Sentences with phrase «much argument on»

There is much argument on here over what is the dominant religion, which religion is growing or declining faster, which has the most political power, etc..

Not exact matches

That Monday's accident was the first fatal incident involving a fully autonomous vehicle indicates that arguments for their safety have merit, but much of that testing has occurred on highways, which are easier for self - driving cars to navigate than dense, urban environments.

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.

I'm not sure your arguments will have much influence on Aud

The decision to label Cohn a «globalist» on his way out the door is, at a minimum, a suggestion that he lost not a specific policy argument about steel but a much larger argument about the overall direction of the Republican Party.

The point being if you have other sources of support you don't «need» to rely on SS so much, or at least I suspect that will be the argument put forward.

On the other side of this argument are those who believe that the massive amount of debt is too great for central bankers to overcome, no matter how much money they can create.

The key thrust of Jarret's arguments in various articles on this topic seem to be «people who have much more experience in this than Musk have already proved this doesn't work.»

In much of the literature on leadership, an argument is made that to lead, one must follow.

While the book has weak points — most notably regarding Isaac Backus, the 18th - century baptist minister and author of the important treatise Government and Liberty Described and Ecclesiastical Tyranny Exposed (1778)-- who appears and then disappears without much clarity on how he fits the argument — it is generally an incisive interpretation.

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.

One might say that the foregoing argument hinges too much on the assumption of a traditional Last Judgment.

Add to that the variety of doctrines / Theologies within orthodox Christianity... with Consensus on a very small Core of Truths: God Is, We are not God, Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Salvation is Through Faith / Belief in Him... there is much that lacks Consensus and there are mountains of arguments and counter-arguments for each doctrinal / Theological position.

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.

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.

Readers» comments on the piece included much criticism, too (although there was plenty of support for Helminiak's argument).

DO NOT insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument, but by bald assertion or authoritarian claims which are much easier to invent and promote.

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

Nevertheless, I pursued a running argument with Barkun: he was wasting too much intellectual energy on the lunatic fringe.

I just can't stop laughing at how much the Russ», the new - man's, the devin's, the kermits, the Rainer's, etc., etc., on this blog are so desperate to be in control and demand that the Doris» stay on the «current» argument since they can't handle anything that deviates outside their talking points.

But on occasion he uses much stronger language: the property he is describing «requires a divine foundation» (emphasis added); it «provides new strength for the arguments that point to a Creator»; it «clearly suggests the existence of a divine source of power and perfection.»

You said: «I am not much on religion, but this sign says to celebrate reason, however there is no reason in an Atheist's argument.

So much for Kant's argument on that subject.

I am not much on religion, but this sign says to celebrate reason, however there is no reason in an Atheist's argument.

If your whole argument for the existence of a god and the truth of your religion is hinged on threats of torture, you don't have much of an argument.

By resting much of his case on the unproven assumption that schools in the past played the role he wishes they would play today, Hirsch detracts from his generally plausible argument that more could be done today to help children know and understand their culture.

Much of the controversy surrounding Weberian arguments about Puritanism has focused on substantive issues.

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.

Though there was not that much new to report on the topic, the three major news - magazines decided anyway to feature Jesus on their Easter week cover and report on recent arguments about whether Jesus actually said what the New Testament says...

To recall, my criticisms were based not so much on the substance of Dr. Podles» psychological or anthropological research but on the use of that research for the rest of his argument.

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.

And if you want to talk about a child argument, if you distrust CNN so much, why are you even wasting your time posting anything on here?

There's so much more to be said, from various different angles: the experience of the Bible coming alive, intellectual arguments, historical arguments and so on.

In the years ahead, much will hang on which side of that argument has a greater portion of the truth.

Unless, you can come up with a sound and reasoned argument, since your most recent attempts are just a much «larger» re-hashing,» I am going to decline to post on this particular topic any further.

The fallacy in this argument stems from two hidden premises which have become so much part and parcel of Christian tradition that they are usually assumed at the outset, and remain unexamined even by those who are, in other ways, trying to examine the Gospel evidence on historical grounds.

In fact, the crunching of numbers to make an argument appear more valid is done by pretty much everyone on this planet.

It must be said at once that he has one decisive argument on his side: that it is a phrase unique in Judaism, where Amen signifies assent to something said, or links one to a prayer, but never introduces sayings, and that the developing Christian tradition tends to modify it to something much less startling.

A much easier argument for a christian with background in these areas, which I have, but there is staunch refusal to admit to basic premises from non-christians on the most simple issues.

Much of Galatians consists of Paul's ad hoc arguments for the inadequacy of the Torah: the Galatians had received the Spirit by faith, not by works of the law (3:2); Abraham was justified by faith, not by works of tile law (3:6); the Mosaic covenant did not supplant the promise to Abraham (3:17 - 18); the law was only a temporary measure (3:23 - 25); and so on.

«Although the book was written against her now dead half - sister,» continues Gonzalez, «Elizabeth resented much of what it said, for its arguments based on anti-feminine prejudice could just as easily apply to her.

While there's still much learning to be done, I have found the light in teh grace of Jesus Go out and do real research if you're truly intersted in learning and gaining knowledge, posting stupid arguments on these boards accomplishes nothing and only shows people's willful ignorance.

The deepest convictions of men in favor of future hope, therefore, have come not so much from those who have framed arguments for it as from those who have heightened life's spiritual value, given it new meaning, made it wealthy with fresh significance and purpose until it has seemed as though it ought to go on.

Until the New Mexico photographer, the Colorado baker, the Pennsylvania bridal shop owner, the California caterer, and others who refuse to participate in same - sex weddings for religious reasons appear as or more victimized than the customers they decline to take on, legal arguments won't much help.

You would be amazed at how much material there is on arguments for and against God's existence.

The proper argument is not an abstract debate over the size of government but a debate over how much government we want and need, whose side government is on and what interests government serves.

Though there was not that much new to report on the topic, the three major news - magazines decided anyway to feature Jesus on their Easter week cover and report on recent arguments about whether Jesus actually said what the New Testament says he said.

Knowledge in the sense of direct first - hand encounter has so much higher standing than abstract argument based on logic that one could almost speak of anti-intellectualism in n - any groups.

They turned out to be based on erroneous information (weapons of mass destruction) and a dreamy idealism (democracy)» there was and is much to criticize» but the arguments for war in 2003 were articulate and admitted of just war analysis.

Now you can argue some people's interpretations are irrelevant and dangerous, much like scientists on the bleeding edge often do with other scientists, and you will get no argument from me.