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.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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.

Can't use scripture for proof, just yet. Try the writings of Josephous. Also, you can't start with Jesus Christ of Nazareth, you need to first bring science and the creation account together. Unfortunately, many Christians don't do this because they don't see science in scripture. Atheists have a analytical mind and need to solve the problem first before they accept the answer.
Be blessed.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

 

[d taylor]

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.

-

​

Seek out people looking for God's free gift of Eternal Life, there are more than enough out there. They just do not know how to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life, by believing in Jesus for Eternal Life.

Why spend time arguing with an atheist.

 

[Desk trauma]

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.

Incorrect. Atheism is a stance on one issue and one issue only.

 

[comana]

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.

The Gospels are the claim not the proof.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

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.

Non-Christians are in bondage to sin. They can do nothing but sin as sin is their master. No matter what argument you will use for God, they will not believe.

Christ must free them of this bondage of sin. That's why we preach the Gospel of Christ and pray to Him to have mercy on the sinnet, as He is the only one who can do something about their sin.

Remember, salvation is not about intelligence, but about God's grace and the state of the heart.

 

[o_mlly]

Incorrect. Atheism is a stance on one issue and one issue only.

What is the one issue that all atheists profess? If that thing is a negative then they profess "no-thing".

 

[Desk trauma]

What is the one issue that all atheists profess?

A lack of belief in god/s.

If that thing is a negative then they profess "no-thing".

Right, so if the answer to the question of belief in something, faeries say, is no than any other beliefs that person holds do not exist?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

Being a person who existed is different than defining the role they held. Anne Boleyn existed, which is an undisputed fact, as is the creation of The Church of England because of her, but if I were to say that’s proof she holds the same influence and reverence to the the faith that Mary does, I’d be wrong.

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.

I can give you the Quran that proves Mohammed is the one true prophet, so clearly he is, that’s proof, and you not accepting it makes you wrong.

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.

The goalposts don’t move. Your understanding of them and what is required to prove the existence of God, however, falls short, and for that you blame the Atheists when really the issue is you.