I actually find this framing -- that atheists are/were this semi-oppressed low-status group -- pretty unpersuasive. As a matter of fact that vast majority of atheists come from the most high status groups in society. And there is a long history of atheistic elites looking down on the superstitions of the proles. Even the admission of atheism itself doesn't so much signal low-status as it does a sort of untrustworthy amorality while simultaneously signalling intelligence and affiliation with high-status academics. Trust is certainly related to status; but I don't think it is quite the same thing. I would compare the social penalties of explicit atheism to something like the social penalties of "acting white" among African-American teenagers. It's not punishment for signalling low-status but punishment for signalling high-status in an unwanted way.

It seems like the atheist "movement" probably wouldn't have happened without our strong social pressures against explicitly recognizing cognitive superiority. The elimination of codified status increases resources spent on signalling un-codified status for the same reason violence only breaks out when there is uncertainty over who will win. And it seems like past generations of atheists routinely embraced a sort of noblese oblige about religion. "Yes, people who believe in God are certainly wrong but it is probably good for them and there is no need to show off how much smarter I am than they." Norms against paternalism make that attitude harder to hold today. The overall result is a climate of insecurity: the attitudes that used to let atheists keep quiet about their beliefs while maintaining a sense of superiority no longer exist. Some atheists might notice that the pledge of allegiance contains "under God" and most Americans don't want an atheist as President. Because of status insecurity they take these as genuine status threats and come up with this whole idea that they are an oppressed group.

Now, holding religious beliefs certainly comes with a cost. So maybe trying to make atheism even more high status is worthwhile. But religion appears to have genuinely beneficial effects on at least some people-- so I'm not sure that equation balances out the way us atheists would like it to. And of course, it is unlikely that outspoken atheists are really motivated by a desire to reduce the social costs of religiosity. If that were the case they would be content to advocate for the sort of secularized theism/ agnostic spirituality which is easier for people to adopt but contains almost no risk of fanaticism or misplaced attention on theology. Really, the only reason to adamantly advocate for a narrow metaphysical position that has zero practical implications is to show off how smart you are.

Religious apologetics also contains some status-building parts (it often says that people are irreligious because they are stupid and evil), but for the religious side that's not the only channel for status signalling. There is nothing offensive about atheists that you wouldn't already hear repeatedly in most churches. So I guess it is safe to assume that religious apologetics' primary function is something else.

Really? I think the facade of successful argument is absolutely crucial for religious people to maintain the pretense that they are actually smarter than atheists. It's a much more successful set of signals than complaints about sinners or yelling about atheists going to hell. The latter has the reek of "yes, you might be low-status now but in Heaven everything will be made right".