Finngean has lost any journalistic and analytical skills she might have once posessed - her discussion with John Humphrys was frankly embarrasing to watch due to her inarticulate and embarrasing interjections
and secondly
that the cross she wears around her neack, as someone has already suggested, is purely for fashion purposes.
As much as I loathe Tricky he at least maintained some repartee with Humphrys - she was just a shambles!
Yes, Judy's views were pretty incoherent, but that seems to be a result of her confused ideas about her own faith.
Slightly irritated that they didn't provide anyone to offer a counter-argument to John Humphreys' views. Richard, I have to say, did a fair job, but they should have had a Christian represeantative. As it was, when John Humphreys asked what people are supposed to do to get into heaven, there was no one there to give the obvious answer of 'grace'.
Originally posted by 12trees: Proof if proof were needed that
Finngean has lost any journalistic and analytical skills she might have once posessed - her discussion with John Humphrys was frankly embarrasing to watch due to her inarticulate and embarrasing interjections
and secondly
that the cross she wears around her neack, as someone has already suggested, is purely for fashion purposes.
As much as I loathe Tricky he at least maintained some repartee with Humphrys - she was just a shambles!
Again wildly inaccurate.
What embarressing and inarticulate interjections?
How do you know she wears the cross purely for fashion purposes? The cross can be worn as a fashion statement but also as a Christian. As Humphreys said no one can argue for certain taht a loving God exists. If I remember my Catholic teaching correctly Faith is a gift.
Judy’s oxymoronical and contradictory views were embarrassing to hear. Talk about sitting on the fence! Her rear end must be riddled with splinters! You’d get more sense out of a two year old.
Hi 12Trees I wasn't going to post because it was such an obvious target, and the viewers and programme makers would both have been well aware. But I felt it necesaary in the interests of truth to state what took place. I never did get to understand the point of Humphrey's book.
Absolutely. After watching the interview not only did I feel annoyed about the innacuracies/omissions to do with Christianity, but I had absolutely no idea about the point of the book. As far as I could tell, John Humphreys is merely jumping on The God Delusion bandwagon. Yet another cynical book about God, how original.
And that's the main fault of this programme. failure to address issues with the value they diserve. Everything is turned into a joke (they send Mike McClean to cover something) or they are unable to interview guests with the required inteligence needed to do the subject justice.
I was also annoyed by that guy who burned all his designer clothes. Why didn't he just put his clothes into a charity bag and quietly drop them off at his nearest Oxfam, rather than embark on a self-indulgent publicity stunt with a pointless book at the end of it?
Originally posted by 12trees: And that's the main fault of this programme. failure to address issues with the value they diserve. Everything is turned into a joke (they send Mike McClean to cover something) or they are unable to interview guests with the required inteligence needed to do the subject justice.
It is not Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman. They must be doing sometning right because you and the rest of the detractors keep tuning in faithfully everynight.
Originally posted by corkman: I was also annoyed by that guy who burned all his designer clothes. Why didn't he just put his clothes into a charity bag and quietly drop them off at his nearest Oxfam, rather than embark on a self-indulgent publicity stunt with a pointless book at the end of it?
Originally posted by Cornwell: I got the impression that Humphrey's book will take an agnostic approach; he seemed as critical of atheism as he did of faith.
Quite possibly, but that is my point, you never got to know exactly what the book was about because of the silly prattling about between the hosts and their poor skills. I thought Humprhrys made mincemeat out of them - and showed the true skills of an analytical journalist.
Originally posted by rothgar: ..and Dawkins, God bless him, would make mincemeat of Humphreys.
Dawkins is such an authoritarian. In another incarnation he might have been a religious zealot, he has the same fervour. I tried to count the number of times he uttered phrases like "superstitious nonsense" or "mediaeval mumbo-jumbo", but I lost count. I don't think that's very scientific.
The "types" he chose to illustrate his arguments were easy pickings and not worthy opponents. At one of those Psychic Fayre places for instance - people waffling about angels and tarot cards and giving cold readings.
There are many phenomena - evidence of psi, esp to name a couple - which can't be explained and which scientists have documented. But he doesn't bother to mention those. I notice he didn't talk about acupuncture in his latest series, either. At least not the couple I saw.
Last year, scientific trials proved that acupuncture works (definite, measurable changes in the brain, as opposed to control patients who had needles stuck in them in a random way, not on the acupuncture points. They were proper trials, randomised, double-blind, etc). Scientists just don't know *how* it works, as Chinese medicine uses different criteria and different terminology to explain physical conditions, etc. I mean energy meridians and all that. I just thought it was telling that he didn't mention it and that if it hadn't been for those scientific trials published last year, he would have also called it "mumbo jumbo" or "superstitious claptrap".
I'm not a "believer" in anything in particular, but I don't like the blanket dismissals and denials that Dawkins tends to make.
Hi Sweet Marie It is, of course, the usual problem of an absolutely brilliant man and mind trying to communicate with the masses. Poor Richard is compelled to use the vocabulary of said masses in order to get his point across.
Has Dawkins read any Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Wittgenstein? I suspect not, as he appears to think he's 'sorted out' a problem so neatly. As a thinker he's like Richard Madeley tap-dancing.
I think a lot of alternative or Complentary medicine has been welcomed into orthodox medicine. Its not wise to dismiss something that has worked for millions just because it cannot be proved scientifically. The only alternative treatment that I have most problem with is Homeopathy. I cannot conceive how something diluted so much can be effective. I think the mind plays a major part in the healing process.
You must be joking Roth. He's a fundamentally crude thinker who's operating outside his own sphere of expertise. His God stuff was cringeworthily undergraduate arrogance. His latest targets are about as challenging as naughts and crosses.
