Sentences with phrase «by arguments like»

Indeed, even one of the worthies quoted on the back cover has got it wrong: Wilson does not argue that «the criminal justice system has become a kind of theater of the absurd» with murder «explained away by arguments like having a bad day.»

Not exact matches

But talk on issues like healthcare and education is being drowned out by raucous arguments centering on the personalities of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

That's the argument by KGI Securities analyst Ming - Chi Kuo, who told investors in a research note on Monday that the iPhone X's facial - scanning feature, Face ID, puts it one - and - a-half to two - and - a-half years ahead of rival technology in Android - based alternatives like Samsung's Galaxy S8.

It presented two findings: First, the German public didn't like the reforms passed by Merkel's government in its first year; second, when the public was presented with arguments and data justifying the reforms, it liked them even less.

If you have an investment thesis you like, run it by people who support the other side of the argument.

The finding contradicts arguments by some environmentalist groups that bitumen, the tar - like substance extracted from Alberta's oil patch, corrodes or clogs pipelines, increasing the risk of ruptures.

In the 1800s, in Europe, the argument for the liberalization of bankruptcy law, and the introduction of limited liability, was bolstered by the increasing number of cases like John Bayer, who went bankrupt and then, later, started producing Bayer aspirin, which became a great success.

While I truly want to be with you on the hands - off - free - market argument, I just have to believe that these rules are in place for good reasons... like making sure your sweet Granny don't get fleeced by a huckster.

Demographics are indicating more university spaces becoming avaialble over next 8 years (already started in eastern Canada) as well as labour shortages for younger people (Foote) and generally better things ahead using same arguments by Dent.lt looks like we are headed for BOOM times which will really get going by 2020.

But Mnuchin extends that argument about transparency into something more like a rap sheet: take Beijing's money, he warns, and risk being trapped in a debilitating cycle of debt — something that has led to asset - stripping by Chinese practitioners of what the National Defense Strategy calls «predatory economics.»

Like other loopholes in gun laws, these have been in large part buttressed by the typical pro-gun argument that people should have these weapons to be able to defend themselves and their families.

There is a strong legal argument for why some of the tokens that have come after BTC are not securities, but many other tokens that have popped up over the past 18 months look more like a security as defined by the Howey Test.

Still, it looked like his supporters were probably in the minority, and I mentioned to him that some scientists were grousing online he was validating the creationist argument by even showing up.

Perhaps the best part of Secretary Clinton's speech was when she took on arguments against religious liberty made by authoritarians in places like Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and China.

But is does seem like this policy is being advocated by some reasonable - sounding people with plausible arguments and it does seem to have a respectable intellectual roots.

By my reading of both the human condition and our current culture, a project like Hart's is more important to the status of religion in public life than, say, arguments for a natural law.

But for arguments sake, if it did, out of the trillions of civilizations that must inhabit the universe, why would it like to read a novel by Steven King?

Arguments like yours are non-arguments because they try to take rationality out of the equation by attacking rationality as a basis for aArguments like yours are non-arguments because they try to take rationality out of the equation by attacking rationality as a basis for aarguments because they try to take rationality out of the equation by attacking rationality as a basis for argumentsarguments.

Out of all the postings on this site today, I found «Derp's «post the most fascinating and informative, as well as deeply revealing.Even after boasting of what seems to be a practically perfect live by any measure, he informs us that he takes pleasure in mocking and ridiculing those of faith who are presumably his opposite; I can only wonder if, given all his supposed accomplishments, he is smart enough to realize how deeply revealing of his true character his remarks are.As a believer, I rarely engage in arguments with my atheist friends, and like to think I wouldn't lower myself to the level of juvenile name - calling and personal attacks against whatever my atheist friends hold dear.Most of the time we simply agree to disagree; when they hold forth with misinformation or ignorance on their assumed «knowledge «of my faith, I try to gently correct them; I certainly don't allow any disagreements we have to devolve into hateful insults and name - calling.

Halphen's argument runs like this: (1) by the end of the eighth century, Charlemagne had emerged as master of the West; (2) under these conditions, it was to be expected that a more general title should be added to his collection, to reflect his full power, when local conditions permitted; (3) local conditions in Rome in December, 800, demanded the intervention of an Emperor; and (4) Byzantine imperial power was at that time temporarily disrupted and incapable of intervening in Rome.

by her tone of vioce this sounds like an excuse to spike an argument against the christian community.

Singer, by the same argument, may seem like a monster, but he is the one whose philosophy saves both animals and malnourished children.

And even if all rough correlations could be made smooth by convoluted arguments about cloud covers and the like, the two Genesis accounts themselves, taken as chronologies, do not agree.

Yet again I am so amused by the popular atheists who flock to articles like this to throw out words like «dumb» «stupid» «idiots» «morons» and then use same overused arguments proposed by authors such as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.

We've heard similar «steady state» based arguments just like the one laid out by Leslie Wickman over and over again here.

I am always confused by this argument, because it truly sounds like people want to use keeping the child as a punishment for se.x.

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.

Men kill yes even atheists like Stalin, Mao, Poll Pot kill millions so your use of that argument is dead as are all the people killed by atheists.

If all Christians were distinguished by their love, like the believers in Acts wouldn't you use that as an argument for Christianity?

Often he gives us a polemic against everlasting life for mortals, and the polemic sounds very much like Luther's argument for salvation by faith alone.

Your arguments try to nullify all the good work done by the Ahmadi Prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to take the violent jihad out of Islam like a malignant cancer and transform it from a primitive, violent version into a modern and respectable religion.

Last, and paradoxically, the word «inerrancy» undermines its apologetic intent by reflecting a defensiveness toward Scripture that is out of keeping with the gospel's own boldly proclaimed confidence.52 For these reasons, Hubbard has become increasingly uncomfortable with the use of the term «inerrancy» to describe his basic commitment to Scripture's infallibility, though he has no basic argument with those like Pinnock who use the term as qualified and understood Biblically.

Childs has decisively altered the way in which interpreters like myself, who are situated in the church, do interpretation; moreover, even those who disagree with his perspective, sometimes vociferously, must struggle with the questions upon which he has insisted and the perspective he has legitimated by the power of his argument.

He told me that if TEC were in the habit of advancing theologically rigorous arguments like those offered by orthodox (and gay) theologian Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body, he'd still be in the denomination — «part of the loyal opposition» but still in communion, he said.

Indeed, the «god» whose existence these arguments purport to prove is probably not even consistent with the the god Christians imagine rules the world like the neolithic city - state despot that he was no doubt originally inspired by.

Critics say Flew went senile and was bamboozled into lending his name to a book ghostwritten by an apologist, uncritically describing recent weak theistic arguments like the «fine tuning» argument.

And to accept the arguments of the abolitionist, our great - great - grandparents had to see beyond the «plain meaning» of proof texts like Ephesians 6:1 - 5, Colossians 3:18 - 25; 4:1, and I Timothy 6:1 - 2 and instead be compelled by the general sweep of Scripture toward justice and freedom.

My arguments are to show the boundless ignorance displayed by believers like you.

By the way, that was me pretending to be you Red Dwarf because I have no valid argument and can only act like a 3rd grade child when faced with actual logic and reason.

Churches and pastors who participate in miracles and prophecies don't like to be told that they are being controlled by the devil, and so they often counter with the argument that anyone who says that something is of the devil when it is actually from God is committing a blasphemous sin against the Holy Spirit and will never be forgiven of such a sin.

[Dennett's] limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature - for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins» publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine.

See, Johnny, that's exactly my point; I present people like you with well - developed arguments and, when you have run out logical avenues by which to respond, you turn immediately to the mantras of your faith — «jesus rose from the dead».

A typical Hartshornian restatement of Anselm's argument in the language of modern modal logic runs about like this: Since God is by definition not conceivably surpassable, and since a being whose existence is necessary surpasses one whose existence is merely contingent, therefore, God's existence must be necessary existence.

Odds are, there will be some people at your church will get into a social media argument about such a move by a team they probably don't like and would normally never pay attention to.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

Pete, Peter Lawler and I carried on the discussion here, but I would like to publicly note some fine arguments by our readers.

I like how you don't «want to argue» and then in the same sentence start and argument by insulting atheists.

If you would like to critique their arguments, do so by providing your own relevant arguments and citations.

I know you must be pretty proud of yourself by sounding like your making a valid scientific argument for an all knowing fairy in the sky, but your not.

As to those who disbelieve or mock religion, I read something recently that I'd like to share — not out of a spirit of contention and argument, but in one of genuine concern and interest for those who have not been taught by their own mothers or fathers (as I have most thoroughly been blessed):