Sentences with phrase «without accepting evidence»

The trial judge indicated that she had a reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt even without accepting the evidence of the accused with respect to the conduct of the police officer.

A party's request that the court rule in its favor based on the documents on file, without accepting evidence.

Not exact matches

Anyone who is serious about being fair needs to look at the whole picture without cherry - picking evidence or pretending that generally accepted principles don't apply to some.

If not being gullible and willing to accept outlandish claims that are inconsistent and just plain stupid without evidence means I'm a fool, colour me a fool.

Because communicating through a burning bush is moronic, and it is, and because I don't accept this nonsense without evidence, I'm the one who is lacking wisdom.

So without using your buybull provide the evidence... give us reason to accept your claim!

The religious argument is so clearly nonsense that it is outrageous to accept it without evidence in support.

I'm quite content not having all the answers and in being content, I refuse to accept without evidence a god.

@Live4Him, «I presented the evidence, ut you refused to accept it (without giving any reason for rejecting it).»

We are also illustrating the fact that most, if not all non-brights accept certain myths as historical fact without any empirical evidence whatsoever.

We don't accept ANYTHING without evidence.

Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.

«easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence» = > A very small percentage of Christians follow Christ.

But I would argue that people are having trouble with this (and many other issues) because they are expected to accept it without evidence or rational arguement.

With the empirical evidence of the universe evolving, it is possible to accept the Thomistic argument from finitude and contingency as recast in evolutionary categories.5 Without the evolutionary category of birth, it would be impossible for us to argue that the universe had a Creator - Ground, for we would have to imagine process as a horizontal straight line that extends in either direction indefinitely and infinitely.

The fact that so many believe does not make the story true, it merely means that those believing the story seriously don't care if there is evidence to support it, they merely accept it on faith (belief without evidence).

The problem with «belief» without supporting evidence is that it requires no discipline, and accepts no responsibility for discriminatory practices.

People who accept things on faith, without evidence, won't be swayed by evidence.

It need not accept world suffering merely as evidence of the broken human condition, and therefore opt to minister only to the victims of sin without addressing sin's sources.

Basically that anything besides fact is speculation and can only be taken on accepting things without evidence.

Simpletons acting on faith as opposed to the erudite who rely on logic is as much as saying simpletons don't want to know why anything is the way it is, they just accept what they have been told without a shred of evidence.

By taking that elemental assurance at its face value, he was able to accept a primary rule of modern philosophy — that the evidence for an external world can be found only within occasions of experience — without being drawn into solipsism.

Interesting as the tales may be, we should always bear in mind that nothing should ever be accepted as «truth» without actual objective evidence.

Gullibility is the term we use when someone accepts a concept without adequate evidence for that concept.

Earlier writers had recognized that Volkmar went too far in his attempted demonstration of Mark's dependence upon Paul — he found evidence of such dependence on almost every page of the Gospel — but his view was such a welcome relief from the one - sided Tübingen theory, according to which Mark was a «neutral» in the great apostolic controversy over Jewish Christianity, that the main thesis of Volkmar was accepted without careful scrutiny of his supporting arguments.

I say this without sounding to mean (and I'm tryping this in a light manner so don't take it this way) but I could accept spider - man into my heart too and believe he is out there with the same amount of evidence that people who follow god do.

But science does not accept an answer without evidence for the comfort of having an answer, like creationism does.

But to believe in a creator you have to ignore or dismiss all scientific evidence and accept, without any evidence in support, a fairy tale.

Ed, at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelming that every sane individual without a pre-existing desire not be believe, accepts it.

I merely refuse to accept it without some evidence.

Why would you accept as true anything without solid evidence?

If these can solve the paradox without generating new ones, and are compatible with the phenomenological evidence, even if not suggested by it, they should be accepted.

I have no «burning» desire to «criticize some religion», unless someone claims that I need to follow that religion or accept some of it's precepts without evidence.

Accepted answer seems to imply (without evidence to prove that implication) that school funding disparity causes school districts to be better or worse.

You've accepted a lot of things without evidence.

Until we are willing to accept the world the way it is, without miracles that all empirical evidence argues against, without myths that distort our comprehension of nature, we are unlikely to bridge the divide between science and culture and, more important, we are unlikely to be fully ready to address the urgent technical challenges facing humanity.

Without that evidence, some were reluctant to accept it as the RGCs» light - capturing pigment.

«Earlier studies basically accepted this without any structural evidence for communication between receptors.

Scientists are often accused of being boring or negative when they don't want to accept so - called «facts» without seeing the evidence — but cases like the «cane toads in East Timor» and the «toad eating frogs» remind us that popular stories about toads are often inaccurate, and it's worth finding out what's really going on before accepting such stories at face value.

«From childhood, we learn that vegetables are good for us, and most of us eat our veggies without giving much thought to the evidence behind this accepted wisdom, or to the mechanisms underlying the purported health - boosting properties of a vegetable - rich diet.»

These simply seem to be accepted as the unvarnished truth and not subjected to any meaningful scrutiny even though they are put forward without any credible supporting evidence.

This comment indicates that you expect people to accept your opinions without the need to offer any evidence.

It's a mystery, you see — one that routinely mentions doors without ever really doing anything with that; one that returns repeatedly to clues just to pretend they mean something different this time; one that asks you to accept that a conscious human could find a box of evidence in her own art studio and not ask, «Hey, how did this get here?!»

Where the recommendation from the reviewer or the head teacher is that a teacher should not progress, the governing body should consider the evidence itself and discuss it with the head teacher, not just accept the recommendation without discussion.

Sometimes these bloggers present evidence to support their position, and sometimes they just seem to accept the merits of index investing without question.

Anyone who is serious about being fair needs to look at the whole picture without cherry - picking evidence or pretending that generally accepted principles don't apply to some.

NOTE: A seller should not accept a FEIN as evidence of exemption from sales and use taxes without Form 3372.

To apportion blame now without any evidence (you even accept that nobody outside the huddle knows what happened) could be regarded as irresponsible.

He seems to spend all day reading articles on wind turbines without actually interviewing, visiting and accepting peer - reviewed evidence that these mechanical monsters are ruining peoples» land and lives.

The scope of the Inquiry was drawn sufficiently narrowly so as to avoid many important issues and the Committee seemed to accept the notion that the «science is settled» without probing inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence.