In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[John 6IX Breezy]

You don’t think workaday Christians believe that God ‘created the universe and everything in it, including us’?

Framing matters. Imagine walking into a church and the pastor says let's pray to the "super-human, supernatural intelligence."

[Fake Messiah]

You don’t think workaday Christians believe that God ‘created the universe and everything in it, including us’?

Framing matters. Imagine walking into a church and the pastor says let's pray to the "super-human, supernatural intelligence."

I don't have to imagine it. I just look at the church walls.

[Sheldon]

Dawkins lives in North Oxford. Oxford probably has a higher percentage of people who know theology well than just about any other city on the planet. 

Why didn't Dawkins get on his bicycle and visit one of them, so that he could have it explained to him why this whole thing is an argument against something which they don't believe? 

It is certainly true that God, "in the sense defined" by him, is a delusion.

Since divine simplicity is a fundamental point in Christian theology, this sentence is Dawkins announcing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The point which theologians often seem to miss is that the majority of believers do not believe in their rarified definitions of God, and that atheists critique ALL of the notions of God, typically starting with the most popular ones.

Further, I can't believe you skipped right over my correction of your idea that Dawkins only addressed the "simplest, most childish" idea of God.  He certainly did not.  

You are also calling the majority of believers "childish" and "delusional," which is exactly Dawkins' point.

It's also telling that after coming to an atheist debate forum, with a claims for an extant deity, John wastes his time, attacking what he claims is a straw man version, why not just accurately define the deity he imagines to be real, and explain his best reason(s) for holding this belief. 

Surely a fallacious circular argument, that assumes a prior that a deity created everything, is not the best he has?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't have to imagine it. I just look at the church walls.

I have no doubt that's what you see, we've talked about how observation is theory-laden. And just imagine referring to your pet as sub-human, it's such an odd anthropocentric framing.

[Alan V]

It's also telling that after coming to an atheist debate forum, with a claims for an extant deity, John wastes his time, attacking what he claims is a straw man version, why not just accurately define the deity he imagines to be real, and explain his best reason(s) for holding this belief. 

Surely a fallacious circular argument, that assumes a prior that a deity created everything, is not the best he has?

Theists too often behave in a Trumpian manner, just repeating what they wish was true. It's a good sign that they really have nothing.

"You pay your money and you take your pick" as far as interpretations of the evidence are concerned. But some interpretations are highly improbable if not impossible, considering what else we understand these days.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You don’t think workaday Christians believe that God ‘created the universe and everything in it, including us’?

Framing matters. Imagine walking into a church and the pastor says let's pray to the "super-human, supernatural intelligence."

I can’t imagine a pastor not saying that. If God is not superhuman and super intelligent, he’s not much of a god.

Boru

[Sheldon]

You don’t think workaday Christians believe that God ‘created the universe and everything in it, including us’?

Framing matters. Imagine walking into a church and the pastor says let's pray to the "super-human, supernatural intelligence."

It would be a poor selling technique, of course, but then Dawkins wasn't selling a deity, he was reacting to theistic claims. So an odd false equivalence. Of course his book didn't address the Aztec deity of gluttony either, but given the countless deities humans have imagined, its silly to imagine his book would address every version of every one.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I can’t imagine a pastor not saying that. If God is not superhuman and super intelligent, he’s not much of a god.

Do you believe the supernatural exists? If not, then surely you can see how Dawkins defined God as non-existent from the start.

[Sheldon]

I don't have to imagine it. I just look at the church walls.

I have no doubt that's what you see, we've talked about how observation is theory-laden. And just imagine referring to your pet as sub-human, it's such an odd anthropocentric framing.

Though it would be accurate of course, you seem to be attacking atheists for being accurate, rather than indulging mystery and metaphor, because those are the stock-in-trade of many who peddle unevidenced superstition. 

There's also nothing wrong with interpreting evidence, if it is done objectively and accurately, and the results are the same every time, it's when one favours one version of one deity based on "evidence" that could as easily be interpreted as evidence for countless others, that one dismisses, it becomes risible. 

You see John, you disbelieve in all the countless deities that I do, except one, and when I ask you why, reticence and misdirection is all I get. Of course I could choose to make my self suggestible, to lower my bar for personal credulity, to indulge in subjective bias, but to what end, if it gets me no closer to Jesus than it does to Zeus or Apollo.  

It is simply a fact that the statement, the world is not flat, is an objective fact, supported by irrefutable objective evidence, whereas the statement one version of one deity is real, is a a subjective opinion. To claim they are both open to interpretation, whilst broadly true, does not imply they are equally reliable claims.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I can’t imagine a pastor not saying that. If God is not superhuman and super intelligent, he’s not much of a god.

Do you believe the supernatural exists? If not, then surely you can see how Dawkins defined God as non-existent from the start.

No, I don’t believe the supernatural exists, but Christians do. That’s what Dawkins was addressing. If I wanted to demonstrate that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, I’d have start by defining Bigfoot in the way that Squatchers accept.

Boru