Sentences with phrase «conclusions than faith»

Both of these are way better methods of arriving at conclusions than faith.

Not exact matches

There is no basis for your conclusion in this regard thus you have faith that Atheism will produce a better and more peaceful world than any god based ism.

I spent two years looking at the evidence, and in light of what I consider to be an avalanche of evidence that points so powerfully toward the truth of Christianity, I came to the conclusion that it would take more faith to maintain my atheism than to become a Christian.

But it then proceeds to equate these presuppositions with «faith» so that it can move to the conclusion that even secular historians who reject appeals to supernatural intervention in history are no less acting «in faith» than are those believing historians who accept them.

I have come to the conclusion that it's okay for me to have different convictions or beliefs than other people in my faith community.

why can't evolutionists feel the same passion based on their faith in science and technology to form the logical conclusion that evolution is a far greater possibility than a deity that has never been seen or spoken to having created everybody and everything??

Faith is the world's worst method of arriving at conclusions — far worse than evidence and rationality.

On this last question, missiologist C. Gordon Olson writes that if the Calvinists are right about faith being a gift of God, then «one if forced to the conclusion that God is partial and loves Americans more than others» (cf. Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, 227).

2) You can maintain your position from a faith perspective, and say this, but then I'd have to seriously question [a] your historical integrity (for example, the historical position of Revelations as canon, although more of a debate than the other texts, was still NOWHERE NEAR contestable enough for you to draw this sort of conclusion) and [b] your philosophical integrity (for example, if you dismiss Revelations because it doesn't support your position, i'm going to ask: by what authority do you think you have the right to discern this?

Our society hardly knows any clearer contradiction of good sense than that of a speaker, assuming a conclusion that is his by hard work or inheritance but nonetheless his alone, and on the basis of that conclusion, filling the air with «must», «ought», and «should», thinking thereby to produce sincerity, kindness, love, repentance, faith, and finally enthusiasm for the next gathering for more of the same.

While I do not fault you for your conclusion, nor do I celebrate my faith in God as some greatness within myself or a «smarter» conclusion than yours, I am saying that appealing to God (as I do) or appealing to a standard of proof (as you do) still requires faith.

And lastly, if you're honestly trying to tell me that you have more faith in Lynch than Pace when it comes to drafting then I have no idea where you're drawing that conclusion from.

In Anidaan's interpretation, «Not everything is true, anything is possible» — a motto that speaks to examining the facts and reaching your own conclusions, rather than relying on blind faith.

These were no more than pleadings that the government had engaged in political activities that benefited the Ontario Liberal Party, which could not possibly support the conclusion or inference that they had acted in bad faith.