Sentences with phrase «justifying my beliefs when»

Not exact matches

When someone believes in us, we naturally want to justify that belief.

Unfortunately, this belief is hard to justify when looking at the fundamentals of the business, particularly, rising costs and lack of profitability when compared to competition.

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!»

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.

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

1) self serving and delusion when the belief its an omnipotent deity with no proof whatsover 2) mankind can justify any behavior 3) projecting and assuming

In short, a belief that we're better people because we're (Christian, American, Educated, Atheist,...) leads us to avoid preventative measures against abuse, and justify abusive behaviours when they do occur.

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

So, when you say it is just my personal belief and opinion, I would still ask you to «justify» your personal belief and opinion....

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).

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.

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

And when logical people demand proof in order to justify having those beliefs forced on them, theists throw up the irrational «prove god doesn't exist!»

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.

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

It's called «selective reading» when you claim to support the Constitution but then justify violating it based on YOUR religious / moral beliefs.

Human psychology is very adept at justifying beliefs that we already hold, especially when giving up those beliefs would require questioning our self worth and affect us adversely in material ways.

The relationship among rational belief, well justified partial positions, and robustness exists because believing a partial position with a higher degree of justification provides a thesis that can be extended flexibly in many different ways when constructing a complete position and is more immune to falsification.

When someone decides to lie, they are demonstrating their belief that the end they are seeking justifies the immoral means they are using.

You've once again displayed the tactics of an irrational person who forms a belief based on ideological dogma then, when you can not justify your baseless beliefs, you turn to abuse of the person pointing out your beliefs are irrational and baseless.

When asked to justify their belief the general public just points to the «scientists.»

These beliefs appear to be justified, when we have a case like Watterson v Canadian EMU 2016 ONSC 6744 (CanLII).

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.