Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries

How the crimes of atheism are justified according to Dawkins

Richard Dawkins and the art of... comedy!

 By: Papyrus 52




Read how Dawkins chose to defend the heinous crimes of atheism during the 20th century, and draw your own conclusions!

Whoever happens to tackle the feat of reading the entire book by Richard Dawkins titled “The God Delusion” will find himself in a quandary:  given the humour employed by the author, the reader will constantly wonder if Dawkins wrote it to support atheism, or if he was perhaps determined to... mock it… [i]

the god delusion

If only the sober reader of this book could convey the sense of condescension s/he feels for the ideological supporters of atheism, who shouted for joy when it first circulated... This is the precise sentiment conveyed by (the admittedly overly polite) Alister McGrath in his responsive work “The Dawkins Delusion”, (“Ouranos” publ., Athens 2008) who decided to write a critique on Dawkins’ arguments.


Alister McGrath is the ideal person to provide answers. With studies in Chemistry at Oxford University and postgraduate research in molecular physics, he is able to fully perceive the anti-scientific acrobatics of Dawkins’ thought process, while simultaneously, as a professor of religion at Oxford University, he can more accurately distinguish the naivety of Dawkins’ positions on issues of comparative religion. His sang-froid is legendary, in the innumerable places that Dawkins derails his own book, down to the level of coffeehouse chitchat. 

One classic comment is found in the phrase: “I don’t believe there is even a single atheist in the world who would level Mecca, Sartre, York Minster or the Notre Dame to the ground.”  [ii]

Alister McGrath naturally points out: “Dawkin’s simplistic perception that atheists would never commit crimes in the name of atheism, stumbles over harsh reality [iii], and he reminds Dawkins that “the history of the Soviet Union is rife with the torching and blowing up of a vast number of churches” and that “his viewpoint regarding the innocence of atheism in regard to violence and oppression – which he links to religion – simply cannot be supported anywhere and it denotes the existence of a significant gap in his thought.” [iv]

Of course the destructive mania for the buildings or the religious articles in churches is nothing, compared to the executions, the tortures and the exterminating imprisonments that were perpetrated by the atheist regimes, based purely on their own particular beliefs.

But that is not the incredulous part; that which nobody could have ever imagined is the way that Dawkins chose to acquit atheism of the crimes that were committed in its name, by using an “argument” we had never heard before.

First and foremost, he had dedicated a mere 7 pages to this matter (in a book that has 400 pages), and had made references therein ONLY to Stalin and Hitler.

To quote him: When asked, “Since both of them were atheists, why did they flatten the world underfoot?”, he firstly counterposed a….”joke”, that they “both had moustaches like Saddam (Hussein); therefore, what does that say?[v].    (brrrr... no more jokes, please…).  Then, from page 272 onwards, he provides us with the jaw-dropping explanation, that Stalin (whom he admits was an atheist [vi]), had indeed committed so many crimes, shed so much blood, murdered so many people, because PERHAPS as a boy, he had... attended a theological seminary [vii]!   Dawkins thus states in conclusion that “there is not the slightest indication that atheism systematically directs people towards evil.”[viii]

Well, the man obviously doesn’t take anything seriously - not even himself – because normally, anyone would be ashamed to give an excuse like that for so many crimes that were committed PRECISELY because Stalin had consciously professed that atheism would save the world.  Stalin had not declared himself “a Christian gone astray,” but had actually committed those crimes because he sought to improve the world by eliminating religion, which would have led to that much-desired atheism.

(Regarding Hitler, however, Dawkins resorts to “switch” tactics by claiming that Hitler... believed in certain transcendental powers and as such, was not a genuine atheist; Dawkins repeated the same ridiculous comment, by suggesting that Hitler was a Christian in his youth, therefore Christianity was to be blamed for Hitler’s crimes as well!)

So, presumably:

When both Stalin (let’s include Ceausescu here as well), were youngsters, they used to go to church with their mothers?  Did the atheist Chinese murderers also go to church? What about the Cambodian slaughterers – were they also churchgoers? Did the Koreans also attend church when they were little children?  Is Dawkins telling us that atheist criminals such as Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, and thousands more - of their leaders, their second-in-command officials, officials, minions and their armed atheist assassins - all hung out together at (Christian) Sunday schools?

It is needless to say that Dawkins makes no effort to concern himself with an in-depth critique of Christianity, which of course contains no incitement to violence, in fact, quite the opposite; which is why it follows that the responsibility for violence lies in every individual deviant who resorts to vice, using his religion as an excuse.

However, when taking into consideration the above note, the use of two standards of comparison by Dawkins renders the entire matter of his book a mockery; whereas he insatiably ascribes EVERY violent event, NOT to the individual and his vices, but rather to their faith (especially Christianity or Islam), on the other hand he asserts that when violence originates from a self-declared atheist, then those acts of violence do NOT stem from the fact that the individual is an atheist believer (!), and that there is not the slightest indication that atheism systematically drives people towards evil!!!

And he continues undaunted in chapter 8, which he has titled “What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?

Even if someone were to take the matter at face value and embark on an ideological confrontation, the actual casualties in the name of atheism within only a few decades are FAR MORE than the casualties that were the result of exploitations in the name of Christianity over 2,000 years!  What comparison can there be made - even to the centuries of the Inquisition that Dawkins continuously invokes - when, in far fewer years, the atheist cleansings of “traitors” in ONE country alone, succeeded in greatly surpassing the Inquisition, both in casualties and cruelty?

3. The thought that the eradication of religion is the “medicine” for curing humanity is – to say the least – at a nursery school child’s level:  What about the crimes that give rise to poverty and hunger, or the crimes of racial discrimination, or crimes that are linked to property, or are the outcome of class discriminations or domestic violence?  Is religion to blame for all those crimes as well?  

Wherever “peace” may exist today, thousands of crimes continue to be perpetrated daily, and religion is nowhere implicated!  This signifies that (for those who do not believe in the importance of Christian Soteriology), the only thing that needs to be eliminated is personal fanaticism and inequality, not religion!  Given the horrific, bloody, abhorrent “crimes of passion” that occur every day, should a senseless book be written, proposing the general prohibition of love and marriage as the solution to the problem?

To the justified question, “How can Dawkins write all those things?  Has he no shame at all?” the answer is obvious: NO, there is no shame. Dawkins incessantly violates common sense and sound reasoning (which he constantly invokes), and even violates his own arguments!

Which is why, when you read Alister McGrath's books, you will find that this man has ascetic patience; he takes the trouble to respond to Dawkins, literally debunking his acrobatics, for the sole reason that the book had generated excessive hype among atheists - and (naturally) NOT because it contains any noteworthy argumentation.

The epilogue here, therefore, belongs to that brilliant author, Alister McGrath.  With an exceptional sense of humour and in just a few lines, he literally denudes atheists and anti-Christians alike:  

God, in Whom Dawkins does NOT believe, is a ‘base, unjust, remorseless and oppressive monster; a vengeful and bloodthirsty subject of ethnic cleansings; a misogynist, a racist, a child destroyer, pestilent, megalomaniac, sadomasochist and a particularly villainous swaggerer, who among other things fears homosexuals and fancies genocides.’ Come to think of it, not even I believe in such a God. Actually, I don’t know anyone who believes in such a God.” [ix]

And so, to the uninspired aggressiveness of atheists and anti-Christians who interpret the Holy Bible as they see fit and then attack... their own interpretations - in essence saying: “According to what WE say, you Christians believe in a God that is this, that and the other” - the simplest answer would be:

It is more likely that YOU believe in the existence of such a God ... we certainly do not…


Translation: R.I.


 [i]   An article writer with great humour, who decided to write a critique about Dawkins’ book, provides us with some  moments of merriment:  http://www.mic.gr/books.asp?id=14025.

        To be honest, this book hardly deserves any scientifically informed critique…

[ii]   “The God Delusion”, page 249.

[iii]  McGrath Alister, “The God Delusion”, “Ouranos” publ. 2008, pages. 100-101.

[iv]   McGrath Alister, “The God Delusion”, “Ouranos” publ. 2008, page 100.

[v]     “The God Delusion”, page 273.

[vi]   “The God Delusion”, page 272.

[vii]  “The God Delusion”, page 273.

[viii] “The God Delusion”, page 273.

[ix]    McGrath Alister, “The God Delusion”, “Ouranos” publ. 2008, page 96.





Additional references :

1.     Atrocities in the name of Religion

2.     Video dedication









Article published in English on: 14-11-2017.

Last update: 14-11-2017.