Sentences with phrase «fact as an argument»

Not exact matches

Whilst accepting that there is two sides to every argument / position describing climate change as a big hoax and the depiction of a bleak medieval style future is not responsible analysis of the facts.

As behavioral psychologist Susan Weinschenk explained on her blog recently (via a great personal story, of course), by putting us in their protagonists» shoes, stories manage to engage more of the brain than straight recitations of facts or dry arguments, leading to more arousal and interest.

In fact, there's an argument to be made — as Dennis Berman does at the Wall Street Journal — that the Verizon bid for AOL says more about Verizon's difficulties than it does about any intrinsic value that its target might have.

However, rank manipulation is only a secondary motivation when you're using links to support your arguments or cite facts — as long as your content quality is in check, you shouldn't have to worry about a penalty.

In fact, they see their weaknesses as sources of personal development, and use arguments as an opportunity to refine their views.

If you make assumptions about why demand for loans is slack among small businesses and then treat that as a fact which underpins your whole argument, it makes it difficult to treat this as anything beyond opinion.

You might decide that this is just an arbitrary, round figure, that is only roughly right for you, and in fact there is just as good an argument for 15 % or 25 %.

Bootyfunk, as no one really knows all of the facts of history, I usually limit my arguments to what is going on TODAY.

nothing which you've outlined as an argument supports your premise that you're about to disclose «truth» and «fact» about why atheism is bad.

The fact that you resort to petty little insults shows the depth of your character and arguments, which are about as shallow as a drop of water in an empty pool.

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at conception, or over the proper structure of the family.

Here's the penultimate paragraph: Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at....

Jamie, your «fact» and entire argument is nothing but a logical fallacy known as an «argumentum ad ignorantiam».

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

You called me out as being disingenuous when I said «that as time goes on however, I'm finding things that are helping to disprove things previously held as fact among Christians», so I have provided you an example that not only wasn't it a disingenuous statement, but that I've done my homework, on both sides of the argument, and came up with something that no one has been able to give me a response with even either the slightest chance of being possible, or falling back to the old status qua of «mysterious ways» and «having faith».

To understand why Behe's argument is so uncontested in the realm of fact, and yet why so many scientists find the concept of irreducible complexity not only difficult to accept but even impossible to consider, we should start by summarizing the modern understanding of Darwinism, as set out by Richard Dawkins.

Griffiths accuses death penalty advocates of theatrics, while in fact his whole line of argument is melodramatic, as when he refers to executions as «blood sacrifices.»

Perhaps, but not as ridiculous as the fact that their argument grew so heated that Gurman shot her as she walked away.

The originality of Hartshorne's discussions about the nature of God, and particularly his daring and novel defense of the ontological argument, have led some to overlook the fact that, as he himself says, his primary interest lies elsewhere.

For that argument may perhaps amount to this, that perfection is conceivable only as the property of an existing individual, and not of merely possible individuals (whereas we may conceive the nature of Mr. Micawber, for example, as not in fact the nature of an existing man).

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».

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.

But to debate the explosive growth of Christianity in the first century and pass it off as an argument and not recognized it as historical fact recognized by any historian....

But the argument that Professor Smolin attributes to Arkes is nowhere in the book; and what Arkes does argue for never appears in Prof. Smolin's review — in fact, Smolin writes as if he is oblivious to it.

What is with the Christian backers of their god as soon as they are backed into a corner and they do not have a logical answer they come back well after the fact and start the same BS arguments all over again.

It is this fact which, as in the early church so now, has been a powerful force in moving people toward the acceptance of the second part of the argument, namely, that there must be an authoritative church which will adjudicate finally, absolutely, and even infallibly on which interpretations should be seen as resulting from the Spirit's illumination and which should not.

Your «nice try» comment is simply an attempt to deflect away from the substance of this argument, in trying to denigrate me as irrelevant... when in fact, all it does is reflect that you are trying to «get me to go away» because you have no substantive argument left to make.

Kohn's shift in tone and argument is troubling, as is the fact that a mainstream liberal website published her article.

As for Ms. Hinlicky's argument that non-abortifacient forms of birth control are not intrinsically evil in light of the fact that many couples employ these methods and suffer no evil results, I can only refer her to the wisdom of Ecclesiasticus 5:4: «Say not: I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me?

A post hoc ergo propter hoc argument represents a parataxic mode of reasoning, as does the comic element behind the game of «peek - a-boo,» which takes advantage of the fact that at that stage children lack what Piaget called a «conception of object permanency.

The above conversations exist as testament to this fact and argument is futile.

When the data do not allow for such manipulation, as with Jesus» remark that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, then Lindsell slides into an argument that hinges on the author's intention (e. g., «it was the intention of the speaker to communicate the fact that the mustard seed was «the smallest that his hearers were accustomed to sow»»).35 But his commitment to scientific accuracy is thus qualified, though this is nowhere admitted.

However, as writers in this group tend to suggest, that type of argument overlooks the fact that characterizations of the «essence» of Christian faith are themselves deeply shaped by the social and cultural locations of the people who make them.

However, despite the fact that God is transcendent, God is personal, as the moral argument shows, as He gave us morals to show us how to live.

One of the arguments that the «Christian nationalists» always make is that the country was founded on Christian principles, when in fact many of the founders held beliefs that were about as far from any Christian orthodoxy as you could safely be back in those days.

Sentence two is the closest to an actual argument he makes, but it is a fact that science has little to no information on what happens after we die, as you pointed out yourself, we do not know (in the sense of having empirical proof).

The fact that you use this as an argument that this is a «Christian» nation is the reason atheists fight things like this.

But first, what in fact have been the traditional arguments for life after death, as it has come to be called?

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.

And he must have remembered how he himself had come to faith — not simply because he had been convinced by argument but, in large measure, because the Christian faith struck him as a «myth» that had actually become «fact.»

But in one fell swoop, Clinton negated the pro-choice argument by referring to the unborn as, in fact, a person.

Clearly the fact that a particular car won't start is as irrelevant to the determination of whether cars are for driving as the fact that a car is blue or red; Dowd's argument simply confuses accidental and essential characteristics of marriage.

When at last it became fashionable to admit that there are irreconcilable contradictions in the four versions of the empty tomb story, this fact was used by many as a popular argument in favor of their essential reliability.

The argument, as outlined above, therefore collapses and we are left with the striking fact that the later the Gospel the more elaborate becomes the story of the empty tomb, 9 a phenomenon which is perfectly consistent with a developing and expanding tradition, but one which is inconsistent with eye - witness accounts, where one expects more detail and more reliability the nearer one is in time to the event being described.

In fact, this may quite possibly be his only line of argument, the other apparent one not really being intended as such after all.

We have opened up the question sufficiently to show that there is a very real possibility that the whereabouts of the burial place of Jesus was not known when his resurrection first began to be proclaimed, and that unless this can be established as an historical fact, that argument for the «bodily resurrection» which we have been considering remains invalid.

The facts of order from which the physico - theological argument starts are thus easily susceptible of interpretation as arbitrary human products.

From where I sit — which is not as a scholar of the law, but as a reporter of facts — «the law is the law» argument has two fundamental flaws.

Arguments for the existence of other minds can not be proven with certitude, yet most everyone accepts them as a given fact.