Sentences with phrase «justify your beliefs as»

i dare you to justify your beliefs as well as this man did here b / c i bet you can't.

Not exact matches

It is my personal belief that we should invest more than we do in emerging markets as well — though that is harder to justify.

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!»

Do you truly believe that being as dishonest as possible to justify your immoral beliefs is a good thing?

Instead in order to get noticed we Americans as you call us who are fat and dumb only value what we believe as truth even if we contradict it and say someone's beliefs are justified as long as they practice toleration of others.

If you require evidence as strong as the extraordinary claims merit, then you will be in the best position to arrive at a justified belief about God.

Secondly, as a priest ordained in Rome where he knows that the Basilica would be totally against his assertion, he uses euphemisms to cloud the mind of a reader thinking quoting wrong scriptures with the intent to seduce would suffice — his own roots denounce his deeds and / or beliefs but he axiomatically wants to hold both the roots and wings to no avail, read the book and the truth shall set you free... This is exactly what happens when a gay priest turned professor what to justify his perverted lifestyle... I rest my case

Justified belief is based on reason, as is science.

On the traditional assumption that knowledge is justified true belief, we may interpret Whitehead as asserting that from the fact that we have a strongly held, possibly even unshakable, belief we may conclude — apparently only on that basis — that the belief is true and adequately justified.

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.

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.

As I've said before, believers love to twist accepted word definitions to justify their belief that mythology is reality.

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.

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.

The justifying ground of Christian belief is the trinitarian and incarnational logic of biblical narrative as expressed in Christian liturgical practices.

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.

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.

In such a situation one can not remain epistemically justified in having the beliefs one has without engaging the alien claims as potential defeators and seeing, to the best of one's ability, whether they do in fact defeat.

Christian Relig - ism — is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their religion, however defined, and that, as a consequence, relig - ism discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.

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?

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.

It is certainly true — as I will soon point out — that many FWTs do utilize a set of criteria different from Griffin's when determining justified theistic belief.

If you want to consider every time someone points out «your beliefs need to be justified before you go promoting them» as «hate», then yeah, you're really just pandering to a martyr complex.

To consider people of different beliefs as «evil» you dehumanize them and consequently justify all types of horrible retaliations.

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.

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?»

It is not true that as adults we try (very hard) to justify our beliefs?

It would be an interesting exercise to look through the position characters and see how many of them can be used to describe me, and then see if I have used the bible in the past to justify / buffer my beliefs as «correct».

And I'm certain every one of them felt just as justified in their beliefs as you do.

The mind will use whatever presents itself as a cloaking device to secure, validate and justify itself, its thoughts, its beliefs, and its actions.

The bible appears to promote violence in selected passages, but the very fact that Christians analyze scripture with the underlying belief that there is such a thing as an objective truth and morality we don't have the freedom in our doctrine to falsely interpret passages from Leviticus to justify killing while ignoring Christ and the ten commandments.

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.»

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.

Here friendship, or more accurately the hatred of bourgeois beliefs and attitudes which bound together these gifted Cambridge men, and which was as close as they could come to friendship («the enemy of my enemy is my friend»), serves to justify the profoundest evil.

Stop comparing us to other teams to try to justify Wenger as though it's not his fault.Of course it's down to him and what's more he KNOWS this yet continues to trust his archaic beliefs when all around the club it is known who is responsible.

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

I think my point is that people try to justify their beliefs and mix them with their religious background as a justification.

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».

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.»

As evidence to support their belief system continues to crumble in all directions, acolytes of the warming cult fall back ever more desperately on the summer melting of Arctic ice to justify their wishful thinking that the world is still warming, and to explain why we are enjoying such cold winters and wet summers.

It's quite common to hear people justify their belief in global warming as «Well, a whole bunch of people say it's true».

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.

Faced with this infinity of prior PDFs, a member of the «subjective Bayesian» school selects one of them and justifies this selection as being an expression of his / her subjective belief.

But their core beliefs are: 1) rule by a «meritocratic» elite (of which they themselves always seem to coincidentally be members); central planning of the economy (and society — though they try to hide this one as long as possible) by the state; and 3) the ends justify almost any means.

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.

In order to successfully claim indirect discrimination, the claimant must demonstrate that the respondent has applied a provision, criterion or practice («PCP»); that PCP puts or would put someone with the claimant's religion or belief at a particular disadvantage when compared to other persons; the PCP puts or would put the claimant at that disadvantage and the PCP can not be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

As far as the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations, they just make up whatever they want based on their own personal beliefs and inherent personal biases, they then apply some psychological constructs in entirely haphazard and idiosyncratic ways to justify whatever biased and idiosyncratic conclusion was reached, and they usually take a middle - of - the road risk - management response of recommending the status quo with the addition of «reunification therapy» and an admonishment to both parents that the degree of parental conflict is harming the child and that the parents need to co-parent betteAs far as the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations, they just make up whatever they want based on their own personal beliefs and inherent personal biases, they then apply some psychological constructs in entirely haphazard and idiosyncratic ways to justify whatever biased and idiosyncratic conclusion was reached, and they usually take a middle - of - the road risk - management response of recommending the status quo with the addition of «reunification therapy» and an admonishment to both parents that the degree of parental conflict is harming the child and that the parents need to co-parent betteas the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations, they just make up whatever they want based on their own personal beliefs and inherent personal biases, they then apply some psychological constructs in entirely haphazard and idiosyncratic ways to justify whatever biased and idiosyncratic conclusion was reached, and they usually take a middle - of - the road risk - management response of recommending the status quo with the addition of «reunification therapy» and an admonishment to both parents that the degree of parental conflict is harming the child and that the parents need to co-parent better.