Sentences with phrase «evidence against their beliefs»

It's true that, in my experience, holocaust deniers occupy a similar mental space to some climate «sceptics», in which anything that might be taken as evidence against their beliefs is seen as part of a grand and far - reaching conspiracy to suppress the «truth».

Not exact matches

In fact, these flaws are sufficient to not only invalidate the most compelling evidence against the hot hand, but even to vindicate the belief in streakiness.

So, if you are against birth control because of your belief in your god, please provide verifiable evidence that your god exists.

I don't have a belief on the situation one way or the other, my grounding in the question of any God or gods comes from the lack of evidence for or against.

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.

But any classical theists who admit that their belief is only the most plausible conclusion based on the evidence available must regard this difficulty as another bit of evidence against their idea.

One can lay out all the evidence and build (and have built) an airtight case against every single religion on Earth past and present, but still believers will not budge from their point of view, even when presented with the lies and contradictions in the very scriptures they they base their beliefs on.

The «liberal» is more often impelled to employ appeals to our common human experience as evidence for or against particular beliefs.

There is just as much and as little evidence for and against religious beliefs as there is for, for example, the big bang, or evolution.

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.

One can lay out all the evidence and build (and have built) an airtight case against every single religion on Earth past and present, but still believers will not budge from their point of view, even when presented with the lies and contradictions in the very scriptures they base their beliefs on.

Trusting people or websites that are deliberately against a church to justify your beliefs is like using Hezbollah propoganda as evidence that Israel is evil.

«But technical expertise,» they go on to note, «is no proof against bizarre beliefs,» and they cite as evidence people who have a view of creation that differs from evolutionary dogma despite their «backgrounds in engineering or other technical subjects.»

The level of hatred against those of religious belief, evidenced on this forum, is ugly, sad and frightening.

Though no decisive falsification is possible in religion, I have argued that the cumulative weight of evidence does count for or against religious beliefs.

I will submit that though no decisive falsification is possible, the cumulative weight of evidence does count for or against religious beliefs, but with greater ambiguity than in science.

I applaud Atheists for their challenging Christians for their beliefs, but there is a completely untapped source of evidence against the existence of their God... the daily life of the Christian (as can be seen to a small extent in a blog like this.

Only if, against the evidence, the student persists in his belief, would we ascribe Hare's phrase «insane blik» to him.

He said, «In view of our belief in the judiciary and avalanche of evidence against the declaration of Senator Abiola Ajimobi as the duly elected governor in the April 11, 2015 governorship election in the state, Senator Rasheed Ladoja, the gubernatorial candidate of Accord after wide consultations, has resolved to appeal the judgment of Justice Muhammed Mayaki - led tribunal at the Court of Appeal.

In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them.

Several presenters also warned strongly against attacking the beliefs and values that might contradict scientific evidence.

[8, 9] In many post-atrocity nations, as Rosenblatt states, religious leaders citing various beliefs have objected «to exhumation, autopsy, and other forensic practices, even when the mass graves in question contained crucial evidence of atrocities committed against their own members.»

Nonethless, it appears Mr. Bennett is intent on continuing his one man jihad against passive investment strategies all the while ignoring any evidence which contradict his beliefs.

Taking «backfire effect» as a starting point — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans has interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand the political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

Taking as a starting point the «backfire effect» — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand changes in the international political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

Denying climate change isn't scepticism — it's «motivated reasoning» True sceptics test a hypothesis against the evidence, but climate sceptics refuse to accept anything that contradicts their beliefs

Notwithstanding the scientific evidence, this one will be a bitter pill to swallow by the naive environmentalists and watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) of this world: the notion that the biosphere is blooming goes against their emotional deep beliefs, risk shattering their whole raison d'être.

The only line on the page relating to Brulle's Conspiracy is the claim that «Most people rely on secondary sources for information, especially the mass media; and some of these sources are affected by concerted campaigns against policies to limit CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions, which promote beliefs about climate change that are not well - supported by scientific evidence.»

in which evidence for a hypothesis is represented as green, evidence against is represented as red, and the white area reflecting uncommitted belief that can be associated with uncertainty in evidence or unknowns.

Lets frame belief, disbelief, and doubt in the context of the Italian flag, that was introduced previously on the hurricane thread in which evidence for a hypothesis is represented as green, evidence against is represented as red, and the white area reflecting uncommitted belief that can be associated with uncertainty in evidence or unknowns.

Having a willingness to challenge existing beliefs and consider all the available evidence are cornerstones of scientific discovery, but, sadly, these are precisely the concepts NCSE and their fellow alarmists are fighting against.

Joe, you mention that «Lewandowsky falsely linked climate skeptics to moon landing hoaxism, and free marketeers to rejection of beliefs they overwhelmingly endorsed» Far worse, his compatriot Prof David Karoly falsely linked skeptics to an (imaginary) «relentless campaign» of electronic death threats against Australian climate scientists, none of which Karoly deigned or was asked to produce as evidence despite the fact that he was alleging the existence of a serious (and despicable) criminal conspiracy.

But as Descartes pointed out, this is not evidence against any particular belief, hence not a reason to doubt any.

There are many potential contributions to residual uncertainty in the treatment of evidence; in essence, the assignment of a level of belief to an uncommitted state (i.e. neither for nor against) ought to reflect «anything we are not sure of.»

This suggests to me that the core Team had internalized belief, that the world was warming unusually in recent years, and that they were on the case, to such an extent that any evidence against this had to be hidden from the unwashed, their colleagues, and even from their own perception and memory.

Such beliefs are utterly negated by the sheer wealth of evidence against such a proposition, but remain popular due to an often - skewed false balance present in partisan media [20, 21], resulting in public confusion and inertia.

«The Sceptical Scientific Mind - Set in the Spectrum of Belief: It's about models of «reality» — and the unavoidable incompleteness of evidence, for — or against — any model», for THE -LRB-?)

How much pushback have you demonstrated against the CAGW belief when confronted by facts that do not support your views: e.g. the fact there is a lack of evidence demonstrating that GHG emissions will do more harm than good.

Keywords: Publication Ban, Criminal Law, Summary Conviction, Evidence, Credibility, Manner of Dress and Religious Beliefs, Rule Against Oath - Helping

Character Strengths and Virtues defines the character strength, Judgment, Critical thinking, and Open - Mindedness as «the willingness to search actively for evidence against one's favored beliefs, plans, or goals, and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available.»