Auken’s characterization of modern atheism and its critiques of Christianity faces scrutiny, particularly concerning historical atrocities committed in the name of religion. The debate arises following Auken’s commentary lamenting the perceived lack of depth in discussions with contemporary atheists regarding faith and religious criticism.

The core of Auken’s argument is that current atheistic critiques primarily focus on the unprovability of God’s existence and the historical wrongdoings of the Christian church. However, critics argue that Auken misrepresents the nature of modern atheism, pointing out that many contemporary atheists adopt a more agnostic stance regarding the existence of God.

The criticism of historical atrocities is downplayed by Auken, who cites Martin Luther’s views on heretics and draws parallels to Enlightenment figures who supported slavery. This comparison is challenged, as historical violence and cruelty were justified by Christian doctrine, whereas support for slavery was not rooted in atheism.

The commentary also takes issue with Auken’s use of Friedrich Nietzsche as an example of an Enlightenment figure who advocated for slavery. While Nietzsche’s views on slavery are morally questionable, they are not connected to his criticism of Christianity.

The author contends that Auken unfairly compares actions stemming from religious beliefs with individual opinions held by critics of Christianity. This approach, the author concludes, makes meaningful dialogue difficult and ultimately trivializes the discussion.