A Question for Creationists

[lasthero]

Anthony Flew. He was an out spoken atheist. He was probably best described as a Deist

These two sentences seem to contradict one another.

 

[Oncedeceived]

These two sentences seem to contradict one another.

Good catch! Lack in forming my thoughts. He was an outspoken atheist that wrote books against the belief of God. He then decided after looking at the evidence in DNA that Darwinism was not satisfactory to explain life. He became a Deist if I remember correctly. He didn't believe in the Christian creation but did believe that it took God to create life.

 

[EternalDragon]

How was that a cheap shot? Archaeopteryx said he wanted to know what is really happening in the world which means he is smart which in turn rules him out of being a creationist, all I did was state that fact, creationists are by definition not smart, if they were they would not be creationists, the only smart creationists are the professional creationists and even they do not need to be smarter than the average con man.

Check your ego, man.

 

[bhsmte]

So why do you feel that creationists fail to be smart? What determines intelligence?

In general, I believe it comes down to whether someone is willing to accept intelligence, as opposed to how "smart" each person is.

IMO, with the abundance of evidence for evolution, if someone denies evolution to be true and comes up with all sorts of goofy reasons as to why it is false, the reason has much more to do with individual psychological needs, then it does how smart someone is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In general, I believe it comes down to whether someone is willing to accept intelligence, as opposed to how "smart" each person is.

IMO, with the abundance of evidence for evolution, if someone denies evolution to be true and comes up with all sorts of goofy reasons as to why it is false, the reason has much more to do with individual psychological needs, then it does how smart someone is.

So you are not really claiming that creationists are not as smart as anyone else, it is just that you can't believe that someone could ignore evidence for evolution and must by default be ...psychologically needy?

How does a lack of belief in evolution provide the necessary conclusion of being psychologically needy? The two don't relate in my mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's perhaps one of the reasons why you are a creationist.

Oh? Explain please.

 

[bhsmte]

So you are not really claiming that creationists are not as smart as anyone else, it is just that you can't believe that someone could ignore evidence for evolution and must by default be ...psychologically needy?

How does a lack of belief in evolution provide the necessary conclusion of being psychologically needy? The two don't relate in my mind.

To give you an analogy, I would compare those who deny evolution to those who believe 9/11 was planned by the government and the buildings came down due to explosive charges. Many of these people who believe in this conspiracy, are very intelligent people, but they have a psychological need to ignore the boatloads of evidence that proves their conspiracy wrong and they place more weight on little pieces of circumstantial evidence that supports their claim.

This type of behavior is driven by; confirmation bias, selective reasoning and cognitive dissonance begins to show up in the behavior of these types of people.

We all have unique psychological needs. You can call it psychological needy if you like, but it is a reality that impacts how many people form their opinions and the actions they follow up on, to protect those beliefs at all costs.

If one has a psychological need to believe in something and that need is powerful enough, the mind will work overtime, to convince themselves, what they believe in is true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To give you an analogy, I would compare those who deny evolution to those who believe 9/11 was planned by the government and the buildings came down due to explosive charges. Many of these people who believe in this conspiracy, are very intelligent people, but they have a psychological need to ignore the boatloads of evidence that proves their conspiracy wrong and they place more weight on little pieces of circumstantial evidence that supports their claim.

This type of behavior is driven by; confirmation bias, selective reasoning and cognitive dissonance begins to show up in the behavior of these types of people.

We all have unique psychological needs. You can call it psychological needy if you like, but it is a reality that impacts how many people form their opinions and the actions they follow up on, to protect those beliefs at all costs.

If one has a psychological need to believe in something and that need is powerful enough, the mind will work overtime, to convince themselves, what they believe in is true.

I probably won't go into any conspiracy theories for multiple reasons, but I don't see that relates to being psychological needy either. What need does the conspiracy theory fulfill?

Same with refusing evidence in evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

I probably won't go into any conspiracy theories for multiple reasons, but I don't see that relates to being psychological needy either. What need does the conspiracy theory fulfill?

Same with refusing evidence in evolution?

You don't see how holding on to a belief with boatloads of evidence against it is driven by individual psychological needs?

I would say to do some research on the topic. There is a lot of interesting information on the topic; psychology of belief.

 

[EternalDragon]

You don't see how holding on to a belief with boatloads of evidence against it is driven by individual psychological needs?

I would say to do some research on the topic. There is a lot of interesting information on the topic; psychology of belief.

Boatloads of evidence. That is a funny one. Since we all have the same evidence to work with then creationists also have a "boatload" of evidence.

I think you are confusing inferences to the evidence as "evidence".

Also, you would be under the same psychological needs by accepting Darwinian evolution which has never been observed nor repeated nor tested.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't see how holding on to a belief with boatloads of evidence against it is driven by individual psychological needs?

I would say to do some research on the topic. There is a lot of interesting information on the topic; psychology of belief.

I didn't say I didn't understand psychological needs, I asked how that related to the two topics that I asked about.

 

[bhsmte]

Boatloads of evidence. That is a funny one. Since we all have the same evidence to work with then creationists also have a "boatload" of evidence.

I think you are confusing inferences to the evidence as "evidence".

Also, you would be under the same psychological needs by accepting Darwinian evolution which has never been observed nor repeated nor tested.

Thats all part of the self convincing, claiming that little or no evidence exists.

I don't expect you to change your belief, I would expect you to dig in further and ignore or declare the evidence is not credible.

To each's own.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't say I didn't understand psychological needs, I asked how that related to the two topics that I asked about.

The psychology of how one comes to settle on individual beliefs explains it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The psychology of how one comes to settle on individual beliefs explains it.

Ok so how does this relate to me personally by being a creationist that believes that evolution is true? What evidence am I refusing to keep my individual beliefs?

 

[bhsmte]

Ok so how does this relate to me personally by being a creationist that believes that evolution is true? What evidence am I refusing to keep my individual beliefs?

I was talking in general terms and specifically towards YEC's, but psychology of belief impacts a lot of folks.

Small tidbit:

In some cases, contradictory evidence can even strengthen the belief. As Leon Festinger and colleagues discussed in When Prophecy Fails,2 holding two contradictory beliefs leads to cognitive dissonance, a state few minds find tolerable. A believer may then selectively reinterpret data, reinforcing one of the beliefs regardless of the strength of the contradictory case. Festinger infiltrated a doomsday cult whose members were convinced the earth was going to blow up; when the date passed and the earth didn't explode, the cult attributed the planet's survival to the power of their prayers. "When people can't reconcile scientific data with their own beliefs, they minimize one of them--science--and escape into mysticism, which is more reliable to them," says Dr. Jeffrey Schaler, adjunct professor of psychology at American University.

Belief systems tend to respond to challenges according to this pattern, says Lilienfeld. When researching a cherished belief or coming across information about it, a person may process the data as if wearing blinders, registering only the affirming information. The malleability of memory compounds this effect. "Once you have a belief, the way you look at evidence changes," says Tory Higgins, chair of the psychology department at Columbia, whose research specialty is mechanisms of cognition. "When you search your memory, you are more likely to retrieve information that will support it and avoid exposure to information that will disconfirm it. If you fail to avoid it, you attack the validity and credibility of the source, or categorize it as an exception."

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok so how does this relate to me personally by being a creationist that believes that evolution is true?

It is like being a Flat Earther that believes the World is round.

 

[KWCrazy]

Archaeopteryx said he wanted to know what is really happening in the world which means he is smart which in turn rules him out of being a creationist, all I did was state that fact, creationists are by definition not smart, if they were they would not be creationists...

Who let you on this site?
Every post from you seems to be a flame.
The venom laced ignorance you are spewing here has no place on a Christian website where such flaming is specifically prohibited.

I neither know nor care how much longer you'll be here, but to me you're gone now.

 

[Theodor1]

To give you an analogy, I would compare those who deny evolution to those who believe 9/11 was planned by the government and the buildings came down due to explosive charges.

The terrorists tried to bring the twin towers down with explosive charges years before 9/11 and it did not work.

 

[Bruisedheel]

Ive found this to be one of the best resources for questions relating to science and the Bible. Google

Reasonstobelieve (cant post the link)

I personally believe in old earth creationism which allows science and the bible, particuilarly Genisis, to blend together perfectly without contridiction. This site answered so many questions I felt were not answered in an intelligent manner by the church, that I started diggin into my self and was blown away with the amount of relevant and updated information with todays scientific community. It has been building my faith by leaps and bounds, and I can answer questions that many non believers, especially the scientific smart guy, loves to ask. I really enjoy it. Great stuff

 

[EternalDragon]

Just asking a question of a creationists can bring on feelings of persecution, they come from them standing on quicksand.

If I am I will be back.

Sorry but you were initially asking a question and then you proceeded to call creationists unintelligent. Simply based on the fact that they are creationists.

I do believe that is a violation of forum rules.