Tim O'Neill - History for Atheists
@timoneill.bsky.social
History writer, medievalist, blogger, atheist, sceptic and expatriate Tasmanian. http://linktr.ee/timoneill
Not common, still fringe. And rejected, thus the modern consensus. It was considered and found weak, which is why it’s now the province of tedious wankers and loons.
You also failed to account for that consensus for the fourth time. So, blocked as a troll.
You also failed to account for that consensus for the fourth time. So, blocked as a troll.
January 22, 2026 at 7:13 PM
Not common, still fringe. And rejected, thus the modern consensus. It was considered and found weak, which is why it’s now the province of tedious wankers and loons.
You also failed to account for that consensus for the fourth time. So, blocked as a troll.
You also failed to account for that consensus for the fourth time. So, blocked as a troll.
Is Google broken or are you just lazy?
“Determining the Authenticity of the Paulines” (2005),
“Determining the Authenticity of the Paulines” (2005),
January 22, 2026 at 7:10 PM
Is Google broken or are you just lazy?
“Determining the Authenticity of the Paulines” (2005),
“Determining the Authenticity of the Paulines” (2005),
... theories) or get blocked as boring troll.
January 22, 2026 at 6:46 PM
... theories) or get blocked as boring troll.
Pretty much noone agrees with him. You still haven't explained why. I read one of his books and decided not to waste any time on any others. Does the one you mention magically transform his crappy arguments? I suspect not.
Explain why he is so widely rejected (without recourse to conspriacy ...
Explain why he is so widely rejected (without recourse to conspriacy ...
January 22, 2026 at 6:46 PM
Pretty much noone agrees with him. You still haven't explained why. I read one of his books and decided not to waste any time on any others. Does the one you mention magically transform his crappy arguments? I suspect not.
Explain why he is so widely rejected (without recourse to conspriacy ...
Explain why he is so widely rejected (without recourse to conspriacy ...
But this isn't an argument, it's just wishful thinking.
And I gave you an example of some of the critiques of Detering. You've now failed *multiple* times to explain why, if he's so bombproof, virtually no scholars agree with him.
Fail again and I'll block you for being a tedious twat.
And I gave you an example of some of the critiques of Detering. You've now failed *multiple* times to explain why, if he's so bombproof, virtually no scholars agree with him.
Fail again and I'll block you for being a tedious twat.
January 22, 2026 at 6:44 PM
But this isn't an argument, it's just wishful thinking.
And I gave you an example of some of the critiques of Detering. You've now failed *multiple* times to explain why, if he's so bombproof, virtually no scholars agree with him.
Fail again and I'll block you for being a tedious twat.
And I gave you an example of some of the critiques of Detering. You've now failed *multiple* times to explain why, if he's so bombproof, virtually no scholars agree with him.
Fail again and I'll block you for being a tedious twat.
A "fad" that's been established and maintained since the beginning of critical analysis on the topic. And held by pretty much every scholar, regardless of background or belief. Strange sort of "fad". Crackpot fringe contrarians always fall back on "x used to be the consensus but we now accept y".
January 22, 2026 at 6:44 PM
A "fad" that's been established and maintained since the beginning of critical analysis on the topic. And held by pretty much every scholar, regardless of background or belief. Strange sort of "fad". Crackpot fringe contrarians always fall back on "x used to be the consensus but we now accept y".
*The Falsified Paul*. And Verhoef's critiques. You still haven't explained why, if Detering's arguments are so wonderful, they have had zero traction among his peers. Why is it only online wankers with no credentials hold him up as the last word on this? Doesn't that ring any alarm bells for you?
January 22, 2026 at 6:38 PM
*The Falsified Paul*. And Verhoef's critiques. You still haven't explained why, if Detering's arguments are so wonderful, they have had zero traction among his peers. Why is it only online wankers with no credentials hold him up as the last word on this? Doesn't that ring any alarm bells for you?
Noting a consensus is not "an appeal to authority". I'm not saying you should accept that a historical Jesus existed *because* of the consensus (an actual argument from authority). I'm asking you to account for the consensus if Mythicism is convincing. You've failed to do so twice now.
January 22, 2026 at 6:35 PM
Noting a consensus is not "an appeal to authority". I'm not saying you should accept that a historical Jesus existed *because* of the consensus (an actual argument from authority). I'm asking you to account for the consensus if Mythicism is convincing. You've failed to do so twice now.
Reviewed? No. Read? Yes.
Again, why is he and the other miniscule handful of fringe Mythicists found wholly unconvincing by the people best qualified to assess their work? Explain.
Again, why is he and the other miniscule handful of fringe Mythicists found wholly unconvincing by the people best qualified to assess their work? Explain.
January 22, 2026 at 6:28 PM
Reviewed? No. Read? Yes.
Again, why is he and the other miniscule handful of fringe Mythicists found wholly unconvincing by the people best qualified to assess their work? Explain.
Again, why is he and the other miniscule handful of fringe Mythicists found wholly unconvincing by the people best qualified to assess their work? Explain.
I’ve studied this stuff for over 40 years and am pretty familiar with Detering’s fringe views and why they were rejected by his peers. Noting one of the tiny and pathetic handful of marginal contrarians just proves my point. Nice work. 👍😉
January 22, 2026 at 6:22 PM
I’ve studied this stuff for over 40 years and am pretty familiar with Detering’s fringe views and why they were rejected by his peers. Noting one of the tiny and pathetic handful of marginal contrarians just proves my point. Nice work. 👍😉
“In doubt” by whom? Virtually no scholars in any relevant field conclude this historical Jesus didn’t exist. What does that tell you?
January 22, 2026 at 6:14 PM
“In doubt” by whom? Virtually no scholars in any relevant field conclude this historical Jesus didn’t exist. What does that tell you?
Please cite the ancient or medieval sources that mention her being “goddess of spring dawn” and telling us about eggs being her symbol.
Also, how exactly am I making money here? Or elsewhere? Explain.
Also, how exactly am I making money here? Or elsewhere? Explain.
January 7, 2026 at 5:27 PM
Please cite the ancient or medieval sources that mention her being “goddess of spring dawn” and telling us about eggs being her symbol.
Also, how exactly am I making money here? Or elsewhere? Explain.
Also, how exactly am I making money here? Or elsewhere? Explain.
Eggs were given up in Lent so people had lots of them on Easter Sunday. Bunnies are a new addition, derived from Easter hares, along with Easter foxes, storks and geese - all animals that become noticeably active around Easter. Nothing “pagan” in any of this.
December 26, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Eggs were given up in Lent so people had lots of them on Easter Sunday. Bunnies are a new addition, derived from Easter hares, along with Easter foxes, storks and geese - all animals that become noticeably active around Easter. Nothing “pagan” in any of this.
Sorry, misrepresenting and sealioning loon. That’s more accurate. 👍🏻 Now fuck off.
December 7, 2025 at 7:35 PM
Sorry, misrepresenting and sealioning loon. That’s more accurate. 👍🏻 Now fuck off.
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?