Sentences with phrase «argue about religion»

Nearly every adult in the U.S. has some form of debt, but 99 % of us would rather argue about religion and politics than ask for advice on debt management.

I've never understood why people feel the need to argue about religion and berate others for their beliefs... no one ever wins and no one is ever right.

argue about religion somewhere else not where people have died.

This is why its so hard to argue about religion, a person will only convert if they're open - minded enough to think something else is right.

It's pointless to argue about religion.

Not exact matches

Until someone has all the answers with proven science or religion it makes no sense to argue about who is right or wrong.

Nonetheless, Professor Evans has made a well - argued and civil contribution to the never - ending debate about religion and public life.

It can be argued that the very idea of religion came to be because people a long time ago were trying to comfort themselves about why we are here and what becomes of us after death.

Just as this article said, and my comment above, to solve the divide, we can: (1) Argue about the definition of Race / God (2) Argue about identification in a religion / race (3) Or realize the fundamental problem of prejudice that sneaks into human - made abstractions like «race» and «God».

Why don't we stop arguing about how stupid one religion is over the other and just let people live their lives.

I know that I see elements of divine around me in things and in ways that others don't, including other religious people... And as long as different religions and even sects constantly argue about what god truly is, and as long as they come up with different asnwers, then I have to say that the spiritual elements of our universe simply manifest differently for different folks, including not at all for some... as with those who label themselves as athiest...

Perry believes in a guy who talked to a burning bush that didn't burn and divided a body of water with a stick... do we really want to argue about the unscience in all religion?

arguing about which religion is «true» is a further disservice to this long suffering woman, as is not allowing other people their beliefs, that is why she was imprisoned in the first place.

You guys are hilarious, not only do the religious argue about which religion is better than their own but they even argue about practices within a specific religion.

In my book «Religious Literacy,» I argued that the United States is one of the most religious countries on Earth, and yet Americans know very little about their own religions and even less about the religions of others.

Islam mentioned this for the longest time and as you can imagine, at a time when people had no access or means to verify those claims (people like yourself, opted to disbelief and argue about the existence of God) but now that those scientific «discoveries» became realities and the same as supported by the Quran (that was sent to Prophet Mohammed, Peace and Blessings be upon him), from God), it only solidifies Islam as the true religion of God.

In fact, I'd think about arguing that it is more peaceful than the Christian religion.

Those Christians will argue on blogs that it is the Golden Rule that rules and that their religion is about love, not about one human judging another.

I won't argue with you about «religion» if by that you mean the organization of groups of individuals who share a common faith and manner of worship and study about that faith.

He viewed science as a way to learn deeper truths about God, arguing that «a little philosophy inclines man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy brings men's minds about to religion.»

I can definitely see these folks arguing that it is unfair to ask them about other religions because they only need to know their own.

They would rather us argue about the fraction of the scrolls known and about science and religion, belief in god and not believing.

I do enjoy the various flavors of religions and xtian denominations arguing about which is the «one true» religion.

Richard Dawkins very eloquently argues these facts in his book «The God Delusion» If we want to talk about psychology and god, how about we discuss how absolutely irrational religion is.

In this book he argued that religion created a conscience which is quick to understand social need, that religious philanthropy gives charitably but without raising ultimate questions about the causes of social maladjustment, that religion «unifies individuals, stabilizes societies, creates social imagination and sanctifies social life; but it also perpetuates ancient evils, increases social inertia, creates illusions and preserves superstitions.

yes its about respect, no one argues that, but religion is not safe if it is mixed with government.

But atheists, agnostics and many Buddhists don't use images of «spirit», and argue among themselves about what to think of religion as a whole.

You atheists know who you are, so don't argue about it, go talk with the Humanist Atheists, you don't have to give up atheism, but you can not keep writing off the world's religions because they are quite frankly the most important deciding factors in whether this world will survive much longer, whether there will be chaos in the world or order.

Yesterday, columnist Eduardo Porter, writing for The New York Times, published an article arguing that the «most surprising aspect» of Trump 2016 «may be what it says about the waning place of religion in American politics.»

to J.W. and fred — i think its rather silly to argue anything as fact if its cleary thought based (i.e. lacking proof / evidence) when asked about the where did we come from or how the universe (whatever) i always answer with i don't know, but then i pose an idea — i state openly thats its only an idea... if any one of you religions folks would simple agree to the FACT that what you BELIEVE is real is REALLY only an idea until proven (much like evolution) then i would find much more pleasing conversations beyond the realm of atheists... but alas, i am still waiting — i found some but most are imovible in there beliefs that god is real, provable, and most def.

we stated to argue about God and religion, we stated to posses the God and religion, If we can see it is all about us and me and I and not about who we really are and who we really pray, as we pray some name that is supreme God, what happen before those name came to existence..

It is talking about christianity as an all encompassing umbrella — there are many different denominations of every religion and if they went into the idiosyncrasies of every one they would be arguing more about the differences between the different denominations and not between the three religions mentioned above.

But, Martin argues, conflicts involving such undifferentiated religion are not in fact conflicts about religion.

Just because I argue with you about religion does not mean I don't like you.

The original New Testament as formulated by a group of «Bishops» seeking recognition as the state religion of Rome, they were housed, fed and cared for by Constantine for several years while they argued about which texts to include.

The greatest outcry, however, came from survey organizations who produce the polls, social scientists who utilize poll findings to bolster arguments about the vitality of American religion, and a number of Roman Catholic researchers who argued that we exaggerated the overreporting in their constituency.

That is a tactical strategy... «while all of those religions down there argue about who is right, we are above the fray and have already figured out that they are all wrong.»

I argue with Tom Reese, over this exact issue often at Epiphenom (a blog which reviews science research about religion — to is an atheist).

The point of my post was not to argue the semantics of his name, just to point out that you're dumb for trying to correct people and act like you are smarter, know more about their religion, and hence you're correct on all your points.

Whatever the religion of those in the «middle ground» the place where we find most Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews and even many evangelicals — they can not get by forever by arguing the theology of «choice» and «rights,» while refusing to sharpen their understandings of «values» about «life.»

It's kind of fun to stand on the sidelines while all the world's cult leaders argue about which one's religion is a cult and which one isn't.

One might argue that I also left out the spaghetti monster as Richard Dawkins talks about or polytheistic religions etc etc etc..

are you people really serious arguing about what religion is right.

It was as if a connection had been made that no science or religion could argue about.

Stay away from those who often argue with you about topics like religion and politics.

It asks us to take another look at what we think we know about politics, religion and other things we like to argue about, and asks nothing more than our quiet attention.

Both actors ably convey that while they are arguing about the big issues of faith and religion, what drives their fights is highly personal.

You can argue all you want about the superiority of science over religion, but I have yet to see a movie that turns out well when scientists start playing god.

In one of the most cogent books on Islamic - Western relations, Scruton argues that the war on terrorism is based in a misunderstanding of Islamic identity that reflects invidious Western prejudices about immigration, multiculturalism, free trade, and religion.

When you're talking to a gold bug, this is much like arguing with a priest about religion — it is a daunting task.