Sentences with phrase «much less any religion»

Not exact matches

I am not sure that a practicing believer of any faith, taking a break from verbosity about their religion, will be any less religious... or gain much insight into the commonality of humanity and human experience.

(A similar set of questions could be asked, mutatis mutandis, about Jewish involvement with Islam, a religion that also claims, although to a much lesser extent than Christianity, descent from Judaism.)

When all is said and done, Shakespeare (or Goethe or Henry James or Proust — name your master) doesn't offer a religion — much less a «universal and unifying culture» — of which most people would care to be members, even if it would have them.

If my mission were to disprove religion, would I really trust a religious person, even a janitor, to work for me, much less enter my building?

But I will never believe in the religion, nor its hypocrisies, outdated dietary rules, misogynistic origins, brutal treatment of baby boys, nor the silly practices + clothing favored by the orthodox, much less the Hasidim.

A world without religion would be one with much less care shown for fellow human beings.

Only religion presumes to label human characteristics as «sinful», making it impossible for a bible botherer to ever feel «good enough», much less worthy of love and respect.

Anyway, if we didn't have to put up with religion, it would undoubtedly be much nicer because it would be one less difference that humans would have to focus on and get all uppity about.

Religions have had millennia, yet there is still no consensus on even basic ideas like the number of gods that exist, much less any attributes they might have.

If the religions allowed adaption to new learning, there would be much less tension between believers of the various religions and with atheists.

The potential readership for a serious and sustained discussion of religion is no doubt much less.

According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers — still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion — but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles.

Science makes absolutely no attempts to undermine, discredit, or prove false, much less attack any of the thousands of religions and Gods man has created.

In the face of his predecessor Sydney Ahlstrom, who made much of the Puritan thread in American religion, Butler announces a program that attaches less importance to Puritanism and more to what he calls throughout the book «religious eclecticism.»

So no, people with religion are much less adept than nonbelievers at coming up with creative solutions to problems.

Of course, one of the reasons religion disappears as we approach the present is that contemporary societies are much less religious than previous civilizations.

I cant speak much for the other Religions, but one can say the same about them as well... Buddhism for example... while their temples can be seen as less grandiose in the native locations, in the West they become Statements of what MAN can do to show - off, and not what man can do to seek the Divine.

American Christians by and large don't study their OWN religion much, let alone the religions of others... and bizarrely many of them seem all the more fervent in their certainty, the less they actually KNOW...

If you are devout in a particular religion, it makes you much less likely to want to learn about other religions.

This is why religion serves the less - intelligent people so much more.

There has been much discussion whether the sociologist of religion is right in viewing his material from a special point of view and handling it according to a special method, or whether he has a more or less well - circumscribed field which he can call his own.

one must be struck at the constant union of religious ideas with patriotic sentiments, which so strongly characterize the [American] citizens... but what is no less worthy of remark is that their religion, freed from minute ceremonies, resembles a sentiment, as much as their love of liberty resembles a creed.

As a culture we have accepted this (more or less) and therefore it would not make sense to now add a holiday for another religion when these people have spent so much time and effort to remove all religion from school.

By what authority does CNN have to write anything on the topic of religion, much less Christianity?

To treat them as though they were less serious and less interesting than this is to misunderstand and mistreat them, as interreligious dialogue and much of the academic study of religion typically do.

It is nothing less than a matter of national security (can't get much more patriotic than that) to lift the burden of supersti - tion from the masses and free them from the vice of religion.

Now, wouldn't it be much more efficient and less divisive, if we all divorced ourselves from all religion and marched forward together as just as humans?

To suggest, then, that religious believers (much less majorities who, qua majorities, also have a second claim on shaping public policy) are «wards» depending on the Constitution for their religious freedom and its scope is, to use Posner and Segall's words against them, «to turn the Constitution upside down when it comes to government and religion.»

Now that so much data is available to make the unexplained less frightening... and that the historical record has shown that most church doctrine was made up and that even the Jesus birth story / son of god born of a woman etc etc has been recycled in numerous different religions for over 4000 years... preaching Faith in a fairy tale is a losing proposition.

One of the strangest claims often made by purveyors and consumers of today's popular atheism is that disbelief in God involves no particular positive philosophy of reality, much less any kind of religion or creed, but consists merely in neutral incredulity toward a certain kind of factual asseveration.

Ok now I know most atheists are live and let live and couldn't care less about what other people believe, but whenever you get defensive and wonder why «theists» often call atheism just as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc look at things like this.

Atheists are like this because they are analytical thinkers and not so much intuitive where as we Christians and people of other religions are more intuitive but less analytical in our thinking.

The religion and philosophy departments had been combined, and no course in Bible or religion, much less chapel attendance, was required.

The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world... but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those with less knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions... The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual beliefs from a scientific perspective... without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other.

«During all this time I was never joined in profession of religion with any, but gave up myself to the Lord, having forsaken all evil company, taking leave of father and mother, and all other relations, and traveled up and down as a stranger on the earth, which way the Lord inclined my heart; taking a chamber to myself in the town where I came, and tarrying sometimes more, sometimes less in a place: for I durst not stay long in a place, being afraid both of professor and profane, lest, being a tender young man, I should be hurt by conversing much with either.

Jus tthink how much LESS hate and murder and misery there would be in this world if people would just not worry about everyone else's religion.

True Friend, I as an atheist and human being like you, would not want (and do not want to see) a system of government, culture, society, religion, or authority where if I were to wave a careless hand with unthinking anger, the deaths of anyone would be encompassed, much less the deaths of billions of human beings of any belief?

Put differently: The modern situation would present a formidable challenge to religion even if it were, or would come to be, much less secularized than it now is.

Jody already remarked on the new Pew survey showing that while Americans are less inclined to call the GOP «friendly» to religion than they were two years ago (down from 55 to 47 percent), they're much less likely to call the Democrats religion - friendly, with just 26 percent....

If people are wondering why religion is much less popular with young adults today than a before, they only need to see people who promote religion today.

It may be true that our religious traditions are part of the problem, but the problem may lie less in an overweening zeal for transcendence than in the localistic immanentalism of American religion, the fissiparous sectarian impulses in much of Protestantism, and the anti-institutional instincts of today's residual romanticism.

From the Romans, probably much less, for much of their later religion was borrowed largely from the Greeks, but certainly selections from some of the great Roman Stoics; Seneca and Marcus Aurelius would have been included.

By what right does any religion have the authority to try, much less imprison, a human being?

With religion being a lot less prominent in the Nordic countries there is so much less of it in politics and much less chance of religiously biased legislation being enacted.

This is far from the case today, but should we move in that direction it would be bad news for those of «no religion» as much as for believers, creating a less unified and welcoming society to live in

In 1958, Michael Argyle wrote: «Although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes.»

In years from 2007 to 2011, Christians were much less likely than any other religion or belief group to mix with people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds.

I have only been in Fl for a brief time and I don't meet a lot of new people, much less people who share my views on religion.

Furthermore, issues such as religion, previous marriages, and smoking habits were found to play much less of a role than expected.

The parents look on helplessly as the children succumb to the fears and neither science nor religion can offer solace, much less a cure.