Sentences with phrase «for rational people»

Divorce is not pleasant, but there are alternatives for rational people to go on to a better life.

Divorce mediation is the best alternative for rational people whose goal is to get out without hurting each other.

It is time for rational people to reject this authoritarian effort to take away the rights and liberties of people everywhere.

For off - road traveling Jeep Wrangler Unlimited will be a best and safest choice for rational people.

In a nutshell, the Ridgeline is a pickup truck for rational people.

For rational people, dismissing the silliness around the supposed end of the world on May 21 is all too easy.

All it takes for a Christian to ruin the life of another person is for rational people to do nothing.

The obvious contradictions and the lack of any verifiable evidence make that leap virtually impossible for any rational person.

The wilder the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be for a rational person to believe.

It is far easier for a rational person to pretend to be a believer than the other way around.

It's not possible for a rational person to imagine a way that it could be eliminated altogether.

Not exact matches

Lacking a leader, «it's hard for me to be optimistic or pessimistic because I don't know if they're going to open the floodgates and take a lot of risks to rush the technology out — or if they're going to take a reasonable, rational pathway to protecting people,» said David Friedman, director of cars and product policy and analysis at Consumers Union.

A wise person will never invest in a company the day it's founded, for the simple fact that there's no information available to make a rational decision.

Every major sell - off in history has been accompanied by a mix of economic concerns, monetary policy shifts, geopolitical tensions, or some other source of consternation that might make a rational person demand a higher premium for putting their capital at risk.

Behind Cadbury's simian success was an unlikely inspiration: Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won a Nobel Prize in 2002 for showing that people are not the rational agents that economists had thought they were.

Anyone like Kahneman who can provide some insight into why people are not rational and when that is most likely to happen, is a valuable resource for anyone in business.

He said, bluntly, what any rational person would have been thinking for years.

«Is it rational if you've had an increase in equities for a single year to think your retirement prospects have exponentially increased Obviously, I would say not, but people have a tendency to extrapolate.»

As for the current market, I like to think that people are still rational in playing the gravity game with interest rates, albeit the recent optimism is slightly far fetched, but I think it's fine.

The loudest factions of Christianity and atheism aren't the largest, which presents the occasion for mutual understanding: open, honest, introspective and rational discussion between groups of people who share more in common than not.

Pascal's wager suggests that a rational person can knowingly believe a proposition purely out of concern for his future gratification.

thank you for stating what any rational person would consider obvious (but these religious organizations do not)

Chris, do you realize now that your faith is irrational and that rational people have no need for faith?

Secondly, any rational, reasoning person should and would never vote for someone like this — someone who looks to the supernatural for answers and guidance.

are people so simple they crave the misguided beliefs of others to feel better about themselves or are we triing to understand the lunacy of our citizens to believe something as pathic as a 3000 year old IDEA in order to act properly when voting in those who will run this country for the next 4 years a.k.a. voting in one who using rational thinking and logic to make choices!

Consider the «rational atheists» Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and a dozen lesser known atheist tyrants who are responsible for the deaths of over 250 million people in the past 100 years.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

No rational person could for vote a 72 yo McCain with Palin a heartbeat away from the oval office.

The political theory assumed that people benefit so much from that order that it is rational for them to enter into contractual agreements that sacrifice considerable personal freedom.

«Evidence» that no rational person would accept for any other claim — even more modest ones.

In the first place, we must return to the peculiar situation in which Mascall finds himself in claiming rational necessity for a position that most rational people reject.

... but why would a rational person deliberately insult someone else's beliefs just for fun??!?

To the rational person it looks like you're not capable of thinking for yourself and that you're merely thinking on a 5 year old level.

He is thus against natural law theory but for a DCT in which God, by creating rational creatures, is bound to make their highest end a relationship with the divine persons, but free to pursue that end via any number of routes.

That book defends the first and obvious meaning of publicness (viz., as meaning and truth available to all intelligent, reasonable and rational persons through persuasive argument) for the logically ordered questions of religion, God and Christ.

Rational reflection on the world could lead intelligent people with no religious commitments to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or Unmoved Mover responsible for the existence of this world and its progress toward its own natural ends.

Thornton, for example, does not envisage change or development in God, whereas I postulate that the three divine persons undergo change in their relationships to one another as a result of their involvement with their (rational) creatures.

With that kind of benevolent rational control, people for the first time experience themselves as unalienated or happy.

The cold fact is there is a perfectly rational, and totally - non-theistic, basis for people not to prey on everyone around them: The Ethic of Reciprocity.

Before telling me, like most christians do, that I don't know what I speak of, do note that as a Recovering christian I have a very good idea as to what I speak of and any rational minded person see's the belief for the true horror it is.

so there is a logical rational reason for keeping two people who love each other dearly apart?

Modernity's emphasis on secularism involves three elements - a) the desacralisation of nature which produced a nature devoid of spirits preparing the way for its scientific analysis and technological control and use; b) desacralisation of society and state by liberating them from the control of established authority and laws of religion which often gave spiritual sanction to social inequality and stifled freedom of reason and conscience of persons; it was necessary to affirm freedom and equality as fundamental rights of all persons and to enable common action in politics and society by adherents of all religions and none in a religiously pluralistic society; and c) an abandonment of an eternally fixed sacred order of human society enabling ordering of secular social affairs on the basis of rational discussion.

A rational person will always bet on eternal life for himself, even if to him it appears that the chances of winning are astronomically slim!

In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God's irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport.

It is people like you that have held back rational belief and progress for thousands of years.

From a Christian point of view the author deserves praise for his repeated emphasis that economics is about living, breathing, people, not the disembodied rational ego of classical economics, and therefore that it must have a spiritual dimension.

We would not willingly choose such a person, no matter how rational, as a friend, companion, or guardian for them.

Nor would he allow persons in a coma, who are incapable of experiencing, or the feeble - minded elderly, who have an impaired ability for rational thought, to remain at the top of the continuum.

That such people have any rational basis for their skepticism is out of the question, of course, and Dawkins tells us exactly what to think of them: «It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).»

I'm not saying you or other deluded people can't be nice, but I need you to do it in a rational way using common sense, logic, and reason to the best of your abilities for the sake of everyone on this planet including yourselves.