Sentences with phrase «talked about his argument»

Let's talk about the argument.

We are also talking about the argument of having English majors as the contract negotiators for books, and Porter Anderson's interesting article on crowd sourcing:

In a recent conversation, which has been edited, he talked about the arguments judges don't want to hear, the importance of professionalism, and the inside information he acquired that helps him in his appellate practice today.

Not exact matches

The argument for a nonjudgmental approach by Amazon is strengthened by the fact that it's Amazon, in particular, that we're talking about.

Canadian Press reported that Harper said: «Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made.

Canadian Press reported that Harper said: «Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity.

Here's the problem: To focus the argument against «Austerian» advocates of fiscal balance, Mr. Krugman hopes that economists will stop distracting attention by talking about what he deems not necessary.

To claim that NAFTA has created jobs is fine but the problem with that argument, especially when talking about automotive manufacturing that went to Mexico, is that those jobs would have also been created in the US if that auto manufacturing had been built here in the US.

Gary, you do a wonderful service to my arguments about God - talk fans.

You were talking first about believing IN god and then about believing (the arguments of?)

For arguments sake let us talk about science, is every thing in this world explained by science?

«My BELIEF is that people reject God», Funny that L4H talks about twisting of facts when she begins the argument with a statement based on personal opinion.

... What I really want to do is to enter into dialogs where I can talk about the weakest part of my argument and you can talk about the weakest part of your argument, and I can accept and celebrate the strongest part of your arguments and visa - versa... This demands a difficult level of vulnerability and transparency.

You haven't responded to what I have talked about with argument from authority, so I'm not going to consider your recommendations.

Then she claims some unspecified «simple logic of cause and effect» (talk about a hand - waving argument), wherein an effect must have a cause, but a first cause can just be, and must logically be the God of the book of Genesis.

Kent, you babbled» «It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.»

To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in creationism / intelligent design is in the 21st Century, here are some areas they must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo - Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.

Kant set the problem with his argument against any knowledge of the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, and Schleiermacher represents the first great attempt to accept that turn and still talk about God in a meaningful way.

First the «born in sin» I would suggest is a weak argument since we are talking about the unborn and also would be offensive to parents of children that died prior to birth (me being one of them).

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

If we're talking about the same universe, then you can conclude anything you like from that argument.

By your argument, if there was 1 religious person that was skeptical and all others not, my point would still be invalid, talk about bs.

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?

Hearing stupid atheists respond to my posts is the best evidence that i'm right... you get all these angry morons that don't have a clue what they're talking about trying to attack my argument, «BUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO MURDERED MILLIONS THEY WERE N'T DRIVEN BY ATHEISM TO KILL»....

For the present, my argument is simply that the talk about «immortality of the soul» has served to provide for a great many Christian people what they wrongly took to be the right and proper Christian way of escaping the stark reality of total death.

Justin notes that Paul's rhetorical strategy here is to begin by talking about wicked people who had turned from God and gotten caught up in all kinds of sins, only to turn the argument on his readers by declaring, «Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.

I found myself in a debate about this the other day, and the gentleman I was talking to fell back on the argument that it was the Church's job to take care of the poor, not the government's.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

My Christian friends in high school avoided talking to me about religion because they anticipated that I would tear down their poorly constructed arguments.

This final part of Griffin's argument for the process theodicy turns on an assumption that he appears to have borrowed by Hartshorne, viz., that the so - called «social view» of omnipotence is the only alternative to the monopolistic (and thus to the standard) view.9 The critique of the latter thus established the former as (in Griffin's words) «the only view that is coherent if one is talking about the power a being with the greatest conceivable amount of power could have over a created, i.e. an actual world» (GPE 269).

well, if you're talking about them, they can't be all that useless there's is at least 1 use for them, which is for you to talk about them so, there goes your argument cheers

It's not the rational arguments that make me feel sick watching the videos of abortion doctors munching salad and sipping wine while talking about crushing skulls, or that make me weep at the sight of that «tissue.»

Put differently, the implication of Russell's argument, despite his own views to the contrary, is this: in order to talk sense about sexuality, you must have a determinative view of the family and marriage.

It held that talking about «political freedom is not a sound argument for attempting to use the blunt instrument of trade sanctions to win democratic rule for China.

I'm on board with talking about grace, mercy, forgiveness, and love, and I'm open to prudential arguments for abolishing the death penalty in the U.S..

if the argument on the other hand is people talking about a blood thirsty God, then points well taken..

I was just thinking about her today, by chance, and her amazing reversion, because my mother read her Jesus books... And I was thinking, damn, it's such crap the way she talked about how she stopped being an atheist because of the historicity of Jesus, no rational person can make that argument, she walking on glass, then BOOM!

I remember when I was about 15, I was in the teen group at a large biblical conference and we were talking about the «sins of the flesh» and I distinctly remember talking about masturbation, their only argument was «You might be told it's normal, but it doesn't promote pure thoughts, so it is wrong.»

Consequently, this argument contributes very little either toward defending the cognitive significance of Stapp's proof or toward clarifying the status of the unknowable spin values with which the proof deals; the same can be said of his argument defending the general significance of talk about possibilities.

It is an obvious and extreme example of just what I am talking about; an ignorant straw man and false premise on which you base your counter argument.

The first, Why We Must Talk about Impeaching Obama is the one about the mechanics, about why it isn't decisive that the Senate won't convict, and how to consider the various arguments, touching race, elections, Joe Biden, etc., that Prudence might make against such tTalk about Impeaching Obama is the one about the mechanics, about why it isn't decisive that the Senate won't convict, and how to consider the various arguments, touching race, elections, Joe Biden, etc., that Prudence might make against such talktalk.

I would love to talk to you about this whole argument.

If Chelsea had signed Vardy after he snubbed us you would have a good argument but you're talking about 2 different players.

Talk about hanging your hat on a bollocks argument.

Now shut up and talk about about the football and stop trying to start a baseless argument...

If we're talking about lack of coaching, why hasn't the argument of him TRAINING with Tyson been brought up?

now everybody just talk Shiit about us and with us fans being the joke in every pub... sport bar even in every argument... on Thursday when we were a goal down against Koln two Chelsea fans who just walked into the bar where I was watching the game were like» look at them, see how pathetic they are.

Your argument can still be used for the defending case, i.e. «this is Real we are talking about, with Ronaldo, Asensio, Vasquez, up front, supported by Kroos and Kovacic».

Chelsea's David Luiz has been a big talking point, having fallen down the pecking order since a fall - out with coach Antonio Conte, and with his replacement Andrea Christensen thoroughly impressing in his place, you can have little argument about his exclusion.