Sentences with phrase «human ideas about»

Not exact matches

The idea of a paperless office seemed like a joke, and there was even a book written about it, «The Myth of the Paperless Office,» which theorized that certain human characteristics made going paperless an impossible feat.

The idea, which was primarily based on the research of psychologists John Mayer and Peter Salovey, quickly took off — and went on to greatly influence the way we think about emotions and human behavior.

The idea — that an ability to understand and manage emotions greatly increases our chances of success — quickly took off, and it went on to greatly influence the way people think about emotions and human behavior.

David Gould, creative services director at online marketing firm Vertical Measures, puts it well: «For users, this reinforces the idea that the result is reputable: this link isn't just the result of robotic SEO manipulation, but rather it's from a human being who we can learn more about.»

«The harmful misconception about entrepreneurship in our region is that an entrepreneur is some sort of young genius who has an idea impossible to understand for the normal human being,» Fadel says.

«The human uses his or her intuition and ideas about what to do and ideas about long - term strategies and uses the computer to verify the various things and to do simulations,» Togelius says.

To understand why he doesn't listen to them, it's helpful to know something else about Thiel: He is deeply invested, philosophically and financially, in the idea of extreme human life extension.

They have no idea what they are talking about, no idea how the universe came into being, how universal laws came into being or how self searching organisms like Humans came into being, but know pretty well that Christianity is just plain bad.

The concept of God did not spring out of thin air - intelligent humans created him and then thousands of years later used the idea to explain what they did not understand and / or like about evolution.

I don't accept anybody else's subjective experiences because I have some idea about how easily the human brain can fool itself into experiencing things that aren't real.

The idea that a being would create the entire thing — with 400,000,000,000 galaxies, EACH with 100, 000,000,000 starts and even more planets, then sit back and wait 13,720,000,000 years for human beings to evolve on one planet so he could «love them» and send his son to Earth to talk to a nomadic group of Jews about sheep and goats in Iron Age Palestine (while ignoring the rest of the 200 million people then alive) makes no sense to us.

The concept of international human rights from which no country is exempt is consonant with the idea that Shari'a, the large body of legal tradition that informs the Muslim community about how God requires it to live, is in some sense the rule of God.

Instead, every human philosophy and religious system is filled with ideas about working our way back into the good graces of whatever deity is being worshipped, and about pleasing and appeasing the gods who are angry with us.

It's interesting that all humans from all cultures pretty much share the same ideas about what is right and wrong, good and evil.

But sometimes we earthlings can not get much further in our thinking about such things as love, fidelity, commitment and caring than to summon forth the image of some mama somewhere who will always be for us the concrete human experience of such divine ideas.

Complaints about the cultural «imposition» of ideas about universal human rights are, more often than not, in the service of nationalism, racism, ideology, or power politics - or all of these in combination.

Anytime I questioned the idea of God damning the majority of the human population to hell, I was told that this subject was not negotiable, that God picks and chooses who He wants to save and we can't do anything about it.

The idea that we are not human beings on a spiritual journey, but instead spiritual beings on a human journey, and we can sense and know all kinds of things about God through Jesus.

Oh, the Calvinists could make perfect sense of it all with a wave of a hand and a swift, confident explanation about how Zarmina had been born in sin and likely predestined to spend eternity in hell to the glory of an angry God (they called her a «vessel of destruction»); about how I should just be thankful to be spared the same fate since it's what I deserve anyway; about how the Asian tsunami was just another one of God's temper tantrums sent to remind us all of His rage at our sin; about how I need not worry because «there is not one maverick molecule in the universe» so every hurricane, every earthquake, every war, every execution, every transaction in the slave trade, every rape of a child is part of God's sovereign plan, even God's idea; about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I can not trust it.

, but they have only very hazy ideas about what the Church really says on human dignity, the value of each one of us, the beauty of human love, the value of authentic family life, the mutual companionship of men and women.

Stephen Fry speaking about atheists: «The glory — anything — we take credit for what is great about man and we take blame for what is dreadful about man, we neither grovel or apologise at the feet of a god, or are so infantile as to project the idea that we once had a father as human beings and we therefore should have a divine one too.

Humans is not been without their countless ideas about how to get to heaven, but when it comes to our word verses God's word, I always bet on God's Word.

Finally, the fact that religion - at least in the West - learned something about human rights from democratic experience does not mean that «human rights is not a religious idea,» as Schlesinger dogmatically asserts.

While there are serious reasons to have reservations about research into human cloning, the idea that it would undermine the relationship between men and women or the basic family unit is not morally or theologically convincing.

Just imagine — If the human race is still around in a thousand years and we were somehow able to listen in on a discussion regarding what we now think is true in all of these areas, I'm guessing there would be lots of chuckling about our «primitive» ideas.

I'll even offer observations - humans have manipulated existing organisms dna, created new virus and bacteria, clone animals, and attempt to create new animals - yet simple minded folks still reject the idea that another more intelligent creature might have done the same thing and created life on earth in the same fashion while at the same time acknowledging that there is a strong likelihood of other life existing in this universe - talk about being dumbed down and arrogant.

The Holocaust was, in largest part, the consequence of ideas about human nature, human rights, the imperatives of history and scientific progress, the character of law, the bonds and obligations of political community.

If the Bible is nothing more than a true and accurate record of human ideas, then it doesn't help us much at all in knowing anything for sure about God, ourselves, our condition, or anything of eternal significance.

Once one has given up as incredible and impossible (save for mythological purposes) the Greek idea of a god who comes down to earth and walks about as a human being, there are two possibilities open for the interpretation of Jesus Christ.

This raised questions about the Enlightenment idea that the sort of reason embodied in academic disciplines could liberate human beings from error and provide the basis of social life.

Of course, many individual economists do care about how income is distributed on the basis of ideas about human beings derived from sources other than their discipline.

I think the most disappointing thing about religion (and I don't mean to offend here) is that it diminishes the idea of human potential.

The idea that non believers have nothing to care about, nothing to live for and no reason to treat their fellow humans decently is a lie perpetrated by those who wish to keep people in bondage to the myth of a loving, yet just deity.

I have no idea whether it has any effect on our lives or even cares about humans.

This optimistic approach to man's virtue and the problem of evil expresses itself philosophically as the idea of progress in history.17 The empirical method of modern culture has been successful in understanding nature; but, when applied to an understanding of human nature, it was blind to some obvious facts about human nature that simpler cultures apprehended by the wisdom of common sense.

The idea that a being would create the entire thing — with 400,000,000,000 galaxies, EACH with 100, 000,000,000 starts and even more planets, then sit back and wait 13,720,000,000 years for human beings to evolve on one planet so he could «love them» and send his son to Earth to talk to a nomadic group of Jews about sheep and goats in Greco - Roman Palestine (while ignoring the rest of the 200 million people then alive) makes no sense to us.

What would happen if... the idea of developing human beings was considered so important and vital that each neighborhood had within walking distance a Family Growth Center which was a center for learning about being human, from birth to death?

It is knowledge of God, not the ideas of humans about God.

I have wondered about all the blood and gore in the O.T. I even get the idea that we humans do scapegoat God.

He holds simultaneously that existing democratic ideas, traditions, and institutions were often championed in actual history by those who were non-Christians or even anti-Christian; and yet that, in building better than they knew, such persons were often generating in human temporal life constructs whose foundations were not only consistent with Jewish and Christian convictions about the realities of ethical and political life, but in a sense dependent on them.

The idea that a being would create the entire thing — with 400,000,000,000 galaxies, EACH with 100, 000,000,000 stars and even more planets, then sit back and wait 13,720,000,000 years for human beings to evolve on one planet so he could «love them» and send his son to Earth to talk to a nomadic group of Jews about sheep and goats in Iron Age Palestine (while ignoring the rest of the 200 million people then alive) makes no sense to us.»

We are so used to thinking about the human quest for God that we can not easily grasp the idea of God's taking the initiative in making himself known, especially when it is affirmed that he has done so in specific historical events and developments.

Religion certainly is an invention of the human mind, meant to organize and express ideas we have about spirituality.

So in case what has been expounded here is correct, in case there is no incommensurability in a human life, and what there is of the incommensurable is only such by an accident from which no consequences can be drawn, in so far as existence is regarded in terms of the idea, Hegel is right; but he is not right in talking about faith or in allowing Abraham to be regarded as the father of it; for by the latter he has pronounced judgment both upon Abraham and upon faith.

And spectacles like last night's three - hour test of human willpower only underscore a big problem: Traditional news outlets have made presidential debates — arguably our country's most important televised forum and exchange of ideas — into mind - numbingly boring talk - a-thons, where a bunch of rich, powerful people needle each other for hours about past career decisions while dodging any question of substance.

Calvin understood that doubt was a part of the faith experience, because human nature itself finds ideas about God and His goodness so outside of what we can understand: «For unbelief is so deeply rooted in our hearts, and we are so inclined to it, that not without hard struggle is each one able to persuade himself of what all confess with the mouth: namely, that God is faithful.»

Thus she tackles things like sexual morality, how we dress, our attitude to human beauty, and our ideas about food and hospitality.

One can tease out of the way the story is told some ideas about the structure of human beings: body, emotions, will, soul, spirit, and so forth.

It lay in her ideas about the stages of human existence spelled out in her very first letter.

The idea that you can not bring any objective ideas about metaphysics or the good of the human being to public debate is sometimes called «procedural liberalism», or in the words of the late, great R.J. Neuhaus, the «naked public square».