Sentences with phrase «arguing against things»

You are arguing against things we did not say.

Fools, you argue against the things of God yet can not see that the word GOD alone carries something greater than the vocable.

After Alien, we doubt that many could argue against The Thing being the the most tense and claustrophobic sci - fi horror ever made.

Not exact matches

They argued that the only reason women wanted to «mother» and keep house in the community was because they were so bad at such things at home - that municipal housekeeping was only a movement against domestic housekeeping.

I have waged my own battle against buzzwords, arguing that we sound funny when we say things like, «let's harness the organic process.»

In February, Peterson pushed back against the critics in his first public statement, essentially arguing he did the right things in an uncertain, chaotic situation.

Still, the most compelling reason to argue against expensive weddings is that while many things needed for a memorable wedding cost money, the most important ones — a kiss at the altar, a mother's tear as she sees her son make a lifelong commitment — are free.

The sort of thing I would have thought that no one would really want to argue against in this day and age, yet here you are, calling me a «fear - monger» and talking like I was against anyone using their life experiences to make decisions.

Once again somone is reading things into my post that i did not say, and arguing against those false things.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing Satan loves, obviously from Martin's comments because it gives haters and ignorant people ammunition to argue against God and church.

-- to correct believer bullsh!t — to argue against religion driven laws and influence — to keep an eye on the crazies that want to put the USA and Canada on the road to becoming a theocracy — to influence undecideds away from joining any religious cult (and all religios are cults)-- for the humor of the nuttiness of things believers believe, say and do

One thing is certain: his interpretation is difficult to argue against, not because it is obviously correct, but because his interpretation is so heavily dependent upon a kind of argument from similitude whose value is difficult to assess.

The only thing we argue against is your right to encode into secular law your religious beliefs.

† Christians do not really exist, they just pretend that they believe in God and argue with non-religious people while not knowing very much at all regarding Christianity or the meaning of the bible and disregarding half of what the bible says only to strongly vocalize their stance against the other half of the bible that is against things that they either do not understand or that do not affect them personally.

But even without religious beliefs, we'd still not all agree on things like that, so here's a more practical reason to argue against religion:

In arguing against the possibility of attaining to a neutral standpoint on matters of concern to religious persons, one begins with the axiom that all human activity — and so, by extension, all scholarly activity, all religious activity, and all interaction among serious religious persons — both implies and evinces a commitment to some particular metaphysic, some view as to the way things are and as to how human activity should proceed in that context.

But a just appreciation of God's general revelation of Himself should preserve the truth that Christianity has meaning for man precisely because it represents a fulfillment of the knowledge of God which is made possible through all the things which He has made, Nygren claims, of course, simply to be setting forth scientifically the fundamental Christian motif without arguing its truth or value against any other motif.

One thing that some people say to me is, «You can't argue against God.

They might argue even (against Paul) that doing such things sends people to hell, rather than seeing references to the «Kingdom of God» or «Kingdom of Heaven» as Jesus used them, as being about out lives here and now and what we might accomplish as we follow Christ (to which a «beneficial» conversation is much more fitting).

It is so sad that so many atheists will spend most of their lives fighting and arguing against the very thing that can save them, only to die and go to hell and then to spend eternity regretting the fact that they wasted all of their time arguing about it rather than just accepting it, rather than just believing, and a belief that could have saved them.

Of course, it takes courage and clarity of mind to argue these things in public against the weight of public opinion and misinformation.

It is against this background that our countryman, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has rightly argued that the church has to be concerned about the secular things such as politics and economics, education, medical aid, the rent and housing, food prices et cetera.

You see it in those Christians who argue that if you don't hold a strong stance against homosexuality, you no longer have any grounds for arguing against pedophilia or other things that actually do victimize and harm others.

I share two of the four objections but will argue against the other two (which I suspect are the dispositive ones for most First Things readers).

In all honesty, the «religious people» that don't legislate against things based solely on their religious convictions and thereby hurt the rights of individuals, and who don't condemn science and medicine and societal progression and other religions and other denominations and people who are not religious, and who don't claim to know that something is true beyond all other truths, are probably a very slim minority, and I'd have to argue that they aren't really religious, they are just doing whatever makes them feel good, which could be accomplished through secular means as well.

Leibniz had also argued against most seventeenth - century thinkers, that whatever is purely inert, and without any capacity to act, is nothing, so that the source of the action of all things is intrinsic to them.

Indeed, I suspect that the vast majority of those connected with First Things would argue against the Bodies exhibition even if all its specimens came from middle - class Americans who had unquestionably decided to donate their bodies to science for the anatomical education of the masses.

Looks are entirely subjective thing, but even so it's hard to argue against the Ferrari 330 P4 being one of the prettiest Le Mans racers of all time.

It's this sort of thing that people use against Arsenal when it's argued that the team aren't cynical enough or don't have a hard edge to them but, frankly, if having those things means being like Diego Costa, then no thank you.

the only thing is with everyone arguing for and against this photo (myself included) she has exactly what she set out to do, lots of attention!

The only thing preventing such a practice is long - standing tradition that weighs against participating in cases that were argued before a different set of justices.

As New York moves to decriminalize low - level offenses, arguing enforcement is «rigged against communities of color,» other large cities are coming under pressure from the Justice Department — now led by former head of the U.S. Attorney's office in Brooklyn, Loretta Lynch — to do the same thing.

«David hasn't thought through his policy and neither has Nick if he's going to argue against us because it's the right thing to do.»

She and Lloyd Constantine, a longtime Spitzer confidant, were nearly alone in arguing against an immediate resignation; Eliot, recognizing he was a political dead man, had wanted to do it first thing Monday morning.

Witness statements can always be argued against, memories fade, things change.»

People argue against it by saying, «Hey, you know the carbon footprint of flying food thousands of miles is ridiculous so we should grow [things] locally» but the counter argument is, but if you can grow so much wheat sufficiently in Kansas even including the transportation for thousands of miles it's still more efficient in terms of resources.

This lack of research into the thing you are arguing against is the epitome of being unscientific.

Although some people might argue against it, hats are one of those things that you need when the winter hits.

I'm not arguing against 16PF5 or any other test, I'm critical of the blind «THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT WORKS» mentality.

Few would argue against The Tree of Life being one of the very best films of the year, but it remains the biggest wild card of awards season, a massively beloved masterpiece whose impressionistic style and ostensible inaccessibility have presumably prevented it from surging forward as a sure thing.

Oddly enough, teacher preparation programs occasionally argue against being held accountable for things like placement rates because they don't believe they have any control over how many of their teachers receive jobs.

And indeed, who would know better than those masters of the art of being all things to all people, decrying federal debt with one voice while passionately arguing against budget cuts and higher taxes with another?

Perhaps we can come up with things that are more precise, and things that are so imprecise that they can't be argued against.

For instance, modern portfolio theory argues against investing in equities that are dependent on each other — say, energy stocks and the automobile industry — instead, it preaches investment in things that are not correlated, like oil and the technology sector.

More important then, we would argue, is having a system in place so that, when things go against you, there is no overreaction.

It also notes how the informal management culture played against Kozlowski as things that were formal at many other corporations, and thus could not be argued, were not so at Tyco.

There are groups on both sides of the fence, but can't be argued that the safest thing for your pet would include 1) making sure your pet is protected against deadly diseases, and 2) avoid vaccines in a time when they are controversial, to say the least.

I've always held that if a game can be singleplayer only, then it's perfectly acceptable to have a multiplayer only game as well, and that arguing against such a thing is a concept from a dead era.

A fine game, and one of my favorites, but when engaged in a battle for technological supremacy, a black - and - white (or «creamed spinach color,» as SEGA was keen to point out) title with a slower pace than normal wasn't the first thing you wanted to go to on the playground when arguing over which side was better, particularly against a full - fledged console title.

Also, one can think of Feynmann who said that it is the duty of every scientist to include the things that might argue against his conclusions.