Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 11:02 PM

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

No, I asked for an irrational or supernatural explanation.

stevevw · Wednesday at 11:40 PM

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

Yes but we are talking about a belief in what nature represents. Not that it does not happen. How it came to happen.

stevevw · Wednesday at 11:43 PM

essentialsaltes said:
No, I asked for an irrational or supernatural explanation.

Yes thats right. Because an irrational or supernatural explanation will not do. Does not fall within that worldview belief.

Its not a case that you have a choice to ask or not to ask for such explanations. Its that you can't because its not part of the paradigm worldview belief.

The belief that the supernatural is unevidenced and therefore unreal.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-19T07:55:36-0600

stevevw said:
Yes but we are talking about a belief in what nature represents. Not that it does not happen. How it came to happen.

We weren't. You are trying to make it about that. I'm not interested.

essentialsaltes · 2026-02-19T08:37:35-0600

stevevw said:
Yes thats right. Because an irrational or supernatural explanation will not do. Does not fall within that worldview belief.

I'm asking you to shatter the worldview with factual phenomena.

stevevw said:
Its not a case that you have a choice to ask or not to ask for such explanations. Its that you can't

I do have a choice, and I not only can, I did.

stevevw said:
The belief that the supernatural is unevidenced and therefore unreal.

Well, you certainly haven't provided any evidence. Just a lot of tapdancing.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-19T09:27:38-0600

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.

I'd argue that it's not a changing/moving of the goalposts.

It's a disagreement over what the original goalposts are/were whether or not the information presented as evidence has cleared the original goalposts.

In this particular instance, in the aspect of whether or not Jesus was a real person who existed isn't at the core of the debate.

To use a more basic non-religious example:
Joe claims that his friend bought a Ferrari
Mike says "I don't know if I believe that, from everything I've observed thus far in life, an accountant for a small firm doesn't make enough money to buy a Ferrari, do you have proof of that? I'll need to see something concrete before I'd believe it"

If Joe's supporting evidence is:
His other friend Matt says he saw him at the dealership one day browsing
His other friend Markus texted me saying he thinks he saw him in a Ferrari
The guy Lucas we know recalls hearing other people saying something about him owning one
And a mutual friend Jonathan told us that he remembers hearing him say he wanted to buy one

"Joe, did any of you actually see it?"
- "No Mike, but the text messages and emails seemed fairly detailed"

The core of the debate/dispute isn't what the whether or not he was ever spotted at a the car dealership, or what his four friends heard about or think they might have seen or any documented text messages between them. All of those things could be 100% true without proving the original assertion which is "Did he actually buy a Ferrari"

Or for the reader's digest version: Proving extraneous aspects & minutia that aren't central to the core claim in dispute isn't satisfying the original demand for hard evidence, so people rejecting/questioning those as evidence and still requesting something more concrete isn't shifting the goalposts, it's a clarification of what the original goalposts are.

A New Dawn · 2026-02-19T11:25:01-0600

Bradskii said:
Can you quote anyone who says differently? And I should point out that accepting that Jesus was a historical person hasn't anything to do with evidence of God.

Right here is an example of the goalposts being moved.

The example being referred to is that of Jesus Christ being considered an historical person. That’s it. The response quoted stated “And I should point out that accepting Jesus was a historical person [the response to the question asked] hasn’t anything to do with evidence of God [the goalpost being moved].”

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-19T11:35:45-0600

Bradskii said:
Can you quote anyone who says differently? And I should point out that accepting that Jesus was a historical person hasn't anything to do with evidence of God.

Actually, Jesus of Nazareth HAS to have at least a minimal place within the overall encompass of considerations for "evidence for God."

However, it just may be not the kind of evidence you prefer to have, but it is a form of rational evidence, which like all historical evidences and/or citations of alleged testimonies of "religious knowledge" is open to subjective analysis and evaluation which comes from diverse epistemic frameworks.

So, it would be more accurate for you to say that Jesus being a historical person doesn't show evidence of God TO YOU. But it does to me, and in fact it's the historical and intertextual evidence of Jesus which serves as a beginning point for me rather than do the Cosmological or Ontological arguments.

................I just had to throw that out there, even though I know it will lead to a Null Discussion (i.e. no further discussion).

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-19T11:36:27-0600

A New Dawn said:
Right here is an example of the goalposts being moved.

It isn't. See below.

A New Dawn said:
The example being referred to is that of Jesus Christ being considered an historical person. That’s it. The response quoted stated “And I should point out that accepting Jesus was a historical person [the response to the question asked] hasn’t anything to do with evidence of God [the goalpost being moved].”

The problem is right in the way you refer to him "Jesus Christ". That wasn't his name (when he was alive). It is a title given to him *by Christians*. The "Christ" part is a theological claim, not a historical one. @Bradskii (or anyone else) is doing in making that statement is reminding *you* and your fellow *Christians* that accepting the past existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not the same as accepting your religious claims.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-19T11:42:09-0600

Hans Blaster said:
It isn't. See below.

The problem is right in the way you refer to him "Jesus Christ". That wasn't his name (when he was alive). It is a title given to him *by Christians*. The "Christ" part is a theological claim, not a historical one. @Bradskii (or anyone else) is doing in making that statement is reminding *you* and your fellow *Christians* that accepting the past existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not the same as accepting your religious claims.

They are intertextually interlaced. So, on a minimal level, actually, yes the past existence of Jesus of Nazareth contributes to, but does not provide proof for, accepting further religious claims, even if those testimonies are honeyed over by various religious sentiments of 1st century Christian writers (as far as we can tell).

A New Dawn · 2026-02-19T11:55:03-0600

Hans Blaster said:
It isn't. See below.

The problem is right in the way you refer to him "Jesus Christ". That wasn't his name (when he was alive). It is a title given to him *by Christians*. The "Christ" part is a theological claim, not a historical one. @Bradskii (or anyone else) is doing in making that statement is reminding *you* and your fellow *Christians* that accepting the past existence of Jesus of Nazareth is not the same as accepting your religious claims.

While “Christ” isn’t Jesus’ last name, it is how people colloquially refer to Jesus (of Nazareth). I only said the name spoken in the OP and was not speaking to either his place in history OR His place as the Son of God. I was simply pointing out how goalposts are moved in discussions so that nobody is ever able to make their points stick.

partinobodycular · 2026-02-19T12:17:29-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
................I just had to throw that out there, even though I know it will lead to a Null Discussion (i.e. no further discussion).

I'll take door number three... the evidence is irrelevant.

Larniavc · 2026-02-19T12:27:01-0600

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 circular reasoning. How does us existing mean there must be God?

Larniavc · 2026-02-19T12:28:59-0600

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

Then what role did the well understood process of reproduction play in you existence?

A New Dawn · 2026-02-19T12:58:46-0600

Larniavc said:
Then what role did the well understood process of reproduction play in you existence?

He/She was probably speaking to the pre-existence, not the existence.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-19T13:25:15-0600

partinobodycular said:
I'll take door number three... the evidence is irrelevant.

Yes, that's a choice some make.

Say it aint so · 2026-02-19T14:01:02-0600

Evidence

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

When a believe or proposition is held to be true or valid is based on religious faith, or put another way, "things hoped for evidence not seen" then for the faithful it's just a matter of what degree of evidence that gets them to Hebrews 1:11. For many, not much, as noted by Yeshua's mere existence being enough. For the atheists, there is none at all. As someone noted. It's kind of simple.

Bradskii · 2026-02-19T14:30:18-0600

A New Dawn said:
Right here is an example of the goalposts being moved.

The example being referred to is that of Jesus Christ being considered an historical person. That’s it. The response quoted stated “And I should point out that accepting Jesus was a historical person [the response to the question asked] hasn’t anything to do with evidence of God [the goalpost being moved].”

I'm not sure you understand what moving the goalposts means. Accepting that Jesus was a historical figure in itself has nothing to do ith God. No more that accepting that Plato was a historical figure.

Bradskii · 2026-02-19T14:33:37-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
Actually, Jesus of Nazareth HAS to have at least a minimal place within the overall encompass of considerations for "evidence for God."

However, it just may be not the kind of evidence you prefer to have, but it is a form of rational evidence, which like all historical evidences and/or citations of alleged testimonies of "religious knowledge" is open to subjective analysis and evaluation which comes from diverse epistemic frameworks.

So, it would be more accurate for you to say that Jesus being a historical person doesn't show evidence of God TO YOU. But it does to me, and in fact it's the historical and intertextual evidence of Jesus which serves as a beginning point for me rather than do the Cosmological or Ontological arguments.

................I just had to throw that out there, even though I know it will lead to a Null Discussion (i.e. no further discussion).

It's who Jesus was said to be and what he is said to have done might be considered evidence for God. Not simply the fact that He existed.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-19T16:42:20-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
They are intertextually interlaced.

I thought we could avoid jibberish jargon.

2PhiloVoid said:
So, on a minimal level, actually, yes the past existence of Jesus of Nazareth contributes to, but does not provide proof for, accepting further religious claims, even if those testimonies are honeyed over by various religious sentiments of 1st century Christian writers (as far as we can tell).

We usually call this "necessary, but not sufficient". No Jesus, no religion (probably).

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?

Fact-Based Lifeform

inquisitive

inquisitive

Call Me Al

Fact-Based Lifeform

Part of the IT crowd

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Call Me Al

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Call Me Al

Similar threads