Sentences with phrase «as much argument»

Debating the Leveson proposals is much like wrangling over the abolition of Page Three — it's just as much an argument of «freedom from» as «freedom to»

It's evident in recent articles and posts that there's just as much argument over how to approach our collective urge to relax during the warm months.

All of your arguments against science are AT LEAST as much arguments against imaginary fairies.

Not exact matches

As much as it's significant to speak for yourself and stand by your point, it's also necessary to avoid pointless arguments at worAs much as it's significant to speak for yourself and stand by your point, it's also necessary to avoid pointless arguments at woras it's significant to speak for yourself and stand by your point, it's also necessary to avoid pointless arguments at work.

Once those respective attorneys are in the mix, they'll likely be pacing the arguments to get their client as much from the settlement as possible.

And it wasn't an argument so much as it was a scenario.

Successful brainstorms incorporate a diverse group of people collaborating with one another and contributing as much as possible without any arguments, debates or snap decisions on their merit.

For starters, you can use it as a way to list the pros and cons of each side of an argument, much in the same way that ProCon.org does for major and controversial political issues (see my example below).

Of course it matters to anyone who wants to understand the economic cost of the adjustment, but arguments about whether the reported data are overstated, and by how much, have become part of the bull vs bear debate about whether Chinese growth is merely slowing temporarily, and not as part of a major economic reversal of the growth model.

I eat so much A&W I could make the same argument for buying them as you made for buying utilities.

Much of your argument such as I've seen, for your sky fairy (and I really think that is an appropriate term for your obviously fictional deity with all the self - contradictory tales about it in the bible), really seems to consist of a combination of willed ignorance and arguments from ignorance.

I've found that atheists and especially atheists here regurgitate arguments put forth by Dawkins and Hitchens et al. as much as any Christian quotes the Bible.

After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus.

Without any evidence for, or even so much as a rational argument in support of your god, or any other god for that matter, believing they exist is patently moronic.

Your «PROVEN» holds about as much water as the screwy intelligent design arguments.

It's embarrassing that so many Americans, people who say they believe in freedom and equality, have spent so much time and energy trying to justify being anti gay marriage - with false arguments from the Bible (as thought that should be the only source of their decisions).

But he did not give us much of an argument as to why these have to be united and how we know that fact.

When I suggested that he was grievously mistaken, he responded, as he had to Woodward's doubts about his stance on abortion, not so much by refuting the argument as by rebuffing the individual who had the gall to question his wisdom.

If We are to «Go G - dless» as the graphic suggests just because a few Fools abuse religion, then by the same logic We should also abstain from alcohol just because a few Fools drive drunk, abstain from communicating just because a few Fools put forth unsound argument, and abstain from eating just because a few Fools eat too much.

Further, again, the Author of this article (after whose viewpoint I structured my argument) also takes the much more strict interpretation as described.

The analysis of these texts will be much shorter than the analysis of the flood in Genesis 6 — 8 because explaining all the texts in detail would simply mean that many of the same arguments and ideas presented as an explanation for one text would simply be repeated in an explanation for a different text.

As a journalist, I like having an argument about Catholicism as much as the next persoAs a journalist, I like having an argument about Catholicism as much as the next persoas much as the next persoas the next person.

I see your argument as being there's an even deeper human condition that the arts can't ignore, no matter how much the artists want to, even if the spiritual world they are picking up on is godless or serving a different god.

I appreciate that Julie has acknowledged some of that, but think that — as someone that stands outside the inner circle — your argument may hold much for you than for those in the inner circle.

The book does not really present «the voice of first millennium Christianity» or make much of an argument toward «restoring the great tradition» (as the subtitle suggests it might).

In his final two sentences, however, he recognizes the contemporary urgency that is intrinsic to his argument: «The hope of solidarity itself, and the recognition of its attendant burdens, still weighs upon us today It has remained a fragile aspiration, as much in need of condensation into symbolic forms of requisite density and imaginative power as it ever was in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries of the Common Era.»

The argument is that the Chicago school arose in the context of the social gospel, a movement that had much in common with contemporary political theology and that, under the stimulus of political theology, this school can recover something of what it had lost as well as move forward in new ways.

Your argument works just as much against MLK's birthday.

Having being on the receiving end of the «man - hater» comment more times than I can count, seeing it listed as number one — in the form of «I like white males so much I married one» — rubbed me the wrong way.Being called a man - hater is often unfairly used as a way to silence women and dismiss their arguments outright, which is troubling, especially when it happens in the midst of a theological discussion.

So much for Gopnik's argument that Chesterton's «national spirit» and «extreme localism» led him to his supposed anti-Semitism: they were, in fact, precisely what gave him his respect for other nations and other cultures, including that of the Jews, to which the world owed its knowledge of God, «as narrow as the universe».

But it's not so much an argument of how «we» as Christians chooses to structure our regular meetings or find comfort in them, it's more about the perception those meetings elicit in both believers and those outside the body.

Though this schema remains, in much reduced form, in the present volume, Hopewell found the central image, the body, unsatisfactory as a conveyance for his essentially structuralist arguments about congregational narrative.

But Duffy never wanders too far from this one persistent argument» that much of the vitality and resiliency of Catholicism is found in its rituals and worship, in lay devotions and Marian piety, in veneration of the Church's blesseds and saints, in acts of communal discipline and obedience that bind the faithful together as a living organism.

While I can not develop the argument here, I believe it makes sense to understand unilateral power as a special case arising out of the more basic relational power, much as determinism arises statistically out of subatomic indeterminancy.

My question was aimed for the majority of peope that also disagree with you as much as me and cling to their faith so violently that if someone even broaches the subject, they immediatly lash out and try to either convert the unbeliever, condem him, or bring up the inane, breathtakingly stupid argument of «I can't prove there is a god, but you can't prove there isn't so we're at an impass» — I think that argument is probably the most frustrating thing EVER

Yet there is not so much as a paragraph on this urgent issue in Wiebe's argument.

Hartshorne notoriously has spent much time and energy in advancing what he regards as valid forms of the ontological argument.

(11) The real argument, however, was not so much with tradition as with a church which used tradition authoritatively.

The argument that is being debated now falls, in terms of some of its aspects (not cohabitation in general so much as male homosexual couples specifically), within limits that are held to be inviolable.

In many ways this argument with Brightman can be seen as a formative moment in Hartshorne's thinking which taught him as much about what he could not allow into his thought as about what he could.

If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.

This «how much more» argument is a recognized form of reasoning in the rabbinical literature, where it is known as «light and heavy, i.e., arguing from the less to the more important.

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.»

Critics charge that Weber's arguments go beyond notions of elective affinity in emphasizing the role of status groups as carriers of new ideas, but the intervening mechanisms relating particular ideas to particular status groups still leave much to be explained.

Indeed, Arkes recognizes as much elsewhere in his argument, for he writes with approval: «During the First Congress, James Madison remarked that the natural right of human beings to be governed only with their consent was an «absolute truth.»

«39 Since few people read Lowe's entire 1949 article in which the details of his argument are really presented, I will select a few of the key contrasts Lowe reprinted in Understanding Whitehead, which contains an abridgement of the 1949 article, in an effort to show that Gunter has really answered them already rendering Whitehead not so much Bergson's mathematical alter ego, 40 as something more approaching his philosophical blood brother 41 According to Lowe, however, «it is fatal to the understanding of Whitehead's constructive metaphysical effort to define it in Bergsonian terms.

This is not so much a criticism of these writers as an indication of the influence of Lowe's argument on Whitehead scholarship — all four of these authors do refer to Lowe.

Here's my latest list — this seems like a good spot to set this down, as nobody's posting much on this thread... ---- bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to post that wonderful argument: Many, if not most are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination and add any words I have missed as a comment (no one has done this yet)-- I found some but forgot to write them down.

This is important to our current argument because it shows that our common sense — and even our medical science — recognizes that even our physical health, much less reality as a whole, can not be reduced to physical processes alone.

In my review I was not referring so much to his concession (quoted by Mr. Ghelardi) that if God does not exist then natural selection is our best available candidate for how complex forms came to be» although that quote certainly is as good an indication as any of my contention that the design argument will only end up becoming a breeding ground for atheism, a fetid terrarium for a whole new brood of Richard Dawkinses (not a pleasant thought, that).