In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[Sheldon]

And the way I'm seeing it used here leans heavily towards something like mind-control, where the person exposed to the propaganda is involuntarily influenced by it.

I guess that if my own opinions seem absolutely self-evident and undeniable to me, proven beyond the point that any reasonable person could disagree, then I need some kind of extreme method to explain that disagreement.

So instead of saying, "those people reached a different conclusion," we have to say "they have been brainwashed against their will." Because only nefarious hypnosis-like methods could make people believe differently than I do.

The other explanation, which we see all the time, is that anyone who disagrees with me is simply dishonest. 

Not long ago I was insisting that the Democrats share some of the blame for the outcome of the last election, and for this I was accused of wanting to legitimize political lies. And of course you have been called a liar on this thread, due to your stubborn refusal to agree to certain details about how children learn. You are sinning against Truth!

Well at that point I would express doubt, and withhold belief, and ask them for their best or most compelling reason for the belief. If anyone wants to see how that request went down, they could read this thread. 

The other explanation, which we see all the time, is that anyone who disagrees with me is simply dishonest. 

That's not an alternative explanation, it is an observation of what has been offered, which either is or is not justified. You seem to be simply offering straw men excuses, and where none are needed, since nothing but subjective claims, and poor arguments have been offered. Why is anyone here obliged to accept such a low bar for credulity, a threshold that gets you no closer to Jesus than it does to Aztec deity of gluttony. 

And of course you have been called a liar on this thread, 

Is it honest to claim to know that most psychologist with a degree, know the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't exist, when a cursory read online, demonstrated the claim to be untrue? I might be kind and think it was idiotic hubris, if it were the only incident. 

Is it honest to claim evidence does not  exist, and the word is meaningless, and only interpretation exist, as if for example how we interpret the evidence for the shape of the earth, can ever change the fact of its shape. Or to ignore that the more objective the evidence, and the more subjective bias is removed, then the more reliably that evidence reflects objective reality.