Sentences with phrase «taken as an argument»

(That may might be taken as an argument for combining the two approaches, in terms of appealing to different audiences and trying to bring them together on equality).

Error bars larger than the effect being measured tend to be taken as an argument for inaction — which, in fact, they are.

Not exact matches

I could be wrong — and all five of the Republican candidates for President still standing would tell me I am — but Apple's take on CALEA strikes me as a compelling argument.

His argument, in a nutshell: Take out a HECM as soon as you're eligible, at age 62, and then let it earn interest so you can milk it for cash a couple of decades down the road.

That argument is taken from the position of the employer, usually the small - business owner who has to adjust her growth plans to not cross the 50 - worker, full - time threshold that requires companies to provide qualifying health plans to its workers or face the penalties known officially as the «shared responsibility payments.»

A federal appeals court signed off on the U.S. Interior Department's decision to take land into trust for a proposed Native American casino, rejecting arguments that the tribe's promises to mitigate environmental effects are «illusory» because as a sovereign Native American nation, it can not be sued to enforce them.

In short, the arguments about the difficulties of influencing activity should make central bankers cautious and modest about their role as cyclical stabilisers, but do not excuse them from taking the cycle into account in setting policy, and doing what they can to lop peaks and fill troughs.

Gross's argument about the stock market, which in his characteristic bombast he referred to as a «Ponzi scheme,» took a completely opposite stance.

Both sides make very compelling arguments, leaving some content marketers scratching their heads as to what side to take.

I said «people such as yourself» meaning someone who gave mixed signals — on the one hand encouraging me to give you my «best argument,» and then when I take the time to formulate an expansive reply, you don't bother to post it.

Reilly seems to think that this argument is both an obvious as well as a persuasive tack to take.

Seems you get more and more desperate as your standard old (and badly flawed) arguments get taken apart.

How foolish — people like you and Maher and Dawkins just take bible readings out of context, and try to read all bible writings as literal — it's such a foolish, dum argument and it proves nothing.

I also don't think I need to point out to you that using only part of a definition fundamentally changes the word and definition itself, so to take only parts out to prove what atheism does do as «religious» is flawed and destroys your argument.

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

St. Anselm, for instance, puts in his Proslogion what a typically modern reading takes as the «ontological argument»: an attempt to prove, by examining the meaning of the word «God,» the existence of a useful transcendental guarantor of thought, whose existence is itself guaranteed by thought.

No matter how you cut it Theo, once you use the argument of «everything must have a cause» to assume into existence you god, you then have to address why it need not have a cause (and then why that logic can not simply be applied to the Universe itself so as to take your god out of the equation altogether.)

I can't say I understand the Z of Z theory, or the theoretical approach you are taking, but I'm interested — as one who values argument (from arg — to shine, build up a shared «shine» — initially argument had positive connotation) I am impressed by the gap separating the «good» that we know and can say, and yet are unable to practice.

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.

Further, again, the Author of this article (after whose viewpoint I structured my argument) also takes the much more strict interpretation as described.

The narration of these events is meant to serve not just as an example but as an implicit argument for how Christians should think, and how seminary curriculum should be restructured to take congregational life seriously.

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.

Specifically, only a rather sophisticated philosophical argument could offer a reasonable basis for taking temporal order and structure to be essential to experience as such and therefore to divine experience as well as to our own.

... lending should not be used as an instrument of advantage - taking...» This sounds like a variation on the Moral Argument for the existence of god.

If their argument wasn't so flimsy, this might even seem like an outright attack on faith (however, given the nature of the whole list, it's really hard to take it seriously, and see it as anything more than a bad hot take for a sake of a hot take.)

I read two articles last year (which I didn't document, like you, thinking it was out of the question) about pedophiles making the exact same argument as the present day argument that homosexuals have taken from the cause of the Black people; «they were born that way.»

It is certainly not the saying of the prophet, and Christians must not take it as a model, but it is the kind of argument the ordinary man can address to the ordinary man, and we must be on guard against scorning it (even if we are not to overrate it either).

Even among Christians, for whom scripture should be a guide to life's challenges, many cling to the idea that issues such as abortion and the end of life are so complex that only a simple - minded person, unable to see two sides of an argument, could possibly take a firm stance.

The argument of this sermon was open to criticism on the ground that the preacher seemed to take for granted a highly debatable view of the redemptive value of human suffering; yet he was calling attention to something very important, namely, that if we quote Baxter's words as Professor Lampe has done, we must not forget that the scope of Christ's suffering is limited.

The second argument must be taken very seriously, for (as so often happens nowadays) it casts doubt on certain Christian beliefs, namely, that we must preach the gospel so that men may be converted; that the purpose of preaching the gospel is neither to reform society nor to increase justice, but simply to convert men to their Lord Jesus Christ.

Werner Jaeger, who has written the classic history of the idea of paideia, [2] pointed out in a later book on Early Christianity and Greek Paideia that Clement not only uses literary forms and types of argument calculated to sway people formed by paideia but, beyond that, he explicitly praises paideia in such a way as to make it clear that his entire epistle is to be taken «as an act of Christian education.»

As we have seen13 arguments were developed that allowed Christians to take part in a just war.

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.

Of course, if you believe as many do that these words were actually inspired by God, then this argument could be taken even further.

Things are easier for them: The refusal and the narration are easy gestures, and it takes only a modicum of literary flair and historical confidence to peg the acolyte of truth and demonstrative argument as a creature from another age.

Kraus supports her view by producing an argument against what she apparently takes to be the only alternative position open to Whiteheadians, the «interpretation of God as a personal order of divine occasions» of Charles Hartshorne (p. 163).

If, as I think can he argued, neither of these considerations is a cogent argument against the Possibility of any sort of metaphysics of Entity, then the question of the validity of Whitehead's rejection of Aristotle's notion of substance takes on special importance.

The persuasive way to read Pascal's original is as a performance argument and a prayer, but, taken as a flat set of logical possibilities, it has an answer in the extremely unlikely possibility that God rewards disbelief or that God punishes belief.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

The problem, as elsewhere stated, is that the precision of language and arguments can not take the place of a philosophic method in which imaginative generalization and insight are paramount.

One of the arguments for long periods away while everything is fine is the prevention of potential problems in the future but Sir Paul Coleridge said there were better ways to deal with any problems, such as going on holidays for couples, organised by Christian groups or with a Christian theme: «I would immensely encourage people to investigate those and take them up.»

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.

More specifically, I shall contend that Hartshorne's arguments against the Thomistic denials of internal relatedness, potentiality, complexity, and contingency (of some properties), arguments that I take to be wholly successful, do not, as Hartshorne seems to suppose, suffice also to dispose of the Thomistic doctrines of omnipotence, immutability, nontemporality, creation ex nihilo, and unsurpassibility even by self.

Although for the most part Hartshorne seems to take it as immediately evident that the relative and contingent would be mutable and temporal, there are occasional flashes of argument.

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.»

In the recent days I can only take you as a person trying to win a debate by false argument.

Mega-evolutionists are having serious arguments among themselves as to how mega-evolution could have ever taken place.

Yes, it is well worth emphasizing that the abstract arguments for recognizing a god as the «uncaused cause» of the universe can not be used to defend the notion of a personal god, let alone the specific conception of god and his supposed take on human beliefs that Christians believe in.

Capital punishment's lack of demonstrated superiority as a deterrent (the evidence for its effectiveness being at best mixed), the capacity of society to protect itself equally well by permanently imprisoning those who are currently being executed (which is possible at limited marginal cost, especially when one takes into account the cost of the extended trial procedures and interminable appeals and reviews which usually accompany capital punishment)-- all these points are important, but their utility is chiefly as rebuttal arguments in response to the empirically weak but emotionally strong claims made on behalf of capital punishment.

He loved an argument, spoiled for a fight and took disagreements over values as seriously as he would have taken training for the Olympics.