Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

A New Dawn · 2026-02-20T09:39:43-0600

Bradskii said:
Whut? I simply pointed out the obvious fact that accepting that there was someone called Jesus has nothing to do with accepting that He is divine. It has nothing to do with God. Unless you also accept that what He was reported to have said and did is true.

I can't make that any clearer.

And, since the argument put forth in the OP was simply accepting Jesus as an historical figure as indicated, not just in the Biblical narrative but in broader historical documents, that people have trouble agreeing with that for whatever unreasonable purpose they claim. The fact is, YOU moved the discussion to include the suggestion that the OP was suggesting that proof of life also meant proof of divinity is exactly why and how you moved the goalpost. It was not the OP’s argument that proof of historical being was equivalent to proof of divinity in this example.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-20T09:47:25-0600

A New Dawn said:
And, since the argument put forth in the OP was simply accepting Jesus as an historical figure as indicated, not just in the Biblical narrative but in broader historical documents, that people have trouble agreeing with that for whatever unreasonable purpose they claim. The fact that YOU moved the discussion to include the suggestion that that also meant proof of divinity is exactly why and how you moved the goalpost. It was not the OP’s argument that proof of historical being was equivalent to proof of divinity in this example.

The problem here is that the conceptual and epistemological battle ground resides within the study of Historiography and the Philosophy of History, along with Hermeneutics and Epistemology, but most folks on the Left or Right and en masse don't go in for all that.

This very thread is a point in case, and I find it to be a fool's errand to attempt to educate or argue anyone on these matters.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-02-20T10:06:22-0600

A New Dawn said:
Actually, according to the very argument in the OP, that is exactly the case. Go back and read the OP to verify for yourself.

Ok, so what was @Bradskii saying that changed the needed evidence for historicity? To me it seems that he accepted historicity, but highlighted that it does not indicate divinity? That is another claim.

I just don't see when anybody changed the criteria for accepting historicity? That would be moving the goalposts.

essentialsaltes · 2026-02-20T10:09:12-0600

It's been said already, but the OP would have a lot more sting if there were lots of Jesus mythicists about in this neck of the woods, but there just aren't.

A New Dawn · 2026-02-20T10:49:57-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Ok, so what was @Bradskii saying that changed the needed evidence for historicity? To me it seems that he accepted historicity, but highlighted that it does not indicate divinity? That is another claim.

I just don't see when anybody changed the criteria for accepting historicity? That would be moving the goalposts.

The whole purpose of this thread is about people changing the goalposts so they can claim that the point of the question asked on the OP hasn’t been met. One speaks differently (uses different language) when one wants to broaden the discussion than they do when they want to move the goalposts.

Had Bradskii, as you suggested, accepted historicity and wanted to change the focus of the topic, why would he not have said that? He indicated nowhere that he accepted historicity and went straight to historicity doesn’t prove divinity, which was not part of the question asked. And his misdirection worked. That became the topic instead of the stated topic of the OP.

Say it aint so · 2026-02-20T10:52:13-0600

essentialsaltes said:
It's been said already, but the OP would have a lot more sting if there were lots of Jesus mythicists about in this neck of the woods, but there just aren't.

I agree. They are out there. I don't agree, but I can understand their arguments.

A New Dawn · 2026-02-20T10:54:24-0600

dlamberth said:
I think this is all true not only for those who left Christianity and became atheist, but I think it also hits home for many of us who went elsewhere for spiritual understanding.

Well, since it is faith, and not knowledge, that Christianity is based on, one could say that those who left for reasons like this never had faith to begin with. Lots of believers go down these paths and never lose their faith, because true faith is binding.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-02-20T11:15:50-0600

A New Dawn said:
The whole purpose of this thread is about people changing the goalposts so they can claim that the point of the question asked on the OP hasn’t been met. One speaks differently (uses different language) when one wants to broaden the discussion than they do when they want to move the goalposts.

Had Bradskii, as you suggested, accepted historicity and wanted to change the focus of the topic, why would he not have said that? He indicated nowhere that he accepted historicity and went straight to historicity doesn’t prove divinity, which was not part of the question asked. And his misdirection worked. That became the topic instead of the stated topic of the OP.

It is still not moving the goalposts, anyone can choose to answer the question of divinity if they so choose or not. Pointing it out that historicity doesn't prove divinity in itself is not moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts mean moving the evidentiary threshold for a specific claim (in this case historicity). You didn't indicate when this happened. So this creates another question. How do you define moving the goalposts?

Changing the scope is not moving the goalposts, it is up to those involved to accept it or not.

dlamberth · 2026-02-20T12:02:40-0600

The OP asks if Jesus was a historical person. There's nothing in the OP asking about Divinity or Jesus as God.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-20T14:15:53-0600

dlamberth said:
The OP asks if Jesus was a historical person. There's nothing in the OP asking about Divinity or Jesus as God.

True, he didn't gives specific statements. But from my angle, the OP meant to imply these latter concepts.

Still, I don't think atheists typically 'change the goalposts' unless they're the sort of persons who enjoy trolling Christians.

So, the OP is apparently not up on the more current debates in Historiography and the critical study of the Bible, and this is why it may seem that he thinks sharing the Gospel should more or less be an 'easy' task with easy results.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-20T14:22:21-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Well, maybe cast your lot with those who would support the trivium.

I already support a general polymath approach to human learning that goes beyond either the trivium, or the quadrivium.

But thanks for the suggestion.

Bradskii · 2026-02-20T15:08:16-0600

A New Dawn said:
And, since the argument put forth in the OP was simply accepting Jesus as an historical figure as indicated, not just in the Biblical narrative but in broader historical documents, that people have trouble agreeing with that for whatever unreasonable purpose they claim.

But nobody is disagreeing with it. Where's the problem?

A New Dawn said:
The fact is, YOU moved the discussion to include the suggestion that the OP was suggesting that proof of life also meant proof of divinity is exactly why and how you moved the goalpost. It was not the OP’s argument that proof of historical being was equivalent to proof of divinity in this example.

That has been my point as well. Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-20T20:11:38-0600

A New Dawn said:
And, since the argument put forth in the OP was simply accepting Jesus as an historical figure as indicated,

Something I take as the most likely explanation for a religion that started around his person. Far, far more likely than any notion that he never existed or was a myth or something.

A New Dawn said:
not just in the Biblical narrative

It isn't the Gospels that make me think Jesus was a real person. I can't think of a single detail in the Gospels that I would as unquestionably true. Some probably are, but I can't tell which ones they are.

A New Dawn said:
but in broader historical documents,

Jesus isn't in "broader historical documents". The religion that started around him is mentioned and frequently getting basic Christian doctrine correct, but Jesus himself is not documented outside the NT texts.

A New Dawn said:
that people have trouble agreeing with that for whatever unreasonable purpose they claim.

My purpose is to only believe things supported by facts, data, or reasoning based on the same. "Jesus was a man" falls into that category. The other stuff about him does not.

A New Dawn said:
The fact is, YOU moved the discussion to include the suggestion that the OP was suggesting that proof of life also meant proof of divinity is exactly why and how you moved the goalpost. It was not the OP’s argument that proof of historical being was equivalent to proof of divinity in this example.

It was only a gentle reminder from @Bradskii since many Christians (and it is hard to keep track of which ones will be this way) leap straight from "Jesus was a man" to "Jesus is God" and erroneously assume that if we accept the former we also accept the latter.

stevevw · 2026-02-20T21:35:08-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Too bad this boring garbage is not the subject of the thread.

Then what is it about.

Hans Blaster said:
I never followed the Rgiught Gid or thought reality was fundamentally supernaturaal.

It certainly lives within a similar realm. "I think, therefore I am". Thats powerful and supernatural. That a Mind could control reality like that even physical reality is very much a supernatural event according to the material atheists worldview.

Hans Blaster said:
Technically Steve, what you are doing is not a goalpost shift, but a -- Look! Squirrel!

Actually its going back to the fundementals. You have to first understand the overall philosophy on which this is based. In doing that you can identify how even atheist worldviews require a belief just like theists.

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?

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Call Me Al

inquisitive

Similar threads