In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[Alan V]

There are two conversations here, the cognitive structure and it's external validity, with prediction bridging the two.

When I talked about predictive mental models, I meant explanations and expectations about reality. The brain doesn't care about representing the truth of reality, it cares about functioning in it. And all of your beliefs serve a function, whether it is instrumental, symbolic, social, and so on.

Now, regarding evidence: Evidence doesn't exist in a one-to-one relationship with truth. It never points to a single definite conclusion. Instead, it points in all directions, and can support multiple overlapping theories. It requires argumentation and interpretation to make a case for one exclusive view.

No doubt Christians have a lot of unlikely expectations about the world, based on their worldview. However, they depend on social proof (other people agreeing with and supporting them) rather than evidence to support their beliefs. This is unfortunate for them because it cuts them off from so many other people who actually require evidence, as well as from other religious believers with other stories.

In contrast, multiple lines of evidence accumulated over centuries support a materialistic interpretation of the world. While science is open-ended, it has already discarded a wide variety of interpretations in favor of its own perspectives. If you want to change that picture, you have to offer evidence supporting Christian assumptions, and not just more stories of how something might be true.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The lengths Johnny will go to keep his mystic nonsense is hilarious. Apologists know their idea's fail all the rest just excuse making or shift the blame to unbeliever for their failure

[John 6IX Breezy]

No doubt Christians have a lot of unlikely expectations about the world, based on their worldview.  However, they depend on social proof (other people agreeing with and supporting them) rather than evidence to support their beliefs.  This is unfortunate for them because it cuts them off from so many other people who actually require evidence, as well as from other religious believers with other stories.

In contrast, multiple lines of evidence accumulated over centuries support a materialistic interpretation of the world.  While science is open-ended, it has already discarded a wide variety of interpretations in favor of its own perspectives.  If you want to change that picture, you have to offer evidence supporting Christian assumptions, and not just more stories of how something might be true.

My point is that evidence is not self-validating—it gains meaning through interpretation, and interpretation always relies on a framework of prior beliefs. This framework of beliefs is what gives coherence and direction to observation. In fact, we can turn this to a formula: Evidence = Observation + Interpretation (with heavy emphasis on interpretation).

This principle applies universally, to Christians, to you, to scientists. I would personally erase the word evidence from my vocabulary entirely.

[The Architect Of Fate]

More nonsense .....

[Alan V]

My point is that evidence is not self-validating—it gains meaning through interpretation, and interpretation always relies on a framework of prior beliefs. This framework of beliefs is what gives coherence and direction to observation. In fact, we can turn this to a formula: Evidence = Observation + Interpretation (with heavy emphasis on interpretation).

This principle applies universally, to Christians, to you, to scientists. I would personally erase the word evidence from my vocabulary entirely.

On the contrary, scientific evidence implies thorough testing. There is nothing similar to such a scientific approach within Christianity, in which beliefs are not tested but only rewarded for being right or discouraged for being wrong. Christians already think they have all the important answers, which is why discussions with them go around and around.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would personally erase the word evidence from my vocabulary entirely.

Why not? You've already discarded any need for it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I would personally erase the word evidence from my vocabulary entirely.

Well that sums you up really 

[Sheldon]

However, that story can't be a "predictive mental model" (as he claimed) unless it also has roots in the real world.

...

People believe in Christianity, not "for the same reasons anybody believes anything" as John claimed, but because they reject the evidence against the Christian story.

Of course all of this is obvious to atheists who prioritize evidence, just not to Christians like John. 

The brain doesn't care about representing the truth of reality, 

You really need to learn to avoid absolute claims, we clearly couldn't function without forming beliefs about the world, and though the utility of those beliefs needn't necessarily require that they always be true of course any individual can care about the truth of a claim. If they care to try and eliminate as much subjective bias as is possible, it's a huge scale from entirely subjective to objective facts, with the latter being the most reliable reflection of reality we have. This is without a doubt why humans have created methods that help achieve this, by adhering to strict principles of validation, like logic, and now science. 

it cares about functioning in it. And all of your beliefs serve a function, whether it is instrumental, symbolic, social, and so on.

We are our brain, obviously, and can choose to set as high, or conversely low, a standard for credulity as we wish, that is axiomatic. That we have evolved to think irrationally, and reason poorly, doesn't mean we have no other choice, again this is axiomatically true. gain I would have thought any psychologist worthy of the name would understand that. 

Now, regarding evidence: Evidence doesn't exist in a one-to-one relationship with truth.

What a spectacularly stupid claim. 

It never points to a single definite conclusion.

Two for two. 

Instead, it points in all directions, and can support multiple overlapping theories. It requires argumentation and interpretation to make a case for one exclusive view.

It can, though this is not always the case, and of course we have plenty of irrefutable definitive truths about reality, that are supported by an overwhelming amount of objective evidence. this is the same tired old canard I have seen creationist and religious apologists trot out, that because beliefs are all subjectively influenced, this makes them equally subjective, and thus an entirely subjective religious belief, is claimed to be as reliable as objective scientific facts, it's nonsense. 

If anyone is inclined to believe that a particular unevidenced archaic superstition is true, then they can,  and as long as they don't try and tell me I have to believe it, or live my life in any way as if it true, then they can fill their boots, but to claim it is as reliable a reflection of reality as objective facts supported by overwhelming objective evidence is clearly nonsense.

[Sheldon]

No doubt Christians have a lot of unlikely expectations about the world, based on their worldview.  However, they depend on social proof (other people agreeing with and supporting them) rather than evidence to support their beliefs.  This is unfortunate for them because it cuts them off from so many other people who actually require evidence, as well as from other religious believers with other stories.

In contrast, multiple lines of evidence accumulated over centuries support a materialistic interpretation of the world.  While science is open-ended, it has already discarded a wide variety of interpretations in favor of its own perspectives.  If you want to change that picture, you have to offer evidence supporting Christian assumptions, and not just more stories of how something might be true.

I would personally erase the word evidence from my vocabulary entirely.

What do you mean would? It's gone, along with a whole slew of other words that don't mean what you seem to think they do. What you can't do, is insist others eliminate it, or the need for it. 

Nonetheless, this ongoing attempt to arbitrarily redefine common usage, and ignore objective facts, is all part of the same desperate rationalisation you are using, to pretend your chosen deity is real, but without any sound or objective reasons. To cling to a subjective religious belief, that is the way you make sense of the world. I have spoke to countless people who have lost this belief, and stated that the experience was terrifying. No wonder some people find to easier to cling to it, and defy objective reality. 

Luckily for me, I was never indoctrinated into any religion with any such virulence, and atheism is no big deal in the UK, in fact it has been on the increase steadily for decades.

[Sheldon]

No doubt Christians have a lot of unlikely expectations about the world, based on their worldview.  However, they depend on social proof (other people agreeing with and supporting them) rather than evidence to support their beliefs.  This is unfortunate for them because it cuts them off from so many other people who actually require evidence, as well as from other religious believers with other stories.

In contrast, multiple lines of evidence accumulated over centuries support a materialistic interpretation of the world.  While science is open-ended, it has already discarded a wide variety of interpretations in favor of its own perspectives.  If you want to change that picture, you have to offer evidence supporting Christian assumptions, and not just more stories of how something might be true.

 I would personally erase the word evidence from my vocabulary entirely.

evidence
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I can see how that would be helpful, for you to cling to a belief for which there is no objective evidence. 

evidence is not self-validating—it gains meaning through interpretation, 

Nope, science certainly doesn't work this way. If someone introduced such subjective bias into their results, it would definitely be exposed, and their reputation would soon suffer, perhaps irreparably. 

interpretation always relies on a framework of prior beliefs.

Indeed, and how reliable those are depends on the amount of objective evidence that supports them. the best method we have for understanding reality is science, by a massive margin, this is demonstrated manifestly in the results. 

Evidence = Observation + Interpretation

No it doesn't, you really need to start giving the dictionary a cursory read before making these absurd claims. 

This principle applies universally, to Christians, to you, to scientists. 

Nonsense, it applies to Christians, as that is a subjective religious belief, but it certainly does not apply to science, the method is designed to remove as much subjective interpretation in its results as possible. 

I would personally erase the word evidence from my vocabulary entirely.

Perhaps it would make more sense, for you to learn what it means first.

The brain doesn't care about representing the truth of reality,

If our brains interpretation didn't ever match reality, we'd have died out long ago. Throw yourself off a cliff, if your brain doesn't care about the truth of reality, it should be child's play.