I get this sense too. Rolled my eyes a bit at that post of his linked in that thread in the History subforum where the author spent several paragraphs fulminating against an innocuous line from Dawkins that Christianity spread around the world because of its adoption by Constantine. What an outrageous myth! And the "myth" of non-canonical gospels discussed next wasn't much better. Mostly seems to be a site nitpicking mistakes by ignorant New Atheists to score points, rather than actually being interested in establishing what might have happened.
O’Neill is one of a number of secularists assaulting the Dawkins Dogma. Richard Dawkins blatantly lies about history, such as “We aren’t even sure Jesus existed.”; “A number of very good historians in fact say Jesus never existed.”; “Virtually all historians agree that the Gospels, written decades after his life, fell us little to nothing factual about Jesus.” These are not mild lies - they are purposefully designed to indoctrinate people. Dawkins says that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire - this is false, as Constantine purposefully did no such thing, but rather played pagans and Christians off each other. Dawkins continues to insist that Constantine “made” the canon, that the four Gospels were essentially chosen, and a number of other falsehoods. He, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have gone around the world and, despite no study of history, made empirically false claims about history and gotten upset when corrected. They’re not “just scientists,” and Tyson’s dogma about Science is precisely why so many people still believe in the conflict thesis.
For example, A. C. Grayling is a philosopher who chairs the humanities department at his university. In spite of that, virtually every historical fact he cites in
this video is patently false.
Now, it is important to note that there is a younger set of atheist thinkers who are serious - who don’t laugh as though their opponents were idiots or absurd and who don’t make up their own history in a Maoist-esque fashion. In spite of O’Neill’s abrasive and offensive persona, he has made a dent in the historical knowledge among atheists. This is a vital and important role, as a lack of knowledge is a quick and easy pathway to evil.
“There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
“Religion is evil.”
These two claims, for example, are incompatible, and the new new atheists seem cogently aware of this fact, thankfully.
Poll
