I’m not sure that Christians ARE ashamed of the inquisition.  I’m pretty sure that most of them, if not all of them, see things like that as a perversion of the faith that they themselves adhere to with greater purity than those who condoned the Crusades.  What is there for them to be ashamed of, as far as they’re concerned?  They don’t think it’s the same faith that causes both good and evil, and that’s where a huge part of the faith problem finds purchase. 

Dickson asks above what there is in the Atheist perspective that can rationally inspire love and discourage hate.  Incredible.  Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t remember anyone saying that love or hate were necessarily completely rational things.  But assuming that they are, how about some of the things he already named above?  The desire for social cohesion, maybe?  An acknowledgement of the obvious fact that things are generally better for everyone when we don’t kill, rape, steal, etc.? 

The Stalin argument is getting tired, isn’t it?  When is it going to sink in that rationality is more important than Atheism itself?  As far as I know, Stalin wasn’t known for being an especially rational fellow.  Christians seem to be trying to force the idea of Atheism as another religion to which we are trying to convert everyone, which is not only ignorant, but assinign as well.  But what do I expect?  Tribalism is pretty much the only mode of thought the fundamentalists know.

Lastly, I do not agree at all that hatred stands in “logical defiance” of the Christian world view.  I’m not going to whip a dead horse here, but I couldn’t let that slide, either.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Once again we find the “No true Scotsman” argument brought up. The people who conducted the Crusades and the Inquisition WERE true Christians. They were following what their bible and church leaders were telling them to do. If anything, the modern Christian is not a true Christian. They pick and choose passages that they like and disregard unappealing passages as non-literal.

Contrary to that we can describe Stalin as a true atheist. He didn’t believe in a god. However, the Christians forget that it wasn’t his atheism that encouraged his genocidal tenancies. Contrast that with the Inquisition in which people where specifically killed in Christ’s name.

Maybe we could start a list of logical fallacies that Fundies use so we can just copy and paste instead of having to type every time.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I just want to give a general comment that it is a really great idea to have a hall of shame. Easily 2/3rds of articles I read which mention “new atheists” belong right here.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dear Dr. Dickson

A person who does not know much about history like your good lunch friend might not constitute a reasonable example to refute. It’s a dishonest rhetorical gesture to try and refute a lesser version of a well known claim or argument. You can for example strengthen the claim – and your refutation of it - by reading Mr. Hitchens book God is not great which gives modern examples of religious conflicts around the word – or just watch the news.
If you like some more examples from the past of religious wars you might just want to look up the thirty years war in the 17th century Europe. My Swedish ancestors were fighting for Protestantism and that was a great thing in retrospect because plural in European religions was the first step towards a secular society and the demise of a thousand years of Christian tyranny.  And you being an academic of Ancient history might know that the Christian tradition as we know it today (in Classical antiquity) became the only local cultural and religious tradition by means of persecution, desecration and murder of rival groups. A Christianity that by means of terror and violence guarded the lies they promoted as truth on behalf of real knowledge, freedom and everything else we regard as the life blood of happiness and progress today. A Christian war on the human spirit itself.
Stalin for example is not representative of an atheist. He is a representative of one kind of communism and, as you yourself point out, for fanaticism. To be representative for atheism is impossible because it’s a negative: what I am not and “I am not” a lot of things. It’s a time consuming and expensive way for a cognitive being to think and talk. A religious person on the other hand is a person who thinks that he or she knows the word and will of a God, or knows a preacher or a specific book that does. This in so many ways promotes and sows ‘excessive intolerance of opposing views’ – if it’s a Gods will it must be right, right? And it is the dictionary definition of the word fanaticism and a recurring caravan stopper on the open road to a better society and a more reasonable and tolerant world.

“ What is there in the atheist’s perspective that can rationally inspire love and discourage hate?”

This is a good question even if I like to rephrase it: What is a universal law, or set of rules, that will safeguard the individual so that he or she doesn’t need to depend on love to be safe from harm and to live life like they see fit? This demands a long answer but I will try and lay it out in short. But first, how can any religious claim on this subject be more than just one preference to one God and one prophet in one scripture, on one page, in one sentence by one interpretation? How can you my fellow human claim that only one way of life is compatible with Christianity when it is obviously not true if you do not mean your personal, or groups, subjective ideas and interpretations about Jesus, God or likewise? There is no common method that says – this is correct, this is not. You have to rely on opinions and opinion based tradition. I have given hundreds of religious people the chance to show me how on God, faith or religious principle is more valid, real or true then the alternative and no one can. What you need for a good solid moral philosophy is facts and claims that benefit everyone as a single identity.
Science can give us universals, knowledge independent of time, culture and geography. First, evolution and astronomy tells us that we are all brothers and sister living on a planet in a really vast universe that doesn’t seem to know or have the ability to care about us. We might be wiped out tomorrow; our survival is up to us. We are all parts of the same substance charring a tiny area known as the planet Terra. We as species survive by applying reason and experience on the world our cognitive senses perceive- feel and observe. We have dislikes and likes, interests and fears, and we perceive meaning and happiness by pursuing the things we feel reward us. We compose music, art, literature, and we search for love and fun, thrills and spirituality – to know our self and feel the awe-inspiring feeling of being alive – the feeling of our spirit made up by chemical processes in our neurological system inside our heads. We don’t need to promote love, love is only to be granted freely, but we can demand from people that they do not hurt or steal – or we will punish them.
This demands from us, as a collective, that we make rules, like we in large parts have, that safeguard people from other people. That we create society’s that respect the individuals right over his or her own life as long as they do not hurt or infringe the freedom of others. Everyone is equal, not in front of God, but in front of their human peer – their brother or sister.  The freedom of ideas, the freedom of speech and the freedom to oppose people who think they have the redundant specifics about the right way of life – the unnecessary details often promoted by the religious that oppose the general rules I just promoted. Rules already, more or less, in practice, but almost always opposed by this or that religion and its confident and systematic fanaticism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There is an argument to be made that religion is not the root the cause of many wars, if any at all. Too bad that the writer doesn’t even attempt to make that argument, instead choosing to downplay the crusades (which were more about the church’s power than religion) and insulting atheists. Not a very compelling argument. In fact, not really an argument at all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This guy has no imagination. All he can conceive of is dogma. He cannot understand that atheism is not a religion it is a negative like Alabasterocean mentioned. No one has ever picked up arms in the name of not believing in God.

You will notice that this article is written coherently and sounds credulous right until he claims that Christians strive for peace and love. Although this is not indicated by the Bible, Iet’s say that it was hypothetically true. Then Carrie Prejean comes to mind and her huge number of backers derails that train. It is impossible to live up to the standards of Christianity. What a terrible world view even if it weren’t for the non-existence of God. Maybe they should come up with something that makes sense.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It sounds like he is judging Hitchens’ book and Dawkins’ video by the titles, and knows nothing of the content.

But forget about “wars”.

How about the millions of people who are imprisoned, flogged, or killed because of religious rule?  And a few hundred million Muslim women are not victims of “war”, but they are still victims of religion.  I guess Dickson doesn’t count them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s an old argument, the one about those “atheistic regimes”, but one that falls down because of the publicly stated aims behind the killing. The Crusaders made no bones about why they took their swords to the “Holy Land”: to conquer it for Christianity. The Moors wanted to conquer the world for Islam, and said so at the time. Their motivations were not some atheistic propaganda - it’s all in the history.

When it comes to megalomaniacs who were atheists, if you’re going to pin their crimes on atheism, you’d have to ignore all other considerations, such as megalomania itself, which can not tolerate threats to their power. Money is a factor if a church is rich, as the Russian Orthodox Church was: a more venal motive. Yet there were times when Stalin found the Church useful e.g. he revived it to support the War effort. It was a regime that cynically used people and groups, beliefs and all, as tools to be used at will, or destroyed if they posed a threat.

I’ve never thought the situation was as simple as “religion causes war” - but I place it alongside Tribalism as a primary source of division between groups of people. It dehumanises those outside your group; someone who shares your religion is “one of us”, a “good person”, while the “others” are “heathens” and “bad”. (Just look at Northern Ireland, or the Balkans, for examples.) You can’t force people to give up their beliefs; but while I don’t think all conflict would cease if religion were to vanish of its own accord, it would be a start, in my opinion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Oh, now I remember, Stalin believed the color red was better than other colors.  Those darn ‘rojophiles’, they killed millions.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Many great replies have already been written here, but one thing I have to say is that fifty years from now, some Christians, maybe most of them will say what some are willing to say now: That they’re ashamed of the pedophiles in their ranks and that those people weren’t true Christians who protected and committed there abhorrent deeds, just as he says about the Crusades now. He misses that this is not the point - the point is that religion enables people to do these things and - more importantly - fans tolerance for them among their ranks, or significant parts of their ranks. While there are other groups that facilitate deeds that any normal society would not permit, religion provides one of the largest support groups for criminal activity, be it warfare, child abuse, homicide, murder, Crusades, and especially suppression, self-righteousness at the expense of other people, etc. When people point at the Crusades they don’t mean to point at the number of deaths or the brutality - they point out what religion facilitates and permits. In different ways it still does so today - and therein lays the danger.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

A flick through the Holy Bible will demonstrate how much religion is responsible for wars throughout history. It amazes me how this strange book is able to demonstrate a range of deity approved bloodlust slavery misogyny incest and still remain a credible book of faith. This book is clearly inappropriate to merit being read by any of our children today.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.