About the Author (and a FAQ)
Tim O’Neill – Blog Author
I am an atheist, sceptic and rationalist who is a subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of the Australian Skeptics. I have contributed to many atheism and scepticism fora over the years and have a posting record as a rationalist that goes back to at least 1992. I have a Bachelors Degree with Honours in English and History and a research Masters Degree from the University of Tasmania, with a specialisation in historicist analysis of medieval literature.
As a rationalist, I believe strongly that people should do all they can to put emotion, wishful thinking and ideology aside when examining any subject and that they should acquaint themselves as thoroughly as possible with the relevant scholarship and take account of any consensus of experts in a field before taking a position. Which is why I began this blog in October 2015. After over ten years of seeing supposed “rationalists”, most of them with no background in or even knowledge of history, using patent pseudo history as the basis for arguments against and attacks on religion, I felt someone needed to start correcting the popular misconceptions about history which are rife among many vocal atheist activists. I also felt there needed to be some push-back by a fellow unbeliever against several fringe theories and hopelessly outdated ideas which have no credibility among professional scholars and specialists, but which seem to be accepted almost without question by many or even most anti-theistic atheists. “History for Atheists” has grown out of these convictions.
In the years since I began this blog I have won a number of fans and supporters, but also gained a few detractors and hecklers. That’s the nature of the rough and tumble of the internet. If this is your first visit here I would ask you to try to put assumptions, a priori positions, and emotional preferences to one side and look objectively at the evidence and arguments I present. If we preach objectivity and dispassionate, well-informed rational analysis to others, we need to be prepared to practice these things ourselves. And remember that it’s usually only by discovering we have been mistaken about something that we can learn something new.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
“Are you really an atheist?”
Yes.
“Are you a historian?”
No. At least, not in anything but the broadest sense of the word. I do have training in the historical method, I have studied historiography and I have read widely in the work of leading professional historians on ancient and medieval history, the history of science and the history of Christianity and its theology. But I am generally not presenting original research of my own here or putting my own re-interpretive spin on any historical topic. Instead, I’m drawing on over 35 years of reading on a range of topics relevant to the history of western religion and seek to curate summaries of current expert scholarly positions on those subjects. It’s the qualifications and expertise of the historians and scholars I cite and whose work I draw on that are relevant here.
“Why are you attacking atheists on this blog?”
I’m correcting some atheists, particularly some anti-theistic activists, who often use arguments based on flawed, over-simplified, outdated, misinterpreted or plain erroneous ideas about history in their critiques of religion. I also criticise others who subscribe to fringe theories and crackpot ideas because of their anti-religious biases. And I critique a couple of actual historians who let their prejudices about religion warp their analysis; in one case to the point where his output is next to worthless. I regularly criticise all kinds of other people who allow a combination of ideology, prejudice and/or ignorance to distort their ideas about history, including Holocaust deniers, fundamentalist Christians, Catholic apologists and New Agers. But this blog is focused on distortions of history by atheists.
“Many of the things you critique are not ‘atheist bad history’, but common ideas or misconceptions about history. Why single out atheists?”
I don’t say these ideas are unique to atheists or somehow exclusively atheistic. They definitely aren’t. Many or even most of them are very commonly held misconceptions about history that historians try to correct. But the fact remains that they continue to be uncritically assumed and used by far too many atheists in their attacks on religion. That these are commonly held misconceptions is actually the problem – atheists are the ones who often talk loudly about how people should not accept commonly held ideas, should check their facts and should pay attention to what the experts say on any given matter. Yet when it comes to history, many don’t bother to take the advice they give to others. So no, most of these ideas are not exclusively or especially “atheist”. But the issue is they are used uncritically by atheists who should know and do better.
“Why don’t you expose distortions of history by Christians as well?”
Largely because there are plenty of blogs, books and online fora that do that quite well. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any other online resources by an atheist which does the same for atheist pseudo history. Given how much online atheists talk about fact-checking, objectivity, self-criticism and welcoming correction, that is very strange but it’s the case nonetheless. There are other forums where I have tackled Christian distortions of history, such as the claim the Crusades were actually justified defensive wars against Islamic encroachment on western Europe, or Christian attempts at reconciling the contradictory accounts of Jesus’ birth in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I have also written detailed articles debunking common Christian apologetic claims on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the supposed Old Testament prophecies allegedly fulfilled by Jesus or the claim that Jesus claimed to be divine. But this particular blog is focused on examples of atheist bad history.
“I’ve seen Christians referring to your blog. You’re helping the enemy!”
I can’t control who uses and refers to this site and its articles. If I’ve written an article on a subject here, I’ve done everything I can to ensure that I present mainstream consensus views accepted by the widest range of historians and am careful to flag it whenever I’m referring to an idea that is less widely accepted. I’m also very careful to avoid any arguments or views held only or primarily by Christians and believers and have an aversion to patent apologetics. If I note the work of a scholar who happens to be a believer it’s because it’s a view which is also widely accepted by others of other beliefs. So if any Christian or other believer notes one of my articles, they are noting a widely held view, not an exclusively or primarily Christian one. This means the objection that Christians and believers sometime refer to my material simply means sometimes Christians and believers are in line with mainstream scholarship on historical matters. If people don’t want Christians to note that an atheist is out of step with historical experts then the onus is on the atheist to do their historical homework better.
I also find the tribalism of seeing all believers as “the enemy” is fairly childish and usually distorts rational analysis. There certainly are believers who try to push their beliefs on others via politics and who I think should be opposed, but that is best done through a directed political process, not through some quixotic quest to totally debunk religious beliefs.
“[Insert Detractor’s Name Here] has written a response to you debunking what you say, so why should anyone pay any attention to you?”
If you critique ideas or claims, the people who present them, hold them or support them are likely to respond. Sometimes those responses are worth a reply. Often they are not. Again, what I present here are mainstream, widely-held and/or consensus views of a broad range of professional historians. The people I critique are often proponents or defenders of fringe theories, outdated clichés or crackpot speculation. And, unsurprisingly, they tend to be the ones who write these long responses supposedly “debunking” my critiques. If I replied to every response to my articles, I’d end up with a blog made up of little more than responses to obsessive individuals, which would generally be of limited interest to a wider range of readers and so counter to the objectives of this site. And given I know those obsessive individuals pretty well, I know any responses would largely be a waste of time. So if anyone thinks any of these supposed “debunkings” make good points, they are welcome to highlight them in the comments on a relevant article of mine and we will see how well they stand up to scrutiny. But having people respond to my stuff with “debunkings” is not significant – it’s just how the internet works. Arguments stand on their merits.
“Why do you often use the term ‘New Atheist’?”
Because it’s shorter and simpler than “anti-theistic atheist activist” or some other similarly cumbersome but more exact phrase. Not all atheists are anti-theistic (on the whole, I’m not) and not all are activists. I tend to find that it is the anti-theistic activists who are most likely to accept anti-religious pseudo history uncritically, to use it in their arguments and to reject any correction of it as “apologism” or “revisionism”. They are who I’m referring to by the shorthand term “New Atheists”.
The term is not a slur or one used only by critics of atheism. It was originally embraced by the new wave of atheist activists in the mid-2000s, as evidenced by the title of atheist writer Victor Stenger’s 2009 book The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. It’s merely a convenient shorthand term, nothing more.
“You made a claim but didn’t cite a source or a scholar to support it. How do I know you’re right?”
I try to cite and quote sources where I feel it’s important to do so. This is usually when I am referring to or noting a particular primary source or a specific book or scholarly article and, when I can, I include a link to information about the book or to the relevant article if it is available online. Often, however, I’m summarising a broad scholarly consensus on a given topic and so there is no way I could cite a single source to support what I’m saying. And blog posts are not well-suited to the kind of detailed footnotes found in academic texts which give an lengthy overview of monographs and articles relevant to the summarised point that has been made. When appropriate, I try to give a list of books and articles for further reading, especially if there are introductory overviews or comprehensive scholarly treatments for the topic in question. Otherwise I am very open for readers to query any given point in the comments section and I will happily suggest reading for them in reply.
“When you talk about Jesus, do you mean the miraculous figure found in the gospels?”
No. When scholars talk about “the historical Jesus” they are referring to the Jewish man on whom the later figure of “Jesus Christ” was based. Of course, the scholars who are Christians also believe that this “historical Jesus” and the Jesus of Christian faith are identical or at least very similar. But I (and many leading scholars) do not. I conclude that the later figure of “Jesus Christ” found in the gospels and worshipped as God by many today evolved out of memories of and beliefs about a Jewish preacher named Yeshua (“Jesus” is the English form) from the village of Nazareth in Galilee. I do not find the miracle stories about “Jesus Christ” any more convincing than any other miracles reported in ancient texts of the period – people then believed in such things but I do not. And I agree with those scholars who think the historical Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end times were coming very soon, as I detail here.
“Do you claim you can PROVE a historical Jesus existed?”
No, but only because historians do not deal in “proof”. History is a humanities discipline, not a hard science. So historians cannot “prove” things the way scientists often can – instead they use a structured process of critical analysis of relevant evidence to make an assessment of likelihood. So, like almost all of the scholars in any relevant field, I conclude that a historical Jesus most likely existed and that the alternative Mythicist theories are contrived, confused, often crackpot and totally unconvincing.
“Have the read the books of Richard Carrier/Robert Price/David Fitzgerald/Insert-latest-Mythicist-here.”
Yes. In most cases, several times. I agree with the overwhelming majority of qualified scholars who find those books totally unconvincing.
“How can you be an ‘atheist’ if you don’t accept Jesus Mythicism/the Conflict Thesis/insert-fringe-or-debunked-pseudo-history-here?”
Because atheism is simply being without a belief in any God or gods and nothing more. Those other things may be, unfortunately, held by many atheists. But they are not part of being an atheist. To claim otherwise is an example of the “‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy“.
“Will you debate [Insert Jesus Mythicist here]?”
No. Debate formats lend themselves to some kinds of topic – mainly broad philosophical or political issues that are based on opinion. This is why they can be interesting on questions like “should speech always be free” or “are criminals born or made – discuss”. They do not lend themselves to complex questions based on the analysis of many points of data and the assessment of interpretations of those data. So while “Is evolution true?” or “Did a historical Jesus exist?” may sound like good debate topics, they are not ones that can be analysed in sufficient detail in a structured debate format; unless the debate were to go on for many days or perhaps even weeks. This means that most debates on this kind of topic are reduced to exercises in rhetoric and massive generalisation and tend to favour those who can craft the most crowd-friendly rhetorical summaries rather than who is right. I’m told I’m a pretty good public speaker and can summarise complex material in an entertaining way, but – to me – simply doing that doesn’t do a topic like the existence of a historical Jesus sufficient justice. So I have no interest in the idea of a public debate on this subject.
“Who can comment on your articles?”
Anyone. But that doesn’t mean any and all comments will see the light of day. Anyone who preaches religion at me or any other commenters will go straight to the spam file. No ifs, no buts. I have both believers and unbelievers as regular readers, but no-one comes here to be proselytised to, so I have a zero tolerance policy for evangelism of any kind on this forum. The same goes for proponents of crackpot personal theories – go find a publisher for your amazing insights, because I am not interested. I find some Jesus Mythicists think the comments sections on my articles on the subject of the historicity of Jesus should be a free-fire zone for their arguments. They aren’t. If you address points I make directly and your contributions are at least focused and relevant, they will get through moderation. But if you’re just going to just parrot Mythicist talking points, you’ll be banned. This is not the venue for that stuff. I’m pretty forthright in my views, so I tolerate a reasonable level of rough and tumble in the comments. But this is my platform and so I’ll be the one who decides if someone has gone too far. Finally, keep on topic. If you drift too far, I’ll warn you and if you ignore the warning, you’re gone. And if you don’t like any of the above, bad luck.
“Why are you sometimes rude or sarcastic on this blog?”
Because it’s my blog and so I’ll post on it my way. I sometimes find the endless repetition of the same pseudo historical myths in atheist circles frustrating and so I deal with that in my own manner – usually with some wry good humour and irony that can come across to some (mainly Americans of the irony-deficient variety and/or the people I’m criticising) as “rude”. I make no apologies about that, though if I am being harsh I do at least try to also be funny. In responding to comments I have a general policy of being civil to anyone the first two times they post, but after that I give back what I get. Civil comments, even if critical, generally get polite responses. Trolls and idiots don’t. And if you don’t like that you can go fuck yourself (broad wink).
“Are you going to post on insert-subject-here?”
If it’s New Atheist pseudo history, probably. If it isn’t, then no. There are plenty of topics out there that I could discuss, but unless they are (i) related to history and (ii) related to something being said or written by an atheist, they are not relevant here. This site is about atheist bad history, not bad history generally.
“Why don’t you write a book/When are you writing a book/How is your book coming along?”
Thanks to encouragement from some of this blog’s readers, I am writing the longer articles here, especially those in the blog’s “Great Myths” series, with a view to, perhaps, re-working them into chapters in a book on New Atheist bad history one day. There are still several very large topics that I need to cover in that series as well as other egregious examples of New Atheists bungling and mangling history I need to address before I can even think about turning to writing the first draft of any book. And I have a time consuming day job, a busy social life and a number of other hobbies. So let’s just say that, at the moment, the writing of any book is happening here on this blog.
That said, historian Nathan Johnstone’s excellent book The New Atheism, Myth, and History: The Black Legends of Contemporary Anti-Religion
“Have you read the Bible and do you want to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?”
Yes. And no, thank you. I know the Bible very well thanks, probably better than you. As a result, I have no interest in converting to your alleged “Christ”.
“You are a fake atheist/crypto-Christian/”accommodationist”/paid Vatican operative/great big poopyhead.”
That’s not a question. And not rational.
Tim O’Neill – Last modified 02/08/22