In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[The Grand Nudger]

I haven't just been propagandized, I've been indoctrinated..and officially so no less. 

And yet here you are.

You mean, I..like most christians, survived my indoctrination?  Well no shit.  

Is there more?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So if the kids have been raised to be indoctrinated, the indoctrination has been far from complete. They've been learning things from other sources as well.

Mine certainly was. I was raised as a Southern Baptist until I was eight. When we moved overseas to Iran, there were no Baptist churches, so my parents farmed out my sister and myself to church-going neighbors who attended any sort of vaguely Christian service, including Catholic Mass and Mormon services. So I got a look at some other denominations of Christianity.

I also had friends in my school who were Islamic and Sikh.

It didn't take long for me to figure out that while they be all correct, they could perhaps be all wrong -- including my own Baptist faith. That's when I started getting scared, and thinking a lot about it. I wasn't comfortable admitting my atheism, even to myself, until I was about fourteen, two years after we'd returned stateside.

Aside from what that scrub @John 6IX Breezy has asserted, through is slipshod English comprehension coupled with his dishonest representation of what is written. I don't believe that children are automatons who cannot think for themselves. My point, which that dolt was unable to pick up, was and is that influences imparted in one's formative years are much harder to change later.

Of course, he doesn't like nuance, so goes for misrepresentation instead.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If you load language, for instance by endlessly repeating that "Democrats are Marxists or Communists," or that "Christians are good and atheists are bad" (whether in so many words or otherwise), then you are trying to control people's thoughts.  

Per Google: " 'Loaded language' refers to words or phrases that carry strong emotional weight or connotations, both positive and negative, beyond their literal meaning. It's a persuasive technique that aims to influence an audience by evoking strong feelings and reactions."

The error here is not seeing that language is always loaded. Every word you use has some connotation, every phrase carries emotional weight, and every sentence has some framing. It's not a persuasive technique, it's unavoidable because language is for persuasion, not for transferring neutral information.

And secondly, the listener has some say in the matter. They are not just victims of whatever you say. Language is a system for social coordination, meaning both parties need to agree and coordinate or else miscommunication happens.

[Paleophyte]

The error here is not seeing that language is always loaded. Every word you use has some connotation, every phrase carries emotional weight, and every sentence has some framing.  It's not a persuasive technique, it's unavoidable because language is for persuasion, not for transferring neutral information.

Ah. So it's only indoctrination and propaganda when done to us. When it's done to you it's scripture.

The notion that propaganda isn't real is indistinguishable from suggesting that a person's mind can't be permanently influenced by the communicated word. That's particularly hilarious when written by somebody claiming to be a psychologist. You may as well have posted "These words don't exist and neither do I!!!"

[Alan V]

If you load language, for instance by endlessly repeating that "Democrats are Marxists or Communists," or that "Christians are good and atheists are bad" (whether in so many words or otherwise), then you are trying to control people's thoughts.  

Per Google: " 'Loaded language' refers to words or phrases that carry strong emotional weight or connotations, both positive and negative, beyond their literal meaning. It's a persuasive technique that aims to influence an audience by evoking strong feelings and reactions."

The error here is not seeing that language is always loaded. Every word you use has some connotation, every phrase carries emotional weight, and every sentence has some framing.  It's not a persuasive technique, it's unavoidable because language is for persuasion, not for transferring neutral information.

And secondly, the listener has some say in the matter. They are not just victims of whatever you say. Language is a system for social coordination, meaning both parties need to agree and coordinate or else miscommunication happens.

You don't take into account degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy.

You also don't take into account that a lot of people are liars for their own advantages.

So you are effectively trying to promote false equivalences IMO.

We wouldn't need discussions about interpretations of evidence if all interpretations were equal.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you load language, for instance by endlessly repeating that "Democrats are Marxists or Communists," or that "Christians are good and atheists are bad" (whether in so many words or otherwise), then you are trying to control people's thoughts.  

Per Google: " 'Loaded language' refers to words or phrases that carry strong emotional weight or connotations, both positive and negative, beyond their literal meaning. It's a persuasive technique that aims to influence an audience by evoking strong feelings and reactions."

The error here is not seeing that language is always loaded. Every word you use has some connotation, every phrase carries emotional weight, and every sentence has some framing.  It's not a persuasive technique, it's unavoidable because language is for persuasion, not for transferring neutral information.

And secondly, the listener has some say in the matter. They are not just victims of whatever you say. Language is a system for social coordination, meaning both parties need to agree and coordinate or else miscommunication happens.

Excellent, and since words are always loaded the christian words are loaded.  We can repeat this with propaganda and indoctrination.  

You're not disagreeing, you're mounting a doomed TQ.

[Alan V]

Of course, he doesn't like nuance, so goes for misrepresentation instead.

I no longer believe John might be a good-faith actor. I think he is here to muddy the waters for his own agenda. He really just admitted as much IMO.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The notion that propaganda isn't real is indistinguishable from suggesting that a person's mind can't be permanently influenced by the communicated word. That's particularly hilarious when written by somebody claiming to be a psychologist.

Permanently influenced? Do you think you've ever been permanently influenced by a piece of text before? Obviously not, somebody may have made a good argument that made you reconsider something, but it's not as if the mere exposure to the words had the power to change your mind against your wishes. These are cartoonish descriptions of language and persuasion.

[John 6IX Breezy]

My point, which that dolt was unable to pick up, was and is that influences imparted in one's formative years are much harder to change later.

Okay, but that's just not true. Children undergo nothing but change up until their mid twenties. And the brains of adolescents are almost optimized for exploration, which is why it's not surprising that around 12-14 you began to question and explore. This is a stage that everybody goes through. It's a very outdated Freudian perspective to think childhood is this unique and impressionable age that can alter your entire trajectory. There's probably about zero beliefs that you hold now that can be traced back to childhood.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've been permanently influenced by a great many pieces of text. This should not be an unfamiliar experience to a christian.