Sentences with phrase «not justify their beliefs»

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

But they can't justify their beliefs so they are incapable of partaking in logical discussion.

«The AGW alarmists have lost because they can not justify their belief that GHG emissions will do more harm than good this century»

The AGW alarmists have lost because they can not justify their belief that GHG emissions will do more harm than good this century, let alone justify their belief that GHG emissions will damage the global economy or human well being.

We can not justify our belief in these laws in ways that don't beg further questions.

Not exact matches

I can not determine anything that is first person, and you very well may have good justified reasons for your belief, and all I can say is that I don't have evidence to justify accepting the claim.

Thomas was not exactly praised for his «justified» belief.

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!»

Your need for «meaning» does not justify irrational «beliefs» in anything.

And in the nicest possible way, this is what you are doing ALREADY... you are trying to «spin» this story and to «justify» it to fit with your current belief schema instead of just recognizing the overly obvious that it isn't real.

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.

Proselytizing of any form should be illegal, even of it is someones religious belief, it is an invasion of privacy, it is bigotry, and it is a way to justify someone feeling superior to someone else who they do not really know.

Sometimes the information may not be available to justify that belief but I have found that a mojority do support what I believe.

I don't know how a belief system that is founded on the principle of loving others — not just saying it, but actually doing that — can justify enslaving or supporting slavery.

and this doesn't preclude some religiously - inclined folks needing physical evidence to justify their belief.

It's ok to not buy into the Christian ideas of god and what not, but to spread lies in order to further justify your lack of belief / hatred is just wrong.

At least it's a belief that's consistent with the facts and doesn't require an elaborate web of unsupported theories and claims to justify it.

They can't prove or justify any of their beliefs and usually just start quoting scripture.

I've been mulling this over for a while, and while I may have missed something in my research, I can not find any reason to justify the Christian belief in heresy.

He points out that «we don't have faith in reason; we use reason... and if you're not using it, whether you're justifying religious or scientific beliefs, you deserve no one's attention» (p.210 - 11).

I don't care if someone believes in a deity, that in itself is not a moral or immoral act, but if someone uses their belief in a deity to justify actions that negatively impact someone else's life, then that is immoral.

I'll tell you if I agree, or if I don't then why I don't think such reasons justify belief.

Does not the constant effort to find an adequate argument indicate that those who seek it are attempting to rationalize and justify beliefs that have no rational justification?

Likewise, non-believers will twist the evidence to suit their purpose — justifying their belief that they don't need to change.

@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'm certain there are those who say I was just delusional and was somehow subconsciously deluding myself or was just trying to justify my beliefs even though at the time I had some very deep fears and concerns believing that it was likely I wouldn't get anything.

Nevertheless it is justified and contains the hope that the very danger inherent in this belief will not become overwhelming.

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

Being «safe rather than sorry» is a completely selfish motivation then, and I'd rather live my life unselfishly and risk the remote chance of hell than choose to accept beliefs that I can't justify in our modern society, some of which actually hurt others, just to save my butt.

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.

My reason for holding that belief is not yet another belief but an experience — an experience which from one point of view produces and at the same time considered from another point of view validates and justifies that belief.

Their religious beliefs wouldn't be justified... but they can still hold them.

And he argued that capital punishment could be justified only where there was a socially shared religious belief that the final verdict on any person's life was not given in this world.

Personally, I did not have a struggle to become an atheist, but rather a struggle with my religious beliefs, and the immense effort it took trying to justify them.

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 clearly don't have a rational mind and have to lie to justify your beliefs.

Here's your problem, you are tying all actions into your supernatural beliefs, and so of course you wouldn't think that people who reject your belief would be justified in feeling anything at all.

, or working hard to justify your continued belief in some imaginary but obviously impotent being, why not get to work trying to make the world a better place in some way?

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.

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.

I endure direct challenges to my belief system routinely and grow the wiser with each encounter; not hardening my position but encouraging me to think more deeply and walk the line of humanistic values all the further to justify myself to those who ask me to do so.

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.

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.

We do not yet know enough to justify the sacrifice of these beliefs.

But I think it will challenge both those who are pro-gay and not... to understand why the desire to be right, or to at least be justified in your beliefs is so damn strong.

One can fully grasp and understand that their belief or disbelief in God is not epistemically justified, and thus even if the belief is true it does not consti.tute knowledge.

Nothing is necessarily wrong with this except for the fact that you conservative Christians are trying to justify and spin her philosophy to fit your beliefs and it doesn't work that way.