Is the Atheist Argument from Religious Violence Cogent?

Richard Dawkins has a unique gift. Although, as his popularity spreads and his adherents increases the gift becomes less unique and spreads like a rabid meme.
His gift (or curse?) is his ability to make clearly fallacious assertions based not on facts but merely excitement, emotion and prejudice.
His adherents likewise have a gift, the gift of un-skeptically, uncritically, incuriously accepting his most erroneous and meaningless statements and repeating them ad nauseum. The thanksgiving offerings that his adherents heap upon him are standing ovations and putting quite a few shekels in the pocketed coffers of the Oracle of Oxford. I chronicled three such standing ovation bouts in my essay, Richard Dawkins and His Amen Chorus of Adherents
(he is actually now retired from Oxford to work full time as an oracle-but from what did he retire?).

One way in which Richard Dawkins has presented this argument is thusly:

Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition (religious riots between Hindus and Muslims where more than a million people were massacred), no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers", no Northern Ireland "troubles", no "honour killings", no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ("God wants you to give till it hurts"). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it. (see Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13)

The argument from religious violence comes to various conclusions:

1) Some claim that religious violence discredits the very concept of God.
2) Some claim that religious violence discredits the whole religion which partook in violence.
3) Some claim that religious violence discredits the violent individual(s) but not their religion, all religion or God(s).

Of course, the first logical question to ask an atheist would be, "Just who are you to bequeath what is wrong, bad or evil?" The oddity with this argument is that it behaves like a bumper-car, whenever it encounters opposition it simply bounces in another direction.

For example, the claim is that violence done in the name of, or premised upon, God, religion, etc. results in 1), 2), or 3) above yet, if you were to argue that atheist have done likewise violence in the name of, or premised upon, atheism the argument is no longer seen as cogent and is discredited by the very people making it by attempts to explain away the action of such atheists.
Well, at this point we learn that no violence has ever been done in the name of atheism. No, not even by atheists who premised their violence upon atheism-which is to say, those who filled the void left by their atheism with whatever godless concepts they chose.

What if you where you to mention the Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005)? This encyclopedia was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.
Well, at this point the "religious violence" equals 1) or 2) concept is discredited and it is asked just what is a "religious war"?
Suddenly, when the term "religion" is replaced with "atheism" (of whichever sect) the argument discredits itself and we end up where we should be which is pointing out that there are various factors which cause violence, war, oppression, etc. and they must all be taken into consideration. Thus, quite rightly, to state that a war is strictly religious or strictly what have you, is simply too simplistic.

You see, I may retort in ditto like fashion by stating:

Imagine, with reality and history, a world with no religion. Actually, forget imagination and know for a fact that a world without religion would still be a world in strife, pain and suffering due to riches, poverty, territory, material goods/resources, politics, racism, emotions, abortion, sexism, science, rage, jealousy, envy, lust, hopelessness, domestic violence, gang violence, freedom, atheism, natural disasters, disease, insanity, mass/serial murders, drug abuse, etc., etc., etc. In a world without religion we would still have everything that we have today but done in the name of _____________ (fill in the blank). It is no less than astonishing that Richard Dawkins can even entertain such a thought after the 20th century, the most secular and the bloodiest century in human history.

David Boulton in his New Humanist article, Faith kills soberly writes:

Sam Harris' "argument is that the threat of terror facing the world is the direct result of religion - or, more specifically, faith itself_
Unhappily, the argument rides on the back of some startling oversimplifications, exaggerations and elisions_
That religion as a badge of tribalism is frequently a major complicating factor in such conflicts is obvious, but it is by no means self-evident that religion is invariably the root cause_what about the world wars of the 20th century? Did British and German empire-builders slaughter millions in the 1914-18 war for religion? Was the conflict between liberal democracy and Nazism a religious war? Did Stalin kill tens of millions of his own people for religious reasons? Yes, says Harris (as indeed he must to support his thesis): communism, and presumably fascism, was 'little more than a political religion[...], cultic and irrational'. But this is to concede that it is irrational dogma in general rather than religious faith in particular which creates the killing fields, and that undoes his argument_
So Sam Harris the faithless and George Bush the faithful, equally stupefied by 9/11, arrive at much the same conclusion: there is an enemy out to get us. It can't be argued with, so it must be eradicated_
He undermines his war on unreasoning faith with the admission that 'we cannot live by reason alone'_
For this is the problem with The End of Faith: we all have faith of one sort or another. In a world which seems incapable of shaking off belief in real gods and devils, it takes a lot of faith to be a humanist."

Dr. John Dickson wrote:

The slogan 'religion leads to violence' finds plausibility today not through logic or the facts but through simple repetition_The 'religion-leads-to-violence' mantra has become a truism in our culture only because fascinating people, popular books and high-production documentaries say it over and over. But it isn't true-certainly not in the blanket sense intended_

Historians estimate that the Spanish Inquisition killed approximately 5,000-6,000 people over its 350-year history. That's fewer than 18 a year. One a year is too many, but the number hardly sustains the monstrous narratives we often hear. Likewise, the Northern Ireland troubles - if indeed they were religiously inspired - caused the deaths of about 3,500 people over a 30-year period. Again, one death 'in the name of Christ' is a blasphemy but the iconic status of these two evils of Christendom exceeds the reality.

Thirdly, we should always be suspicious of an argument that cannot concede anything to the other side. It is naive or dogmatic not to admit the great good done in Christ's name throughout history (need I list them?!). Even today most non-Government welfare in this country is delivered through faith-based agencies. Create a list of all the organisations you know and do the maths. And, according to government figures, a disproportionate amount of philanthropic giving and volunteering is offered by those who regularly attend church. This doesn't make Christians better than secularists but it belies the claim that they are worse. And that is definitely what some are saying at the moment-religious people poison everything, they are the root of all evil, they prefer Inquisition to thought, and so on_1

He is failing to note that according to atheist ilogic evil done in the name of religion discredits religion but good done in its name does not accredit it.

John Preston, Preaching to the converted

In The God Delusion, Dawkins quotes John Lennon's Imagine and suggests that without religion the world would be a happier and more harmonious place. "Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot_"
But surely, I suggest, this is a very naive way of looking at things. Even if religion disappeared overnight, there would still be a predilection for violence in the human character."Well," says Dawkins, sounding quite unruffled, 'that could be right. It's always arguable that if there wasn't a religious label people would find something else. Let's take football, for example. With Rangers and Celtic, say, would that rivalry continue if you took religion out of the equation? You think it would?'"I do," I tell him, "because whatever else religion does to people, I don't believe it makes them innately aggressive.""Yes," he says, "I agree with that."Yet isn't he implying quite the opposite?"Hmm, let me try to think that through_ If the only thing you've got against someone is that they support the wrong football team, you might get into a fight about it, but you will stop short of killing them. Now that's something you might well not do if you've been taught from babyhood upwards that your God will approve of such behaviour. You don't have to produce evidence to support your belief. You simply say, "It's my faith", and are blind to any kind of argument. If part of your faith is the righteousness of killing infidels or apostates, then that does seem to me to go further than the ordinary aggression which you pessimistically attribute to humans anyway." [ellipses in original]

Here, he does something that is very much his modus operandi: he is asked a very specific question, he waters down the question, he responds to his watered down version, and he think that he has succeeded.
The question was about events such as suicide bombings, 9/11, 7/7, Crusades, witch-hunts, and the Gunpowder Plot and thus, related to a predilection for violence in the human character. He disregards such catastrophically violent events and waters them down to disputations about football teams. This is so that he can dismiss the concerns and put on the appearance of having his argument save face. Yet, he is also wrong that "you will stop short of killing them." He may be unaware that riots break out over sporting events and that in fact, people are murdered over football games.

Now, what if you've been taught from babyhood upwards that there is no God and that ultimately if you caused one bio-organism to cease from living it does not matter and there are no ultimate consequences? What if you've been taught from babyhood upwards that your race is superior to others and since you are the fittest you should survive and they ought not? Obviously, we could what if this ad infinitum replacing "that your God will approve" with any non-religious sentiment of which we may conceive.

Let us now review the three basic conclusions of the argument from religious violence:

1) Some claim that religious violence discredits the very concept of God.
2) Some claim that religious violence discredits the whole religion.
3) Some claim that religious violence discredits the violent individual.

1) Some claim that religious violence discredits the very concept of God.
This is a non sequitur. Anyone can do anything in the name of anything and do so in a manner which is wholly fallacious. Violence is done in the name of freedom and yet freedom is not discredited.

2) Some claim that religious violence discredits the whole religion.
This has some validity. If a religion does not preach that violence be done in its name, or in the name of its God, then those who commit violence in its name, or in the name of its God, are actually going against the very tenets which they claim to uphold-by contradicting said tenets they are discrediting themselves.
If a religion does preach that violence be done in its name, or in the name of its God, then the argument is valid and the whole religion may be discredited.

3) Some claim that religious violence discredits the violent individual.
This is valid whether a religion does or does not preach that violence be done in its name, or in the name of its God.

All of this presupposes that atheists have some standard, beyond their personal preferences and prejudices, by which to make such determinations-which they do not: they merely appeal to arguments from outrage and arguments for embarrassment. Atheism discredits condemnation and condemnation discredits atheism because in condemning anything they are appealing to a transcendent standard.

1. 1. Dr. John Dickson, "'Religious violence' a small part of the story," ABC.net.au, May 20, 2009