A Quote by Marie Osmond

I don't claim to know everything. I claim to be a seeker of knowledge. — © Marie Osmond
I don't claim to know everything. I claim to be a seeker of knowledge.
Scepticism, ironically, draws its life's blood from claims to have a good deal of knowledge. For example, your friends claim to know, 'Since every possible option has not been explored, nothing can be said for certain.' That statement is itself a claim to knowledge!
The claim that everybody sees the world differently is not a claim that there's no reality. It's a different kind of claim.
I never claim my photographs reveal some definitive truth. I claim that this is what I saw and felt about the subject at the time the pictures were made. That's all that any photographer can claim. I do not know any great photographer who would presume otherwise.
Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every legal claim, after all, is a claim to something-either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding.
I see myself as a spiritual person, but I don't think anyone should claim proof of a god. No one can prove it. That's why I don't claim to know whether there are one, many or no gods.
To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. For a man who claims to have knowledge, while actually knowing nothing, is less smarter than you, who claim to know nothing.
Jesus Christ's claim of divinity is the most serious claim anyone ever made. Everything about Christianity hinges on His carnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. That's what Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter are all about.
It's amazing how relaxing it is not to claim you know more than you do. I'm surprised that those who claim to speak in the name of god don't take more advantage of this relief.
If faith is a valid tool of knowledge, then anything can be true 'by faith,' and therefore nothing is true. If the only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits.
To claim that science and religion pose different questions to the world is not to suggest that if the bones of Jesus were discovered in Palestine, the pope should get himself down to the dole queue as fast as possible. It is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it.
The claim that myth is always a narrative spin-off of ritual; the claim that myth is the projection of human anxieties onto a cosmological scrim; the claim that myths are invented to give sanction to human predilections and institutions... These are ways of trivializing a mode of thought that has served humanity well for a very long time.
If I ask you who is the most famous scientist who ever lived, or the greatest scientist who ever lived you'll say either Einstein or Newton or something like that because their claims were supposed to apply universally. But the claim of somebody who is studying a particular feature of the evolutionary process like whether it's very fast or very slow, or occurs in steps and so on, that's not a universal claim, that's a rather specialised claim and so you can't claim to great fame and great success.
I've reached the age of self-knowledge, so I don't know anything. People who claim that they know something are responsible for most of the fuss in the world.
I don't claim to be the best boxer in the world. What I claim to do is give 100% when I get in that ring.
Science makes no claim to infallibility; it leaves that claim to be made by theologians.
I claim you, Rowan Whitethorn. I don't care what you say and how much you protest. I claim you as my friend.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!