Sentences with phrase «at the argument because»

It's important to take a closer look at the argument because it's become widely discussed and reported.

Not exact matches

Gaining perspective is the most fundamental aspect of progression; and because I'm a huge nerd at heart, I believe reading full - fledged books (with sound arguments and universal wisdom) is one of the best ways to combat the wealth of digital misinformation we're faced with today.

It's a little harder to deal with the haters who attack whenever you write something positive, or even whenever you write anything at all about Apple, because their arguments aren't entirely incorrect or unsympathetic.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, hinted during an hour - long argument in the case at support for the Justice Department's stance that because Microsoft is based in the United States it was obligated to turn over data sought by prosecutors in a U.S. warrant.

There is an argument that many ICOs should not be described as «investments» because they do not give buyers actual equity in the companies that offer them, only credit that can be redeemed at a later date.

«The argument is the types of things we're doing now with information technology just don't show up in GDP because a lot of what we do on the Internet is free,» or very nearly so, says Philip Cross, a former chief of economic analysis at Statistics Canada who wrote a paper on the slow - growth economy for the Fraser Institute think tank last year.

One could make a compelling argument that those expenses should not be taken all at once, but instead spread out of the period when a drug is sold because it is equivalent to buying equipment for your bakery.

So your argument is that because interest rates have been kept artificially low (effectively ripping everyone off with a manipulated money supply that's becoming more worthless by the day) that paying 6 % for a mortgage (which at one point was low) is getting ripped off?

In any event, there's no question or argument that my insistence on stress - testing against Depression - era data was a painful shot to the foot in this cycle, and is more painful because, at least to - date, it turned out to be unnecessary in hindsight.

Bayer said in a statement that it doesn't control the cost for patients at the pharmacy, because copays are determined by insurers and pharmacy - benefit managers — an argument that pharmaceuticals companies have long made when facing criticism over drug prices.

This is a good argument for asking to reduce your income tax deductions at source if you regularly get a refund because you pay union dues, childcare costs, contribute to your RRSP or donate to charity (among other things).

Now, if at the end of last week not just one, but several gold bulls have indeed advanced the argument that one should be bullish on gold «because gold stocks are outperforming gold», then we want to know where precisely this nest of anonymous gold bulls is located, and what they are smoking there.

That is because the argument I'm making at his point in time is not for Christianity, but rather for the existence of the supernatural and the existence of God.

«The Court is not persuaded by the Government's argument that there can not or should not be any defense of justification or necessity merely because the conduct at issue, i.e., abortion, is legal as a matter of positive law.

We (at least I) try to be reasonable but when someones only argument is «I'm right because it says so in this book!»

His argument makes sense only if aimed at the Catholic bishops, and even here it falls short because, if surveys are to be believed, most Catholics are not listening.

But such arguments make little headway with socialists, says Novak, because, contrary to appearances, socialism is not really a practical political proposal at all.

This line of apologist argument is at best a draw, but perhaps doesn't even rise to that level because at least we have physical evidence for the singularity.

You have yet to directly respond to the specific points I've made at least three times now, i.e.: 1) the immutable good nature argument is simply unsupported definitional fiat (god can be equally described as malevolent or apathetic with equal support); 2) the immutable good nature argument presents a source of morality beyond god's direct control placing the argument in the god says so because it is good prong of the dilemma; and 3) the argument suggests god is not omnipotent because god is constrained to only a limited set of potential behaviors.

Because you can not disprove this existence of God, your argument is logically inconclusive (at best).

Because of the «ism» at the end, making it appear as if it were an ideology, and the fact that they do not understand the definition of the word... and many seek to use a «false equivalency» in a bid to bolster their failed arguments, too.

Your argument that atheists know more IS an emotional response because you are egoistic and a spoiled brat at heart.

If one's entire argument is «life begins at conception because Buddha told me in a dream» that's an «authoritarian» claim.

that is, «The world is thus [italics mine] faced by the paradox that, at least in its highest actualities, it craves for novelty and yet is haunted by terror at the loss of the past, with its familiarities and its loved ones,» refers, because of the use of the word thus, to a previous argument that provides the grounds on which Whitehead bases his assertion that the world requires both novelty and order.

This is the concept of that beyond which thought can not go, in which it completes its search for understanding, at which it really affirms only itself, and through which it relates all else.2 Leaving aside his views on its historical character, this is what R. G. Collingwood seems to be suggesting when he says that Anselm's argument does not prove «that because our idea of God is an ideal of id quo maius cogitari nequit therefore God exists, but that because our idea of God is an idea of id quo maius cogitari nequit we stand committed to belief in God's existence.

First he attempted to apply a logical argument, whose history extends back at least as far as Cicero's On Divination.4 According to this view, contingency (chance) and foreknowledge (fate) are contradictory assertions because a contingent event, being unnecessitated, can not be known until it occurs.

Looking at history, a very good argument could be made that that is the real social purpose of religion... to divide people, because a divided people are easy to control and manipulate.

and because what is being asked doesn't fit in with what they choose to do... they reject God and use whatever arguments are at hand to support their position.

A substantial tome at 384 pages of text plus almost 800 footnotes, Huck's Raft is more a compendium of information than a sustained argument, but it's a reasonably lively read because Mintz knows how to tell a story.

You need to stop being so vindictive towards others, maybe read a book, go have sex, whatever you need to calm down, then come back and realize that no one is attacking you, im sure people are laughing at this conversation, but not because of what it in but just because its pointless, you bring up the same things OVER and OVER again and then accuse me of having spuratic arguments?

For example, the idea of a heavenly contract gained cogency among Puritan clerics at least in part because it was used to support specific arguments against radical heretics» ideas about adult baptism and free will.

This was at least in part because, despite his moral arguments, his call to arms was seen as specious and politically motivated.

Hence some aethiest stop sounding logical once you point out any flaws in their arguments because at this point their merely defending their beliefs and not really trying to have some sort of logical discussion.

Hence some believers stop sounding logical once you point out any flaws in their arguments because at this point their merely defending their beliefs and not really trying to have some sort of logical discussion.

«I looked very much at both sides of the argument regarding if it was ok to be a Christian in an active gay relationship, particularly because I was in a relationship with a guy at the time.

Unfortunately because of filters I can not post the whole argument but please see thedevineevidence website at the COMmon domain.

«I think the reason that the economic arguments Christ offered are not promoted is because they are deeply at odds with the way we live,» he explains.

The argument is standard because it has been used throughout history, at various times and places, to argue for the moral inferiority of a marginalized class of people.

@ grassroots: I would like to believe that you were sincere in claiming that atheists have a ``... duty (as if being responsible to some authority) to debunk...» (I presume you to mean a belief in God) ``... via the Internet... [etc]», but when you mix sarcasm with rationality, then you lose creditability with me because you join the ranks of those who just want to poke fun at believers for entertainment and invite a heated argument with no intentions of converting such people.

All of these considerations do not change the fact that for a long time American society has been organized around the image of the successful white Anglo - Saxon man, nor assuage the bitterness of those excluded from the central rewards of the society because of the fact of sex or race or age.22 Plato long ago pointed out that the tyrant who can gratify every whim is the greatest slave of all, because he is completely at the mercy of his own desires, but he did not mean that argument as an excuse for tyrants.

If Chad and others argue that naturalistic evolution must be dismissed because we don't know exactly what happened with gene mutation and transmission frequencies during particular periods of rapid change, then how can we accept a replacement argument in which we don't even know what happens at all?

Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!

In this paper I shall (1) briefly set forth this argument; (2) show that the argument, if it is valid, is valid only for a Hartshornean God; (3) argue that, since Hartshorne's God does require that at least something (anything will do) contingent exists, the «new» ontological argument fails even for Hartshorne's God, because it is logically possible that there should be nothing at all, total non-being.

Hartshorne evidently recognizes the force of this reasoning because the other line of argument by which he at least appears to support his claim for a distinct class of theological analogies is to appeal to just such a direct experience of God.

While I may use insulting language at times, I in no way say your argument is invalid because of those things, so your ad hominem claim is false.

Yeah, because people will believe scientific arguments from a group that starts with a premise that life begins at conception.

[2] Smith holds that the perverted faculty argument, in at least some form, is a part of any coherent argument against contraception, [3] but claims that her argument is more than the classical version of the perverted faculty argument because it dwells on more than the physical end of the faculty.

An alternative formulation is that the world as a unity is explainable only by the divinely inclusive love that binds the many into a single cosmic structure; and, therefore, the world of secular experience is nonsense if God does not exist.79 Similarly, one neoclassical version of the traditional teleological argument would be that the fact that the world has any order at all is only to be explained by an eternal divine Orderer, because apart from God it is impossible to understand why chaos and anarchy are not unlimited and supreme.80

The whole question of Jesus» baptism by John was the more important and disturbing because at the end of the first century disciples of the Baptist were challenging the primacy of Jesus over John and were doubtless appealing to the baptism as one of their principal arguments.

At one point, Las Casas addresses and rejects Sepúlveda's argument that the Indians should not be regarded as human because they practice human sacrifice.