Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

the Vital One said:

It seems like whenever one tries to provide evidence of God, the Bible, ect. to an atheist they keep changing the goalposts.

One example is the simple fact of Jesus being a historical person.

You give them the Gospels as proof and that isn't good enough because it was written by Christians and therefore biased. You give them secular sources close to the time of Christ and those aren't good enough because they've been tainted by Christians. You give them other secular sources and they don't count because they came too late.

Atheists think they're governed by logic and science and have an incorruptible, rational view of everything. There's a least one fallacy they keep coming back to and it's changing the goalposts.

Click to expand...

I think the issue is the blanket assertion of all atheists holding the same view of atheistic beliefs. An atheist simply means not seeing any reason to believe there is a supreme being that exists; no matter what holy scriptures. What's the Ricky Gervais saying, "Basically, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.” The atheist groups include mythicists, who believe Jesus was a myth and didn't exist, as well as strong atheists and weak atheists. You can kind of think of it as the varying Christian denominations that believe in a resurrected Jesus, but disagree on major points to the point they accuse each other of not being Christian. Even in the Gospels you run across one group of Christians who are writing polemic against another group of Christians. So atheism is not just one group all believing the same thing, and each group is going to have their "why" they don't hold evidence as provable or probable. It's not a moving of the goalposts, but rather varying views of atheists. And no, the Bible itself is not reason enough to believe in God, specially the way it's portrayed. I am a laymen, but there is a lot more to the Bible than the overage Christian considers.

dlamberth said:

From what I've seen in this forum is the acceptance that Jesus is a historical person. I've not seen anyone deny that reality.

Click to expand...

Well then, here you go.

the Vital One said:

It seems like whenever one tries to provide evidence of God, the Bible, ect. to an atheist they keep changing the goalposts.

One example is the simple fact of Jesus being a historical person.

You give them the Gospels as proof and that isn't good enough because it was written by Christians and therefore biased. You give them secular sources close to the time of Christ and those aren't good enough because they've been tainted by Christians. You give them other secular sources and they don't count because they came too late.

Atheists think they're governed by logic and science and have an incorruptible, rational view of everything. There's a least one fallacy they keep coming back to and it's changing the goalposts.

Click to expand...

Historians, regardless of religiosity or lack thereof, don't challenge the historical existence of Jesus. So this has nothing to do with "atheists". There are people, some might be atheists, some might be agnostic, some might be Neo-Pagan, or Buddhist, or <fill in the blank> who subscribe to the "Christ Myth" theory--but that really doesn't have anything to do with atheists, Neo-Pagans, Buddhists, or whatever. That's just because some people subscribe to fringe ideas, or aren't well informed.

There are a lot of Christians who subscribe to the Flat Earth, but that has nothing to do with Christianity or Christians as such.

As far as moving goal posts goes. In my experience no group of people is immune. I've seen people from every walk of life do some goal post shuffling.

The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe any god(s) exist. That's it. I've met atheists I'm good friends with. I've met atheists who make me want to pull all my hair out. But, you know--that's because they're people. And people come in all shapes and sizes and dispositions.

o_mlly said:

The shortcoming of your metaphor may be a problem. In order to move the goalposts, the posts must first be set in something. Atheists, as far as I know, profess to believe in nothing.

Click to expand...

Atheists can believe in all sorts of things. They just don't happen to believe in the existence of any god(s).

Bradskii said:

There's probably a higher proportion of atheists on this forum then there are in the general population. And I've not known any of them deny that someone matching the description of Jesus in the bible actually existed.

Click to expand...

It's definitely not common on CF. But an occasional rando occasionally pops by.

o_mlly said:

The shortcoming of your metaphor may be a problem. In order to move the goalposts, the posts must first be set in something. Atheists, as far as I know, profess to believe in nothing.

Click to expand...

Most atheists would say "the burden of proof is on the theist."

The real anchors for atheism, at least in the contemporary context, are primarily materialism and rationalism. Take those away, and the burden of proof rhetoric starts to look less credible. That's why actual atheism hasn't really grown dramatically in the western world beyond a certain point. Most people that are irreligious are simply indifferent or tend not to be strongly affiliated with social institutions in general. Atheism at that point is primarily a sociological, not a philosophically driven phenomenon.

the Vital One said:

It seems like whenever one tries to provide evidence of God, the Bible, ect. to an atheist they keep changing the goalposts.

One example is the simple fact of Jesus being a historical person.

You give them the Gospels as proof and that isn't good enough because it was written by Christians and therefore biased. You give them secular sources close to the time of Christ and those aren't good enough because they've been tainted by Christians. You give them other secular sources and they don't count because they came too late.

Atheists think they're governed by logic and science and have an incorruptible, rational view of everything. There's a least one fallacy they keep coming back to and it's changing the goalposts.

Click to expand...

Even if you show good sources and then agree. Atheists can still say that proving Jesus really existed does not mean he was the Son of God. They will rationalise the claims of His resurrection as mass delusion. Or a trick and deception to fool people.

Atheists or at least material atheists as there are different kinds of atheists. Their worldview is one that believes all phenomena has a rational and naturalistic explanation.

But thats alos a belief. So therefore you can never convince an atheist to change their belief with any reasoning or facts. Just like we cannot verify God with any facts as its a belief.