Sentences with phrase «personal human opinion»

It often seems that whenever I do, I get a comment on the blog or over on Facebook that I am wrong because I have chosen to reject what the Bible clearly teaches in favor of my own personal human opinion.

Not exact matches

In my opinion, God wants to have a personal relationship with every human being who has ever existed, exists now, or will exist.

Evidence that probably shows you more than what a human being backed with a theory about the scientific method, possible misunderstandings and personal opinions can offer you.

How many outside a rather limited cult do not see the bible as personal opinion, beliefs and prejudices of the human authors.

The final human opinion may, in short, in some manner now impossible to foresee, revert to the more personal style, just as any path of progress may follow a spiral rather than a straight line.

If you can't conduct friendly team rivalry without bitter personal hatred and spite - when TRUE hatred should be reserved only for terrorists, racists, bigots and low life oiks (from wherever they come and who ever they support, even if it is Arsenal,) then you are not a fully civilised human being, in my opinion.

Research has always been a kind of fantasy job for people and it is perceived as «we love so much what we do we don't need to earn money to do it» (maybe this is my personal opinion only), but we are human beings, we need more than love and water!

Reviews are written by humans, and humans base anything they rate or score off of some amount of personal thought or opinion.

From the methodology, the instructions to the authors for self - ratings: «Note: we are not asking about your personal opinion but whether each specific paper endorses or rejects (whether explicitly or implicitly) that humans cause global warming»:

The lower court said no, finding that «every human being has personal experience and observations of fecal material and I think that, as a result, every human being who is of competent mind can offer a lay opinion as to whether a substance is feces or not.

Moreover, this could also be an appropriate test case for the Supreme Court to clarify that the principles set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessible.»

If you combine a journalist's fear of offering a personal opinion with her even greater fear of boring the reader, the result can be legal writing that is too constrained, while at the same time fixates on the details of the human drama at the expense of explaining the legal dispute.

Second, unlike us humans, computers are not bigoted by emotions or personal opinions; hence their decisions are bound to be much more rational than ours.