In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I could, but just at this moment "This dim bulb is using too small a sample size again" has a nice ring to it. I know, it's a bit of a mouthful, but seeing as how he'd only have needed to read the first few replies to have hit my similar response on the first page rather than a whole whiny 84 pages in.

It's Valk, he is trying to kiss her ass.  I have a hunch that she would hurt him.  

 - She is probably the only member of staff he doesn't have on ignore.

If I had my 'drothers' it would be against the rules to put staff on ignore.  But it's not my playground, I just hang out here.

We should have a meeting about that last bit.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

If I had my 'drothers' it would be against the rules to put staff on ignore.

I didn't realize I could put people on ignore lol.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I didn't realize I could put people on ignore lol.

That's right cower from criticism

[John 6IX Breezy]

...far beyond any attribution to personal choice unfettered by coercive factors.

This last part is problematic for your theory, because autonomy is one of the strongest predictors in motivational psychology. People value control so much they’ll pay more just to keep it. The difference between influence and coercion is exactly how much autonomy is preserved. I wouldn’t be surprised if individuals raised in coercive religious environments were more likely to reject religion altogether.

Social environments do have an influence, but your autonomy, free of coercion, is a far better predictor of what beliefs and behaviors you'll adopt.

[Angrboda]

...far beyond any attribution to personal choice unfettered by coercive factors.

This last part is problematic for your theory, because autonomy is one of the strongest predictors in motivational psychology. People value control so much they’ll pay more just to keep it. The difference between influence and coercion is exactly how much autonomy is preserved. I wouldn’t be surprised if individuals raised in coercive religious environments were more likely to reject religion altogether.

Social environments do have an influence, but your autonomy, free of coercion, is a far better predictor of what beliefs and behaviors you'll adopt.

I think we're talking about different things. Coercive factors take many different forms, few of which are coercive as you're using it here. You're using it in a restricted sense that I wasn't.

[Paleophyte]

It's Valk, he is trying to kiss her ass.  I have a hunch that she would hurt him.  

 - She is probably the only member of staff he doesn't have on ignore.

I guess he's not in that much of a hurry to meet his god.

[The Grand Nudger]

...far beyond any attribution to personal choice unfettered by coercive factors.

This last part is problematic for your theory, because autonomy is one of the strongest predictors in motivational psychology. People value control so much they’ll pay more just to keep it. The difference between influence and coercion is exactly how much autonomy is preserved. I wouldn’t be surprised if individuals raised in coercive religious environments were more likely to reject religion altogether.

Social environments do have an influence, but your autonomy, free of coercion, is a far better predictor of what beliefs and behaviors you'll adopt.

A Christians™ sense of taking control of their own mortality might strongly encourage them to adopt particular beliefs and behaviors, eh?

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's irrelevant to my point, and I won't entertain your red herring. If you're so dense, or so biased, that you cannot see my point that two is an insufficient sample, you don't merit any more of my time on the matter.

Irrelevant? Not to anyone familiar with statistics, determining sample size is one of the first steps. You can't call a sample size insufficient just because you think it's small, you have to actually calculate it.

So calculate this sample size of two versus 1.2 billion. Go on ahead, show your math, or hush yourself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Irrelevant? Not to anyone familiar with statistics, determining sample size is one of the first steps. You can't call a sample size insufficient just because you think it's small, you have to actually calculate it.

Oh, I see what happened.

I pointed to two Christians I know as an example of how some Christians think of theology. Thump concluded from this that these are the only two Christians I know and that my entire knowledge of how they think comes from this pair.

Not at all. I commented that you suspecting that they represented a majority of Christian thinking was really a stretch.

I never said these are the only two Christians you know. Nor did I say that this is the entirety of your knowledge about Christians. I concluded neither of these assertions on your part. Here's exactly what I wrote, so people may read your dishonesty for what it is:

Wait -- on the basis of two opinions, you're fine "suspecting" that they represent the "majority" of a couple of billion Christians?!

Not only is your sample size far to small, the fact that you're happy to publicly generalize from such a particular speaks volumes about your own thought process. Stick to philosophy, because you don't know shit about statistics or demographics or analysis.

What I did write, for those -- and I'm looking at you -- hard of English, is that citing them and then going on to say that you "suspect" (and that's not a weasel word, now is it?) that they represent the majority of Christian thinking is in common understanding rubbish.

Defend yourself rather than straw-manning me, @Belacqua. Be honest. You overstepped. Do you have the integrity to admit as much?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If I had my 'drothers' it would be against the rules to put staff on ignore.  But it's not my playground, I just hang out here.

That's generous of the staff, but militates against running the thing efficiently. No one should be able to ignore a warning. Question it? Sure. Ignore it? "Go ahead, make my day."