Sentences with phrase «then justify your beliefs»

What it makes clear is how you form and then justify your beliefs.

Not exact matches

Circular religious logic will still never fully justify the fact that religion asks for special rights and protections, which it gets, and then turns those rights and protections on other groups as a defense mechanism for when they are accused of discriminating... i.e. «We can choose who we accept and who we don't because of our beliefs... wait, what... how can you say you will not accept our religious organization, that's religious discrimination!»

If you wish to believe regardless of if you can justify your belief in terms of what is real, just what you wish to believe, then I of course can offer nothing.

If you require evidence as strong as the extraordinary claims merit, then you will be in the best position to arrive at a justified belief about God.

«We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations.

It's silly) And since the belief and the book can be used to justify evil actions, then it's really about how YOU interpret the belief, because others can interpret it in a completely different way and act «immoral» by their exegesis.

I don't care if someone believes in a deity, that in itself is not a moral or immoral act, but if someone uses their belief in a deity to justify actions that negatively impact someone else's life, then that is immoral.

I'll tell you if I agree, or if I don't then why I don't think such reasons justify belief.

Being «safe rather than sorry» is a completely selfish motivation then, and I'd rather live my life unselfishly and risk the remote chance of hell than choose to accept beliefs that I can't justify in our modern society, some of which actually hurt others, just to save my butt.

I find that Whitehead's exposition is question - begging and seriously misleading.4 The exposition is misleading insofar as it suggests that belief in either a specific or generic causal nexus is adequately justified by a subject's experience of CE alone and not ultimately by systematic considerations, particularly those related to prehension.5 If Whitehead's theory of perception was intended to stand alone without support from the rest of his system, as Ford suggests (EWM 181 - 182), then I claim that it is insufficiently justified insofar as a part of it, the theory of CE, is inadequately justified.

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

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

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

If you want to consider every time someone points out «your beliefs need to be justified before you go promoting them» as «hate», then yeah, you're really just pandering to a martyr complex.

If you can justify murder or whatever simply because of what you claim is a religious belief, then we have anarchy and everyone for themselves.

It would be an interesting exercise to look through the position characters and see how many of them can be used to describe me, and then see if I have used the bible in the past to justify / buffer my beliefs as «correct».

Merrick then begins «chipping away at the edges» of Treves's indecently confident morality which can invoke no religious belief to justify the parting of these two souls.

Then give reasons to justify continuing to hold this belief.

Considering that since the bible came out, it has been the cause or the belief in it has been used to justify murder, wars, the faster spread of disease, attempted genocide, then add in the fact that there are 40,000 vrsions of belief in the «word» (definitely a symptom of chaos), and considering how many things in the bible are just flat out wrong, it is far more likely that it is the tool of satan... just look at the body count.

like the saying goes, the end justifies the means, if we end up winning the title then Wenger will be hailed a genius for resolutely sticking to his belief and faith in his squad....

After forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments and rational explanations.

It's called «selective reading» when you claim to support the Constitution but then justify violating it based on YOUR religious / moral beliefs.

Then you proceed to use the results of your experiment to justify changing policies for the entire world at a cost of many trillions of dollars, with the unerring belief that your experimental data is completely reliable.

Then stop doing that... don't justify your nonsense with calling science a belief system.

I suggest you look at the comments about the asumption that the MWP is cooler than today which justifies their modelled belief that in 90 years levels will be higher, then look at the authors - Mann and Jones.

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.

If correlation is an indicator of potential causation, then one would need to look at an entirely different reason other than CO2 emissions for any attempt to justify a belief in the runaway global warming scenario.

As far as the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations, they just make up whatever they want based on their own personal beliefs and inherent personal biases, they then apply some psychological constructs in entirely haphazard and idiosyncratic ways to justify whatever biased and idiosyncratic conclusion was reached, and they usually take a middle - of - the road risk - management response of recommending the status quo with the addition of «reunification therapy» and an admonishment to both parents that the degree of parental conflict is harming the child and that the parents need to co-parent better.