In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[Sheldon]

I think you're talking about works, more properly.  Faith is a mental attitude which can be expected, or maybe should be expected, to result in acts.  

faith becomes meaningless if God doesn't exist, in much the same way that trusting your spouse is meaningless if your spouse doesn't exist. 

Another false equivalence, since it is an objective fact a spouse exists / is possible, as it is an objective fact a spouse may behave in a way that deserves your trust, unlike a deity, or deities, as no one can objectively demonstrate they exist or are possible, and therefore deserving of (religious) faith. 

God....He has to exist before you can have faith in him.

An absurdly circular argument, and it is demonstrably false to claim a belief must be true, before someone can hold that belief.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Faith (religious) is defined as a belief. 

...and they are beliefs based on faith in that doctrine...

I just want to highlight that the bottom quote is incoherent if the above definition is correct. A word substitution gives us the following phrase, And they are beliefs based on belief.  You can't use belief and faith in the same sentence to refer to different things while arguing they mean the same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gods don't have to exist for a person to have faith in them, that's ridiculous, and you don't believe it for a second.

Sure, and I suppose people could also jump out of planes trusting a nonexistent parachute. But clearly, their trust won't help much with the landing.

Nor will a belief in a god. If people had faith in their chutes we wouldn't use backups. Got a backup god, in case the one you believe in doesn't pan out?

We can keep bickering, but the contents of whatever argument you want to have are meaningless in the face of the fact that you do not believe the silly shit you are saying to us.

[Angrboda]

We have trust in things that, after being granted an initial largesse, reward us by fulfilling our expectations. That's not how religious faith works. God doesn't come down and find your car keys for you. You believe that your expectations have been fulfilled based upon a feeling. But that feeling isn't necessarily caused by God. So you believe your trust has been fulfilled because you want to believe that your trust has been fulfilled. That's not at all trust in. That's essentially circular reasoning resting on your initial largesse of blind faith. That's similar to a stalker believing that their idol secretly loves them, that their idol has shown that they love them, even if it's not evident to anyone but the stalker.

[Sheldon]

Faith (religious) is defined as a belief. 

...and they are beliefs based on faith in that doctrine...

I just want to highlight that the bottom quote is incoherent if the above definition is correct. A word substitution gives us the following phrase, And they are beliefs based on belief.  You can't use belief and faith in the same sentence to refer to different things while arguing they mean the same thing.

I was not referring to different things, as beliefs can be based on other beliefs, and the definition is in any dictionary, and you have ignored a whole swathe of objections to your claims. 

Faith
noun

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

So, if you are defining religious faith as 1, rather than 2, this is a false equivalence that requires explanation / justification. You might also address the other objections to your claims.

[John 6IX Breezy]

We have trust in things that, after being granted an initial largesse, reward us by fulfilling our expectations.  That's not how religious faith works.  God doesn't come down and find your car keys for you.  You believe that your expectations have been fulfilled based upon a feeling.  But that feeling isn't necessarily caused by God.  So you believe your trust has been fulfilled because you want to believe that your trust has been fulfilled.  That's not at all trust in.  That's essentially circular reasoning resting on your initial largesse of blind faith.   That's similar to a stalker believing that their idol secretly loves them, that their idol has shown that they love them, even if it's not evident to anyone but the stalker.

I disagree, but perhaps not in a direct way. I can agree that trust has some kind of substance or result, maybe even a measurable outcome, from which we can look back and conclude if the trust was well-grounded. And Christian faith, broadly speaking, is concerned with specific outcomes such as salvation, forgiveness, eternal life, and the like. And so, when a Christian lives by faith, they're saying they trust God with their salvation essentially. These are more or less verifiable expectations: You'll either be saved or you won't be, you'll have eternal life, or you won't. So, I don't agree that the result of faith is a feeling, I think there is a substantive verifiable outcome.

And of course, whether you believe them or not, all the biblical stories of faith show this. Like Noah trusting God and building the ark when no rain had yet fallen. The story concludes with the flood, where we learn his faith was indeed well placed.

[Sheldon]

We have trust in things that, after being granted an initial largesse, reward us by fulfilling our expectations.  That's not how religious faith works.  God doesn't come down and find your car keys for you.  You believe that your expectations have been fulfilled based upon a feeling.  But that feeling isn't necessarily caused by God.  So you believe your trust has been fulfilled because you want to believe that your trust has been fulfilled.  That's not at all trust in.  That's essentially circular reasoning resting on your initial largesse of blind faith.   That's similar to a stalker believing that their idol secretly loves them, that their idol has shown that they love them, even if it's not evident to anyone but the stalker.

These are more or less verifiable expectations: You'll either be saved or you won't be, you'll have eternal life, or you won't.

No they can't be verified at all, those claims are unfalsifiable. 

 Like Noah trusting God and building the ark when no rain had yet fallen. The story concludes with the flood, where we learn his faith was indeed well placed.

Except it is an objective fact that no global flood has ever occurred, the geological record demonstrates this fact, unequivocally, so the irony is that using this example demonstrates how useless such faith is in establishing the veracity of the belief. 

What is the best reason you have for believing a deity exists / is possible? If you can't demonstrate a deity is even possible, then faith is entirely moot.

[Paleophyte]

Great, so heaven is filled with traumatized souls. It's getting harder and harder to distinguish between your paradise and your torment.

[Angrboda]

And Christian faith, broadly speaking, is concerned with specific outcomes such as salvation, forgiveness, eternal life, and the like. And so, when a Christian lives by faith, they're saying they trust God with their salvation essentially. 

That's trust in the absence of any demonstration that one's fidelity is warranted, which is to say blind faith.

But I agree with Rhythm. You're someone who says a lot of stupid shit. Something that hasn't been fulfilled doesn't qualify as a fulfillment of one's expectations.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's trust in the absence of any demonstration that one's fidelity is warranted, which is to say blind faith.

Obviously you think it's not warranted. But surely you have enough theory of mind to understand that others think it is.