Why do Christians become Christians?

[drfuzzy]

Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.

Conversion experiences like this have more to do with the nature of human psychology than the message being promoted.  The great tent revivals preached a far less 'friendly' message than contemporary revivals do, but the atmosphere was the same.  Hysteria and group think are not good reasons to adopt any belief.

Not only that, but have you ever been in a "meeting" where there was a Billy Graham type "altar call"?  I have - thousands of times.  The peer pressure is intense.  I have been in churches with a youth group where most of the group invited "non member" friends.  These kids were actually gathering around the newbies, saying "you know you want to", and "you can feel it, I can see it in your eyes".  I have been in churches where nearly everyone in the building ended up on their knees at the altar, because the preacher was saying "surely everyone here has failed god this week in some way" - and everyone starts staring at the people around them.  Peer pressure, groupthink, hysteria.

[Pat Mustard]

Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.

You seem to be using the term 'unbeliever' EXTREMELY loosely.

Remember, there are quite a few sects (say that word quickly) in christianity which believe that none of the other sects (again) are truly christian, because they have the teensiest weensiest deviation from what their sect believes. My guess is Steve is one of those christards.

[RoadRunner79]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh, and by the way I wasn't indicating a "conspiracy theory"... I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

It's not exactly a surprise that people who are driven by the motive (indeed, the mandate) to attain convictions as a prerequisite to their continued advancement in their career would attain a bias that often blinded them to the unsound practices they were employing to do so.

Again, read the Innocence Project's stories, and see how often the police misled the defendants into false confessions, or manipulated witnesses directly (or accidentally), and how many times the DA resisted overturning the convictions despite the scientific information showing the person they put in prison could not be guilty. It's not a conspiracy, it's human weakness... the very thing the scientific method was invented to counter, but which has been slow to enter the justice system.

I'd say the problem, then, is that they rely too much on the human element (such as eyewitness testimony, despite its now-well-understood flaws) and not enough on "scientism", just as religious people tend to do. And that was my whole point.

[RoadRunner79]

Deleted.... posting glitch

[abaris]

And your point is ....?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[abaris]

Yeah, a point I was trying to make when still debating Randy. They don't get it.

[RoadRunner79]

Finally, my comment was not skewed. Read the conviction stories of the people who were convicted falsely, and later freed by scientific testing. A recent example I can name off the top of my head is Michael Morton, of Texas. Spend some time reading stories from The Innocence Project. http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Not skewed... what about all the other reasons for false convictions, which are on the site that you reference, and you left out? What about those convicted because of bad science? Witness testimony is about equal with the other things, and the issues, that I acknowledged cover a large percentage of those false convictions.

I also think that we need to acknowledge that an overturned conviction does not mean that they are in fact innocent.