Sentences with phrase «accepting the claim as»

A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

I don't have any problems accepting the usual claimed amounts of CO2, although I don't necessarily accept claims as to its origins; but none of that matters to me, because I don't think CO2 is the controlling factor.

For instance, if the symptoms you are suffering are more subjective in nature or are «self - reported» and the insurer does not accept the claim as your symptoms can not be proven objectively.

Not exact matches

In order for bitcoin to be a real currency, Adeney claims, it must be three things: easy and frictionless for trading between people, widely accepted as a legal tender for all debts (both public and private) and stable in terms of value.

New Delhi has questioned if China would accept an identical situation in Tibet or Taiwan, or if this is a new phase in Chinese policy with China accepting Pakistan's claims as opposed to the previous stance of viewing Kashmir as disputed territory.

However, the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in Nevada could definitely claim the term as it recently accepted its first Bitcoin payment.

Under the pleadings standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, which if accepted as true, states a «claim to relief that is plausible on its face.»

The statement goes on to label the public vilification it has faced since a joint Guardian and Channel 4 exposé in March as based on «unfounded accusations,» claiming their activities are not only legal but also «widely accepted as a standard component of online advertising.»

Agents who agree would then accept the tokens as payment in exchange for reducing their traditional commissions in U.S. dollars to as low as 1 percent, or an average of $ 225 per token used, the company claims.

Additionally, FinCEN claimed regulation over American entities that manage bitcoins in a payment processor setting or as an exchanger: «In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.»

This is why I am trying to understand how you and Dawkins both take a work that you both claim to be fiction yet you reject the main character (God) as defined, accepted and understood by the writer and the audience of that day.

You speak as if you have done so yourself... or have you accepted at face value what Dawkins and many others claim: that there is no evidence of God?

Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us.

The theory of evolution is also embraced by many who claim to accept the Bible as the word of God.

A prolepsis, as he uses the notion, is simply a claim staked out in history, which, when and if history is fulfilled, will be verified or falsified, and which is of such a nature that those who in the meantime have accepted it will all along have been living appropriately to the truth that will at the end be discovered.

The cardinal accepted that abusing priests were routinely moved from parish to parish rather than being defrocked, and the word of clergy was often taken as more trustworthy than children claiming they were abused.

FAIL» = > my claim was that hundreds of people believed that had witnessed a resurrected Christ, again, I accept you concede that point as you did nt attempt to refute it.

S.Lewis» «I am here trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: «I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.»

I don't know that there are no gods anywhere in the universe, however I do not find any of the claims of gods here on Earth compelling enough to accept as factual.

Perhaps he should have said, «If you allow yourself to accept fantastic, unsupported claims as explanations for natural phenomena, your world becomes complicated in that natural phenomena that conflict with your nonsensical beliefs are constantly being presented to you.»

Most Christians don't understand how others might see it as hate when they make the claim that their heaven & heII exists and that those not invited to heaven are going to go to heII to be tormented and tortured for eternity and the only way to salvation is to accept their God as your Lord and Savior... They think to themselves that they are just trying to help by condemning those they dislike and who don't worship the same way they do, but that doesn't change it from what it is, «hate filled».

If its claims are true then that is good evidence for accepting it as the Word of God.

However, I was not claiming that Muslims and Jews need to «accept Jesus as son of God.»

It is sad and disturbing that in this day and age (in California believe it or not) I have to keep my beliefs (or lack there of) a secret so, as not to be discriminated against by the very people who claim they are accepting of others.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.

if you really did follow loving everyone as yourself as you claim then you would accept everyone regardless of their catagory they find themselves labeled as.

@ total non sense Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I was trying to be kind by implying that rather than treating religiosity as a mental disability, for which the supposedly clinically sick can receive insurance benefits and evade personal actionable responsibility by claiming illness, it would be better to treat religiosity as a societal functional disorder which can be addressed through better education and a perceptional shift towards accepting scientific explanations for how the world works rather than relying on literal interpretations of ancient bronze age mythologies and their many derivations since.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim.

You made a claim, but unless you give some basis, e.g. evidence, to think that it is true, no one is obligated to accept it as true.

In today's cultural and political climate, however, to suggest that the current stampede to accept claims that a decade ago would have been regarded as signs of serious psychological disturbance — and that are still regarded as such by eminent psychiatrists — is to risk being shamed and cast to the margins of society as a bigot.

Even if one accepts the claim that memory is an experience of the past, this is rather like saying that if we define dog as a four - legged mammal, then all horses are dogs.

I accept his claim to being Christian on the same basis as I do yours.

I have grown convinced that more often than not it is sheer ignorance, sheer lack of study of the actual records, which makes clever as well as foolish men say, «Well, of course, he was a great teacher, but I can not accept the claim that he was divine.»

Claiming to be founded on the Scripture, it has, as a matter of fact, completely surrendered many Scriptural frameworks of thinking and has accepted the Greek counterparts instead.

On the one hand, he claims to have deduced all the categories of thought, rather than merely accepting them uncritically as paralleling the «judgments» of the «traditional» logic.

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.»

Society was by this time well prepared to accept this measure although it was claimed that it was not at all the same as marriage despite being modelled very closely on the Marriage Act.

For a Whiteheadian and indeed for any process - thinker, any claim for the uniqueness of Jesus and any notion of his «finality» would require careful re-statement if they are to be accepted; they would need to be brought into congruity with the general line of thought appropriate to such a view of the world as the evolutionary and societal interpretation would provide.

In Reynolds v. United States (1878), a case rejecting a claim that it was unconstitutional to prosecute Mormons for polygamy, the Supreme Court accepted Jefferson's «wall of separation» letter as the «authoritative» interpretation of the First Amendment.

It is obvious that if the Bible is handled as a merely human document, then its claims may be accepted or rejected, its teachings may be in agreement or disagreement with each other, its subject may or may not be found relevant to our belief today.

But (2) the only reason given for accepting the objective claim of CE as true is that in CE they seem to be true; the only reason for accepting that the subject knows that causes are operating in the way they appear to be is that it believes with strong conviction that they are.

Mormons accept the Bible as inspired (particularly the King James Version), yet they also claim that The Book of Mormon is the Word of God, along with other writings from early Mormonism such as The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants.

I find it baffling that anyone would claim it's good news for the faithful that science has more evidence for what science already accepted as fact for so long.

I guess most people don't bother to read the books they claim to accept as scientific!

This country does not oppose God blatantly as you claim in fact it accepts God just like it accepts Allah, Buddha, Xenu, etc..

He likewise asks us to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher while ignoring Jesus» claim to divinity.

Now this man in Norway claims to be some kind of Christian and you have chosen to now call for all Christians to accept this man as a brother of the faith and then repudiate Christian extremism.

We can not claim to accept the Bible as the Word of God, and then omit sections of a scripture simply to support a stance.

We base what we accept as fact off of the evidence and we do not claim to have an answer when there isn't one to be had.