Sentences with phrase «accept arguments in»

Because I like Ichiro more than Rose, I'm more likely to accept arguments in his favor.

It is easily forgotten that many Labour left - wingers — including Dennis Skinner — accepted this argument in 2010 when they put electability before ideology in supporting David Miliband.

Not exact matches

In addition to the personal, emotional reasons for accepting death, there are also some logical arguments for it.

That's not going to help the network's argument that it encourages objectivity — all it's going to do is exacerbate criticism that CNN accepts bias only when it bends in a specific political direction.

«I certainly do not accept the argument that 1 / 8Canada 3/8 should be 15th out of 29 OECD in terms of pay gap between men and women.

What it's about: The Avengers have an argument over their role in politics: should they remain independent, or accept an overseer to keep them accountable?

Arguments have been made that banks in general often do not face criminal prosecution for violating anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulations, but instead, according to the author of the aforementioned article referred to above,» (accept) settlements that either defer or erase the threat of criminal suits.»

Yet he doesn't accept the Summers argument that the economy has shifted permanently into a lower gear, a condition called «secular stagnation,» in which savings dwarf investment.

It is also a matter of political common sense: If you want an argument to be heard, engaged, and accepted, you make it in a language that those you are seeking to persuade can understand.

Which in turn means that the sustaining and strengthening of those communities — or, in MacIntyre's terms, those «traditions of moral inquiry» — must be a major task for anyone who accepts these arguments.

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

The rest of Nye's argument that believers in creation need to accept evolution because everyone else supposedly does is ludicrous.

Tenderness separated from the source of tenderness thus supports a «popular piety» that goes unexamined, a piety in which liberalism in its decline establishes dogmatic rights, rights that in an extreme» as presently in the arguments for abortion in the political sphere and for «popular culture» in the academic» become absolute dogma to be accepted and not examined.

I love the argument he makes, even while I am a progressive Christian who accepts homosexuals as equals in the eyes of God.

[Barr] does not feel that it is necessary to accept what he acknowledges is a strong argument, namely, that since Christ's risen body was materially continuous with his body in the tomb, so (probably) is our risen body materially continuous with our premortem body.

My argument is that if a reasonable, sane and reliable witness tells me he has experienced something which modern science, in all it's glory can not explain, much less degrade, then the simplest rationale is to accept that he has indeed had an encounter with the supernatural.

For the sake of argument, if the article (which I didn't read) used only words that left no room for doubt (in a sense saying «We know with 100 % certainty that...), would you accept the conclusions?

To understand why Behe's argument is so uncontested in the realm of fact, and yet why so many scientists find the concept of irreducible complexity not only difficult to accept but even impossible to consider, we should start by summarizing the modern understanding of Darwinism, as set out by Richard Dawkins.

Kirsten: There's an article in The New York Times about Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens basically making this argument that for the first 200 years of the country it was just accepted that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a well - regulated militia.

The current trend would make it likely that gays will become fully accepted by the majority of Christians, perhaps within our lifetime, in which case your argument loses ground, right?

Similarly, fundamentalist Protestants, believing in the inerrancy of the Bible as though every word of it, dictated by God himself, was to be accepted as indubitably true, ultimately rely in all their arguments on an external authority.

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.

This can be done from many points of view, but I have suggested above that the crucial attack is that which accepts the same data and then shows that the argument does not exclude the presence of contingent elements in God's total nature.

In contrast, constitutional stipulations that are substantive contradict the provision for constitutional change because they falsely assert that they must be explicitly accepted by any political participant who seeks to change them democratically The contradiction becomes fully apparent if we recognize that the argument for permitting substantive constitutional prescriptions also permits an established religion.

Kant set the problem with his argument against any knowledge of the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, and Schleiermacher represents the first great attempt to accept that turn and still talk about God in a meaningful way.

Hardin immediately accepted that opinion — as I do also — because, in terms of his argument, this factor is morally irrelevant.

The logic of Johnson's argument would seem to be that, since one or more major accommodations of the gospel were accepted in the past, the accommodation that feminists propose must also be accepted.

I suppose that if supporting my arguments with what I consider to be reliable evidence is the limitation of ideas in your view, then I'm willing to accept that.

I do not accept the argument and could challenge it in detail, but let us accept it for the moment.

The difference here of course has nothing to do with trustung what «men» have written, it has to do with faith in whatever diety you believe... If you accept that there is a diety responsible for inspiring someone to write about them then really it is not the person writing but the diety writing through them... so your argument from that perspective is moot...

Predictably, she has been savaged by those in the GLBT community who rely on the «born gay» argument, supposedly supported by science, to justify sexual orientation being analogous to race and thus to be accepted and celebrated as a «given» of the human condition.

If we accept this argument then we have to say that elite capitalism is in fact not capitalism at all.

Perhaps evangelicalism's most common argument concerning Biblical authority runs as follows: If one will grant the general reliability of the New Testament documents as verified historically, then, as the Holy Spirit uses this witness to create faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, the Christian comes to accept Jesus Christ as authoritative.

Hey guess what, people who don't believe in your bible are not going to accept «the bible is true because it says it is» as any kind of an argument.

Ward shows that modern cosmology provides good arguments for the existence of a wise Creator, but considers that such arguments are only convincing if we accept the existence of Spiritual Reality in the first place.

Aware that this line leaves out of account the potential of the child for a full human life, Singer responds that «in a world that is already over-populated, and in which the regulation of fertility is universally accepted, the argument that we should bring all potential people into existence is not persuasive.»

The reasons for accepting it do not form the kind of deductive proof we require in logic or pure mathematics, but they resemble the arguments used in a court of law to establish innocence or culpability.

If Chad and others argue that naturalistic evolution must be dismissed because we don't know exactly what happened with gene mutation and transmission frequencies during particular periods of rapid change, then how can we accept a replacement argument in which we don't even know what happens at all?

I accept the results of this argument and grant that eternal objects are present in the first phase of concrescence as realized determinant [s]» (PR 239 / 366) of the actual entities that are being prehended by the new actual entity.

I hope you don't find it insulting when I say that as is your arguments often require us to accept without any reason that the way you understand some verses is correct yet you can dismiss any verse you chose by saying that their understanding is a «misapplication», perhaps supplying a reasonable approach to how one goes about interpreting Scripture in general could clear up that problem.

I'd be ready to accept the merit in your arguments if I could see what you mean by «sound hermeneutics» rather than being told that others lack them.

So - what if they accept flaws in their argument (which I usually get them to do), they ignore the flaws (because, as they say, I have the burden of proof), and begin their arguments on the offensive.

For me it is not about an argument or debate with you people, it is about putting Jesus's Salvation forward as to gift to whom ever shall choose to accept it, and be saved in Jesus's name, so that he may not perish eternally.

The Ash «arites have accepted determinism and the Mu «tazilites believe in free will, but the Shi`ites believe that the arguments of both sects are inadequate.

What the Qur «aan is discussing are those who distorted these texts, this has also been confirmed by many a scholar of those faiths.With regards to jizya (tax), many countries will also punish those who refuse to pay tax, so your argument is nonsensical.All Prophets came with the same message i.e. belief in one God and to be accepted as a Prophet.

The justices accepted review Monday of an appeal from a Lutheran church in Michigan, and will hear oral arguments this fall.

In other words, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when in the course of an argument the meanings of an ambiguous word or phrase are traded unfairly to get us to accept the conclusion when in fact we shouldn'In other words, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when in the course of an argument the meanings of an ambiguous word or phrase are traded unfairly to get us to accept the conclusion when in fact we shouldn'in the course of an argument the meanings of an ambiguous word or phrase are traded unfairly to get us to accept the conclusion when in fact we shouldn'in fact we shouldn't.

Like Vree, I accept the substance of this final intervention of Neuhaus, but I find some obscurity in his argument.

Kasemann's argument that this form of pronouncement comes from early Christian prophecy is careful and convincing, with the result that we must accept the fact that in their present form the two gospel sayings come from an early Christian tradition and not from the teaching of Jesus.

At best my argument has shown that certain problems can be solved while accepting perception more nearly at face value than Whitehead did in his later theory.