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, let us address the circular reasoning of moral arguments. Because of the nature of religion, attacking any religion on the basis of morality must necessarily assume that not only is the religion itself false, but that another religion, providing grounding for the moral views being used, is true. That is, moral arguments are akin to saying "your religion is wrong, because my religion says it is evil". A Christian, by this logic, 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.
It gets even sillier when the religion in question is atheistic in nature, because whereas Theistic religions tend to have some foundation for morality, atheism cannot. The only thing less logical than using your religion's existing morals to argue contrary religions are not true is using your religion's non-existing morals to argue contrary religions are not true. For an atheist to use a moral argument is to essentially argue "I do not like this religion, and therefore it is invalid".
The irony here is this means atheism can be used to justify evil things, meaning the premise of this particular argument against "religion" applies to atheists too. But to really expose the hypocrisy, I want to present 3 simple examples of when atheism actually was used to justify some truly horrible things.
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 philosopher, and popular defender of atheism, Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche proposed that Evolution, which is an atheistic religion, cannot be assumed to have "finished". A time will come when our descendants will look back on us the way we look back on a cave man. 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 "herd mentality", which Nietzsche attributed to Christianity, 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. Rather, they were atheists, much like the philosopher from whom they gained the idea that they might be "supermen". Furthermore, they they took the atheistic concept of the superman to its logical conclusion. Ironically, even if they had not, Nietzsche's concept of the 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?).
If we wanted to use similar arguments to atheists, we could argue that the rejection of Christianity, and the reliance upon a famous atheistic philosopher, lead to this horrific crime. 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 behavior from a very early age. A youth offender, Panzram grew to become excessively violent, committing crimes ranging from theft to 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), 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 early on, 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, connecting his unbelief to why he is not the least bit sorry for his life of excessive violence. This is far from the only reference to God he made during his life. Indeed, several surviving 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. Because of the latter two, I know atheists wouldn't respond too kindly to psychopaths being used to show Christianity has a positive effect, so logically, they wouldn't likely respond well to psychopaths being used to show its absence is a bad thing. But this means they are inconsistent when they argue in the other direction.
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, one would think "thou shalt not murder" would be quite prominent. Scientist or not, human life is generally not a thing people take lightly. Unfortunately, this is often taken as a creative 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 ethnic groups.
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, never manifested) 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 an objective 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. It even explicitly talks about how the true followers of Christ are known by our "fruits" (e.g. Matthew 12:33-37).
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 behaviors, 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 (or even if you are), 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 optional. On the one hand, the sinner, and the sinner alone, actually deserves to die. 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.