Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

[the Vital One]

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.

 

[Desk trauma]

Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?​

No.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

General arguments about the (non)existence of god are not permitted here, so I'll try to answer your post without busting that rule.

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

It's not quite simple, but most of us think that he was 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.

The gospels are the claims about the life/ministry/divinity of Jesus written a generation or so after the events and are written by those making a series of claims about the life/ministry/divinity/resurrection of Jesus.

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.

The other sources from "around the time of Jesus" do mention Christians and what they believe (and in ways consistent with the beliefs expressed in the Gospels and other NT texts), but do not provide evidence for correctness of those claims. It's great that we know what the early Christians believed, but all these sources provide are accounts of the beliefs of (then contemporary) early Christians.

Atheists think they're governed by logic and science and have an incorruptible, rational view of everything.

Some try, but don't confuse "atheists" with "skeptics" or "rationalists" or "scientists". We are a varied group that only share in common our non-belief in the various proposed gods.

There's a least one fallacy they keep coming back to and it's changing the goalposts.

As noted in the previous post, no. You have not seen that here and the list of items you have given do not include any goal posts.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

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.