Sentences with phrase «than rational people»

Doesn't matter... stock prices can remain pumped on pure emotion longer than rational people can comprehend.

Not exact matches

«In my experience people who assert statements like that are often immune to evidence or rational argument, and envision themselves as superior beings who are more enlightened than the rest of us.»

The loudest factions of Christianity and atheism aren't the largest, which presents the occasion for mutual understanding: open, honest, introspective and rational discussion between groups of people who share more in common than not.

The problem is that very few people what to have this rational discussion — they want to have an emotional arguement and play a game of «my god is better / kinder / bigger / badder than your god.

If you wish to convince any rational person of the validity of your bible, you'll have to come up with a little bit more than what you've got.

I'm not saying the unnecessary suffering of animals is good, or moral, but rather pointing out that your perspective on the subject is no more rational, no more based on fact, than that of the people you are arguing against.

It isn't true that scientists are trying to change the beliefs of others, but rather they are observing and testing natural phenomena with tomes of evidence telling the rational person that the notion of a deity as a NATURAL being rather than SUPERNATURAL one is absurd and silly.

Authority and power tends to prefer the people be spellbound than rational.

Despite this, I still believe in God because of some experiences I've had as a child... other than that, I think people should start considering things through a rational, scientific perspective.

Yet more evidence that religions (not faith mind you) is populated by ignorant people who would rather use their fears and insecurities to rule their decisions than rational thought.

But the fact that Santa is based on a real person makes belief in him more rational than a belief in gods.

Actually — if you take a rational look at the facts - Jack, Catholics have done more to spread peace and help people in need than any other group — that's why I'm proud to be Catholic.

Surely the person who is both rational and loving contributes more value to God than one who is rational and full of hate.

Some people have nothing better to do than get on the internet and argue for the sake of arguing, with no rational thought behind it.

More rational and peaceful people than extremists..

Not sure which is more terrifying — Pat sounding somewhat rational about science, or the fact that 46 % of people surveyed think the planet and everything on it is less than 10,000 years old.

rather than have a rational argument against the idea I expressed, some people can only correct spelling mistakes — thats because they have no rational argument.

You can expect rational people to respond to christians more than to others.

I guess we rational people just hold ourselves to a higher standard than the sky - fairy believers.

It is far easier for a rational person to pretend to be a believer than the other way around.

@Kyle, I never suggested that I said that if research had been done in the proper fields, most rational people would question their faith I guess archaeology is bit of a stretch as it is more of a human history based field but there were civilizations more than 6000 years ago

With all due respect, as an Atheist, I am far more level headed, rational and have more morals than many people who are believers.

If atheist were as rational as they propose, they would realize that calling religious people names isn't furthering the goal of converting anyone to their way of thinking any more than it is affecting pending legislation.

It's great for winning others to the side of reason, of course — but I assume you want to slow the flight of rational people from Christianity rather than making them flee so as not to be associated with the nutters.

Whenever I debate a believer, in a calm rational debate it usually devolves into the person defending religion getting angry because he or she can not simply answer any question other than by saying stuff along the lines of, «well our brains are too small to understand» or «god works in mysterious ways» or my personal favorite «God will judge you for you unbelieving ways».

Schemes like this always have some «deadweight» costs, but today far fewer people down - size their home or take out cash than might be considered economically rational (at the last count only 15,000 equity release products were sold in a year).

There is no need to accuse people of poor planning to realize that a rational citizen may well decide that money is better spent on near - term expenses (for example, their children's education) than on saving for an unlikely event.

Calling the GOP lawsuit «highly speculative,» and saying it failed to make a rational case against the law, a state judge ruled that for purposes of district lines and population counts, LATFOR must count incarcerated people as residing in the neighborhoods they call home rather than the prisons in which they are located.

Telling people to do the rational thing — stock up on some things you might need if you're stuck in for a few days but otherwise it's winter - as - usual around here — gets much less attention than «Oh my God snowpocalypse / snowmageddon / snorgy of doom will bury us alive!»

«They might even consider themselves more rational than other people.

«Outsiders may have a much more objective and rational perspective on the partnership than the two people involved do.»

I think most rational people can agree living in the wild on a diet of caribou, elk and salmon is different than eating Hormel bacon and mcdonalds cheeseburgers.

Unfortunately, people were not any more rational in the 1800s than they are now, so the performers constantly have to defend themselves against verbal and physical attacks.

I can't imagine that this is a rational idea for many drivers, save for more than a handful of people around the world, but the end result is perhaps the coolest winter - focused vehicle you can drive.

The businessmen are frequently more rational than the markets, and attentive to the underlying business processes producing products and services that people value.

They are more volatile than most theories would predict because people are not rational in the sense that economists posit — they do not think as much as imitate and extrapolate.

The problem is that many people make decisions that are more emotional than rational.

But if a rational person looks to a home as a necessary shelter (with perks) they're more likely to make a smarter decision, related to their personal finances, than others.

Improbable though it may seem, research by University of Chicago psychologists has shown that people are less prone to biases like excessive aversion to losses and more apt to make systematic and rational decisions when a choice is presented to them in a foreign language rather than their native tongue.

They say people make decisions on how they feel rather than rational thought.

You are also correct when you say obtaining a dog should be a rational decision, but I would say that many more people impulse buy a purebred dog in a pet store than those that go to a shelter or through a rescue to adopt a dog in need.

You're absolutely right about the outrage part, but the question becomes is it warranted or rational, or just people bitching because of something they don't like, and the implications of this outrage are a bit more noteworthy than you are letting on.

It's hard to perhaps make a rational argument about, but emotionally there seems to be a big gulf between mowing down countless innocent people who stand between you and a goal, and just breaking into someone's house, viewing a part of their lives, and murdering them for absolutely no reason other than shits and giggles.

He talked about how more than 85 percent of the world's people get their daily values and norms from the stories they hear through their religions, so why wouldn't you try to take advantage of that pathway of communication, even though it is by definition not very rational.

A value above 1.0 for risk Y means people are reacting more strongly to the risk Y relative to risk X than «rational» risk assessment would predict.

And as I see it, 99 people could believe something, but if one guy can make a factual and rational argument of why not to believe that, then the theory has much less than a 99 % chance of being right.

There can be disagreements about whether HadSST3 is an improvement on HadSST2, but attributing a dishonorable motive to them would I think discredit the person who suggests it, and would be more typical of fierce blogosphere partisanship than rational discourse..

In that sense, religious people can have a better chance at sniffing out bad science, than do supposedly rational scientism people, who have an unshakable faith in science saving the planet.

Often the two political agendas collide and there are those who believe that one is more important than the other, but most rational people would agree that improving the environment where it has been degraded would be a good thing.

See Matt Ridley's «The Rational Optimist» concernin'the mad, mad world of biofuels in a world where species are vanishing and more than a billion people do not have enough to eat.