Sentences with phrase «without any evidence at»

He probably is, but he has gotten thousands, maybe millions, following his teachings in the truth of a supernatural being without any evidence at all.

So far, they are just accusing but without any evidence at all.

That let me see that even without any evidence at all, people believe just about anything reported on what's going on in the locker room.

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.

Please read this proxy statement carefully to ensure that you have proper evidence of stock ownership as of April 12, 2018, as we will not be able to accommodate guests without such evidence at the 2018 Annual Meeting.

We will not be able to accommodate guests without proper evidence of stock ownership as of the Record Date at the 2018 Annual Meeting, including guests of our stockholders.

On the corporate side of the code, tax expert Bill Gale and his colleagues summarize that «there is virtually no evidence that broad - based [corporate] tax cuts have had a positive effect on [economic] growth... That has been amply demonstrated at the national level, where tax cuts have eroded revenue without discernable effect on economic activity.»

We've seen a lot of evidence about what's coming, through the HomePod firmware leak, and reports including one from Bloomberg this week that outlines exactly how the iPhone interface will work without a home button, but Apple should still have plenty to reveal that we haven't seen at this event, including at least a few amazing ARKit demos.

At the same time, it is not out of the question that we may be quietly allowing U.S. banks to go insolvent without disclosure, covering the losses over time out of wide interest spreads on existing loans, and that we may be able to avoid outward evidence of mortgage deterioration simply by allowing the Treasury to go further and further into deficit on behalf of the GSEs.

Its also the people who think they can simply turn around any argument aimed at their group, as if that were valid without actual evidence.

It was written by many people over the span of hundreds of years, it is tribal rules from the infancy of our development and arguably is not a good book at all but full of hatred, spite and unspeakable violence, and you arent allowed to use «faith» as your proof of existence... faith is nothing less than the throwing away of reason i.e. belief without evidence.

But since believers of the bible call it «truth» without ANY supporting evidence, my assertion about nutters being mentally ill is even «more true» since there is at least some tangible evidence.

So you believe at least TWO things by faith (i.e. without evidence): 1) God exists 2) the God of the Holy Bible is real, and all the rest are second - rate.

James, if you had the courage to look at the evidence without bias, you'd not be making the claims you do and suggesting that the bias problem is with others.

A comprehensive auditing of the entire Swiss banking system found only 1,200 accounts where there was actual evidence that the depositor was a Jew who perished in the Holocaust; other estimates place the figure (without real proof of any kind) at twenty «five thousand such accounts.

Come away from the childish life and grow up... faith is belief without evidence and it's probably a good thing you're not voting... children don't belong at the polling stations!

At the very end of the philosophy of science in Part I of this book Caldecott simply affirms, without adducing evidence or argument, the crucial importance of such an «intrinsic difference».

Faith is not believing on having no evidence at all, but without seeing.

John Donvan doesn't cite any study and it seems spurious at best without some kind 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.

Catholicism, at its base, requires some faith (belief withOUT evidence).

considering an Ivy league historian (Richard Bulliet) has relatively definitive book on the topic that is over 40 years old («The Camel & the Wheel», 1975) and which arrives at the exact opposite conclusion based on KNOWN evidences, it certainly would appear this a media - generated ratings grab without scholarly basis.

At least Jesus is thought to have existed without any evidence whatsoever other than literature that has so much excluded and content that has been lost in translation that it's almost impossible to be a genuine Christian because no matter what you are ignorant to so many other facts... assuming everything is true.

but i didn't state anything example — i stated that the theory of evolution is yet to be proved and so with that i agree that due to that lacking it is equal to the theory of god... the only thing i said which is cemented truth for anything is that we don't know what the real answer is... and by stating ideas as facts serves no real purpose but a selfish one... lets call it an ease - ment on the inner self, the mind can now be at peace with the hope that when i die i get to live yet again... full belief in this is insane without evidence.

We don't default to believing in anything at all without evidence, or brain - washing.

We need to look open minded at what's possible, without pretending we're sure about that which we do not have evidence.

belief in anything without supporting evidence is a childrens game... We teach our children not to lie, judge a book by its cover, or to take anything at face value or to just believe without questioning... you know, we say stuff like check the source and don't believe everything you see / hear... should we teach seeking knowledge or to have faith in without?

Ford, to whom this piece was later submitted for publication in the new journal, found Session's conclusions surprising and frustrating, because that early Hartshorne work appeared to have all the essentials of Hartshorne's later philosophy in place, but without evidence of any direct influence of Whitehead.2 David Griffin, then a new Assistant Professor at Claremont, put together a very valuable compendium of all the differences that Hartshorne had discerned between his own thought and Whitehead's.

Finally, without the Christ given Teaching Authority of the Magisterium, You and I at best would have no certainty about these truths, as is evidenced by 10's of thousands of protestant denominations, all with different opinions of the same truth, and at worst we would know nothing about them at all!!»

Obviously at the start of the thread you were originally refering to «faith» as believing in something without proper evidence, when asked whither you apply that faith to other things you then switched to its other meaning of evidence based faith, you are not being honest with us or with yourself.

You are condeming an awful lot of pastors that have worked tirelessly and unselfishly all their lives to help others without a shred of evidence (sorry pointing a finger at to a handful of televangilist does not prove that tens of thousands of other pastors are the same.

peick Well there you are pecking away at your keyboard that science had a great deal to do with its creation; faith is the belief in something without evidence.

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

Without any firm evidence for selecting that cutoff point, I reasoned that clashing definitions of ultimate reality are likely to clash only when supported by at least a handful of opposing «believers.»

And then Fr Luther was heard to be saying something that looked, superficially, like a complete contradiction of his usual theme — he wanted concrete evidence of their faith: «Dear friends, the kingdom of God — and we are that kingdom — does not consist in talk or words but in activity, in deeds, in works and exercises... a faith without love is not enough rather it is no faith at all.

Believing in gods is at the very least unreasonable because, without evidence to support the existence of gods, there is no reason to believe in any.

If he is but slightly right, one would still be ill - advised to talk about Puritanism without at least accounting for his evidence.

In the 1970s case of the German priest the only evidence produced which directly involves Archbishop Ratzinger shows that he allowed the suspected priest to come into his diocese for therapy and to stay briefly at a presbytery, but without pastoral work.

If you study enough religions you'll quickly figure out the only thing they all have in common is the believe in at least supernatural power without evidence.

Without a battalion of secretaries to gather all the things I could bring together as a body of evidence, I am cast upon the shores of typing arguments on the internet trying to point at enough solid facts that directly correlate to the definite impossibility of any god existing as gods are defined.

From idiots like that guy at SNAP, whose goal in life is to see how much money he can bilk out of the Church, after «suddenly remembering» something that happened forty years ago without any evidence?

But Kate Grimshaw, lead author of the new study and a researcher at the University of Southampton in the UK, said she has been concerned that parents are reducing the nutritional diversity of their infants» diet without there being a great deal of evidence to back it up.

The Blancos» signing of 28 - year - old Casilla — who arrives on a five - year contract — can be seen as firm evidence that Real are planning to do without De Gea, at least for this campaign.

Nobody has shown evidence to disprove it yet people prefer the thought of Wenger being at fault for everything as it is nice and easy, blame the figurehead without thinking for yourself.

Maybe you have a good point but you just denounced the article without offering evidence or an explanation at all.

The chances are pretty strong that Arsenal will have to play at least one of the games coming up without our manager being on the bench, because not only was the Frenchman sent away from the touchline for his vehement and vocal complaints after Burnley were awarded a stoppage time penalty, but video evidence seems to show him arguing and maybe even pushing the fourth official Andrew Taylor as he was urging Wenger further down the tunnel.

Everyone can feel free to look at the Bears performances without Long, without Sitton or without both the last couple of years if they need some evidence.

The team that has gone six games at home without a goal plays the team that, on last week's evidence, look like they wouldn't be able to score in a month of Sundays.

Just anecdotal evidence: a couple of friends do not want children, but another has told me that at 34 without a partner and having had to go back to school for a new career at this age, she doesn't think she will have children even though that's something she had wanted.

why, why, why, why, why do the vast majority of women (and men) just regurgitate what has been culturally and commercially programmed into their minds without even hinting at the necessity of evidence?