Sentences with phrase «people justify their belief»

I'm sick of the academic dishonesty of people justifying their beliefs with outright lies, zero proof, hearsay, and myth — be them religious people or otherwise.

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

Not exact matches

If you know anything about the history of the bible you know it was created by many writers, compiled and edited by Roman emperors, added to, translated, interpreted and actually pretty much ignored — except for a few sentences that sound old fashioned that people use to justify their beliefs and actions.

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.

I have explained my position on belief and you using it to justify your hate and lies is part of why people speak out against you.

Holy wars produce large numbers, but countless people have been killed throughout history by people who believe they were justified by their religious beliefs.

History is full of examples of people causing harm to other people justified by their religious beliefs and their «personal knowledge» of what God wanted them to do.

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.

It is a game that people use to derail the real meat of a conversation, in this case are her beliefs justified enough to force them onto other people or are they just mindless ramblings passed from one «zombie» to the next?

I think people who claim they know about god genuinely believe they have a justified true belief.

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.

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.

Considering the chaos, destruction, death wars, faster spread of disease, murders, slavery, attempted genocide... all justified by belief in the bible... 40,000 different versions of christianity, with each person interpretting it differently... clearly chaos (a tool of the devil) then you see all of the things that are flat out wrong... it becomes clear

Can89 and Mirsal — People have been justifying illegal, immoral, or intrusive practices under the disguise of a religious belief for centuries.

I wonder how people who believe in the Prosperity Gospel justify this belief.

People that come up with their own beliefs are people that can think for themselves and process new information better without declaring a war to justify their level of corruPeople that come up with their own beliefs are people that can think for themselves and process new information better without declaring a war to justify their level of corrupeople that can think for themselves and process new information better without declaring a war to justify their level of corruption.

Bullies, misogynists, racists, all cling to false narratives and lies that justify their beliefs and will often do this until they are the last person standing.

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.

«Conservatism» is term people use to justify whatever their own beliefs are by attributing them to the past and thus claiming this validates them.

Then, based on this distorted knowledge, we feel justified in condemning and criticizing these people and their beliefs.

One sees variations of it in many fields of study (for example, in trendy new movements like postmodernism) and everywhere it produces doubts among reflective people about the possibility of justifying belief in objective intellectual, cultural and moral standards.

Faith, thereby, allows people to justify ANY belief they choose to have.

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?

And Religious people have NEVER been condescending, they have NEVER persecuted others for their beliefs, They have NEVER killed in the name of their God or even worse used the name of their God to justify killings for political, territorial, and economic reasons or even just because they hate someone.

Camus suggested that capital punishment could be justified only where there was a socially shared religious belief that the final verdict on any person's life is given by God, not by us.

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.

They concluded that there is not satisfactory evidence that justifies the belief that emotionally disturbed persons of one type are more likely to become alcoholics than those of another type.

Belief in God may not be necessary in order for people to be highly moral beings, but the real question is: Can you rationally justify your unconditional adherence to timeless values without implicitly invoking the existence of God?

However, if one is delusional in the first place, it stands to reason that their religious beliefs may be skewed, misunderstood, and used by that person to try to justify their delusion.

People speaking out against bigotry and hate by people who use their religious beliefs to justify depriving others of the human rights the religious claim for themselves by virtue of their bePeople speaking out against bigotry and hate by people who use their religious beliefs to justify depriving others of the human rights the religious claim for themselves by virtue of their bepeople who use their religious beliefs to justify depriving others of the human rights the religious claim for themselves by virtue of their beliefs.

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.»

In the case of christians, it is them using their belief to justify hate against gays; oppression of women (ie; telling them what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies; basically anything that steps on a persons equal rights within a free country.

In the pre-modern ages human consciousness was dominated by a feeling of helplessness in the face of all natural and supernatural forces, causing people to acknowledge their absolute dependence on divine help, whereas the modem age has been marked by a high degree of human self - confidence and the belief that humans can at last master the forces of nature, justifying an optimistic hope for the human earthly future.

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!»

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».

Barefoot running is not for everyone, he says, but he justifies it in his book: «I have almost never seen a flat arch in any habitually barefoot person, reinforcing my belief that flat feet are an evolutionary mismatch.»

If you're raising an eyebrow at that, you're probably reasonable to do so; but my long - held belief is that indexes (the implicit comparison most people will have made to my target figure) are grounding and self - justifying benchmarks.

People are devaluing the console in attempts to justify their own decisions or beliefs.

I find the spin people use to justify their beliefs are classic.

People do nt need to live up to your ideals of proof to hold beliefs that are rational justified and warrented.

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.

He has shown that the extreme belief in impending climate catastrophe that justifies policy is held by very few people.

Therefore the prior charges failed to alert the person charged to the importance of a young person's age in relation to sexual behaviour, and so could not justify depriving that person, if later charged with a sexual offence against an older child of the reasonable belief defence.

ii) refusal to do the job: I think it is entirely justified to find that doing the job set out in one's job description is a BFOQ, and one should not be able to refuse to do it on the grounds that doing it with respect to people who have a right to have it done would offend one's religious beliefs.

I don't know if a relevant case has arisen in Sweden, but analogous reasoning would say that a person should not be prosecuted for giving a lecture that included reports of hate speech, again, because the lecturer would be reporting a fact about beliefs, and not encouraging or justifying hatred.

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.