Sentences with phrase «belief over evidence»

Like sundry other isms, Climatism is a triumph of belief over evidence, of righteousness over reason.

This power of belief over evidence is the result of two factors: cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect.

Rather than go highlighting or cherry picking different stories in the ancient text that point to very disturbing characteristics, (because that would bog us down away from my point and launch a ti.t for tat against someone who has already displayed belief over evidence is what matters to him), I will add to my «doctrine» statement that has inflamed and dominated your attention.

Not exact matches

You said, «Your problem LinCA, is that you're «all over the map» trying to rationalize your baseless beliefs...» What part of «if there isn't any evidence for a phenomenon, there is no reason to believe it», is «all over the map» or a «baseless belief»?

«Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.»

It was written by many people over the span of hundreds of years, it is tribal rules from the infancy of our development and arguably is not a good book at all but full of hatred, spite and unspeakable violence, and you arent allowed to use «faith» as your proof of existence... faith is nothing less than the throwing away of reason i.e. belief without evidence.

You have the right to say and think whatever you want, noone can change your beliefs, but there is evidence that proves that speciel has the capacity to change to select benificial traits over the course of many generations.

However, in my own experience and research, Christianity has offered the most compelling evidence over any other belief system.

Examples are 9/11 hijackings, The holding back of stem cell research that could save countless human lives, Aids being spread due to religious opposition to the use of condoms, Christians legally fighting this year to teach over 1 million young girls in America that they must always be obedient to men, the eroding of child protection laws in America by Christians, for so called faith based healing alternatives that place children's health and safety at risk, burning of witches, the crusades, The Nazi belief that the Aryans were god's chosen to rule the world, etc... But who cares about evidence in the real world when we have our imaginations and delusions about gods with no evidence of them existing.

The first is that Christian denominations that have taken this form of liberalism most to heart are also those that seem to be experiencing a serious crisis of confidence, as evidenced by declining membership, intra-denominational splits over issues like homosexuality, and ¯ in some cases ¯ increasing discomfort with core Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ and the Trinity.

My guess is that it will be a difficult case to argue against the impact of the contraceptive coverage rule as anything but an «incidental effect» given it targets a market and there's no evidence that the rule is over or under inclusively fashioned as a pretext to target the religious beliefs of those opposed to contraception.

It's so sad how much time people spend bending over backwards to try to find anything that could be considered evidence to support their pre-determined belief.

With regard to the argument that there is no evidence to support any religious belief over another; not true.

There is evidence to indicate the presence of the «what is must be best» belief where the public values the status quo over options for which they have little experience [40, 41].

He was pushed over the edge by their write - up of Jerome Corsi's latest paranoid fantasy (Obama - run concentration camps, no doubt intended for conservative «patriots»), but Jon's great sin was encouraging skeptical and critical thought about a series of beliefs that some have come to see as true despite all evidence to the contrary.

In pretrial skirmishes over evidence such as Taub's «Miles for Meso» email, however, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni, the no - nonsense ex-FBI counsel who will preside, acknowledged that prosecutors must prove Silver's intent, but noted that a witness's belief can be strong circumstantial proof.

Those 10 minutes, over the course of a year, helped me to see the wacky patterns that I would engage in again and again — the irrational fear of everything going wrong, the belief that I wasn't «good enough» despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Hattie forced me to reconsider previously strongly held convictions, but he requires that we elevate the preponderance of the evidence over personal belief.

Over the past 3 years, Timothy has lead the district in the adoption of a 5 - year technology plan that is grounded in the core belief that technology is a teaching and learning tool, when used effectively, will support and help transform how staff and students interact, research, collaborate, learn and produce evidence of learning.

Nor are we familiar with any evidence tracking changes in educator beliefs about learning styles over time.

In summary, while hedging has generally been advantageous for equity investing over the past 11 years, evidence from simple tests provides little support for a belief that John Hussman successfully times the stock market via hedging adjustments based on his assessments of market valuation and market action.

The course doesn't waste time wringing its hands over whether or not to call deniers «deniers» — a true skeptic, Cook explains in his welcome video, «doesn't come to a conclusion until they've considered the evidence,» while «someone who denies well - established science comes to a conclusion first, and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.»

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

If their view is that CO2 = CAGW is «dogmatic garbage», I'll listen to them over a True Believer who has no convincing scientific evidence supporting his belief system.

Actually, by the time you approach 200ppmv for CO2, you have already reached the break point in the curve, beyond which additional CO2 has much less impact on the RF — and this is close to the glacial value — suggesting that CO2 changes do not drive the glacial cycles (CO2 changes are supposed to amplify T rise during deglaciation, but there is scant evidence for this and the assumption that it did also underlay the IPCC belief — and a great many references in academic papers give a T degrees C per ppmv CO2 without stating over which range of concentrations this is meant to apply.

So what I'm going to do now is turn it over to Dr. Strain who's going to walk you through his briefing on what's the evidence, what stands in the way, what are some of those barriers and beliefs people have or don't have, and what do really stellar programs look like.