Sentences with phrase «against all logic of»

Thus what others have noted and called a great scandal of inconsistency in Bultmann's method strikes me as being singular evidence of his own remarkable sensitivity to the persisting truth of myth, as something existentiell, which somehow must stand over against the logic of demythologizing.

They all engage images — photographs, news images, or book illustrations — to leverage photographic reproducibility against the logic of the art market's limited edition print.

Such measures run against the logic of the MEIP.

Not exact matches

The logic: In a battle of big and slow against small and fast, give me the speedsters and let me see that beautiful turnover chain a few more times before 2017 comes to an end.

The logic: Chris Petersen, architect of Boise State's unbelievable upset win over Oklahoma all those years ago, has proven he's not the man to bet against in the Fiesta Bowl.

That kind of logic is ridiculous and goes against his own populist ethos.

Here Denis Robinson, artistic director of award - winning barbers Ruffians, which has four locations in London and one in Edinburgh, details why these five treacherous celeb styles shouldn't have worked, why they did against all logic and how they can work for you too.

I was the outlier (story of my life), disagreeing with the logic that the dollar was certain to continue to surge against the euro with negative interest rates.

Its logic was stated in a recent filing by the SEC against The DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), a now - defunct Ethereum - based provider of «Smart Contracts» for venture capital investors, and appears to cut to the core of issues the Commission has with many similar ICOs.

Theists are so pathetic, since they can't compete against the logic and reason of atheism, they try to drag in down to the level of religion

I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master... no christian can argue against this, as far as «turning over all logic, your mind, and your powers of thinking, your power to love»..

To hell with everything else, burdens of proof, faith, existence of God, intellect, logic, science - it's just you against me.

The logic of some people who say those who are against public welfare are against helping the poor is atrocious.

The difference seems to be that atheists are using science and logic and all believers have is a 2,000 - year - old book full of non-reproduceable stories that go against all the laws of physics.

Indeed, he thought of the latter as engaged in a religious revolt against logic because, according to Nash, Van Till did not believe there was a correspondence between human thought and divine thought.

If you're on the right, you might insert «assault rifle» and use that logic to help argue against any new gun control — even in the wake of Parkland and Las Vegas (and Columbine, and Aurora, and Virginia Tech, and San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook, and Sutherland Springs, and Orlando, and on and on).

Functionality, and the extensional view of classes, afford modern logic a greatly increased flexibility not available to traditional logic, and throw a whole new light on both the problems we have isolated, and against which Hegel directed his dialectical logic.

New wine, a new logic of community that comes from a solidarity culture was projected against the old wine, the old culture.

If you're on the left, you might insert «abortion» and use that logic to help argue against any and all restrictions and regulations — even in the wake of Kermit Gosnell and StemExpress and 926,190 abortions in 2014 (and 1,608,600 in 1990, and 1,497,670 in 1979, and on and on, up to 60 million since Roe).

The church and xstians are guilty of causing fatality (ie murder) and then whine about «freedom of religion» I think it's time to fight «beam stuffling with beam stuffling» Call it jihad of logic, science, and reason, against these dangerous lethal religious believers.

At the time of Enlightenment Thomas Paine defended himself against this kind of logic: «If I do not believe as you believe, that only proves that you do not believe as I believe, that is all.»

No amount of logic or reason can persuade you against your illogical belief system.

Your arguments, like many other I read against scientific hypothoses, is simplistic, lacking in basic logic, and displaying a vast lack of educational understanding.

It is this kind of «hate - speech» which led to the burning down of 77 churches in Norway by militant atheists and which at the most extreme end of the atheist movement leads to comments such as this from the Church Arson website «Any intelligent Antichrist methodology at that point will involve a consolidation of strength, public education in the ways of science and logic for our individual members, and actions taken against the remaining believers.

Actually, most of the arguments are voiced against the Abrahamic god myth that is the basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, although the basic logic could be applied to any religion.

The Challenge of Peace, without reference to the logic of prima facie duties, replicates the structure of Childress» argument exactly: just war theory begins with a presumption against war, and the just war criteria function to override this presumption (or to show that it should not be overridden) in particular cases.

His own pet proof of «why there almost certainly is no God» (a proof in which he takes much evident pride) is one that a usually mild - spoken friend of mine (a friend who has devoted too much of his life to teaching undergraduates the basic rules of logic and the elementary language of philosophy) has described as «possibly the single most incompetent logical argument ever made for or against anything in the whole history of the human race.»

None of these arguements use reason, logic or make sense when placed against reality.

Secondly that logic is flawed as an argument against the removal of government endorsement of religion because nobody is asking the government to endorse rejection of religion either.

The good in their helplessness, in sum, is that it enforces the biblical logic of otherness, according to which each one is an indispensable good for the other, without whom he or she is helpless, having no recourse against the power of death.

Altizer's position represents his attempt to grasp the inner logic of the Incarnation, though he is fully conscious of the fact that the profanity of contemporary culture plays an essential role in his formulation of a radically immanental interpretation of Christ.31 He presents a telling case against attempts in Christian theology to conceive God as an immutable Absolute wholly unaffected by the contingencies of history.

This, of course, is where the notion of group identity enters into the reparations argument, since the crime of slavery — by the logic of modern reparations — was committed, not against individuals, but against a group (African - Americans) and therefore reparations can be paid to a group (African - American descendants).

The point is illustrated by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «creation - scientists» should not be given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in science classes.

Charles Hartshorne2 in The Logic of Perfection and Schubert Ogden3 in «The Meaning of Christian Hope» have forcefully argued against any subjective immortality, holding that as objectively experienced by God our lives are wholly preserved and cherished forever.

And in so far as that doctrine continues to dominate Western thought we may expect the recurring horrors of war and revolution, because it is a doctrine whose logic deprives mankind of a common frame of reference and in the end sets every man against every other man.

The totalitarian impulse today is embedded in the very logic of liberalism, which seeks to expand its dominion into every aspect of life and against every competitor to its demand for the exclusive allegiance of individuals.

My suggestion, then, is that the logic of Whitehead's categories works against the viability of the notion of the disembodied soul.

In The Logic of Perfection, as part of his argument against determinism, Hartshorne writes that «plural freedom can not be ordered (no matter by whom) save approximately and statistically» (LP 189).

Against the ropes — beaten back by the shear power of logic and reason.

Finally, we begin to discover «the logic of hope» over against the «technical reason'that forecloses the horizon.

I find it ironic that those who claim to base their beliefs off of clear logic and data are arguing against a poll — a form of data.

Mr Wenger is consistent in that he invariably speaks nonsense particularly when it comes to the art of defending where «his» team have been deficient for the past decade.Had we kept a clean sheet against Man Utd and Southampton we would have picked up 6 points.Simple logic is something AW is now incapable of putting into practise and along with his poor recent record in the transfer market eg Xhaka and Mustafi the Board of Arsenal Football club should be making him accountable for the teams continued lack of success.Will this happen?

Until there is reinforcements, we can't afford to loan any of those young defenders out... but saying that, I wouldn't be surprised if Wenger goes against logic and leaves us short at the back.?

The Thunder are the clear favorite to come out of the West, and it's tough to argue against the logic.

With that logic Benteke is without question a better player than Giroud I assume... or does it get twisted when the «system» of comparison reflects badly against Giroud?

I understand the logic behind your thinking and I agree, this could be lethal, but it then means wilshere ramsey flamini and arteta are bench players or have to be sold because none of them can operate as the sole midfielder in front of our back four, arteta is probably the most well rounded for this but against better opposition I don't think he has the physique or pace to really command that area, he has the intelligence to read the game but without the other attributes he can only do so much.

But even though my fan - blood oath requires me to root against Kershaw, there's also a draw to the side of logic.

Against all reasonable logic, Wenger notoriously and defiantly gambled on him alone being there to score the goals for when Giroud goes on his usually predictable lengthy run of goal - drought.

This goes against traditional logic which indicates that bettors should avoid fly ball prone pitchers in the mile - high air, but that's part of the contrarian philosophy at Sports Insights.

Was not analyzing the Manchester ss and don't really care much there but from a footballing point of view and from the words of MR wenger I understand the logic I do nt read what the media thinks neither My comment above addresses the issues we face in comparison to the two previous seasons adding in our re enforcements The 22 million question «Are the Arsenal capable of achieving 85 point come next May???» I believed we were strong last year and said it here that the team was strong and together and used the very words that MR wenger used cohesion but as the season unfolded the cracks showed up at the very beginning when we lost to west ham and it got worse as we lost pole position and every thing around us came tumbling down by February last season here comes another important question did they know and understand what happened do they know what to do this term to avoid the very same faith well we wait and see Irregardless of what happens I will support Arsenal and will keep analyzing every match my way until May so Good luck Arsenal with your endeavors and hope you do well against Liverpool keep the fight on keep the heads up and give them a good beating