An unusual argument

Beelzebub takes a shot that I will readily admit to not expecting:

I’ll shoot the first volley. The Voxster makes a big case about the religious causalities of War. True/false? In the end it doesn’t matter, and in essence, by your comments you know it too. All we really need to prove is whether ONE war, or even one death can be ascribed to religion, and we’ve already condemned it.

True. I certainly do devote two entire chapters to it, mostly because one of the New Atheists primary arguments against religion is because they believe it to be a primary cause of war and military conflict. They make both implicit and explicit arguments for this. Both their implicit and explict arguments are incorrect, as I demonstrate in no little detail. Beelzebub says “Screw the “New Atheists” and claims my successful dissection of their war-related arguments is irrelevant because a single historical death ascribed to religion is enough to condemn religion. While I’m glad to note that he concurs with my assertion that I have effectively refuted Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, I have three questions for him.

1. On what basis does a single death ascribed to anything condemn that thing?

2. Does Beelzebub condemn everything else to which a single historical death can be ascribed?

3. Is that to which more deaths can be ascribed to be more strongly condemned than that to which fewer deaths can be ascribed?