Sacrifices of humans were common religious events in the ancient world. An offering of a virgin or an infant or a prisoner was assumed to appease the gods. This itself is not a very good advert for the moral values of religion. Nor do religious "suicide" ceremonies, martyrdom or jihad. And, at a higher level of superstition, billions of humans around the globe are indoctrinated by a morbid story of Jesus crucifixion, a sort of vicarious atonement. Here is what Christopher Hitchens says (God is not great, 2007):

"Once again we have a father demonstrating love by subjecting a son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress god. He is god, and he is trying to impress humans. Ask yourself the question: how moral is the following? I am told of a human sacrifice that took place two thousand years ago, without my wishing it and in circumstances so ghastly that, had I been present and in possession of any influence, I would have been duty-bound to try and stop it. In consequence of this murder, my own manifold sins are forgiven me, and I may hope to enjoy everlasting life.

Let us just for now overlook all the contradictions between the tellers of the original story and assume that it is basically true. What are further implications? They are not as reassuring as they look at first sight. For a start, and in order to gain the benefit of this wondrous offer, I have to accept that I am responsible for the flogging and mocking and crucifixion, in which I had no say and no part, and agree that every time I decline this responsibility, or that I sin in word or deed, I am intensifying the agony of it. [...] However, I am still granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption. Should I exercise this choice, however, I face an eternity of torture more awful than anything endured at Calvary, or anything threatened to those who first heard the Ten Commandments."