Sentences with phrase «logical argument against»

(so quoted in Financial Times) That's more of a food hyperbole than a logical argument against self sufficiency efforts.

ausphor, Once again, I gave a purely logical argument against abortion, and instead of giving a sensible argument against it (which can not be done) you are choosing to let your bigotry shine, and attack my faith, which did not even enter into my discussion above.

You are only mad because there is no logical argument against equal rights.

Such behavior does more to refute Scripture than any logical argument against inerrancy ever could.

One of the first to set forth a logical argument against suicide was Augustine, the fourth - century theologian.

Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage / same - sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible.

Not exact matches

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.Hate against any group of people you dis - agree is still hate and is not tolerable in my opinion.

Before science, there was no logical argument to be made against the presumed existence of gods and the supernatural.

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.»

Anyone who make's an argument against anyone or any idea by simply calling others idiot, is truly lacking any real ability to articulate logical reason for their opposition.

He has stated elsewhere, for example, that the fact that evil presents no serious logical or probabilistic argument against God's existence or goodness will be cold and abstract comfort to a person who is faced with «the shocking concreteness of a particularly appalling exemplification of evil» (AP 35 - 36).

And if we affirm that Jesus was true God and true man and believe that he rose bodily from the tomb, then logical consistency demands that we not use the Enlightenment's antisupernatural, deistic or naturalistic arguments against traditional views on the virgin birth, the miracle stories of the Bible, the presence of the Holy Spirit, the future return of Christ, prayer and others.

At Erfurt the Occamists gave Martin a confidence in logical processes and the use of argument and dialectic which never left him, however much he thundered against it as a way to religious faith.

If you take the argument against selection to its logical conclusion then once an MP has been elected to Parliament they should stay in the job as long as they want and there is no further need for any General Election.

A «classic Lib Dem fudge» is what the Mirror's Kevin Maguire called it on the Daily Politics, and one pro-Trident Labour MP tells me that the Lib Dems» proposed halfway solution is almost worse than «being against Trident altogether — at least that would give their argument logical sense».

«This is too logical a transition for anyone to have an ideological argument against clean energy, because it stands against economic growth and good business sense,» says Daniel Kammen, professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, and science envoy for the U.S. State Department, who is attending the talks, «That's what people are saying here — they're incredulous that anyone would want to back off on this.»

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

You visit PS4 articles to disagree with somebody who's arguments are sound and logical just to cause an argument against Sony fans and / or to defend somebody who is trolling on said articles.

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

For a view from the ground, my friend and colleague, Hans Brenna, a climate researcher currently investigating the role of volcanoes on stratospheric chemistry, believes that the logical result of arguments against advocacy are a slippery slope.

Therefore, the exception, which I stated merely for completeness, does not apply in this case; there is no relevant «logical» argument against the warmist case.

Besides that, pointing to an alleged bias of Mann as an argument against the Mann et al., (1999) study, is a logical fallacy.

For Auld LJ, there were two «knock - out» arguments against a narrowing of the prohibition: - the impossibility of identifying a boundary between party political matters and other matters of public importance and controversy; and - he contended, it would not have been «a principled or logical distinction to limit the prohibition to... election periods,» if airtime could be bought outside them (para 80).

Indeed, I have argued that his arguments against judicial review of legislation and Justice Scalia's in favour of limiting judicial review to the enforcement of the original meaning of the constitution are very similar, and that, if anything, «Justice Scalia and his fellow originalists are guilty of failing to follow the logical implications of their own views about the nature of the questions that arise in judicial review.