The Atheist Apologist

Some time ago, I got into an unpleasant exchange with a guy named Tim O'Neill who calls himself an atheist, but whose attitude appears to be unreasonably hostile toward atheists.  I looked at his blog, which is called History For Atheists, and found many articles that are quite critical of atheists (especially the ones he calls "New Atheists") and the historical claims they make, and none that are even slightly critical of dubious claims made by religionists.  He often mocks the idea that atheists are skeptical.  This struck me as rather odd, because there's no balance.  He defends religious claims and beliefs, while criticizing the claims of atheists.  For example, he strongly defends the idea that there was no such thing as the "dark ages", which seems to be a matter of opinion, and that the church was always supportive of the advancement of science, which I think is patently false.  I'm all in favor of criticizing false claims, including those made by atheists, but this guy seems to go overboard - to the point of revealing what appears to be a clear bias in favor of religionism and against atheism.  And that's why I said that I "could find no reason to think that he is anything other than a Christian who claims to be an atheist."  He could well be an atheist, but he sure doesn't sound like one.  His brand of skepticism seems to be highly selective.

But O'Neill isn't the only atheist I have encountered who seems to have an obnoxiously anti-atheist attitude.  There's a guy who calls himself "The Spiritual Anthropologist", and he says he's an atheist, yet he has nothing but harsh words for other atheists.  And at the same time, he is quite friendly toward religious beliefs.  He actually came into a discussion (I won't say where) claiming without basis that all the atheists there were biased and hateful toward theists.  He demanded that they produce evidence in support of their non-belief, and even claimed that they are all religious in their own right.  And of course, when asked to provide evidence for some of the things he was saying about bias and hatred, he refused to back up those statements.  And when asked to provide evidence for his own lack of belief, he placed himself in a different category from the rest of the atheists, claiming that he doesn't make any positive or negative belief claims like everyone else who calls himself an atheist.  This is without regard to what they have actually said - he simply assumes that they're all hateful, anti-theistic believers in some kind of materialist religion.  So because he doesn't make any claims, he doesn't need to provide evidence.  The burden of proof is entirely theirs.

But aside from his own statements that he is an atheist, he sounds for all the world like a theist.  Which is puzzling.  It makes me wonder what his shtick is all about.  Why does he differentiate himself from other atheists?  And why is he so hostile toward them, while expressing no similar attitude toward theists or the things they believe?

I found the blog run by The Spiritual Anthropologist.  He comes off sounding like a scientist (although he has only a BS in mathematics, by his own admission).  And if you peruse the articles there, you will see many that seem to take an apologist position in favor of various religious beliefs.  But you don't see anything that is critical of religion.  Take, for example, this article defending the idea of a rational soul that is separate from the brain and would survive after the death of the body.  It mirrors the unscientific concept of the "brain-as-receiver" that is popular among religionists, and shows no scientific understanding of cognition. 

Yet this guy tries to make himself sound like someone with a level of scientific understanding that most atheists lack.  He even espouses his own "theory of religious rejectionism", which he calls a religion in its own right.  He claims that most people who call themselves atheists actually have this religion, and that idea serves as the basis for his presumptions of bias and hatred on their part.  This so-called theory is based on the "seven dimensions of religioid belief", which are contrived to fit his stereotyped paradigm of the materialist/humanist/free-thinker, but somehow fails to include anything about gods or supernatural beliefs.  Here's a snippet from that article:

There are some interesting aspects to American religious rejectionism that make it quite different from other religions. Besides the obvious point that the rejectionist defaults to a belief in nonexistence, the rejectionist also tends to have issues with religion and faith. Yet there is just as much faith required to sustain their religioid beliefs. This results in a complex system of ideology used to simply reconcile their own faith with the rejection of faith. - The Spiritual Anthropologist

This idea of the religious atheist sounds exactly like the standard us-against-them religionist dribble you might find in any anti-atheist blog.  The only difference is that he calls himself a real atheist, which he apparently equates with making no claims one way or the other about the things we traditionally ascribe to religious belief.  He doesn't claim there is no god, or that there are no souls.  He is neutral on the concept of an afterlife.  Apparently, by his definition of religion, if you have enough scientific understanding to justify a rejection of the supernatural, that makes you religious.  Obviously, The Spiritual Anthropologist lacks any such scientific understanding.

What is the common factor between anti-atheist atheists like Tim O'Neill and The Spiritual Anthropologist?  Here's my take.  As far as I can tell, they both set themselves apart from the "common" atheist, and consider themselves to be superior.  O'Neill regards himself as an expert in history, and is so determined to prove the common atheist wrong that he often takes the religious apologetic stance on issues that are not settled by virtue of historical fact.  Similarly, The Spiritual Anthropologist regards himself as an actual anthropologist who is superior in his scientific understanding, despite the fact that he has an obviously unscientific worldview.  Both of them feel justified in wielding their own self-proclaimed superiority against the common folks who call themselves atheists or skeptics, and treating them with outright hostility.  In the process of doing so, they find it convenient to assume the stance of the religionist or apologist.  Both of them have a serious chip on their shoulder.