Sentences with phrase «belief system which»

I have family who are fanatically religious so I have nothing against people with a belief system which helps them cope with problems and fears.

It is reinforcing my own belief system which helps and strengthens my trading.

The latter, particularly, points to a religious or ritual function to these carvings, and indeed to the practice of a form of «shamanism» — that is, an archaic magical or religious belief system which sought connections between the visible and spirit worlds, and which ascribes spiritual properties to animals and natural forces.

Calvinism is a nihilistic belief system which turns reality into the farce of a cruel Puppet Master.

A belief system which blames all of the human sins on your kind... it labels women as property... tells women they should be silent and tells men that do what they wish to you including killing you.

What does it take to adhere to a belief system which places no value on your gender?

Another belief system which more people are holding to is «All paths lead to the same place».

This, he said, is in fact a quasi-religious belief system which comes from Judaeo - Christianity.

Firstly, the two - tier structure of African cosmology does not fit the Pulayas» pre-existing belief system which was multi-tiered, incorporating an hierarchy of gods.

Thirdly, the two - tier structure of African cosmology does not fit the Malayarayan's pre-existing belief system which was an integrated whole.

You and your ancient belief system which is just a mix of other mid eastern beliefs and myths, specifically those in the Mediterranean region.

It would seem that the only belief system immune to the abuse of power is the belief system which has never been politically implemented.

2) Everyone who observes Calvinists, will eventually comment on the irony, of a belief system which deploys benevolent advertising language, e.g., doctrines of «grace».

We can see how young children are being indoctrinated into belief systems which promote guilt and shame for acts which are perfectly natural.

Let me close by saying that «cult» does NOT equal «bad people», or in any other way imply disqualification from political office, it is simply a way to distinguish those belief systems which are heretical from the perspective of orthodox Christianity.

The only pertinent issue is how and why people have belief systems which are exhibited as religions.

Not exact matches

«Islamic State will survive «Jihadi John»,» said Jonathan Russell, political liaison officer at the Quilliam Foundation, which aims to debunk the belief systems of Islamic extremism.

Many saw it as an aggressive Western attack on femininity and a Russian belief system in which women are encouraged, and expected, to see motherhood as their first priority.

Another famous advocate of this belief system, which has the so - called «Law of Attraction» at its center, was Norman Vincent Peale.

This mistaken belief that American savings are wholly a function of American household preferences arises because most economists — and, it seems, policymakers — can only imagine American households as autonomous economic units, and are seemingly incapable of imaging them as units within a system in which there are certain inflexible constraints.

His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos»

Regardless if it is because of an intelligent being or not... it still happens which means whatever way you put it, both belief systems have the same result.

Of the ones for which I have primary information about a belief system, the range includes athiest, agnostic, mormon, hindi, evangelical fundamentalist, alternate Protestant, mainline Protestant, Russian Orthodox, Jewish and Roman Catholic.

My key point is this... religion should be a private affair for the adherent, regardless of which belief system it is.

In regards to your comment to OneTrueKinsman, «You believe that «religion should be a private affair for the adherent, regardless of which belief system it is», right?

Eliot commented that he was «a Catholic cast of mind, a Calvinist heritage, and a Puritanical temperament», which sounds much more like a mental illness than a belief system.

Losing your career regardless of the belief system to which you adhere is unfortunate.

And how exactly is any atheist on this blog forcing their belief system on you, which was the original point.

I think we each have a responsibility to think through and identify our own beliefs (which includes reading and learning about other belief systems / religions).

Troof; This blog is called Belief; The topics are about various belief systems, which includes no belief in a god or being agnBelief; The topics are about various belief systems, which includes no belief in a god or being agnbelief systems, which includes no belief in a god or being agnbelief in a god or being agnostic.

You sound bitter towards people who are fortunate to have faith, belief is some system which gives them hope.

Atheists have enough PR issues without being linked to some «Church of Satan,» which anyone with a clue could see is contrary to their belief system.

I'd like to see a reality show in which a Christian bigot, a Jewish bigot, a Hindu bigot and a Muslim bigot were put in the same cage to settle the question of whose belief system was the correct one.

Then how do you explain the inarguable undeniable fact that the easiest way to determine which belief system you adhere to is to see which is the most common belief system around you?

These countries have both a strong religious belief, mainly catholic, from the conquering Spaniards and Portugese, and weaker legal systems, which is ideal for the perpetrators.

As such, it is just another belief system — none of which can be proven or disproven with current science, but all of which are spiritually significant and valid to the individuals who follow them.

I don't think that we can realize that potential apart from Grace / faith, but I also believe that everyone has been given Grace which can be intutively apprehended without having a formal theological belief system.

They exist to teach a certain set of doctrines / beliefs to people who want to be indoctrinated in that system, which will convince certain types of churches that they are «experts» in doctrine and perhaps Bible and therefore should make a valued employee who will perpetuate the beliefs of the group.

Gary: I had thought that you were making a statement about your own belief system, which I find interesting.

Look, I am not responsible for your determination to embrace a belief system for which there is no evidence.

The flaw in your thinking is that your argument is only valid when both people share the same belief system, which is not the case here.

a: allegiance to duty or a person: loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs

Metaphysical realism, understood in a processive way, requires this triple sense of objectivity: novel human doings in need of guidance, long - enduring systems of belief that provide the schemata of interpretation by which that guiding can be done, and opportunistic skill in sculpting act and theory, fact and canon, into a coherent, fruitful basis for intelligent action.

That is where you have beliefs — you can have beliefs that have atheism as their base, just like you «can» have theists without any «flavor» Generally to have something (vs the absence of something) you have to have some context which is why you have to have a belief system / religion attached to a God.

In all fairness believers do have an agenda, which is to justify their devotion to a belief system that has no basis in anything that is objectively verifiable.

Their belief in God and Bible is cradled in their system of absolute certainty that allows no deviation from an absolute standard of doctrine which is presumably based on a singular understanding of the Bible.

In addition to the basic assumption that the god or gods on which a religion is based exist, every system of religious beliefs raises a number of questions.

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.

The fanatical belief systems of these fundamentalists is characterised as «medieval» (e.g. in https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/), used here in the sense of being centuries out of date and repressive, contrasted with the «liberated» society in which we live in the West.

Actually Saraswati, you abandoned your original position that America is a «two party system which only legislation is likely to change» and supported everything I said, which is that legislation is not required, and the number of parties is not designed into the system, and it's not likely to happen because people here prefer to abandon their true beliefs in favor of a lesser evil that might win.