Sentences with phrase «on a false premise from»

If an issue based on sound science conclusions has irrefutable merit, it would not have the fatal appearance of being based on a false premise from its inception, a foregone conclusion of it as a settled science in need of action to solve it and adapt to it.

Not exact matches

There is much that could be said about this, but I will stick with one thing, based on discussion at about the 2 minute mark: When atheists insist that atheism does not drive behavior, and then then campaign on behalf of atheism, ridicule religion and religious believers in the name of atheism, seek to change laws in favor of their atheistic positions, recommend the extermination of religion, and practice falsehoods like Dawkins's in support of atheism, they prove that their atheism drives their behavior and that their premise is false, disingenuous, and (as far as I can tell) useless for anything but giving atheism rhetorical cover from being implicated in atheists» atrocities.

DVD Review by Kam Williams Headline: Samuel L. Jackson Dud as Racist Neighbor Due on DVD This cinematic fiasco rings false from beginning to end, from its patently absurd premise clear through to its unintentionally funny resolution.

According to the NPCC, a false alarm would be one that has not resulted from: a criminal attack, or attempts at such, on the protected premises; actions by the emergency services in the execution of their duty; or a call emanating from a hold up alarm with good intent.

It's not surprising that laws based on a false premise are doomed to fail from the start.

The allegations are based on the false premise that ExxonMobil reached definitive conclusions about anthropogenic climate change before the world's experts and before the science itself had matured, and then withheld it from the broader scientific community.

Also, your premise has the problem as antecedent to a patently false claim, as the substantial argument on my side against the validity of your argument is not even separated from your claim of its nonexistence by two inches on the page.

How, exactly, is this not circular reasoning on the one hand, and circular reasoning from an obviously false premise on the other?