The structure is the following: If X were true, then we would expect Y to occur more frequently than Y'.

But there's no causal connection between the truth of X and the responses Y and Y', so we have no reason to say that we should expect Y over Y'.

For example, "If the world were round, we would expect more people to claim that the world is round than flat." It might be true now that more people claim the world is round than flat, but at a different time in history, the world was still round but more people claimed that the world was flat.

Memory is not an accurate representation of past events. That memory changes to fit new ideas is trivial and commonplace. This one of the reasons why personal testimony is often shaky proof. If you can find some corraborating evidence for "precognition of Jesus", this would strengthen them greatly.

As for this:

Why haven't anybody even mentioned that "the apperance of Jesus" is a fairly huge deal. Also, that whole article reeks. It reads more like a shouty sermon than anything else.

I just finished reading through this thread.

This thread exists because the OP was confused about the definitions for strong and weak atheism. Most of the debate was between two people who actually largely agreed with each other (with bunny providing some excellent analysis in between), but whom were speaking past each other due to semantics. Beyond all of that, any questions the OP had that were pertinent were answered succinctly by vhawk.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=74

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=111

The primary reason people like vhawk or myself would describe ourselves as weak atheists as opposed to strong atheist is due to logical necessity. We are, essentially, strong atheists when it comes to the gods that humans have worshiped in the various religions throughout human history. Still, during an in depth philosophical debate, a person could easily argue that it is impossible to disprove or even begin to question the existence of a god that does not make itself known in our realm of knowledge. I cannot be a strong atheist when it comes to the idea of a creator god who merely set this entire reality in motion and moved on to something else. Such a god is certainly easily conceivable - and impossible to begin to disprove - and is the reason why the distinction between weak and strong atheism is logically necessary.

Well put.
But if someone like a friend or some other people tried to tell you about god etc. Do you join the convo and try to point your opinions and argue or discuss in a civilize way with them? Or do u ignore it or just nod ur head in agreement?

I am an atheist, but never considered whether it was strong or weak.
I suppose I am a strong atheist regarding all gods ever conceived by men, but a weak atheist when it comes to a belief in a"first cause" sort of god, not just because I can't disprove it, but because that kind of belief is nowhere near as harmfull as any of the major religions tend to be, and thus doesn't evoke my anger as easily.

So what is the correct definition of weak and strong atheism?

Yeah, on the substance this is mostly where I end up now as well. I take a different approach to the semantics of the issue though--in most casual conversations about God I describe myself as a strong atheist, because except for some exceptions people (around me at least) do not seem to use "god" to refer to a class concept that includes Descarte's evil-demon type beings as well. Rather, they mean the conception of God that comes to us from the dominant religions.

I wouldn't call myself a weak atheist but some might because I would never try to talk a believer out of their views. I like to discuss our opposing views but I don't like to argue. I think it is pointless. I won't be talked out of mine so it would be presumptuous to assume I could talk someone else out of theirs.

That has nothing to do with weak/strong atheism. It's an epistemic issue, not a commentary on commitment or fervour.

Yes, and this is important. One could even argue that the weak atheist position would likely be the one typically carried "with the most fervor" since it is in more direct opposition to revelation than is the case with strong atheism.

This is true. I still try to prove them wrong or seek to understand how they believe some stuff and its pretty funny most don't read the bible

Op great post and you seem to have a brain..

weak minded people can't think for themselves so are drawn into religion by "predators."

Religion atttracts the worst / predators of the world.. its such bs.