Invariably, as soon as you get into any kind of a discussion website that contains even the slightest link to anything at all religion oriented, you get a rush of stubborn participants on both sides of the discussion. One side is sure they believe in Jesus, while the other unquestionably believes there is no evidence, and go on to talk about the variety of crimes that Christian believers have perpetrated over hundreds of years as proof that it is a flawed system of values.
Christian followers frequently hit back with the Stalin and Hitler reasoning, both arguable atheists that did not subscribe to or have faith in any single deity (albeit Hitler has links to the occult and of course did have confidence in destiny, and other puritanical ideas that are frequently based in some religion or another). It goes without saying that the Hitler/Stalin justifications are somewhat moot, as is to some extent the Christian crimes one. The reasons become solid when one can not only locate the connection (which is implied by followers of those communities committing those inhumanities) but also the causation. Causation then gives some strength to either side, for then Christianity, or possibly a lack thereof, contributed to the reason why that inhumanity was inflicted.
To the question of Christianity, while it's easily causal (pagans were murdered on account of faith based disagreements, while atheists rarely ever killed the religious due to being religious) it still is subject to question. The reason being frequently men and women wish to persecute a distinct group of individuals, and will choose any reason they can to do so. In this instance, Christianity could be the culprit meaning that it can easily be employed to accomplish such desires, but nonetheless may not be the cause.
The main critiques of Christianity stem from the subject of God - it is suggested by atheists that by Christians perceiving themselves as undertaking God's actions, they can certainly avoid their own empathetic reaction to virtually any one action which would otherwise be way more stressful. With the help of sanctity to an immoral act, it is said, regular people tend to do extremely unpredictable things, and this departure from 'healthy' behavior can be compared to a kind of delirium.
Does this mean to assume that all Christian believers are mad? Well, the concern then develops, what precisely is a Christian? Do all Christians genuinely submit to every little thing within the Christian bible? Do they at all times hold that the bible is the word of God, or Jesus for that matter? A considerable portion of Christians and religious women and men of all religions possess a tendency to submit to specific parts of their faith and disregard or deny others. Like for example, to be a Christian, a follower is required to detest homosexuals. Yet how is it conceivable then that programs on television with pronounced homosexual people flourish in the United States, which is primarily Christian?
The reason is that while atheists tend to be fully commited to the values of atheism very few Christians are as attached to the ideologies of their given faith. Practically all of these religions were created at a time when research and information was insufficient, and therefore, their literal teachings are simply as archaic as their biases are.