An atheist correcting atheist myths on history

Was led to this blog yesterday through other reading:

historyforatheists.com...

All I can say is wow. I have spent years reading on various histories and many of these false narratives I fully accepted. I had no idea why people believed these things - even myself - but it is only because it is what has been suggested and what is popularly believed. He covers (so far) these myths with astounding research and backs all of his "proofs" with actual proof.

An odd human, an atheist that has taken it upon himself to dispel atheist "mythology".

Here are the myths that he shatters:

That there was no historical Jesus at all and that Christianity arose out of a belief in a purely mythic/celestial being, not a historical Jewish preacher
That Christianity caused the “Dark Ages” by systematically destroying almost all ancient Greco-Roman learning,
That Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria and that Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered because of a Christian hatred of science
That pagan Greco_Roman society was rational and scientific and fairly non-religious and was on the brink of a scientific and technological revolution
That Constantine was a crypto-pagan who adopted Christianity as a cynical political ploy (and he personally created the Bible)
That Christianity somehow held back technology and we’d all be living on Mars by now if it wasn’t for the “Dark Ages”
That Medieval Europe was a theocracy ruled by the Church, which wielded supreme power and killed anyone who questioned any aspect of its teachings
That scientists were oppressed during the Middle Ages and science stagnated completely until “the Renaissance”
That “the Inquisition” was a kind of Europe-wide medieval Gestapo and that the medieval Church was an all-powerful totalitarian theocracy
That Giordano Bruno was a wise and brave astronomer and cosmologist who was burned at the stake because the Church hated science
That the Galileo Affair was a straightforward case of religion ignoring evidence and trying to suppress scientific advancement
That Pope Pius XII was a friend and ally of the Nazis who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust and helped Nazis escape justice


Happy reading for those that seek truth - atheist or not.

a reply to: Fools

Do you have link to the actual essay[s] that dispels these so called myths?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Its not just 1 essay - a bit of browsing may prove fruitful for you.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Links might prove to be fruitful to the OP's thread. I've actually done quite of bit of investigation into many of these issues.

Here's a link for your inspection. www.jesusneverexisted.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fools

Do you have link to the actual essay that dispels these so called myths?

historyforatheists.com...

at the bottom of the page.

a reply to: Fools

The bottom of the page? You mean this?

The Great Myths Series
The Great Myths 1: The Medieval Flat Earth
The Great Myths 2: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism
The Great Myths 3: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science
The Great Myths 4: Constantine, Nicea and the Bible
The Great Myths 5: The Destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria
The Great Myths 6: Copernicus’ Deathbed Publication

Which of those essays prove any of these "myths" false?

That there was no historical Jesus at all and that Christianity arose out of a belief in a purely mythic/celestial being, not a historical Jewish preacher
That Christianity caused the “Dark Ages” by systematically destroying almost all ancient Greco-Roman learning,
That Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria and that Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered because of a Christian hatred of science
That pagan Greco_Roman society was rational and scientific and fairly non-religious and was on the brink of a scientific and technological revolution
That Constantine was a crypto-pagan who adopted Christianity as a cynical political ploy (and he personally created the Bible)
That Christianity somehow held back technology and we’d all be living on Mars by now if it wasn’t for the “Dark Ages”
That Medieval Europe was a theocracy ruled by the Church, which wielded supreme power and killed anyone who questioned any aspect of its teachings
That scientists were oppressed during the Middle Ages and science stagnated completely until “the Renaissance”
That “the Inquisition” was a kind of Europe-wide medieval Gestapo and that the medieval Church was an all-powerful totalitarian theocracy
That Giordano Bruno was a wise and brave astronomer and cosmologist who was burned at the stake because the Church hated science
That the Galileo Affair was a straightforward case of religion ignoring evidence and trying to suppress scientific advancement
That Pope Pius XII was a friend and ally of the Nazis who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust and helped Nazis escape justice

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You know what? I think I am just going to ignore you. I am not sure what your purpose in this discussion is, but it certainly isn't to have a discussion.

a reply to: Fools

Well, I'm calling "click-bait" on your thread. You talk about "an author", but you don't name him. You provide a link that suggests that this unnamed author has proven, among other things, that "Jesus" is NOT a mythical figure! But, to find out who this author is, you need to click on another link. That link gives the author's bio, but still doesn't link to the essay that proves that "Jesus" was not a mythical figure.

So, really? this author has proof of the virgin birth, the Wise Men, his family's flight to Egypt to escape Herod, he has proof of a man who raised the dead, manifested food for 5000 people from almost nothing, walked on water and turned water to wine, was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven? He has proof that man really existed? I'd like to see that proof!

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You know what? I think I am just going to ignore you. I am not sure what your purpose in this discussion is, but it certainly isn't to have a discussion.

These things are always going to be subjective and receive plenty of angst
As a Christian I am a bit surprised by some of the information I have seen, even some of it I assumed was fact
To be honest I am still not convinced but well,worth the read and to be offered such a decent place to do some research, well cheers

Interesting👍

A shallow thread with a lot of great lead-ins to more in depth conversation and questions that need to be addressesd.

That Christianity caused the “Dark Ages” by systematically destroying almost all ancient Greco-Roman learning,

- um duh. Isn't it a bit suspicious they are the only major institute of power to survive the time-span, gain power, and instigate much of the violence?

That Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria and that Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered because of a Christian hatred of science

- - This is an institute of power and control, of course they did. This doesn't prove anything about the greater truth of being. aka 'God'

That pagan Greco_Roman society was rational and scientific and fairly non-religious and was on the brink of a scientific and technological revolution

That Constantine was a crypto-pagan who adopted Christianity as a cynical political ploy (and he personally created the Bible)

- -Smart guy. You've got excellent material, but its wasted on trying to back up atheism instead of tearing down religious structure.

In a shorthand summary this is all an longhand way of saying that the Catholic/Christian origins have nothing to do with faith but is rather using religion as a tool to maintain their political construct's power and agenda.

Nothing about that disproves the existence of a greater unity of being, it merely reiterates how deceptive the worlds largest religious organization is and it's dark history.

---I'm not an atheist, yet nothing you've said is at all new or surprising.

originally posted by: DoctorX11
A shallow thread with a lot of great lead-ins to more in depth conversation and questions that need to be addressesd.

That Christianity caused the “Dark Ages” by systematically destroying almost all ancient Greco-Roman learning,

- um duh. Isn't it a bit suspicious they are the only major institute of power to survive the time-span, gain power, and instigate much of the violence?

That Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria and that Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered because of a Christian hatred of science

- - This is an institute of power and control, of course they did. This doesn't prove anything about the greater truth of being. aka 'God'

That pagan Greco_Roman society was rational and scientific and fairly non-religious and was on the brink of a scientific and technological revolution

That Constantine was a crypto-pagan who adopted Christianity as a cynical political ploy (and he personally created the Bible)

- -Smart guy. You've got excellent material, but its wasted on trying to back up atheism instead of tearing down religious structure.

In a shorthand summary this is all an longhand way of saying that the Catholic/Christian origins have nothing to do with faith but is rather using religion as a tool to maintain their political construct's power and agenda.

Nothing about that disproves the existence of a greater unity of being, it merely reiterates how deceptive the worlds largest religious organization is and it's dark history.

---I'm not an atheist, yet nothing you've said is at all new or surprising.

You obviously haven't read anything on the site. You have formed an opinion based on my OP. The reason for the OP is for people interested in faux history. Nothing more, nothing less. If you do not care to read it - that is good for you.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You know what? I think I am just going to ignore you. I am not sure what your purpose in this discussion is, but it certainly isn't to have a discussion.

These things are always going to be subjective and receive plenty of angst
As a Christian I am a bit surprised by some of the information I have seen, even some of it I assumed was fact
To be honest I am still not convinced but well,worth the read and to be offered such a decent place to do some research, well cheers

Interesting👍

Thanks - someone who gets the point. I am the sort of person that likes to read up or find out actual information before I react to it. Sadly it seems there are many who simply cannot do that.

I am finding this odd that if I present a blog that I find interesting written by someone else that I am supposed to figure out how to show people how to actually read his entries and then have a discussion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fools

Well, I'm calling "click-bait" on your thread. You talk about "an author", but you don't name him. You provide a link that suggests that this unnamed author has proven, among other things, that "Jesus" is NOT a mythical figure! But, to find out who this author is, you need to click on another link. That link gives the author's bio, but still doesn't link to the essay that proves that "Jesus" was not a mythical figure.

So, really? this author has proof of the virgin birth, the Wise Men, his family's flight to Egypt to escape Herod, he has proof of a man who raised the dead, manifested food for 5000 people from almost nothing, walked on water and turned water to wine, was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven? He has proof that man really existed? I'd like to see that proof!

So really, you think you know what you are talking about before reading even one sentence? Really? You are a dummy.

a reply to: Fools

Lolz.

For the OP being purely about faux history you sure put an emphasis on the atheist aspect of it.

It's a fun read, all of which true and applicable. However a mile wide and an inch deep. Leaves with a 'Soo... you're trying to prove what exactly?' feeling.

Anyways, interesting post. This is the type of history that needs to be taught and discussed, rather than the garbage we're fed.

a reply to: Fools

The whole Christians started the dark ages is a shallow interpretation of history and also the loss of greco Roman knowledge was kept in the byzantine empire and taken from the ottoman empire.

Christians and pagens lived in the empire relatively peacefully for hundreds of years and after the destabilization of the empire brought about the loss of knowledge and hundreds of years of fragmented stability where the Frank's and later the holy Roman empire.

I have a hard time calling myself and atheist exactly because of their hypocritical interpretation of history and constant preaching like it's a fact when obviously so many factors caused the dark ages and the burning of Alexandria etc.

Plus the Jesus wasn't real argument is just to disrespect Christians let's not BS that low blow

a reply to: Fools

So really, you think you know what you are talking about before reading even one sentence?

You're right. I haven't read a single sentence of the essay that claims to prove that "Jesus" is not a myth, because the article isn't linked by you or your source.

a reply to: JDmOKI

I have a hard time calling myself and atheist exactly because of their hypocritical interpretation of history and constant preaching like it's a fact when obviously so many factors caused the dark ages and the burning of Alexandria etc.

Either you believe in a god, or your don't. There is no atheist dogma, doctrine, book of beliefs, rules or talking points.

originally posted by: DoctorX11
a reply to: Fools

Lolz.

For the OP being purely about faux history you sure put an emphasis on the atheist aspect of it.

It's a fun read, all of which true and applicable. However a mile wide and an inch deep. Leaves with a 'Soo... you're trying to prove what exactly?' feeling.

Anyways, interesting post. This is the type of history that needs to be taught and discussed, rather than the garbage we're fed.

BECAUSE IT IS A BLOG BY AN ATHEIST PURELY CONCEIVED TO POINT OUT THAT MANY ATHEIST CLAIMS IN THE AREA ARE INCORRECT AND AS AN ATHEIST HE FEELS THAT THE MYTHS NEED TO BE CORRECTED. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF HIS RESEARCH AND HIS BLOG.

Here is the about the author that he wrote about himself and why he is doing this:

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 any 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. Contact the Author 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 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. “Why don’t you expose distortions of history by Christians as well?” 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 blog is focused on examples of atheist bad history. “Why do you 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”. “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. Often I am 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. “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. “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. “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. 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 re-working them into chapters in a book on New Atheist bad history. 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. “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 18.07.18

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JDmOKI

I have a hard time calling myself and atheist exactly because of their hypocritical interpretation of history and constant preaching like it's a fact when obviously so many factors caused the dark ages and the burning of Alexandria etc.

Either you believe in a god, or your don't. There is no atheist dogma, doctrine, book of beliefs, rules or talking points.

Sure atheists don't have a dogma or talking points.... I've been preached at more from atheists then religious folks. Say you believe in God in front of a claimed atheist intellectual and see the rant unfold

And yes you can I consider myself an agnostic and shy away from the church of atheism

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fools

So really, you think you know what you are talking about before reading even one sentence?

You're right. I haven't read a single sentence of the essay that claims to prove that "Jesus" is not a myth, because the article isn't linked by you or your source.

Dude or dudette or "it", give it up. You do not have a point. You do not care to learn, you are obviously afraid that if you read this persons work that you will suffer that terrible position that some of which you hold near and dear to your intellect is actually false and can be proven to be false.

I haven't read all of his entries yet. It will take some time. But the two that I have read were thorough and well researched and changed my mind about a couple of things that I believed. Fortunately I am someone where if I am shown that I am wrong about something I rather enjoy it because I have then learned something. It seems that you will not even show interest in anything that can mess with your world view and would rather float aimlessly in semantics and foolish contentions that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. If you don't work for the government you should, you would fit right in.