Sentences with phrase «nothing about the claims»

can faith save someone who claims to have faith but does nothing about his claimed faith?

We expect the player will state he knows nothing about the claims being made but we won't believe him.

Saying something about this winter's likely rainfall in Kent says nothing about any claim to knowledge of rain - causing (I have none).

Peculiarly, the reference Mann gives says nothing about this claim.

Not exact matches

However, Variety «s report claims that «several women» said they previously complained to network executives about Lauer's behavior, but that nothing was done.

There's nothing special about NYU in this regard, though they claim more «greenness» than more purely commercial places I've worked.

There is nothing novel about certifying these claims; independent contractor misclassification cases are typically addressed on a classwide basis.»

His remark is drastically different than what he's said about Trump in the past: From calling him a «jagoff,» to saying he's unfit to be president, to claiming a Trump - presidency would crash the stock markets — Cuban, a Hillary Clinton supporter, has said next to nothing positive about the President - elect.

The company claims there's nothing to worry about.

Cohen had claimed that he paid the money out of his own pocket, and Trump had previously said he knew nothing about the payment.

Former CIA deputy and acting director Michael Morell told «CBS This Morning» that there's «nothing new» in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent claims that «Iran lied» about their nuclear program.

But as with past Supreme Court ATS decisions, the justices once again failed to shut the door entirely on human rights activists: the ruling said nothing about the many ATS claims pending against American corporations.

This is one of the reasons I am so concerned about the widespread focus on operating earnings, which often have nearly nothing to do with the actual stream of cash flows that is claimed by stockholders.

You can't have an agreement when one party claims to know nothing about it.»

The law requires all campaign expenditures be reported to election regulators — but, of course, this payment to Daniels wasn't — though Cohen claims Trump knew nothing about it.

An article wriiten by a claimed «Bible scholar» who apparently knows nothing about the Bible.

Hey Zeus (someone about whom schoolchildren today no nothing because, y» know dude, ancient Greeks were misogynists)... I don't claim Bush or the statist NCLB legislation which he passed to please Laura, or the Iraq war, which he caused to please Poppy, or his Prescription Drug Bennie which he passed to buy senior votes.

but don't believe NOTHING nobody else says about God because I know God and I know what he said in HIS book, but I have to tell you... 99.99 % of the stuff «religion» claims God said... Is not what he actually said... If you look at what he said.

Maybe you should just shut the fuck up about shit you know absolutely nothing about, like black holes, where you show your ignorance for all to see and claim certainty about things you know nothing about.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

In fact, there is nothing special about christianity — it is just one of many cults that claim to have all the answers, none of which provide any real evidence for any of their supernatural claims.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with his post about applying the same rigors of evidence that you would apply to a number of other claims.

How about you quit with the useless unfalsifiable claims that mean absolutely nothing to anyone except yourself.

There exists little to nothing about it to suggest it is a «Religion of Peace» as G.W. Bush has often claimed.

You attempted to claim that Humanists believe everyone is born good and yet that is not the case... your one quote proves nothing and certainly doesn't cover all humanists, that is painting with a broad brush - something Christians scream and whine about having done to them.

And although I believe it is a net bad, I would never claim that there is nothing good about it whatsoever.

Funny thing about your shallow American Christianity, whether here on this blog or out on the streets of the US... you look nothing like Jesus or the 1st C apostles (who all claimed that you should be like them and that you would do «greater things» than they did).

The claim, «You don't believe the Bible is true» is nothing more than a smokescreen put up by manipulative religion to discredit or ignore a challenging teaching or idea about the Bible which disagrees or contradicts what that religion teaches.

It is true that Jesus said little about «the world» except to warn against letting its claims usurp the place of first loyalty to God, and had almost nothing to say about particular features of contemporary Jewish or Roman culture.

We would be left claiming the existence of that about which nothing whatsoever could be said or thought.

He claimed that the judgements that were pronounced were unjust and that there was nothing godless about Christians, but everyone shouted him down and the governor did not allow the just claim he put forward.

To make your claim, that the recorded statements of Jesus say nothing about gay marriage, you're trusting the authority of the four gospels — but not the rest of the New Testament.

So far I answered all your questions so your claim that «there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis «is false.

Archaeology give undeniable evidence that the Bible is the most trustworthy document of antiquity and there is nothing even remotely close to it, and it gives great evidence to the existence of Jesus as well as some of the Bible's claims about Him.

Archeology has only been able to confirm historical events back to the phrase «The House of David» which means that there's nothing to back up claims about Adam, the Flood, Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, or the invasion of Canaan.

Some facts in Bible indeed can't be explained by the science as we know it but it doesn't change the fact that «there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis» is a false claim.

The article says nothing about the Truth of christian or objectivist claims.

A woman with no medical or biochemical education making dangerous claims about something she knows practically nothing about.

There's absolutely nothing remotely true about your claim.

Aquinas himself never claimed to understand them fully» and our volume was aimed not at experts but at «the curious reader,» intelligent but maybe knowing almost nothing about philosophy.

with all due respect, I am not convinced what you claim about me now is a reflection of truth and that you have nothing to consider.

If God truly is as infinite as we claim, then all the compiled knowledge and ideas about God are nothing more than a speck of insight compared to the infinity of God.

Some philosophers and scientists have claimed that empirical science could only develop where there was nothing sacred about the earth, leaving humans free to experiment with it.

I'd call «it» one's perceived «reality» though, there's nothing personal about what «others» claim to be real.

And please consider that making specious claims about the physics and metaphysics of the universe has nothing to do with this «Truth» you (and I) value so greatly.

Scholars who know more about the language than I claim that Luther's abbreviation «in el» more likely refers to nothing more than the cloister.

As for the claim that Italy's state archives implicate Palatucci, Balugani writes, «I have thoroughly studied the 14 folders on the activity of Palatucci made available by the Ministry of the Interior and there is nothing about his collaboration with the Nazis.

Yet this claim likewise makes no sense — for the simple reason that scientific method by definition has nothing to say about God, meaning, values or purpose.

you claim to know nothing about politics then in the very next comments begin stating someone did something for political motives, how do you jump from ignorance to judging political motives?

I agree somewhat... mere claims to posess an «authoritive written record» prove nothing about the documents either way, for or against.But that's not really the itch I was trying to get at.Let me try to be more direct... With respect to the original post, I've been wrestling with how believers / disciples / adherents use «their books» to undergird and support their particular faith