We often hear from atheists that Christianity, or religion in general, is evil, because, allegedly, it causes people to do evil things. Some atheists even use the softer claim that it is evil simply because it can be used to justify evil things.
First, as usual, let us address the circular reasoning. Most religions, particularly those of a Theistic nature, claim to possess a source of morality. In Christianity, that source is obviously God. If God says "this is evil", that thing is evil. If God says "this is good", that thing is good. If God says "I don't care", that thing has no direct moral implications. (See here for the answer to the "Euthyphro dilemma" that often arises from this concept). Because of this, it is actually impossible to say Christianity is, or leads to, evil, without first assuming that Christianity is false. A Christian could just as easily say atheism is evil purely because it is in opposition to Christian morals, yet I would hope no atheist would accept such flimsy logic, nor should any apologist be sloppy enough to present it.
With that out of the way, let's show that actually, just as Christianity can be used to justify evil if it is twisted, so also can atheism often lead to, or at least be used to justify some very horrible things. I present to you today three random examples of some very horrible things done with atheism at least present in the background.
Leopold and Loeb
In 1924, two men, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, committed what was then called the "crime of the century". They kidnapped a young boy, Bobby Franks, beat him to death with a chisel, buried his body, and tried to extort ransom money from the boy's grieving family. These two men believed they were "supermen". To define this as Leopold did in a letter to Loeb, a superman "is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from the ordinary laws which govern men. He is not liable for anything he may do."
To non-philosophers, this might sound antithetical to the concept of a superman. After all, the comic hero, in spite of possessing such inherent superior qualities, spends more time selflessly defending the weak and using those superior qualities for the benefit of his society. But anyone with more than a casual interest in philosophy will be aware that this concept actually comes from notorious atheistic philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche proposed that Evolution cannot be assumed to have "finished". A time will come when our descendants will look back on us as we look back on our primitive ancestors. Furthermore, this does not necessarily have to be something achieved in the distant future, but could maybe happen even right now. As a matter of fact, the entire concept of the superman focuses on psychological superiority, not biological superiority. The superman would ultimately be said to have emerged when a superior man had completely mastered himself, specifically casting off Christian "herd mentality" and create his own, worldly values.
As Nietzsche's concept of the superman specifically requires casting off Christianity, needless to say neither Leopold nor Loeb were especially devout followers of Christ. And they did take the concept of the superman to its logical conclusion. Indeed, even if they had not, Nietzsche's superman required the superman to come up with his own values, thus meaning that a superman would not necessarily conform to Nietzsche's idea of the superman (isn't it funny how man-made philosophies tend to collapse on themselves?). Thus, we could argue that the rejection of Christianity, particularly when it leads one to be tied entirely to this world, lead to this horrific crime. And yet, presumably, any atheist who heard me say "atheism is bad because these two dudes killed a kid" would laugh in my face.
Carl Panzram
Carl Panzram was seemingly a natural born criminal, displaying criminal behaviour from a very early age. A youth offender, Panzram grew to become excessively violent, committing crimes as small as theft to as large as rape and murder. In one letter to the Society for the Abolishment of Capital Punishment, Carl claimed his motto was "rob em all rape em all and kill em all". Hardly an endorsement of Christian morality: It is better to give than to receive (Acts 20:35), flee sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18), whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and no murderer has life abiding in him (1 John 3:15).
During his life, Panzram had only one friend: Henry Lesser, an officer who had bought him cigarettes. In his final letter to his friend, Panzram wrote "In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings. I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies Larcenys, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all of these things I am not the least bit sorry. I have no conscience so that does not worry me. I don’t believe in Man, God nor devil. I hate the whole damed human race including myself."
As this man's twisted mind seems to have been present in him from the beginning, one can hardly say that atheism lead to Panzram's twisted mentality. However, even in the very end, he specifically noted that he does not believe in God. This is far from the only reference to God he made during his life. Indeed, several Panzram quotes specifically bash God and set himself against all things holy. Ironically, we can contrast this with psychopaths who have been saved, who swiftly turn from their lives of crime, such as David Wood and Jeffrey Dahmer. And yet, I have little doubt that the same people who claim Christianity is evil because it is even slightly mentioned by an excessively evil person would laugh if Panzram was set forth as an example of why atheism is evil.
The Bodysnatch
While Christianity teaches the single ancestral origin, and equal dignity, of all members of the human race, atheism's most common origins story is Evolution, which has historically been a strong motivator and justification for racism. To quote Stephen Jay Gould, colloquially known as history's most honest Evolutionist, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths."
It is of course worth noting that science itself owes its existence to Christianity. The early pioneers of science held the belief that we live in a rational universe controlled by a stable-minded Creator, and thus acted on their faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted. As such, to suggest that science would somehow conflict with Christianity is akin to using a fish to prove there is no water on the earth. But more pertinent to this article, Christianity also presents a set of ethics by which scientists must abide.
One would think that on a list of dos and don'ts, "don't rob graves" and "don't kill humans" would be bright red, bold, underlined, and italicised. Scientist or not, human life is generally not a thing people take lightly. Unfortunately, this is often taken as a general suggestion more than a solid rule. As such, when Evolution became popular, and Evolutionists sought to provide their missing links, they weren't entirely opposed to robbing graves, and even killing members of "lesser races", for purposes of scientific study. There is evidence to suggest that British museums alone may have had up to 10,000 separate aboriginal bodies, not all of which had been callously exhumed. Likewise, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington is in possession of the remains of 15,000 people from various races.
Around the 18th and 19th centuries, there was high demand for fresh "specimens", which of course were also not stolen from graves. Such remains would fetch a high price, and requests for them practically begged hunters to run around killing people. Mayor Korah Wills of Bowen, Queensland, graphically described how he had done just that in his deathbed memoirs, speaking of how he had brutally murdered and dismembered a local tribesman just to provide a scientific specimen. Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney, likewise published a museum booklet implying aborigines are "Australian animals", and giving instructions on both robbing their graves and plugging bullet holes in fresh kills. When laws were finally put in place to protect these people, Ramsay had the audacity to complain that his supplies were affected.
The Evolutionary Bodysnatch is so closely and directly related to the Evolutionary fairy tale and the pursuit of evidence for it (evidence which, of course, was still never found, and most Evolutionists today would hesitate to present it even if it had been) that if I was so inclined, I would use it against atheism as frequently as atheists use the crusades against Christianity. But obviously, I know how that would turn out, and so once again, it would be futile.
These three examples show that Christianity is not the only philosophy that can be abused, either to cause or at least retroactively justify evil deeds. Atheists have their fair share of atrocities to account for, and unfortunately for them, they are less capable of accounting for them. See, the major difference between atheism and Christianity is the existence of a solid moral code. A Christian has a book which fully details the beliefs and practices of the faith, allowing us to judge, condemn and expose any rogues or outliers. By contrast, most atheists reject any higher power, meaning one atheist's actions are as valid as another's. The logical conclusion of atheism is Nihilism, meaning atheism genuinely does justify all possible behaviours, from the beloved to the detestable. There is no God to say "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not", and thus all such commands come from man, whose authority comes from might alone. The one who gets their way is the man with the strength to impose his will, or the man with the smarts to avoid, or even manipulate such a man. By contrast, in Christianity, there is only one moral standard that binds every man.
Unfortunately, we've all rebelled against that standard. We may not have been as sick as the people discussed today, but nevertheless, we have broken God's laws, and owe Him an account for doing so. The ultimate punishment for such sins is death. But whose death it requires is open for dispute. On the one hand, the sinner, and the sinner alone, deserves death. But on the other hand, God is not especially keen on delivering such a verdict. Thus, there is an alternative: Substitution. God has the authority to allow two people to swap verdicts, and so if an innocent person willingly dies in place of a guilty person, the guilty person goes free.
Enter the Lord Jesus Christ, who 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin, and lived a perfect life, free of sin. Nevertheless, He died, taking upon Himself the full punishment for sins He never committed. After this, He rose from the grave, and promised eternal life to all sinners who will repent and follow Him. Those who do so will be gradually reformed in this life, and free of sin entirely in the next. In other words, far from leading to evil, Christianity leads to perfection in eternity.