Best.Conspiracy.Ever

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Why do people believe in Christ?

During a recent Facebook exchange, a friend of mine said the following:

I think that there are basically 4 reasons why people believe in Christ 1) The bible told you so. 2) Other people told you so. 3) Something happens in your life and you think Jesus did it. 4) It feels right.

He then went on to explain why all of these reasons are, in fact, unreasonable. I can summarize his arguments as follows:
1) The Bible has inconsistencies, hence it is not reliable
2) Where did the other people get their faith? And since there are more non-Christians in the world than Christians, we should follow the majority.
3) Whatever happened in your life may be due to other causes that do not involve Jesus, so how can we be sure that it was Him.
4) This is not a good reason to believe something is true or good.

I totally grant my friend the last point. Believing in something because it feels good is

On biblical contradictions

In response to a musing I placed on Facebook ("I wonder if certain modern atheists realize the logical and factual errors on which they rely") a friend replied with a reference to this list of biblical contradictions.

The reference has nothing to do with my question, but it makes for interesting reading regarding a different aspect of the atheists' approach, namely a lack of understanding of what Christianity is and what it teaches.

I agree that such a misunderstanding is also due to our doing a poor job of explaining said features of Christianity, mixed with the fact that in our society the most vocal Christians seem to be those who have a very poor intellectual understanding of it. Lots of faith, and God will give them credit for it, but poor understanding.

Still, why do they base their criticisms on what they heard from very

Are you blind or gullible?

Granted, we all have different ideas and different points of view. And on some issues we may discuss and debate until the cows come home (I hope they don't: where would I put them?) and still not change our minds one bit.

But why is it that when we find ourselves at odds with another person, we so often end up labeling the other person with disparaging epithets? In particular, I find that often this happens:

• If I don't see what the other person sees, then I am called blind (or worse)
• If I see something the other person does not see, then I am called gullible (or worse)

Maybe I am, but maybe it's the other person who is on the wrong side of the coin. So, why not stick to the argument and present our perspectives? Why go ad hominem?

Lest I confuse you, I am not saying that I do not do this also. I have done it and, despite my efforts, I will probably do it again.

What I am asking is why? And is there something good about it? If not, what can we do to avoid this behaviour?