When Skeptics Disagree Does This Mean Anything Significant?

Skeptics reject the existence of God and the authority of the Bible. But that's where the agreement ends for many of us. Evangelical Christians exploit this to their advantage. They argue that once we reject God's existence we no longer can have a firm moral compass embedded in a firm foundation. They also argue that unless we believe the testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament we cannot come to any better explanation of the evidence because there is no better explanation of the evidence. In other words, Christians argue that the reason why skeptics cannot agree with each other once we reject God and the Bible is because there are no better explanations for morality and the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus than what they claim. In fact, they'll go on to argue that unless skeptics can agree on such things then it means any skeptical alternative explanation is accepted by us simply because once we reject God and the Bible then we will embrace any alternative explanation. But this is emphatically NOT the case at all.

When it comes to a proper foundation to morality even Christians disagree among themselves. Catholics embrace Natural Law Ethics whereas Protestants have embraced Divine Command Theories, Modified Divine Command Theories, the Deontological Ethics of Kant, Situation Ethics, and Utilitarianism. Christians have also disagreed with themselves over all of the ethical issues in our day. What's the Christian position about abortion under the law? There isn't one. Never has. So why should skeptics have to agree if Christians can't? If agreement among skeptics is an strong indicator of the truth then shouldn't agreement among Christians be considered likewise? In fact, if Christians have in their hands the very words of God then a case can be made that disagreement among Christians is a much stronger indicator that they are wrong to think the Bible is God's word.

When it comes to the so-called testimonial evidence in the New Testament regarding the resurrection of Jesus, I want you to think of a court trial. The jury may acquit the accused without having any clue who did the crime. The evidence is there to make a decision that someone did not do something, but the evidence may not be there for them all to agree on who did it. Likewise the evidence is there to make a decision that Jesus did not bodily arise from the grave, but the evidence may not be there to for these same people to agree on exactly what happened, if anything happened at all.

That's basically all that needs to be said against this ignorant Christian claim. I'll let others fill in the details below.