Sentences with phrase «simply claim they do»

Although coding standards have improved in recent years, most places give lip service to them, or simply claim they do nt have time.

Not exact matches

Many startups claim to be «cool,» but simply saying so doesn't make it true, nor does that reputation make an appropriate fit all young companies.

Whether the employee simply has a knack for always saying the worst possible thing or the behavior puts your business at risk for a sexual harassment claim, it's important to do something about the employee as soon as possible.

Now, I don't claim that startup studios are better than accelerators; I simply think accelerators leave a lot of opportunities on the table.

Modern developed economies simply do not grow at 9 % per year for three consecutive years, but if we take Zycher's claims literally, that is the result we are left with.

«Many of these types of claims are designed to simply get a payout from an employer who did not want to get bound up in the expense of a court case».

In short, the recent claims by Assange, who is in exile to avoid an arrest warrant for rape in Sweden, simply do not add up.

When it comes to terrestrial radio, Ingram didn't even bother trying to defend the fact that AM / FM radio doesn't pay artists and labels when their songs are played — truly an indefensible notion — he simply claimed that it's been that way for decades.

In my first IBTimes UK article about Act One of the Ashley Madison Affair, I alleged that the group of hackers claiming responsibility for the «hack» simply did not exist.

The whole thing can be a huge pain in the ass, and for multinationals who do not keep very good records of their China operations, they might simply be unable to support their claim.

Underneath the claim was a genuine problem with the message, that people truly wishing to assist the protesters could do so simply by checking in rather than sending funds or supplies to support their efforts.

In other words, plan fiduciaries now will have greater freedom to expend portfolio resources to effect liberal social goals simply by claiming that they think doing so will have long - term benefits without having to quantify those benefits.

Now, as for Maurice Raymond Greenberg's claim that he had nothing to do with the wreck of AIG, let me simply say that he should shoulder a lot of the blame.

Our concern comes in the verification of the claims being made — it is simply impossible to do.

Bobinator, if you think it's «silly» to be rational about true historic risk assessment and okay to escalate hatreds over some claimed «siege» that simply doesn't exist, you are considerably worse than just silly.

BUT... if the Church is going to claim and treat sexual deviance (if in fact that is what they believe it is) with such force over and against all other indiscretions, how do they justify that... and how isn't it hypocritical of them when they simply wink at other things that are clearly outlined by Jesus» own words as grievous.

Yes, depending on your religious beliefs, you may or may not believe the events and accomplishments of that are ascribed to each and that is fine, but no rational historian claims neither simply did not exist.

The reason I say so is because theists for the most part do not claim to be able to prove that there is a god — they simply assert their belief to that end.

Much of what has been posted are inconvenient truths about the Mormon religion that you all simply choose to ignore, overlook or claim we «don't understand.»

As for the insults, you might wish to skip the hypocrisy when it is you who claimed that without religion there can be no morals, simply power - you insult many by making such a ludicrous claim and you fail to comprehend that there are only 2 billion Christians in this world... does that make the remaining 5 billion immoral?

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present - day organism.

I find the unremitting hostility and animus of atheists like «Derp» baffling; for all the seemingly wonderful life he is enjoying, he seems compelled to get on this site and spew derision, mockery, and hatred against others.I simply do not, can not grasp that mindset; to claim to actually derive pleasure from in effect being a bully - again, that say a whole lot about his true character.So... Peace & Love to all!!

Yes, I truly don't understand why men who claim to be born - again Christians spend YEARS studying the volumes of Calvin (which is simply what a very evil man thought of the Bible), when Jesus Himself said that the Holy Spirit would teach us all things.

What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don't like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold?

Just because the claims of xians that god does exists is dogmatic, doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't follow that superstition can be said to be dogmatic, simply because of that lack of belief.

Each one of us must eventually face the real issue, which is quite simply: do I believe after adult examination of the evidence that Jesus Christ was what he claimed to be, or am I prepared to assert quite definitely that he was wrong in his major claims and that, though much of his teaching is beautiful, he himself was a self - deceived fanatic?

He is simply doing what ALL christians are doing, trying to claim that christianity is not a religion.

Atheists don't claim anything, they simply don't believe the religious claims.

I simply think it's dishonest of Christians to claim they «know» a god exists when they don't.

In effect, claims Boulton, he did not do away with the monastic lifestyle; he simply democratized the monastery to include «the whole city... [and] each disciple's whole life.»

Atheists do not claim to know everything, they simply are not convinced by the things that have convinced you.

Firstly, you did not even respond to my objections to the «God hypothesis», secondly, I made no specific claim as to which multiverse theory I was appealing to (there isn't only one), and you simply assumed I was talking about a specific one, one that I do not care to defend.

It is simply foolish to claim that the ready availability of deadly weapons doesn't have something to do with this, even if it's a human pulling the trigger.

But to simply claim God did it is, I think, a bit lazy on our part.

Simply because someone refutes Obama's claim to faith in Christ does NOT mean that they simultaneously say that Romney does have a legitimate claim to faith in Christ (which he does not).

He's simply pointing out inconsistencies among those who claim to follow Jesus yet don't follow all his teachings.

It is simply counterintuitive to claim, as many do, that there is no connection between dissent from the Church's teaching on doctrine and dissent from teaching on morality.

Here is a concrete example of what economists mean by «efficiency» and what I am calling prudence: enriching the rich in Tanzania simply does not accomplish what its label claims; it is inefficient, inefficacious, imprudent.

To those of you who ask why atheists and believers continue in this debate (despite the innocuous claim that neither can be known for certain) is that those who do NOT believe simply want to live in peace.

but on the third day using his Power of Resurrection rose from the dead to claim his seat next to God in heaven, I mean next to himself since he was also God and then told the masses that he died for their sins, though oddly enough being God he could have simply absolved them of their sins and he really didn't die because he lives and is coming back to judge man based upon the original sins... but not sure if that would work since man can clearly kill a God with wood and nails... I know, I know confusing and likely to be labeled heresy... but debates about nomenclature and religion... i mean story telling... just don't mix.

@ME II: My point is simply that you fail to abide by that which you wish others to do when making claims about the Bible.

Some do (inappropriately IMHO) affirmatively claim «gods do not exist» but many others simply conclude that in the absence of evidence for gods, they likely do not exist.

Instead they (atheists) simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).»

Instead they simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).

Evolution does not predict what you claim and betrays you simply don't understand what you are arguing against.

My point is simply that you fail to abide by that which you wish others to do when making claims about the Bible.

In that lecture on «the necessity of witness» Hauerwas gives brief attention to three of his heroes — Yoder, Pope John Paul II and Dorothy Day — while reiterating his central claim that «witness is not simply something Christians «do» but is at the heart of understanding how that to which Christians witness is true.

However, unless it is asserted simply to be theology for the oppressed classes of Latin America, it must claim broader relevance, and in fact it does so.

No matter what you think, agree or disagree, Joseph Smith at least claimed to build God's church according God's direction as opposed to others who simply disagreed with their religion and started something according to how they think it should be done.

Atheists don't actually claim that the world would be better with or without religion, we simply don't believe in what YOU believe in.