Have we figured out yet what causes Christians to believe in Jesus?

(May 23, 2025 at 4:12 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Have we figured out yet what causes Christians to believe in Jesus?

Oh long long ago, long before this thread. 

Whilst it varies from place to place, and over time, ultimately they cling to what they want to believe. 

Just like flat earthers...et al

(May 23, 2025 at 1:23 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 23, 2025 at 12:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

Yeah, that's the problem. The context shades the meaning. So if you load the context with premises I don't agree with, like that it's all magic, then I have to ignore those conditionals if I'm going to answer at all.

Only if you're being disingenuous, as you have been all along. Now, id your were discussing in earnest, you'd take the time to explain why the context should be viewed from your perspective. But no, you don't do that. You ignore those points, and that's apparently because you're incapable of addressing them cogently.

That's a you problem, Johnny. You would probably get more benefit of the doubt had you been earnest in earlier discussion, but that train left the station a loooong time ago. now you're stuck in the hole you've dug.

(May 23, 2025 at 12:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Notice how you just clipped a portion of my response, and it still remains a coherent phrase? That's because my sentences are all well constructed and each thought builds upon the next.

You, on the other hand, panic because unloading your loaded questions makes them lose their power.

You put the second comma in the wrong place.  

If the questions are loaded John, and you had any credible answer, then you wouldn't need this sophistry, you would simply explain why they're loaded, but they're not, you just can't accept that unevidenced archaic superstitious beliefs involving unfalsifiable supernatural claims, involve "magic", by definition. 

Or of course, offer an expansive and objective explanation, of how a deity is possible, how it exists, and how it did...whatever your archaic superstition claims it did?

Then explain why all the other deities, and the claims for them, fail? 

All we've had so far from you is, a circular reasoning fallacy, and you pounding your chest in such a way, that no one could fail to see, that the scientific fact of our taxonomical grouping with the other great apes, is factually correct, as Darwin understood, and long before we understood that we share a vastly higher percentage of our DNA with them, than any other species...another pesky coincidence John?

Humans are one species of great ape, we are a very new one as well, another pesky scientific fact. Now did you have a rational response, as to why the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has occurred, like the one in the Genesis creation myth?

You can sulk about the wording after you successfully answer the question.

(May 23, 2025 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 23, 2025 at 1:23 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Yeah, that's the problem. The context shades the meaning. So if you load the context with premises I don't agree with, like that it's all magic, then I have to ignore those conditionals if I'm going to answer at all.

Only if you're being disingenuous, as you have been all along. Now, id your were discussing in earnest, you'd take the time to explain why the context should be viewed from your perspective. But no, you don't do that. You ignore those points, and that's apparently because you're incapable of addressing them cogently.

That's a you problem, Johnny. You would probably get more benefit of the doubt had you been earnest in earlier discussion, but that train left the station a loooong time ago. now you're stuck in the hole you've dug.

Now those sir, are some good darts.

(May 23, 2025 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You ignore those points....

I don't ignore enough points. Sheldon and GN are on a speedrun to break all of Grice's maxims lol.

(May 23, 2025 at 4:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 23, 2025 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You ignore those points....

I don't ignore enough points. 

Indeed, you ignore "just enough" points to evade questions, by answering straw men.

And we can never understand each other John, with or without Grice's maxims, as long as you believe subjectively in one religion's claims of unevidenced supernatural magic.

Talking of those maxims John, this one leaped out:

Quality:

"Be truthful, and only say what you believe to be true. This also means providing evidence for your statements if needed."

When is that going to happen...

Manner:

Be clear, concise, and orderly in your expression. This means avoiding ambiguity and obscurity. 

Hmm, another criteria you sneeringly claim others are failing at, and to be championing, yet fail to honour in this discourse.

(May 23, 2025 at 4:12 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Have we figured out yet what causes Christians to believe in Jesus?

(May 23, 2025 at 3:41 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 23, 2025 at 12:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I gather then that you're unable to consider multivariate points. Context shades meaning. Stripping a statement of its context is a fine way of undermining its meaning. It's obvious that's our aim here.

Oh good, I wasn't just imagining that then. 

John may specialize in psychology, but I specialize in communication. Cherry-picking is an obvious stratagem for people whose understanding of something is incomplete.

(May 23, 2025 at 4:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 23, 2025 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You ignore those points....

I don't ignore enough points. Sheldon and GN are on a speedrun to break all of Grice's maxims lol.

So gather them all up and make your reply one post. Why would you -- a psychologist, of all people! --allow some stranger online dictate to you how you should behave?

Fer Chrissake, take some responsibility for your behavior. You ignore those points because you cannot refute them. It's pathetically obvious.