In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[Angrboda]

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.

You're simply confirming my stalker analogy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Doubt and fear are not the same thing ... unless one believes faithfully. At that point, doubt is a fearful thing. At least, it was for me. Conquering my fear of fire was a lot easier than coping with my burgeoning doubt about God's existence. I could and did learn how to deal with fire pretty quickly; I can't say the same about the fear that my doubts started in me when I started losing my faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

I could run toward gunfire, but I couldn't approach a girl at a bar..or anywhere else, if we're being honest. Fearlessness and doubt....delicious. I think a person who believes they need a christ has alot to fear in doubts about christ.

[Sheldon]

I'd imagine everyone experiences doubt, and those who care about the truth understand this is a good thing, a way to critically examine claims, and to strive for as objective an answer as possible. faith is the opposite of that, it celebrates belief without proper evidence. 

In no other context would one celebrate a strong belief alongside doubts about its veracity, except in religious apologetics. The same apologetics that tries to justify this incongruous rationalisation, by lying that atheism requires faith, as if this makes their belief some sort of 50/50 premise. One might as well just toss a coin...

I never base beliefs on faith alone, even where the truth of them is so trivial as to not matter, and then I simply wouldn't care one way or another. And I have no religious beliefs, so religious faith - "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof", is utterly useless to me. 

It's not clear why John has ignored these two different definitions, or why his arguments use the word trust, that is only found in the primary definition, and doesn't acknowledge the second religious definition of the word at all?

John also initially claimed his faith was "based on good reasons", and then when asked to present his best reason for believing a deity or deities exist, or is even possible, he ignored the request completely?

Surely if those reasons are at all compelling, they make these arguments for faith entirely redundant?

[Sheldon]

Faith (religious) is defined as a belief. 

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

if the above definition is correct.

You can look it up in any dictionary? Are you saying the Oxford English has got it wrong?

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

"Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.


 Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages"

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.

You posted several claims from that doctrine, you believe those, based on your belief in the veracity of that doctrine, that is how the Oxford English defines religious faith, how have you managed to not know this?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'Faith' is one of those few dozen words that have more than one meaning. Having faith that flipping a switch will turn on the lights in the room isn't the same as having faith that Jesus is going to descend from the clouds and gather you to his bosom. One is a reasonable expectation based on experience, the other is magical thinking.

Boru

[Sheldon]

'Faith' is one of those few dozen words that have more than one meaning. Having faith that flipping a switch will turn on the lights in the room isn't the same as having faith that Jesus is going to descend from the clouds and gather you to his bosom. One is a reasonable expectation based on experience, the other is magical thinking.

Boru

Exactly, and of course religious faith produces wildly differing religions, and beliefs in entirely different deities,  the Christian religion alone has over 45k different sects and denominations globally. 

This then shows that religious faith is merely an excuse people use, when they want to hold a subjective religious belief, and know that they cannot support that belief in any remotely objective way.

[Alan V]

People understand that the world isn't perfect from a human perspective. It is changeable and incomplete and full of obstacles and problems. We all struggle and die. However, instead of accepting all of this as merely factual, we are dissatisfied and anxious. So we invent or embrace religions to try to compensate for our terrible or tedious experiences. We imagine that everything could come right someday, if it isn't in this life (through certain practices) then perhaps after death. Effectively we choose to live in our imaginations instead of the real world, since so many of us find the real world too unappealing.

Christianity is just one popular imaginary world. But like all fictions, its internal inconsistencies betray its imaginary nature.

[Angrboda]

'Faith' is one of those few dozen words that have more than one meaning. Having faith that flipping a switch will turn on the lights in the room isn't the same as having faith that Jesus is going to descend from the clouds and gather you to his bosom. One is a reasonable expectation based on experience, the other is magical thinking.

Boru

Exactly, and of course religious faith produces wildly differing religions, and beliefs in entirely different deities,  the Christian religion alone has over 45k different sects and denominations globally. 

This then shows that religious faith is merely an excuse people use, when they want to hold a subjective religious belief, and know that they cannot support that belief in any remotely objective way.

It's interesting how trust in different gods ends up being equally rewarded. It's almost like it has nothing to do with any actual god. Got an explanation for that, John?

[John 6IX Breezy]

It's not clear why John has ignored these two different definitions, or why his arguments use the word trust, that is only found in the primary definition, and doesn't acknowledge the second religious definition of the word at all?

Because definitions are not prescriptive. And it is improper usage of a dictionary to shop around the different senses and give them all equal merit. You are supposed to go and look at the context in which a word is used and be able to infer its meaning. And even if you still care about proper definitions, you need to pull out a Greek concordance and dictionary and research its original usage and meaning, not pull out your merriam-webster.