Sentences with phrase «beliefs out of your argument»

«If you leave your wild beliefs out of your argument, you'll have a much better chance of making a point that is logical to anyone other than you» -------- So why didn't you give that advice to Doc when he insinuated that God is anthropocentric?

Not exact matches

I would like to point out that those from both sides of the argument on belief have one similarity... the lack of tolerance.

People get sucked up in the belief so intently that no logical argument can bring them out of it.

And if the argument is that businesses can have personal beliefs, then you have just argued for getting businesses out of healthcare altogether and moving to universal healthcare.

I agree that arguments based solely on religious beliefs are not useful or persuasive to those with different beliefs and should be kept out of the debate.

@NAH, can rebut each of Colin's points in a reasonable manner, specifically let me call out two (both sort of related)-- the Christianity refers to only 600 years of history, and only refers to a small geography (not even the entire earth)-- why «leap of faith» argument is valid for Christianity and not for other independent faiths, which have many contradictory beliefs compared to Christianity, and if they are equally valid, how can they all be equally valid

Hence some aethiest stop sounding logical once you point out any flaws in their arguments because at this point their merely defending their beliefs and not really trying to have some sort of logical discussion.

Hence some believers stop sounding logical once you point out any flaws in their arguments because at this point their merely defending their beliefs and not really trying to have some sort of logical discussion.

I will here only state my belief that it will be found that the primitive kerygma arises directly out of the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God and all that hangs upon it; but that it does only partial justice to the range and depth of His teaching, and needs the Pauline and Johannine interpretations before it fully rises to the height of the great argument.

The secular left is deeply committed to their idea that public arguments must be limited to secular reason, with religious beliefs and arguments ruled out of bounds.

Here is the curious thing: As I interact with people of other religions, and through the course of conversation find out why they hold their beliefs, I find that nearly all people of all religions have these same four basic arguments for why their beliefs are true.

There are reasoned arguments for belief in a higher power, but you might have to read a book to find them, because you might not find them hanging out with a bunch of atheists.

Honestly, when one of the debates in the film turns into an all - out brawl because one candidate brings up a story the other wrote when the opponent was 8 years old and calls it his «Communist manifesto» (See, one character in the story gives a pot of gold to a leprechaun, and that, according to the first candidate, is an example of his foe's innate belief in the redistribution of wealth), we're laughing in part because we've heard arguments of this variety before and with seemingly more frequency in the past few years.

Any unreasoning extremist on either side will be able to take issue with the above and following statements, flinging copiously truthy WUWTisms or IPCCness, and try to jump in and take control of the agenda with their strategic arguments to drown out a balanced stepwise approach capable of producing some alleviation for victims out of no more than fervent belief in their own side, but to them I say a plague on both your houses.

One would think that on a science news website, a denier of a popular belief in a field of science would be able to point out WHY the popular belief is incorrect rather than be dependent on the always flimsy argument of a conspiracy.