Dick Dawkins, at the end of his newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman said something like
“I wasn’t put on this earth to be comfortable”
This shows that he doesn’t believe in the bull manure of evolution. How could he be “put on this earth” if he evolved
So, since he doesn’t believe in that evolutionary bull manure, what does he believe (and I say believe because shred of proof there is not!!)
33 comments
Thanks to T-Devil I came across a whole list of religious figures of speech that are used by all people;
This nit-picking (figure of speech, Jude, I know parasitic insect eggs are not involved) only shows that of all the things Dawkins said, this wee off-hand use of a common figure of speech was the only 'fault' upon which the rabid Jude could pounce. That would be as if the only fault I could find with the bibble is that they all had funny names. THERE! proof positive that the bibble doesn't have a shred of truth in it!! (Jude, that's called sarcasm.)
*afterthought*
Hey, Jude, it's called a figure of speech. We use such metaphors all the time without even noticing it. Have you ever heard of "bringing coal to Newcastle," or "paying the piper," or opening a "Pandora's box"? These are all allusions to stories or incidents, conveying a wealth of meaning in just a few words because of the underlying concepts. That doesn't mean that the person using them intends for all that underlying background to be taken as indicating his true beliefs!Redhunter: I thought "sour grapes" was an allusion to the Aesop fable, "The Fox and the Grapes." What's up with it being included as biblical?
~David D.G.
Does he have to "believe" in anything at all? Just leave him alone. Being "put on this earth" was a figure of speech, you imbecile, and no, we are not here to be comfortable. Unless of course you want to lie to yourself like Dawkins suggested. If that's your poison then be my guest, but you're sure as hell not going to suck me into your nightmare.
I agree, it's a figure of speech, but it is also plainly true. He WASN'T put on earth to be comfortable, as he wasn't "put" on earth at all.
The conjuncted negation/verb "wasn't" applies to both parts of the statement. It's the logical equivalent of an "either" quality. The stament has two parts: Richard Dawkins was/was not put on this Earth and Richard Dawkins positioning was not for the reason of comfort. The assumption that he denys only the first part of the statement is a logical fallacy by Jude, though partly due to Dawkins' inprecise wording.
It's a metaphor, fucktard.antediluvian , which means "dating to before the Flood".
It doesn't mean I believe for one second in the Biblical Flood. That was just another fairy tale.
~David D.G. said: Redhunter: I thought "sour grapes" was an allusion to the Aesop fable, "The Fox and the Grapes." What's up with it being included as biblical?
It's a figure of speech, you...this is why they take the Bible literally! They can't understand anything other than the literal meaning of a statement.
That was what we normal people (people with an IQ above 90) call a "figure of speech".
You really like the expression "bull manure" I see. Where you homeschooled on a farm?
We don't believe in facts and science, we accept them.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
