Is it true that atheism has killed more people then organized religion?...

[Existentialist]

As an atheist, I think the influence of religion on human behaviour is miniscule.

"Minuscule"? Seriously?

Yes absolutely. I know that the received wisdom is that religion has been a source of conflict since long before any of us can remember. However, I dissent from that idea. Allow me to explain the reasons for my dissension. I believe that human beings are motivated and driven by basic human needs: food, shelter, air, water, immediate relationships. As I'm writing this I am occasionally breaking off to put another mouthful of my evening meal in my face. If I were offered the choice between having my evening meal or attending a pious meeting for religious worship, I would take the meal. I find this an easy choice because I'm an atheist. A pious religious believer might attend the worship and forgo the meal. If asked to fast a second whole day, on instructions from a trusted representative of the divine word like a priest or a bishop, and then to skip a second evening meal as an alternative to showing devotion to the deity, I can confidently predict that most religious followers would crack, and join me instead for a curry. Human beings hold their stomachs to be more important than their god. I know that the scriptural propaganda is full of tales of great individuals who have fasted solidly for weeks or months out of devotion to their supreme supernatural being. A few very devoted people may be able to do this, and to refuse food even though they might die without it. I think that is an example of an impossible devotional ideal for most people. Usually the offer of a takeaway menu will break the spirit in a matter of seconds. Needs other than food are similar in their effect on humans. Now I think that societies and civilisations build a range of mechanisms to meet all these needs for a larger number of people than would be possible through simple hunting or gathering alone. When these mechanisms are under threat, or when they need to be expanded to bolster the strength and security of powerful sections of society, wars happen.

Religion has inspired people to go to war;

"So," says the great leader, "My great armies - why are we doing this? Why are we invading our neighbours, what reason do we have to siphon off their food production and impose our political system on them? Well, it can't possibly for the selfish satisfaction of our stomachs. No! We may be hungry but that's got nothing to do with it! We're doing this because the other lot are intrinsically evil. Who says? Well, our God does - and I am His representative! We have right on our side and will smite them!!" But, I hear you ask, doesn't that mean that if we get rid of religion, people won't be able to use it as an excuse to go to war? Well, no unfortunately. The Dawkins / Hitchens axis is just as keen on identifying a hierarchy of enemies based an how "evil" they are, only in this case the justification doesn't come from any deity, however much the new atheists treat Dawkins and Hitchens like prophets; instead the justification comes from a mix of teachings that we in the West are better than our enemies - we have the enlightenment, we have science, reason, democracy, education, women's rights and gay rights that form a collective identity that must be protected at all costs from the irrational, uncaring, violent, abusive and downright evil enemy. Nothing to do with us trying to assure a strategic foothold over the largest oil deposits in the world so we can continue to drive our cars and eat a quality of energy-hungry foods in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Nope. It's to do with the intrinsic irrationality of all the evil aliens who are threatening to destroy our way of life and our hard work in building up a rational and educated society.

... to torture people; to restrict basic freedoms; to punish people (often with death) for "offenses" ... wearing unapproved clothing, ...

Why are you bringing the actions of the secular American state at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib into this?

I selectively quoted you there, I admit. But looking at your original again there's not much left to respond to. But press me if you wish.

"Minuscule"? Religion causes people to surrender a significant percentage of their income to a dubious "charity".

Well yes but then about 30-35% of my income goes to the British state. A lot of that money gets used for reasons that are nothing to do with welfare or charity and is extremely dubious. Religions may have been used for taxation in the past, I doubt there is very much relinquishing of income going on nowadays when there is a State to be funded. If the religions hadn't done it in times gone past, I'm sure that the powers that be would have had several other methods of coercion at their disposal to enforce a contribution from citizens.

Religion causes people to waste a sizable part of their lives in an effort to please an imaginary deity.

Yes, but I read a lot of books filled with imaginary plots and watch a lot of films with imaginary characters. Some of them even have imaginary actors like Keanu Reeves and Danny Dyer. The quality of any story-telling I measure mainly by its ability to induce me to suspend disbelief. If I can actually believe that the plot is real I get far more psychological enjoyment out of it. The ancients didn't even have television, and even now the programming is pretty dire. I wouldn't blame anyone for adding a bit of imaginary content to their lives, it beats getting depressed.

Religion causes people to impose "morals" that were written by Bronze Age goat herders.

I have to say, I think this is just inaccurate. I think morals go out of fashion in less than a generation and get replaced with other morals. I don't see any way that any ideas, let alone morals, could have been handed down from the bronze age.

Many people live their entire lives based upon a religion.

Good for them. As long as they don't hurt anybody and they enjoy it, why not? And if people do hurt people, I wonder, was that because of the religion? What else is going on for them - I wouldn't hurt someone just because of a novel, I might hurt someone if they took my curry away.

Would Sunnis and Shiites be killing each other if not for religion?

In Iraq? In societies which are under occupation, the actions of the occupying power will usually badly restrict the free flow of resources to a population that previously had their needs met. The restriction of resources inevitably creates internal conflict, which may divide on ethnic grounds, which often manifest itself as sectarianism. So the answer to this particular question is yes, most likely they would. The answer, of course, is for secular states like the US not to go invading other countries and lording it up over them for years on end.

Would Muslims want to kill Jews if not for religion?

Almost certainly. These two groups very clearly divide on ethnic grounds and have traditionally had large populations competing for resources. What gives me hope is that they have often co-operated for resources as well.

Would Protestants and Catholics be at each other's throats if not for religion?

They're not. I know Protestants and Catholics who are close friends. Some even marry, look at Tony and Cherie. You may find conflict somewhere, but again it is more likely to be along ethnic lines or in parts of the world where competition for resources is fierce.

Would people be strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in a crowd of strangers if not for religion?

Almost certainly. Ethnic divisions between populations competing for land and resources can be cut-throat - literally.

Would the screwballs have flown planes into buildings on 9/11 if not for religion?

Who can say? Would 9/11 even have happened if the US had protected itself properly and not swept aside security recommendations in favour of commercial profit? And what other terrorist atrocities have occurred and might occur in the absence of religion as the superficial excuse it really is? What about the Bader Meinhoff gang? Animal rights terrorists? Non-religious motivations exist, they cannot be denied. And what about the screwballs bombing Afghanistan from a comfortable distance of 25,000 feet?

How can you say that " the influence of religion on human behaviour is miniscule"? There are few things in life that have as much influence on people's behavior as religion.

No there are loads of things - food mainly, but water, relationships, clean and security are all far more important to everyone including the religiously devout.

If we're looking at the geopolitical influences that lead to many people participating in the conflict at the same time, religion rarely if ever figures as the principal reason.

Why do you think Muslims respond to the call for jihad? It has nothing to do with defending your country. It is completely about religion!

"It is completely about religion!" is just a bold statement. Evidence is needed to back that up. And there are many interpretations of Jihad, I imagine people mould it to their own idea of what it means, a bit like you have.

Why would a Muslim from Syria, Jordan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia go off to fight American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan?

They don't, mostly. Most people who fought the Americans in Iraq were Iraqis fighting a brutal attack by a superpower. Some may have done, I don't know, please present your evidence. But then again, why did people from Britain choose to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War? I imagine because they opposed a brutal dictatorship, not for religious reasons.

Because they are motivated by religion!

Well, partly maybe, but not much. The US invasion has been brutal beyond belief, I don't blame anyone for opposing it.

Belief and ideology may superimpose themselves on the conflict, but I doubt you can show me where they have been the cause.

---

How about the Crusades? That was completely about religion. And many European conflicts were based in religion as Catholics and Protestants fought for power.

Well, I rarely study pre-20th century history. I tend to think we're too far removed from it to infer anything from human behaviours so long ago. However on the basis of what I've said so far I would be looking for evidence of either a perceived threat that led to the Crusades - the threat of foreign invasion from the south - or the need for the crusaders to expand the resources available to the homeland. Either way colonisation or city raids could have a significant effect. The Catholics and Protestants in Europe was probably more about tribal aggression - again, inter-ethnic competition for resources. Britain went through a lot of Protestant / Catholic switching of power in the 16th and 17th Century, I wonder if that was more to do with class antagonisms as the gradual overthrow of the feudal system gave way to emerging bourgeois domination of ruling mechanisms. It was a long time ago, I tend to think that distance in time makes meanings very artificial, nevertheless a detailed study could produce an interesting narrative beyond the superficial religious explanations - what do you think?

Anyway thanks for going to the trouble to write such a coherent set of challenges, I hope I have been successful in responding in kind.