Sentences with phrase «accepted as an argument»

No judge would accept it as an argument.

Not exact matches

Whilst accepting that there is two sides to every argument / position describing climate change as a big hoax and the depiction of a bleak medieval style future is not responsible analysis of the facts.

Admittedly, one could make the same argument about gold, but gold has been widely accepted by humankind as a thing of value for more than two - and - a-half thousand years — compared to less than a decade for bitcoin.

Ken really exposed the arbitrariness of his arguments when he admitted that he cherry - picks which portions of the Bible he accepts as literal and which he accepts as figurative.

Russ Bauckham uses the Gospels themselves as internal evidence of their own eyewitness accounts but, if you're willing to accept the Gospels as trustworthy by their own declaration and you're easily impressed by the force of the author's argument alone then it might be compelling.

The problem is that unless you accept the Bible as literally true — a perspective that has NO basis is science or history — your argument is entirely useless.

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.

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.

If sociologists have tended to center on the foregoing argument and to single out work as the basis of their assessment of our present inability to play authentically, theologians and philosophers have tended to: focus upon a second area: America's distorted value structure that has accepted as true the «mindscape» of technology 48 This is Theodore Roszak's phrase, and his discussion can perhaps serve as a helpful starting point.

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.

If you accept that as your basic premise, then arguments for God's existence will obviously make sense to you because they just confirm what you al; ready believe to be true.

This argument presupposes a false dilemma, as I see it, that either one accepts the notion of a separate soul - substance enduring through time or else one must accept the thesis of process philosophy.

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

delusion diˈlo͞oZHən noun an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder: the delusion of being watched.

They accepted the economists» argument that rapid economic growth, national and global, is required to address the problem of poverty and that, with the attainment of prosperity, other problems could be solved as well.

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.

I'm not saying that is how the bible was manufactured — how the bible came to be is ENTIRELY irrelevant to my point — your argument that you can accept something as true because it is consistent doesn't hold water.

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.

Collins says that «any position can be argued for, so long as the arguments are based on commonly accepted premises.»

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.

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.

It was this naive positivism that Kaplan accepted, rather than, for example, the much more sophisticated views of his philosophical mentor John Dewey, as the basis of his argument for religious naturalism.

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.

As the Church does not accept sola scriptura as a valid argument for teachings and trutAs the Church does not accept sola scriptura as a valid argument for teachings and trutas a valid argument for teachings and truth.

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.

This argument — we have to obey the law — would not be accepted on matters such as race, asylum seekers, green issues or others considered important by the politically correct.

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.

Arguments for the existence of other minds can not be proven with certitude, yet most everyone accepts them as a given fact.

delusion di «lo?oZH?n noun an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder: the delusion of being watched.

Patty delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

But Luhmann's argument is that even this framework can not be accepted as final.

The Milwaukee jury's refusal to accept his argument that he was only exercising his artistic freedom simply highlighted the hypocrisy of the damned human race that so appalled Twain's Satan and such of his epigones as the late Lenny Bruce — whose scatological humor, as the late Ralph Gleason once pointed out in Rolling Stone, «challenged society at its very roots.»

Since I do not believe it is possible to genuinely describe God (Though I believe 1 Corinthians 13 comes the closest) and I do not accept any scripture as fully authoritative, I find it impossible to accept an argument as anything more than incomplete human perspective.

I get angry when my most reasoned arguments are dismissed as «emotional» and «shrill» or when people question my commitment to my faith because I accept evolution or support women in ministry.

«Unsecularizing the academy» and getting the scholarly elite to accept the philosophical viability of religious reason as an equal player in intellectual argument is not the first step towards God's reentrance into the consciousness of modern society.

Makes for nonsensical, contrived arguments — especially for the shouters who are quite happy to accept whatever they hear as fact.

It doesn't mean as parents we have to concede or accept their argument, but it means LISTENING.

Ignoring your insane, made - up statistics, your argument is that because babies die in hospitals and elsewhere by other means that we should all accept home birth deaths as well and refrain from discussing how to prevent them?

Apart from the argument that we have a moral duty to help those who wish to come to this country (which you may or may not accept), there is an economic case in favour of immigration in that the economy benefits from the availability of cheap labour, and there is a case against in that growth in population especially in the crowded South - East creates a lot of pressure on infrastructure such as housing, transport, hospitals, and schools (and the growth in population is largely due to immigration).

This populist argument is difficult to accept, as the latter is a crucial part of the former.

The argument for doing this is that any assessment of audience reaction should take the audience as it is — in this case, accepting that UKIP supporters were much more likely to watch or listen to the debate than supporters of other parties.

I've given the accepted answer on Yakk's as the «custom» argument is persuasive and proven in that it succeeded in Canada.

Accepting the failures of his leadership as his alone against a tide of media hostility and so on, and not of his message and policies — not a wholly implausible argument for those inclined to believe — would give the left's next candidate a much clearer run, a sympathetic hearing and a wave of righteous indignation to ride.

As is so common with Brexit rhetoric he takes the arguments he accepts and projects them onto his negotiating partner.

That argument — that the conduct might be ugly but it isn't against the law, and everybody else does it — might sound familiar: it was what former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's lawyers said when U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara indicted him on accepting kickbacks disguised as outside income.

«Contrary to the defendant's argument that his crime was victimless,» the U.S. attorney's office added, «the people of the State of New York are victims whenever, as here, an elected official abuses the trust the public placed in him by accepting secret payoffs from lobbyists and by covering up his conduct.»