the guy who makes the claims. The ones who deny it don't have to prove ****, we deny it precisely because it CAN'T be proven.

[Mikhnienko]

Hey John Locke, eat a ****

Since Vitali demolished Arreola does that mean

Vitali's will > your faith ??

Pray for your god to give you gold in one hand, **** in the other, see which one fills up first.