Sentences with phrase «argue against religion»

And you can not argue against religion by citing war without also citing the incredible humanitarian efforts that also come from religion.

But even without religious beliefs, we'd still not all agree on things like that, so here's a more practical reason to argue against religion:

It's a great stretch to state that we've learned religious facts to argue against religion.

-- to correct believer bullsh!t — to argue against religion driven laws and influence — to keep an eye on the crazies that want to put the USA and Canada on the road to becoming a theocracy — to influence undecideds away from joining any religious cult (and all religios are cults)-- for the humor of the nuttiness of things believers believe, say and do

I don't recall anywhere in the article, him arguing against religion or God.

Not exact matches

The government argues the text of the order does not mention any specific religion and is needed to protect the country against attacks.

Sidhak's father, Sagardeep Singh Arora argued that the school discriminated against his son, by not allowing him to wear the patka or have uncut hair - essential parts of his religion.

You raise a very good point that escapes most theists and that is while they argue against atheists for not believing in their god, they forget that most of those arguments could be applied to them by somebody of another religion.

What he was really arguing against was hypocrisy and not religion.

Most significantly, Duddington argues against the charge that permitting an increasing role for religion in the legal and political (i.e., public) spheres would necessitate the imposition of one system of belief upon another, by re-emphasising the argument that Christianity does not serve to generate a moral code, but rather provides a vehicle through which it may be discovered.

If you have arguments against the philosophy of the Church or the dogma of the religion, I can respect the difference and argue the points.

So in this context, religion can be a vehicle for evil but it would be easy to argue against it being the primary vehicle for evil.

I can argue from history and philosophy against religion and it is none of my business if others just simply believe as long as there are no victims.

Obvious: I am arguing against Mark and Daniels assertion that the sole intent of the first amendment is to prohibit the Government from creating a state religion.

This inferiority of the rationalistic level in founding belief is just as manifest when rationalism argues for religion as when it argues against it.

The political school of thought that supports the view that secularization is the only way forward argues against the Hindutva proponents who aim to revive and recast the role of religion in contemporary India.

There's nothing offensive or against the rules in my comment, but it is strongly critical, and I would like to think, well argued point against Biblical religions.

Muslims use the Bible constantly to argue for their religion and against ours.

Though no decisive falsification is possible in religion, I have argued that the cumulative weight of evidence does count for or against religious beliefs.

A Christian, he has been interested in the science and religion debate, arguing against the Intelligent Design school on the one hand and materialism on the other.

If I were choosing recent books in this area which most deserve to be read outside the country, I would start with Oliver O'Donovan's political theology in The Desire of the Nations; John Milbank's critique of the social sciences in Theology and Social Theory; Timothy Gorringe's provocative political reading of Karl Barth in Karl Barth: Against Hegemony; Peter Sedgwick's The Market Economy and Christian Ethics; Michael Banner's Christian Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems; Duncan Forrester's Christian Justice and Public Policy; and Timothy Jenkins's Religion in Everyday Life: An Ethnographic Approach, which argues with a dense interweaving of theory and empirical study for a social anthropological approach to English religion which has learned much from theology.

In all honesty, the «religious people» that don't legislate against things based solely on their religious convictions and thereby hurt the rights of individuals, and who don't condemn science and medicine and societal progression and other religions and other denominations and people who are not religious, and who don't claim to know that something is true beyond all other truths, are probably a very slim minority, and I'd have to argue that they aren't really religious, they are just doing whatever makes them feel good, which could be accomplished through secular means as well.

Perhaps, however, it is legitimate not merely to argue against his conclusions but to urge against his position from the start the general principle that an outsider can not understand a civilization or a great religion unless he approaches it with humility and love.

Some people, while recognizing religion as a legitimate subject matter, maintain that religion is basically «caught» but not «taught,» thus arguing against inclusion of courses in religion in the curriculum.

Nor do I see any awareness among American Jews of the irony inherent in religiously identifiable groups arguing against the place of religion in public life.

@Chad «I never argued that — all the ACLU does is litigate against religion — all anti-religion litigation is by the ACLU however MOST of the anti-religion legislation is from the ACLU.»

As Steven Weinberg points out here, the argument made against extremists ends up invoking a moral sense to argue that the religious ideas of the extremists are wrong, when the whole point of religion is that it should be the other way around.

Starting out in that fateful year for religion, 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews and the Muslims from Spain and opened virgin Christian missionary territory in America, Armstrong tells the story of fundamentalism in the world's great monotheisms and argues that it is as much a product of modernity as the materialism and empiricism against which it fearfully reacts.

Science, if anything, has the defence that objective measure can be used to argue against subversion, as it never can be in religion, politics or morality.

Defenses against a refusal charge are that the police arrested without probable cause to believe the defendant was in violation of the DWI law, that the defendant did not refuse (police will sometimes list inability to blow into the machine sufficiently as a refusal, when they should instead then offer a blood test), and that the refusal was reasonable (for instance, the defendant can argue whether the test runs counter to his or her religion, or whether the police followed up the implied consent statutory language with confusing commentary on it).

Mrs Pendleton brought proceedings in the employment tribunal arguing that she had been indirectly discriminated against on the basis of her religion or belief.