Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

Say it aint so · Monday at 11:32 AM

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.

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 average Christian considers.

NxNW · Monday at 6:46 PM

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.

Well then, here you go.

ViaCrucis · Monday at 7:49 PM

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.

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.

ViaCrucis · Monday at 7:51 PM

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.

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

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 9:56 AM

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.

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

FireDragon76 · 2026-02-18T05:40:49-0600

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.

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.

stevevw · 2026-02-18T07:13:56-0600

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.

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 that's also 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.

essentialsaltes · 2026-02-18T08:46:30-0600

stevevw said:
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.

You could show us a factual phenomenon that has an irrational or supernatural explanation.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-18T16:12:44-0600

stevevw said:
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.

Steve, if I ever saw a god do something, then I could believe it existed. Hasn't happened yet.

weary2025 · 2026-02-18T16:41:24-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Steve, if I ever saw a god do something, then I could believe it existed. Hasn't happened yet.

God created us. Thats all the proof he gives. The rest is to be done by faith. After all, he is God, so why wouldn't he deserve our trust? Those who love Him keep his words.

RileyG · 2026-02-18T16:53:01-0600

No. A majority probably believed Jesus existed, they just don’t see him as divine or have a belief in any deity.

As a Christian, I know Mohammad existed in history, I just don’t believe he is a prophet from God.

Simple.

RileyG · 2026-02-18T16:54:27-0600

weary2025 said:
God created us. Thats all the proof he gives. The rest is to be done by faith. After all, he is God, so why wouldn't he deserve our trust? Those who love Him keep his words.

That’s faith based. Faith is a gift from God. Atheists reject this claim because they don’t believe in God.

Simple, really.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-18T17:30:29-0600

weary2025 said:
God created us. Thats all the proof he gives. The rest is to be done by faith. After all, he is God, so why wouldn't he deserve our trust? Those who love Him keep his words.

I don't know about you, but I assume that my parents had sex and that's how I was created. I'd rather not ask them...

weary2025 · 2026-02-18T17:41:09-0600

Hans Blaster said:
I don't know about you, but I assume that my parents had sex and that's how I was created. I'd rather not ask them...

Jesus created me. Jesus is a wonderful thing. Eternal life is true.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-18T18:35:22-0600

weary2025 said:
Jesus created me. Jesus is a wonderful thing. Eternal life is true.

You seem confused about the topic and evidence. The thread isn't about your "beliefs".

RileyG · 2026-02-18T18:47:57-0600

weary2025 said:
Jesus created me. Jesus is a wonderful thing. Eternal life is true.

He’s simply stating (most) humans are created via sexual intercourse.

Not theology.

weary2025 · 2026-02-18T18:51:22-0600

RileyG said:
He’s simply stating (most) humans are created via sexual intercourse.

Not theology.

He said there was no proof for God. Anyway, my mistake.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-18T19:47:52-0600

weary2025 said:
He said there was no proof for God. Anyway, my mistake.

I had actually said that I had never seen a god do anything. There could be other proofs, but you seem to be specifiying a particular god.

stevevw · 2026-02-18T19:50:22-0600

essentialsaltes said:
You could show us a factual phenomenon that has an irrational or supernatural explanation.

That's the same thing but in reverse. Its still requiring rational and naturalistic explanations.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-18T20:38:15-0600

stevevw said:
Thats the same thing but in reverse. Its still requiring rational and naturalistic explanations.

No one needs a "worldview" to know that natural things do happen. They are readily and repeatedly demonstrated.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Fact-Based Lifeform

Call Me Al

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Call Me Al

Active Member

Call Me Al

Veteran

Active Member

Call Me Al

inquisitive

Call Me Al

Similar threads