Sentences with phrase «accepts the arguments for»

There are many Christians who have accepted the argument for free trade and celebrate the new globalism.

After accepting this argument for many years, I now find it unconvincing.

When we present a new job opportunity to people like this, they don't blindly accept our arguments for making a move; they form their own view based on a careful analysis of the facts.

If we accept your argument for hyper sensitivity to parameters then that would indeed be the case eg Zaliapin and Ghil 2010.

We need to create a cultural climate where everyone simply accepts the arguments for sustainability.

Not exact matches

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

Essentially, Stumpf's argument is that he accepts responsibility for the scandal, but that senior executives did not create a culture that encouraged the type of behavior that led to employees opening 2 million false accounts.

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.»

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.

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.

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.

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 conclusioFor 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 conclusiofor doubt (in a sense saying «We know with 100 % certainty that...), would you accept the conclusions?

You said, «I disagree, but let's accept the proposition for the sake of argument.

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.

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.

Any argument that includes threats for not accepting the argument is weak... and those putting forth those arguments are pea brained nincompoops

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.

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.

Accept for the sake of argument the logic of intelligent design, based upon the premise that things which are complicated must result from design.

Given that so many good Protestant couples have accepted the creation, cryopreservation and disposal of early embryos, it may be almost impossible for an argument against ESCR to gain traction.

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...

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

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.

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.

As the Church does not accept sola scriptura as 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.

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

For instance, Sanchez seems to uncritically accept the argument that the Pope knew beforehand about the Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews on October 16, 1943, which led to the deportation and transportation of over a thousand to Auschwitz.

The Church seemed to have accepted that the old arguments for the existence of God had been demolished by science, and it appeared that nobody had any new reasoned approaches to take.

My argument for the principle of positivity is that by accepting it we avoid many absurdities and incur no comparable ones.

Would you accept the argument that you were seeking SPECIAL rights or MORE rights if you fought for the ability to practice the religion that calls to your heart?

Many philosophers have accepted the assumption on which this objection rests — that there might have been nothing or that the existence of a world is cause for amazement — but it is Houston Craighead who has, in effect, aimed this line of argument against Hartshorne in a critique of the ontological argument (PS 1:9 - 24; RTE 33 - 37).

I generally do not accept the «God changed because Jesus saved us» argument because that implies that this all loving god could have saved us long before jesus came, but chose not to for some reason and instead prefered burning cities and tormenting a loyal follower to prove a point to his fallen angel buddy.

Now one can disagree with their premise ¯ I certainly do ¯ but if we accept their premise ¯ a premise that is central to any principled argument for abolishing the requirement of sexual complementarity in defining the marriage ¯ their conclusion becomes difficult to resist.

Recognizing that I will not agree with his parity claim, Hasker closes his argument by commenting on my discussion about the need for a theodicy to have psychological appeal, seeking to turn this discussion to his favor by pointing out that traditional theism has been accepted by more people than has process theism.

That charge is not quite accurate; still, for the sake of argument, let me accept its burden.

It's only recent that their bigotry is no longer accepted by rational people (and for the sake of this argument that includes moderate christians).

The ACCC accepts public benefit arguments, at least for the initial phase of the program.

So, I do not accept any argument, especially ones which suggest players leave for fame or laurels.

Now, I can accept the argument that their league is second tier and therefore we leave them out in the cold for the playoffs, but that is an admission that the non-P5 schools (except ND, which went 4 - 8 last season) aren't really eligible for an NCAA championship.

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

The ony valid argument I could accept for not trying to get him is that the team needs more speed.

So for arguments» sake lets accept the premise that without Wenger we would be like Man United.

José Mourinho declared the case brought against him for alleged tax fraud to be closed after he accepted the arguments put forward by Spain's Inland R -LRB-...)

Abbi, I meant that I don't accept the argument of «they turn out fine in the end» for excess crying or anything else.

While the initiative would not see any new money being injected into the system, it tacitly accept the arguments of critics who say the government's deficit reduction programme has no plan for growth.

In the current climate, it is not only unlikely that voters, or indeed the other Westminster parties would accept an argument by the Conservatives that it is best if they restore to themselves the exclusive power to call an election, and revert to the short - termism and the manipulation of election dates for partisan advantage that they decried just four years ago.