The continuing saga of internet atheism

Some people who don’t believe in God often use a tactic called “demand and deny”. They keep asking for more evidence, even when historical sources are abundantly presented. And yet when more evidence is given, they still deny it.

I’m not referring to the miraculous (although God making Himself known through His word and His creation is pretty miraculous). It’s just noticing how internet atheist react when presented with historical evidence (or even sometimes scientific evidence such as found in the fine-tuning argument for God). For example, the writer of the Gospel of John claims to be a disciple – and therefore we have a first hand eyewitness account.  But because this does not fit the narrative of the atheists, it’s denied (even though it is attested to by early Church Father’s of the first and second centuries).

According to the New Testament and historical records, early Christians faced persecution and even martyrdom for their faith. However, some skeptics on the internet demand more evidence, and when evidence is provided, they question its reliability or source. They may argue that ancient witnesses like Clement or Ignatius were merely repeating what they heard, or that they didn’t personally witness the events (even though they were disciples of Paul and John).

It is important to note that much of ancient history relies on similar trust in sources, often with only one account. Strangely, these same skeptics don’t apply that level of scrutiny to other historical events. Pliny the Elder, known as a hero, died while trying to save people during the eruption of Vesuvius. Although there is only one historical source, Pliny the Younger, who mentioned this event, historians accept it as true.

History is filled with such events; the Battle of Heraclea in 280 BC, Hannibal crossing the Alps, and the death of Lucius Junius. All one need do is demand more evidence and then deny that evidence when it is presented – but that would be a disservice to history and would be unscholarly. 

Nevertheless, this is what is done time and again to biblical historical evidence simply because they are biblical – even in light of corroborating evidence. Often continuously rejecting them until the evidence is so overwhelming – and then they deny that they denied it in the first place (such as the existence of the city of Joppa or the Moabites.)

When it comes to historical events, for many skeptics, the Biblical accounts are guilty until proven innocent, an approach that we don’t apply to other historical events. This is, in my opinion, a form of religious bigotry and thus the saga continues.