Sentences with phrase «for justifying their belief»

What reasons might they give for justifying their belief?

Not exact matches

If you know anything about the history of the bible you know it was created by many writers, compiled and edited by Roman emperors, added to, translated, interpreted and actually pretty much ignored — except for a few sentences that sound old fashioned that people use to justify their beliefs and actions.

I can not determine anything that is first person, and you very well may have good justified reasons for your belief, and all I can say is that I don't have evidence to justify accepting the claim.

Thomas was not exactly praised for his «justified» belief.

Circular religious logic will still never fully justify the fact that religion asks for special rights and protections, which it gets, and then turns those rights and protections on other groups as a defense mechanism for when they are accused of discriminating... i.e. «We can choose who we accept and who we don't because of our beliefs... wait, what... how can you say you will not accept our religious organization, that's religious discrimination!»

Your need for «meaning» does not justify irrational «beliefs» in anything.

Spin it how you will, religion constantly gets a free pass in this country and when its ever called out for its discriminatory practices and beliefs it claims religion has the right to discriminate based on those beliefs... but everybody else doesn't have the right to even make the accusation that religion is getting all kinds of special rights allowing them to justify their own discrimination.

I have no respect for any human who would do that regardless of their belief, sadly he uses his in justifying what he did.

«We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations.

I've been mulling this over for a while, and while I may have missed something in my research, I can not find any reason to justify the Christian belief in heresy.

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.

This belief in that which there is no evidence for has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities ever commited.

Amazing how humans use religion to justify their own personal beliefs rather than providing a stage for examining whether your their thoughts are upheld by their religion on not.

My reason for holding that belief is not yet another belief but an experience — an experience which from one point of view produces and at the same time considered from another point of view validates and justifies that belief.

And for them experiences such as «cat - on - mat sighting» have a double aspect, able at once to engender and (in view of imprinted practical policies) to justify suitable beliefs.

Can89 and Mirsal — People have been justifying illegal, immoral, or intrusive practices under the disguise of a religious belief for centuries.

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.

People that come up with their own beliefs are people that can think for themselves and process new information better without declaring a war to justify their level of corruption.

One sees variations of it in many fields of study (for example, in trendy new movements like postmodernism) and everywhere it produces doubts among reflective people about the possibility of justifying belief in objective intellectual, cultural and moral standards.

And Religious people have NEVER been condescending, they have NEVER persecuted others for their beliefs, They have NEVER killed in the name of their God or even worse used the name of their God to justify killings for political, territorial, and economic reasons or even just because they hate someone.

Nothing is necessarily wrong with this except for the fact that you conservative Christians are trying to justify and spin her philosophy to fit your beliefs and it doesn't work that way.

Since everything is built on these unjustified beliefs, one could argue that for the foundationalist there is ultimately no justified belief.

But I can think of no context — and Griffin offers us no examples of contexts — in which FWTs don't apply exactly the same criteria for determining justified belief to the positions of their opponents as they apply to their own.

This brings us finally to the substantive point of disagreement between Plantinga and Griffin: a disagreement over what is necessary for justified theistic belief, given the evil we encounter.

Making that generalization can only be justified if you have read every single comment, and since you made it about the «belief blog», that would go for every article.

He is saying that for the believer to preserve justified theistic belief in the face of evil, he or she need not be able to produce a plausible explanation (PS 11: 27 - 28).

For if Bultmann's final defense of an existentialist theology is not that it is apologetically imperative, but that it is, with respect to belief, the contemporary expression of the Pauline doctrine that we are justified by faith alone without the works of the law, it seems to me that the final and comparably sufficient defense of a liberation theology is that it is, with respect to action, the contemporary expression of the equally Pauline doctrine that the only faith that justifies is the faith that works by love.

Because of this belief, he will vote for Romney: «If you claim Christ as your king, how on earth can you justify the murder of God given life through abortion or any other means?»

Belief in God may not be necessary in order for people to be highly moral beings, but the real question is: Can you rationally justify your unconditional adherence to timeless values without implicitly invoking the existence of God?

If you can justify murder or whatever simply because of what you claim is a religious belief, then we have anarchy and everyone for themselves.

Long ago the fanatic belief of economic liberalism (that if the individual strives for maximum economic prosperity the result will be maximum prosperity for all) has been shown to be wishful thinking, an ideology meant to somehow socially justify gross egotism.

People speaking out against bigotry and hate by people who use their religious beliefs to justify depriving others of the human rights the religious claim for themselves by virtue of their beliefs.

It might be good fun for some in order to justify their own beliefs, but it detracts from meaningful discussion at least and leads to genocide eventually at worst.

This is common for any judgmental society or person, as long as they use their religious background and beliefs to justify taking away rights, implementing rules to defame groups of other people they feel are not of their group's «norm.»

Shameful, for a great man to loose his beliefs and compromise his faith and justify a cult for gain... A man that lead so many to the cross to compromise in this way is a slap to all Christians... Rev. Billy Graham and his son Franklin Graham are leading his flack to Hell by condoning and justifying this Mormon cult... I will never listen or support them again...

In the pre-modern ages human consciousness was dominated by a feeling of helplessness in the face of all natural and supernatural forces, causing people to acknowledge their absolute dependence on divine help, whereas the modem age has been marked by a high degree of human self - confidence and the belief that humans can at last master the forces of nature, justifying an optimistic hope for the human earthly future.

like the saying goes, the end justifies the means, if we end up winning the title then Wenger will be hailed a genius for resolutely sticking to his belief and faith in his squad....

As a result, online shaming gives them an outlet for justifying their own beliefs.

European Council Directive 2000 / 78 / EC, which established «a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation», sets out in Article 4.2 that organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief, such as «faith» schools, can treat persons differently in recruitment and employment on the grounds of religion or belief where there is «a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement».

Barefoot running is not for everyone, he says, but he justifies it in his book: «I have almost never seen a flat arch in any habitually barefoot person, reinforcing my belief that flat feet are an evolutionary mismatch.»

When racist beliefs justify and beget pain and violence there is no room for laughter.

True, one of the flaws in the analogy might be that that wasn't about science, but it's also true that a junk - science tradition already existed for justifying odious racial beliefs.

Then you proceed to use the results of your experiment to justify changing policies for the entire world at a cost of many trillions of dollars, with the unerring belief that your experimental data is completely reliable.

Often justified largely on the basis of junk science they have come up with such wonderful policy prescriptions as using only unreliable sources of energy because they are «sustainable,» keeping natural resources in the ground rather than using them to meet human needs, having government tell manufacturers what requirements their products must meet to use less energy rather than encouraging manufacturers to meet the needs of their customers, all in the name of «energy efficiency,» substituting government dictates for market solutions on any issue related to energy use, and teaching school children junk science that happens to meet «environmentalists» ideological beliefs in hopes of perpetuating these beliefs to future generations even though they do not conform to the scientific method, the basis of science.

With no basis in fact, Mr Turnbull's claim that Australia is a world leader should be seen as an epic lie of the kind that becomes possible only for those who hold a fervent belief in a greater cause that justifies a falsehood of this magnitude.

If correlation is an indicator of potential causation, then one would need to look at an entirely different reason other than CO2 emissions for any attempt to justify a belief in the runaway global warming scenario.

Time for you to also put your money where your mouth is and answer elementary questions of science and justify your beliefs on a scientific matter in a public debate.

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.

I don't know if a relevant case has arisen in Sweden, but analogous reasoning would say that a person should not be prosecuted for giving a lecture that included reports of hate speech, again, because the lecturer would be reporting a fact about beliefs, and not encouraging or justifying hatred.

HHJ Marshall QC held that the threshold for making an interim declaration under s 49 is that there is «simply sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable belief that P may lack capacity in the relevant regard».