Sentences with phrase «arguments about religion»

Commenting on the panel and its critics, Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the teaching of evolution in schools, objected to the «hijacking» of science for arguments about religion: for or against.

«To that end, arguments about religion and god tear us apart.»

Put aside the shopworn arguments about religion people on this blog microfocus on & there is a lot of value in the article.

There are so many flawed and tired arguments about religion flying around in these comments.

The answer Berger gives is an integral feature of his argument about religion.

If I wanted a stupid argument about religion I'd go to youtube, also using the word «diversity» while claiming to be a skeptic is conflicting ideals.

Not exact matches

What Hitchens wrote about the evils of religion was not so much a scholarly argument, but more a wave of righteous indignation that levelled everything in its path.

I think that the points you make about religion are a straw man argument.

Many Atheists constantly read topics on religion because that is how rationality works, in order to refute or support an argument you have to be knowledgeable about as many aspects of the problem as possible.

If you REALLY want to learn about your religion, read materials that offer compelling arguments AGAINST you interests and thoughtfully consider them in light of what you were TOLD as a child.

As for the claim that if one simply waits long enough with an open heart, God will reveal Himself — that same argument is made by just about every religion.

Forcing the case for this kind of living moral alternative into the narrow confines of an argument that is just about religion and liberty makes the treasure we seek to protect seem smaller and less significant than it truly is.

His belief that all theological argument is (quite literally) «away with the fairies», and his optimism about a harmonious world where religion has withered away, are the doctrines of new atheism.

The arguments Cooperman and Smith give about why polling about religion isn't all that bad are quite familiar to those of us who follow polling.

A developed argument about American exceptionalism and the nature of the American Founding would take us a long way toward understanding why we don't want religion to be pushed from the shared mainstream over to one side's shore.

Rather than drawing attention to the distinctiveness of the Judeo - Christian tradition, liberal civil religion is much more likely to include arguments about basic human rights and common human problems.

It would be better if he were to keep religion out of political discussion, especially when it comes to an argument between RC and Protestant about who is the most Satanic.

Conservative civil religion also voices strong arguments about the propriety of the American economic system.

The theoretical roots of these studies tap directly into Weberian arguments, but the studies provide insights about religion and ideology that should be of value well beyond the Weberian school itself.

For those of you who make the argument about «reason» you really have no foundation when it comes to religion.

I wonder how long it'll be before the comment threads devolve into arguments about Hitler's religion (or lack thereof).

We're mostly sharing factual information about religion and offering logical arguments.

In college I spent a lot of time learning about other religions, but my information came almost exclusively from other Christians presenting arguments against them.

He is not sanguine about carrying the day with that argument, but he is convinced that the self - acknowledged shambles of the Supreme Court's religion clause decisions means that the days of secular individualism are numbered.

I remember a British - American journalist telling me ¯ a man who often says he is a hater of God, a man who attacks religion with delicious ferocity again and again ¯ that one argument that almost does convince him about God is the mystery of our own conscience.

The essential argument is that Americans are woefully ignorant about religion — an assertion that is wholly proven time and again.

This whole idiotic argument is not about religion.

My Christian friends in high school avoided talking to me about religion because they anticipated that I would tear down their poorly constructed arguments.

Instead we are taken on a gentle tour of three arguments put forward for atheism:» [T] hat conflicts fought in the name of religion are always about religion; that it is ultimately possible to know with confidence what is right and what is wrong without acknowledging the existence of God; and that atheist states are not actually atheist.»

His argument falls short, however, when it comes to discussing the proper social or institutional role for religion in the public square, about which he seems to harbor serious misgivings.

I understand the relevance to the argument on the representation of Guy Fawkes in this movement, but best I can see these folks aren't really using religion as a weapon or complaining about it.

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.

The argument is full of tired clichés about American religion and politics.

Aristotle's arguments about an unmoved mover, Aquinas» Five Ways, contemporary versions of the cosmological argument in analytic philosophy of religion» all of these are, in the end, proposed explanations of observed phenomena.

And I kid you not, literal aggressive argument between the major brands, like people I've learned, you don't talk about religion, you don't talk about politics, and you don't talk about your favorite essential oil at Thanksgiving coz this is gonna cause a family feud.

Pope Francis» arguments run the gamut from the expected (he's especially interested in the concept of true brotherhood) to the scandalous (he's a strong proponent of the environment, believes that the power of science can go hand and hand with religion, and even talks about welcoming homosexuality into the church).

What's especially enthralling about the film is how it tackles major themes - religion vs. science, practicality vs. faith - in such simple terms; there are no elaborate speeches or arguments, it's all laid out in the most economical ways possible.

Several theories about the film's origins of myth are thrown out: it follows Joseph Campbell's hero cycle (not really) and it follows Dante's Inferno (sort of, in that they start out at a party and move up to the bowels of Hell — alas, the argument that they are almost separated into those who deserve to die and those who do not doesn't support the data) before professor of religion (at Pepperdine University, a fact unmentioned in this featurette) Christopher Heard throws out that it's an adaptation of the Christ myth.

Their demand was based not on arguments about double taxation or the free exercise of religion.

The report says that the same argument about social selectivity could apply to the entrance requirements of some faith schools which require pupils and their families to belong to particular religions.

His principal argument is with those comfortable perennialists who proclaim that all religions are basically about the same thing, and are (in a favorite metaphor) different paths up the same mountain.

Along the way, we are treated to Isabel's philosophical musings on many diverse subjects: being polite, or saying what you really feel; landscape painters taking artistic licence; the purpose of art; adoption; head lice; which bodily afflictions are too personal to talk about; sarcasm; swearing; wind turbines; jumping to conclusions; religion; children's literature; dogs dreaming; metaphors; how to end arguments and knowing who you are.

And then some unexpected spark of provocation — about race, politics, and infrequently, religion — would ignite an argument that went on until one of us either hung up or demurred to the other.

I mean really, isn't this whole post about a personal attack agenda, not based on what the man thoughts or his academic arguments, but instead attacking his appearance, his religion, and his sense of humor?

In the narrower legal context, this Hayekian - Rawlsian debate usually manifests itself in arguments about whether the law should protect «negative rights,» that is, protect persons from government encroachment on their inalienable rights — like private property and free exercise of religion, or whether the law should foster «positive rights,» that is, promote the rights of people to receive tangible things like free health care or housing under the auspices of equal treatment under the law.

Canada Laura Babcock's murder trial to hear testimony about her financial records, Canadian Press http://legalnews.findlaw.ca/news-id-479957/ Sentencing arguments today for man convicted of murder in death of Montreal clerk, Canadian Press Muslim FBI agent who helped Canada wants to reclaim his religion from jihadis, Canadian Press

What about the argument that Atheism is as much a religion as any of the Abraham theisms?