Tim O'Neill - History for Atheists
@timoneill.bsky.social
History writer, medievalist, blogger, atheist, sceptic and expatriate Tasmanian. http://linktr.ee/timoneill
Already have. Time to ignore you. Improve your reading comprehension skills, or be silent. Silly boy.
bsky.app/profile/timo...
bsky.app/profile/timo...
More like that many things we think are normal would have been incomprehensible to the ancients because they were introduced to our culture by Christianity. Slightly different to your summary. And worth noting. If it’s so “obvious”, why so much objection to it? 🤔
November 4, 2025 at 2:59 PM
Already have. Time to ignore you. Improve your reading comprehension skills, or be silent. Silly boy.
bsky.app/profile/timo...
bsky.app/profile/timo...
More like that many things we think are normal would have been incomprehensible to the ancients because they were introduced to our culture by Christianity. Slightly different to your summary. And worth noting. If it’s so “obvious”, why so much objection to it? 🤔
November 4, 2025 at 2:54 PM
More like that many things we think are normal would have been incomprehensible to the ancients because they were introduced to our culture by Christianity. Slightly different to your summary. And worth noting. If it’s so “obvious”, why so much objection to it? 🤔
Again, try summarising the argument of the book in one sentence. If you’ve read and understood it, this should be easy to do. Try now.
November 4, 2025 at 2:45 PM
Again, try summarising the argument of the book in one sentence. If you’ve read and understood it, this should be easy to do. Try now.
Try this: summarise the argument of Dominion in one sentence. Let’s see if you can get this right.
November 4, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Try this: summarise the argument of Dominion in one sentence. Let’s see if you can get this right.
So you’re saying you *did* read it, but failed to understand it. Okay. Sounds like a *you* problem.
November 4, 2025 at 2:39 PM
So you’re saying you *did* read it, but failed to understand it. Okay. Sounds like a *you* problem.
You could have just written “I didn’t actually read Dominion,but I want to sound all edgy about it.”
November 4, 2025 at 1:53 PM
You could have just written “I didn’t actually read Dominion,but I want to sound all edgy about it.”
Yes, anyone can do that. But if we want to do this as part of useful historical analysis, someone trained in the historical method is going to be able to use a database more effectively than an untrained amateur.
November 2, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Yes, anyone can do that. But if we want to do this as part of useful historical analysis, someone trained in the historical method is going to be able to use a database more effectively than an untrained amateur.
How would anyone do the latter usefully without the former?
November 2, 2025 at 10:10 AM
How would anyone do the latter usefully without the former?
I apologise for writing such fascinating stuff.
November 1, 2025 at 4:21 PM
I apologise for writing such fascinating stuff.
There is this idea that history is just a matter of taking an angle and then finding evidence to support it. Anyone can do that. But that is not what historians do.
November 1, 2025 at 8:09 AM
There is this idea that history is just a matter of taking an angle and then finding evidence to support it. Anyone can do that. But that is not what historians do.
Pardon?
October 31, 2025 at 3:33 PM
Pardon?
What is?
October 31, 2025 at 3:33 PM
What is?
Said every crackpot ever. Time to ignore you.
October 19, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Said every crackpot ever. Time to ignore you.
Crackpot nonsense from a known loon.
October 19, 2025 at 9:29 PM
Crackpot nonsense from a known loon.
… - Peter Heather’s recent book is vastly superior and without the weird biases. It’s also funny she keeps bravely sniping at me from behind a block. Such fortitude.
September 9, 2025 at 9:41 AM
… - Peter Heather’s recent book is vastly superior and without the weird biases. It’s also funny she keeps bravely sniping at me from behind a block. Such fortitude.
Wow, she’s resorted to the feeble “he’s a Christian apologist” tactic already? 🤣 And all I did was comment on the overblown pre-publicity and her Nixey-style crap from the past. Three chapters in and all I can say about the book is it seems a bit pointless. Real historians have done it better …
September 9, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Wow, she’s resorted to the feeble “he’s a Christian apologist” tactic already? 🤣 And all I did was comment on the overblown pre-publicity and her Nixey-style crap from the past. Three chapters in and all I can say about the book is it seems a bit pointless. Real historians have done it better …
Who is going to give me “both barrels” over what exactly? The person above has me blocked, so if they want to engage with me they’re going about it rather strangely. 🤔
September 9, 2025 at 9:26 AM
Who is going to give me “both barrels” over what exactly? The person above has me blocked, so if they want to engage with me they’re going about it rather strangely. 🤔
Yes. You’d think if the Great Professor was confident in her ideas she’d engage with her critics. And sniping at them from behind the safety of a block is doubly feeble.
September 7, 2025 at 10:46 PM
Yes. You’d think if the Great Professor was confident in her ideas she’d engage with her critics. And sniping at them from behind the safety of a block is doubly feeble.
I see. So, as you’ve shown, I merely commented on her past form, noted a couple of things about the pre-publicity and reserved judgement about the book. Contrary to what she claimed.
I’m currently four chapters in and so far find it pretty unremarkable, though her odd biases are clear.
I’m currently four chapters in and so far find it pretty unremarkable, though her odd biases are clear.
September 7, 2025 at 7:45 PM
I see. So, as you’ve shown, I merely commented on her past form, noted a couple of things about the pre-publicity and reserved judgement about the book. Contrary to what she claimed.
I’m currently four chapters in and so far find it pretty unremarkable, though her odd biases are clear.
I’m currently four chapters in and so far find it pretty unremarkable, though her odd biases are clear.
She’s got me blocked (she’s *very* sensitive to any kind of criticism and has a hair trigger on blocking even the mildest dissent). So what were you quoting me in response to “for the record”?
September 7, 2025 at 7:13 PM
She’s got me blocked (she’s *very* sensitive to any kind of criticism and has a hair trigger on blocking even the mildest dissent). So what were you quoting me in response to “for the record”?
Okay, I’ll post a link here. My comments were on her previous behaviour, bad historical takes and the pre-publicity for the book though, so I fail to see the problem with any of that.
September 7, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Okay, I’ll post a link here. My comments were on her previous behaviour, bad historical takes and the pre-publicity for the book though, so I fail to see the problem with any of that.