Sentences with phrase «accepted idea for»

The most widely accepted idea for life extension is the free radical theory, which says that as you age, you begin to «self destruct,» courtesy of free radicals.

Despite this generally well - accepted idea for how high eye pressure may affect RGC axons, scientists still do not understand the injury mechanisms involved in sufficient detail to begin identifying potential therapeutic targets.

They teach their clients to do the same and then to substitute rational, self - accepting ideas for dealing with the inevitable frustrations, which occur in everyone's life in this very imperfect world.

(We're still accepting ideas for speakers and workshops — let us know what you need and / or what you can offer.)

apexart's International Open Call accepted ideas for group exhibitions to be presented anywhere in the world.

Although many of his peers did not initially accept his ideas for what was then a controversial «100 per cent commission concept,» the philosophy is now used by nearly one - quarter of all Realtors in the U.S.

Not exact matches

The most honest answer I can give is that I'm looking for maniacally driven individuals who are obsessive in their pursuit of an idea and who are so competitive and driven that they can't accept failure.

Zenios accepted 70 students with ideas for a new product or service that addressed a customer pain point.

The bankers, however, did offer an idea for how energy companies could use cryptocurrency to juice their own stock prices: «Perhaps global utilities should start accepting Bitcoins for payments,» the analysts concluded.

Often, it can be better to look for incremental steps forward, or else to try to cross-pollinate two (or more) accepted ideas or insights — say a proven business model from one industry and a market with which the entrepreneur has familiarity.

The idea of the most effective protection not completely residing on your PC, but floating somewhere out there can be a hard concept for some self - sufficient business owners to accept.

The plurality of Canadians who do not reject the idea in general say temporary foreign workers should only be allowed if the required skills are not available in Canada (31 %), followed by those who want to be sure no Canadian jobs are displaced (21 %) or those who accept temporary foreign workers for jobs Canadians refuse (18 %).

There are many remarkable aspects to SpaceX: for instance, the way it has challenged accepted rocket manufacture by making rockets for a fraction of the cost; the way it has become the first private entity — rather than a country — to successfully launch spacecraft into orbit and then return; the way it went from an idea in Musk's head to a company that resupplies the International Space Station and that hopes to soon ferry astronauts back and forth.

The idea that during the rebalancing process Chinese growth can drop as sharply as it has for every other country that has gone through a similar rebalancing is still hard to accept, even though a little digging would make it clear that analysts underestimated the pace of slowdown during each of the previous cases too.

Due to the large number of these provisions, it's probably a good idea to hold off on filing your return if it includes any item that would have qualified for a deduction or credit that expired at the end of 2016, until you can determine whether that item was extended — and whether the IRS is ready to accept a return claiming that tax benefit.

The market also seems to accept the idea that such operations are exclusively for liquidity management purposes, and contain no messages about monetary policy.

But our childhood has been over for centuries and our adolescence is ending, and it's time we grew up and accepted the painful truth: that we are here and we pretty much have no idea where we originated.

This means that scientists could claim that anything could be real and could explain all phenomena and the basis for accepting such ideas is because nobody has yet to prove that such a thing exists.

By accepting unfalsifiable ideas, you're already admitting that scientific evidence doesn't matter to you because you've already forsaken the principle core of science, the need for ideas to be falsifiable.

My own two cents: it takes time for bad ideas to die off, and for newer ones to be widely accepted.

As for the movie, the idea that the public wants or will accept an atheist as a hero misses the point.

I see the possibility of several ways of talking about truth: perceived truth / believed truth (I believe x) vs accepted truth (we all accept that x is true) vs literal truth (x is actually true) vs hypothtical truth / relative truth (for the purpose of y, x is true; or, assuming y, x is true) vs semantic truth (it is true that the word «x» refers to the idea «y»).

If something so important for each individual is dependent upon accepting / rejecting a supposed scriptural «truth» (as you define it) then make the case for how it makes any sense at all that humans would be judged negatively for rejecting something they have no idea exists!!

Reinforcing in advance the claim I have put forth at the end of Part Two, Hartshorne went on to point out: «Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any [221] degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.»

She simply accepts her body for how it is, rather than trying to conform to everyone else's idea of how she should look.

While «American Imperialism» has been a catchphrase on the left for a long time, people on other parts of the political spectrum are only now beginning to accept the idea that we have entered the age of the American Empire.

Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.8

It is legitimate, of course, to accept the experience of others as a valuable source of suggestions for ideas, but the ideas must be accepted as true only by the test of repeatable experience, and not on the ground that some powerful or eloquent or venerated person has stated them.

He accepted the suffering, he lived with it, he searched it, and he found its costly meaning for him — that he was to live as one called under God — to live as a lonely man — to live for an idea.

First, in our culture with its tradition of voluntaristic moralism it is difficult for people to accept the idea that an individual is not personally responsible for having a neurosis and yet is responsible to society for getting help, i.e., for becoming more responsible.

They can't come to terms with the idea that there may actually be nothing after we die so they latch on to a belief that gives them comfort... belief in an afterlife, eternity or any version of «god» is nothing more than a coping mechanism for those who can't accept that we are in fact finite creatures that are born, live, and die and are not meant or destined to exist for eternity.

I do accept as true with all the ideas you have introduced for your post.

But it is one thing to accept the idea of God in my mind, and quite another to let the presence of God penetrate my being, take root in my body and inform my feelings and behaviors — for God to be alive in my heart.

and to say a roman emporer is responsible for the modern Bible shows you have no idea of the history of the Bible... we have a list of almost ALL the NT that was ALREADY accepted widely by the church in 150 AD!

Take any traditional objection to accepting the old Platonic analogy of God as the World Soul and it can be shown that the objection stands or falls with aspects of a tradition which philosophy has been moving away from since the middle ages — for instance ideas of sheer infinity, sheer immutability, also what is usually meant by omnipotence.

It IS funny, because many people who claim that they are «scientific» just blindly accept «Corporate Science» aimed at keeping them logically ignorant, meaning, they can use logic and reason (and even rhetoric if you know your Trivium) to argue well for false ideas.

The primary difference is the amount of proof required for an idea before accepting it as truth.

Imagine what a blessing it would be for the Church, were a large and vital group of reformed Catholic traditionalists — freed from harmful ideas and fully accepting Vatican II (rightly interpreted) and the Novus Ordo — were to fully reconcile with the Church, and not do anything to betray the Vatican's good faith, once re-united.

We accept without special difficulty the idea that the Church was the visible efficacious sign of salvation for past ages anterior to Christ and the Church, when salvation had not yet appeared ecclesiastically although it was salvation from the Church.

The most tolerant Christian, for instance, firmly believes that I would be a lot better off if I accepted the divinity of Jesus; the most tolerant Jew firmly rejects the idea of a human being who is divine.

Perhaps EMS was not familiar with the ideas of a number of prominent theologians who accept class struggle as a fact and as a tool for analysis.

They had a common sense that accepted the idea of a God who intervened in human affairs on specific occasions for specific purposes.

I agree to take this test or at least research the idea, for the glory of God, and I will not accept the payment for money, I will donate it to the charity or church of my choice.

You are unable to accept a universe not created and regulated by god because those ideas have informed your imagination for most of your life... The trouble is you are living in that universe, so wrap your mind around it and deal with it.

To follow it all the way, though, one would have to accept the idea that God didn't permit Job to suffer, but intentionally and purposefully caused Job's suffering and, through extension of the metaphor, causes us to suffer, as well, in return for our heavenly reward (should we continue to love him).

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

Yeah, you believe all this nonsense written by people who existed 2000 years ago who had no idea that the world was even round because you are too scared to think for yourself and can't accept that the meaning of life is only what you make it.

For so long as a plurality of gods is accepted, the idea of God is not clearly thought; God is still a being within the universe, and many such beings are conceivable.

Hume showed that once one accepts the empiricist idea that knowledge of what is not our own experience comes to us only through the senses, there is no cognitive basis for affirming God's reality.

We have become accustomed to the idea that what God asks of us, the great basic teachings of our lives, and the great responses required by God are somehow accessories» as if we can take them or leave them» as if they are just trinkets for those who choose to accept them.