Not exact matches
When someone
believes in us, we naturally want to
justify that
belief.
Even the atheist has to «
believe» that there is no god, so at the core, they're just another weird religion trying to prove that their
beliefs are more
justified and plausible than someone else's.
If you wish to
believe regardless of if you can
justify your
belief in terms of what is real, just what you wish to
believe, then I of course can offer nothing.
Do you truly
believe that being as dishonest as possible to
justify your immoral
beliefs is a good thing?
Instead in order to get noticed we Americans as you call us who are fat and dumb only value what we
believe as truth even if we contradict it and say someone's
beliefs are
justified as long as they practice toleration of others.
Sometimes the information may not be available to
justify that
belief but I have found that a mojority do support what I
believe.
Holy wars produce large numbers, but countless people have been killed throughout history by people who
believe they were
justified by their religious
beliefs.
What you said earlier suggests that your
belief is
justified by something that is accessible only to the believer, only once the believer does
believe.
You see what you want to see, and you have an agenda, which is to confirm what you want to
believe and
justify years of commitment to those
beliefs.
I would say that one is
justified in
believing the veriticality of one's personal experience, unless he is given some defeater for the truth of that
belief.
I don't care if someone
believes in a deity, that in itself is not a moral or immoral act, but if someone uses their
belief in a deity to
justify actions that negatively impact someone else's life, then that is immoral.
He
believed that the Jews had corrupted christianity, so distanced himself from the overall religion, while all the while claiming
belief in the Christian god, the god of abraham, his «god Almighty», and
justified his actions through
belief in YOUR god.
You simply can not
justify belief in god by trying to define the name of those that don't
believe.
Believe what you want, but you
justify your
beliefs by turning to the bible.
I'm certain there are those who say I was just delusional and was somehow subconsciously deluding myself or was just trying to
justify my
beliefs even though at the time I had some very deep fears and concerns
believing that it was likely I wouldn't get anything.
I think people who claim they know about god genuinely
believe they have a
justified true
belief.
Doctrine and Covenants 134:7 7 We
believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious
belief; but we do not
believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not
justify sedition nor conspiracy.
If a religionist had to stand on their own with only their own mind to
justify what they have been accepting as common
belief they would be terrified if they thought all around them rejected what they thought was
believed by all.
I wonder how people who
believe in the Prosperity Gospel
justify this
belief.
I
believe that a sober and instructed criticism of the Gospels
justifies the
belief that in their central and dominant tradition they represent the testimony of those who stood nearest to the facts, and whose life and outlook had been moulded by them.
Justified belief — like Thomas or John you saw and touched the resurrected Christ, or you
believe on the basis of some evidence that to you seems incontrovertible?
Realizing how malleable the bible is and how it can be manipulated to
justify any
belief system, I no longer
believe any of it.
He
believed that William James's «momentous error» had been to
justify the exercise of religious
belief on the basis of a few extraordinary individuals (who in any case were merely
justifying religious
believing, not the
beliefs themselves), and he understood clearly that those who followed in James's track were (like Dewey) eventually going to lose any grip on religion at all.
The government is not
justified in coercing or penalizing anyone or any institution that
believes and acts on the
belief that marriage is a union of husband and wife.
Furthermore, the chief justice
believes that the court, in imposing paternalistic limitations upon the process of full American political discussion, is
justified by the evidence to be found in the experiences of other nations: «The history of many countries attests to the hazards of religion intruding into the political arena or of political power intruding into the legitimate and free exercise of religious
belief.»
Can you really
believe that he didn't «change» things to
justify some of his own
beliefs?
The red pill
believed the roman's
belief system to be accurate — and use this to
justify misogny towards women.
The relationship among rational
belief, well
justified partial positions, and robustness exists because
believing a partial position with a higher degree of justification provides a thesis that can be extended flexibly in many different ways when constructing a complete position and is more immune to falsification.
If entities
believe that they are already below their fair share of safe global emissions, they have a duty to articulate the theories of distributive justice they are relying on to
justify that
belief.
It would be quite another to say that A's unreasonably held mistaken
belief would be sufficient to
justify the law in setting aside B's right not to be subjected to physical violence by A. For civil law purposes an excuse of self - defence based on non existent facts that were honestly but unreasonably
believed to exist had to fail.
Like John B. Watson, he
believed that thoughts, emotions, desires, and
beliefs could not be used to explain or
justify behavior.