Sentences with phrase «skeptical of»

+ More Republicans are skeptical of the power of big business and favor environmental laws than not.

I'm skeptical of evolution (the belief that all creatures evolved from a single organism) though I am quite convinced of natural selection and adaptation.

But «once bit, twice shy,» the Jewish people have borne enough teethmarks in the past 2,000 years to have become a bit skeptical of those pseudo-messiahs — religious or secular, Marxist or Moonie — who arise with almost monotonous regularity.

Everyone should be skeptical of everything.

Mystics have been inherently skeptical of any inherited or vicariously received truth, including language about God which they rejected as inadequate.

Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but as a whole, the evolutionary process is accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of religion.

These Republicans, such as senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio, are likely to be deeply skeptical of any Russian tilt.

There are people in the UK, France, Italy, and indeed every First World country that are skeptical of evolution, or outright deny it.

We should not be inordinately skeptical of research data on religion in America.

Now imagine if the 90 % of the population also believed it was immoral or at least highly suspect not to believe in witches, that «In Wizards We Trust» was printed on your money, that community leaders made regular allusions to witches in their speeches and that you were regarded as «angry,» or «bitter» for being skeptical of the whole witchcraft thing.

Skeptical of certainty.

(iii) Most importantly, Craig has apparently overstated the extent to which cosmological physicists are agreed upon a finite Big Bang cosmology, 1 so I am skeptical of his claims concerning the strength of the scientific evidence.

To someone skeptical of my interpretation, then, all I have shown is that the principle of process is ambiguously stated, I have not conclusively shown which of two possible readings is the correct one.

sammy» 100 scientists have declared that they «are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.»

On the other side, the summoned «believe in some form of original sin or the impossibility of human perfection, and therefore tend to be skeptical of the empirical attainability of any final solution to the deepest human problems» (p. 153).

However, if you look at some of the comments he made over the past few years, he was evidently skeptical of conversion therapy.

I am skeptical of baseless beliefs and correct people when they make false statements.

Thus we are skeptical of Jimmy Carter's early posture of refusing to use military power, and we reject Ronald Reagan's position that force and bluster can solve our problems.

Many in the West had become skeptical of the reality of God, but of these some were fearful that morality depended on belief in God.

I am right to be skeptical of both claims until I receive proof.

What is worse, should they decide to enter seminary, they are skeptical of the value of the education offered there, since they have been lulled by experience into supposing they know how to do ministry already.

Some physicists were skeptical of the Big Bang theory, Gingerich notes, because «it was too much like the Genesis account of God saying «Let there be light!

Let me be honest with you here, I am very skeptical of all religions (hence the name).

So, are we as Americans becoming less religious or is the media becoming more skeptical of religion and therefore driving the image of a more elite group of people?

Reminding myself of these things has allowed me to be less skeptical of God and more trusting of Him.

Even highly educated people, persons who are otherwise skeptical of religion in general, are devoted admirers of saints and believe literally in the miracles ascribed to them.

Take that reason and you begin to see our POV because that is why most rational people are skeptical of Christian based law.

it is more like things like this are why people are skeptical of the religious.

Frankly, I am a little skeptical of some of the elements in these creeds since they were developed after Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and I fear that some of the statements of these creeds were politically motivated, and were heavily influenced by Roman Emperors, rather than by honestly dealing with the text of Scripture.

Some people, called «atheists,» are skeptical of my belief in the Leprechaun King.

He was appropriately skeptical of the way in which people then thought about «liberalism» and «conservatism.»

Though I am skeptical of these sorts of things, I can not explain some of the things that happened to him in any other way.

Skeptical of such reports, a succession of authors critical of the Society of Jesus — from Jansenists such as Blaise Pascal to Enlightenment thinkers like Denis Diderot and Voltaire — accused the Jesuits of harshly exploiting the Indios.

She had to work hard for Jewish support in 2000 as the New York Jewish community was skeptical of her support for Israel and publicly wondered whether the former first lady was too sympathetic with the Palestinians.

When I attended architecture school in the 1980s, I was rather skeptical of the modernist project.

What we meant to model was the sending of one of our number to be a foreign missionary — to learn a new language, to understand a local culture, to sacrifice the amenities of affluence and to live knowing that he or she is always being watched by seekers — while the rest of us stay here as lifetime local missionaries, learning to speak the language of the unchurched, understanding secular culture, sacrificing the amenities of affluence and living as a «watched» person in a society that is skeptical of Christian spirituality until it sees the real thing on display.

It's just that I am a little skeptical of such a conference.

I've become skeptical of organized religion over the years.

Someone of this belief structure is the last person we need running our country — there are good reasons to remain skeptical of Mormons, sorry for any offense to Mormons if they're not this way, but many ARE.

I'm skeptical of both groups, especially when they are such a questionable example of what Jesus teaches / what the Humanists proclaim they value.

(I'd be pretty skeptical of any clinic that says otherwise.)

Once we get to the place where we realize how ill prepared we are to deal with life's intricacies, we'll become a little more skeptical of the information our brains spit out in response to every stimulus.

Personally I am very skeptical of any presidential candidate with strong religious beliefs.

You'd want them to be skeptical of their perspective and entertain other scenarios outside of their experience.

The broad HIV / AIDS community, based on mounting evidence, is rightly and highly skeptical of approaches that focus solely on promoting abstinence and faithfulness (however desirable these goals).

Further, I am always skeptical of people who contend to have a monopoly on the truth, while refusing to consider other peoples points of view.

Stripped down to the basics, they call themselves skeptical, but are generally only skeptical of theories and beliefs that do not fit in their very narrow reductionist belief system.

But I'm always skeptical of those that claimed to have been atheist, then are theist

The trouble is, even Jung was skeptical of his personality placements, cautioning that «Every individual is an exception to the rule.»

I would be very skeptical of anyone, say, a medical doctor, structural engineer, bomb maker, who relied more on intuition than logical reasoning.