Sentences with phrase «justify belief by»

So sad when believers try to justify belief by using false science.

Believe what you want, but you justify your beliefs by turning to the bible.

Not exact matches

Tech companies with no profits (or even much of a business plan) soared to extreme valuations that were justified, in part, by the belief that future profits would be made faster and that equities were less risky than in the past.

What they are threatened by are the actions and atatudes [deliberate typo due to ridiculous moderation AI] of those who do profess belief in those deities, and feel justified by their beliefs and holy books to discriminate against those of differing beliefs.

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.

Knowledge is belief that is justified by evidence.

Holy wars produce large numbers, but countless people have been killed throughout history by people who believe they were justified by their religious beliefs.

«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.

What you said earlier suggests that your belief is justified by something that is accessible only to the believer, only once the believer does believe.

It's silly) And since the belief and the book can be used to justify evil actions, then it's really about how YOU interpret the belief, because others can interpret it in a completely different way and act «immoral» by their exegesis.

History is full of examples of people causing harm to other people justified by their religious beliefs and their «personal knowledge» of what God wanted them to do.

You simply can not justify belief in god by trying to define the name of those that don't believe.

@Mark To be clear, I would see granting exemptions if the organization was expressly religious, like an actual church, but merely being guided by the religious principles of the founder simply doesn't justify preventing coverage to those within the organization with different beliefs, atti.tudes, and morals.

Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence... Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument.

I find that Whitehead's exposition is question - begging and seriously misleading.4 The exposition is misleading insofar as it suggests that belief in either a specific or generic causal nexus is adequately justified by a subject's experience of CE alone and not ultimately by systematic considerations, particularly those related to prehension.5 If Whitehead's theory of perception was intended to stand alone without support from the rest of his system, as Ford suggests (EWM 181 - 182), then I claim that it is insufficiently justified insofar as a part of it, the theory of CE, is inadequately justified.

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.

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

The fact is that beliefs are concurrently produced and justified by experiences.

Instead they justified that belief by taking action on it so making the belief stronger and the injustice of those acts greater.

Hence he thinks Whitehead could only justify his belief that there are hybrid feelings of noncontiguous entities by showing some very fundamental difference between hybrid and physical feelings.

This is not to say, however, that a vision of reality is like a «basic belief» as defined by Alvin Plantinga and others, meaning that it need not be justified.

By the way, asking you to justify your beliefs is not an attack; rather, it is a discussion in which you should be able to logically partake.

You can play with semantics to justify your position as much as you want, but the truth is that any belief can be tarnished by fanaticism.

Considering the chaos, destruction, death wars, faster spread of disease, murders, slavery, attempted genocide... all justified by belief in the bible... 40,000 different versions of christianity, with each person interpretting it differently... clearly chaos (a tool of the devil) then you see all of the things that are flat out wrong... it becomes clear

With Davidson he affirms a strong version of philosophical antifoundationalism, claiming that beliefs can be justified only by other beliefs.

That would entail a genuine effort to find the mind of Christ rather than to justify deeply held beliefs by appealing to Christ.

I think that public policy in a pluralistic system (which can not be based on the mere belief of a citizen, since by definition it can not give precedence to any belief) must be justified only on utilitarian grounds.

If a religionist had to stand on their own with only their own mind to justify what they have been accepting as common belief they would be terrified if they thought all around them rejected what they thought was believed by all.

Or to justify decisions and policy they make by giving it a rationalization based on «common beliefs» or supposed «common beliefs» that tie to religion.

«Conservatism» is term people use to justify whatever their own beliefs are by attributing them to the past and thus claiming this validates them.

Romans 9 - 11 has been used to justify anti-Semitic belief and behavior and has led to all manner of speculation about election and predestination and faith versus works and true religion and who is chosen by God and who is not.

The general Christian belief is that God snuffed out most people in the so - called Great Flood and any pregnant women's unborn children would have already been determined as sinners by God and therefore justified in His eyes, right?

I believe that a sober and instructed criticism of the Gospels justifies the belief that in their central and dominant tradition they represent the testimony of those who stood nearest to the facts, and whose life and outlook had been moulded by them.

If that opportunity never presents itself (and I hope it doesn't) you could always go visit some female burn victims in the Middle East and talk about the violence suffered at the hands of their husbands, all justified by their religious beliefs.

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.

Camus suggested that capital punishment could be justified only where there was a socially shared religious belief that the final verdict on any person's life is given by God, not by us.

However, if one is delusional in the first place, it stands to reason that their religious beliefs may be skewed, misunderstood, and used by that person to try to justify their delusion.

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.

What lengths can we go to justify our actions when they're informed by our beliefs?

We need to know that our beliefs are true, that our actions can be justified by an appeal to the Bible or church tradition or to inspiration or to the proper, theological authority.

You are one who has attempted to justify your empty beliefs by supporting them with your version of mans story of creation.

Furthermore, the chief justice believes that the court, in imposing paternalistic limitations upon the process of full American political discussion, is justified by the evidence to be found in the experiences of other nations: «The history of many countries attests to the hazards of religion intruding into the political arena or of political power intruding into the legitimate and free exercise of religious belief.»

The interpretation given of Jesus as the Logos in the Prologue is confessedly interpretation, and interpretation influenced by the intellectual thought of Hellenistic Judaism, but at the same time one justified by the belief of the Church in Jesus» Sonship.

Trying to justify or rationalize your own thoughts or beliefs by manipulating scripture and twisting interpretations is pretty sad.

@eferg: I will agree on bigotry justified by religious belief.

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.

But, judging by the recent spending sprees from Paris Saint - Germain, FC Barcelona and even rivals AC Milan, Inter management may be justified in their belief that the release clause is too low.

Bearing this in mind, section 60 (5)(a) could and would, if necessary, be construed and applied by a court or tribunal as permitting preferential decisions on grounds of religious belief, only to the extent that such decisions were consistent with genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements.»

The onus should be on the EU to justify their intended policy of taking over control of national budgets, not on the Conservatives to defend their belief - a belief shared by a majority in the UK - in national economic control, rather than control by an outside agency.