Sentences with phrase «use arguments like»

You can challenge it with properly thought out and published arguments if you stumble upon an alternative theory and people aren't going to suppress you, but if you use arguments like «I went home and didn't see a spider on my floor, didn't see any cells and electrons floating around, didn't feel my ground moving, and didn't see my dog morphing into a cat, therefore none of the above exists» then you're going to get laughed at.

If you use arguments like «this company is gaining market share» or «this is a low - quality business» without referencing the market price, you may not be a value investor.

If god made the universe in such a way that kids could never know about death or disease or deformity until a certain age, then maybe you could use an argument like that, but not the way things are.

Not exact matches

This argument assumes that people will believe an organization is objective and unbiased so long as it uses words like «false» or «inaccurate» or «unsupported,» rather than the word «lie.»

Demographics are indicating more university spaces becoming avaialble over next 8 years (already started in eastern Canada) as well as labour shortages for younger people (Foote) and generally better things ahead using same arguments by Dent.lt looks like we are headed for BOOM times which will really get going by 2020.

J.Hohn, your argument applies for manufacturing industries that use natural resources, or perhaps natural resources like wind turbines and drone peat afforestation that have room to be scaled.

Anytime a Christian uses the «Trump is like King David» argument, I know that they have never opened a Bible in their lives.

Let's hope that when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the case on October 2, the Justices will side with regular working people like Hobson, not with the big bosses and corporations who want to use the fine print to rig the rules against the rest of us.

Their arguments were so bad and so angry that when it was all over, I could only think that they were used to stealing and lying, and that they didn't like to be told they were stealing and lying.

atheist like to use these verses quite often but the argument is ridiculous once you understand the point Jesus was making.

... 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.

A long series like this is probably not the best way to use a blog, since readers come and go, and miss a post or two, and since the argument builds from post-to-post, if someone is just jumping in or misses a few post, they won't understand the flow of thought that brought us here.

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.

And like most believers, who try to use this as an argument, you left out another option... there is a god but he isnt the one you have been worshipping and you are just as screwed as the rest of us.

So out with your proof of the Abrahamic God using whatever metaphysical argument you like, alfonse.

As you see there is a christian c - o - c - k - s - u-c-k-e-r who likes to use other people's handle when they can't win arguments.

I would like to see Live4Him actually admit to the math mistake in their argument, and promise not to use this ridiculous argument ever again.

Yet again I am so amused by the popular atheists who flock to articles like this to throw out words like «dumb» «stupid» «idiots» «morons» and then use same overused arguments proposed by authors such as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.

«Your argument is totally hypocritical, because to people like you, it's ok to enforce laws you LIKE using extreme force, but it's «unjust» to enforce laws you DO N'T like in the same way.&ralike you, it's ok to enforce laws you LIKE using extreme force, but it's «unjust» to enforce laws you DO N'T like in the same way.&raLIKE using extreme force, but it's «unjust» to enforce laws you DO N'T like in the same way.&ralike in the same way.»

Yes, they need to be taught to believe in gods, but babies don't have the ability to determine that gods are, or aren't real either, which make that argument a whole lot less compelling than the people who like to use it would like.

I am always confused by this argument, because it truly sounds like people want to use keeping the child as a punishment for se.x.

Jeez Fred — even fundiot nutter sites like AIG tell their minions not to use the tired old 2LoT argument.

Your argument is just like that of Brahmins in my country who used to scare people that solar eclipse occurs bcoz we made the gods angry and lightning strikes for the same reason.

I won't bother to weigh in on who's smarter, atheists or religious folk, but I would like to comment on one argument the religious have been using.

Men kill yes even atheists like Stalin, Mao, Poll Pot kill millions so your use of that argument is dead as are all the people killed by atheists.

If all Christians were distinguished by their love, like the believers in Acts wouldn't you use that as an argument for Christianity?

To critics of biblical inerrancy, it sounds like we Christians are making the same argument as this man uses: Is this what we do with Scripture?

The civil libertarian argument — something Republicans like King used to care about — is, of course, compelling.

The old routine of finding a verse that you like and using it in any given instance to validate your argument.

Last, and paradoxically, the word «inerrancy» undermines its apologetic intent by reflecting a defensiveness toward Scripture that is out of keeping with the gospel's own boldly proclaimed confidence.52 For these reasons, Hubbard has become increasingly uncomfortable with the use of the term «inerrancy» to describe his basic commitment to Scripture's infallibility, though he has no basic argument with those like Pinnock who use the term as qualified and understood Biblically.

The fact that you use this as an argument that this is a «Christian» nation is the reason atheists fight things like this.

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.

no no no, i first engage them in a conversation... normally ending badly due to them not liking my choice of argument or tools i use in a conversation over belief... so in short i am norally the one insulted and left to think... which i believe is the same way children act when they hear the word «NO»... but i have had some great conversations with people over religion, its just a rare thing.

The main point I would like thiests to get is how pointless it is to use the «1st mover argument».

That tiered old argument has been shown to be ignorant again and again, and yet Christians still love to use it like it hold any kind of weight.

We must remember that Paul, the narrator, is a biased party in the dispute and that he uses the event to bolster his argument against persons in Galatia who would like gentile converts to adopt such Jewish customs as circumcision, religious holidays and dietary restrictions.

Guns are off - the - shelf ready to kill, and while people like to reason from the outlier cases (the self - defense argument), unless you're a bail bondsman or a police officer, you are more likely to have your own gun used on you than to actually have an opportunity to use it to defend yourself.

This whole argument, like using skin color to define people, is pretty stupid.

I'd like to use this passage as an argument against the Holy Trinity.

Suffice for now is to say this: it is my opinion that 1) Scripture is clear that God's wrath and holiness demanded a sin payment, 2) as I read your articles you seem to be trying to use every logical, illustrative, and theological trick to convince yourself it's not true, but it's like you're losing the argument with yourself, 3) I really enjoyed that you broadened the truth of salvation through Jesus past justification (which many fundamentals focus on) to include redemption, sanctification, covenant marriage, adoption, etc..

It seems that whatever tack you are taking, if part of the argument is that Jesus defines God's character with respect to using force against some, you have to consider the things he said in places like Matthew 24 are part of who Jesus is.

Yes, Chopra's argument is like saying that a computer gets it's computing power from somewhere mysteriously within the atoms of the silicone, iron, and plastic used to manufacture it, and not from the integrated circuits and other large components.

Like so much of contemporary discourse, image is used to good effect, more powerful in creating associations and prompting sentiment than any argument or syllogism.

As soon as an animal becomes of no more use to humans, as for example when the products now used from whales are superseded by synthetics, then there are no arguments left for the preservation of whales except that we like looking at them.

Like I said before using «human logic» is an inappropriate argument for or against God and scripture.

Moreau, a farmer and member of President Emmanuel Macron's La République En Marche party, reportedly based his argument on last year's European Court of Justice ruling prohibiting the use of words like «milk» or «butter» to describe dairy alternatives.

People who think otherwise should give their arguments and not just use the like / dislike button.

@blastgunner the silence from my part is not due to a lack of arguments but to the simple fact that i, m tired of trying to explain how unfounded, weak... your comments are the same way i, m, tired of reading the same old invalid arguments being used, rehashed, borrowed from some sites like caughtoffside or some lazy pundits who love to use the same old cliches without anything to back it up!!

Yes AFC imploded and I would use that to support your argument of CM but not CB, when Cazorla was in CM we was playing like league champions along with having a healthy number of clean sheets.

One second you're well - actuallying a bandwagon fan about why Andre Iguodala is a good player even if he shoots free throws like a trained dolphin, where hitting the rim is an accomplishment what with the flippers and all, and the next minute that bandwagon fan is using PER in an argument about why someone should be benched.