> Let's assume there's no God, and Dawkins is merely pointing out that fact without offering an alternative. Then he's speaking the truth, and to me that's more

> Let's assume there's no God, and Dawkins is merely pointing out that fact without offering an alternative. Then he's speaking the truth, and to me that's more important than any religion. If his views are true – then he's doing the truth a disservice by arguing for it in such a sloppy manner. A lot of well-educated theists read Dawkins, and come away more convinced of theism – they see how incompetent Dawkins' arguments are, and they (wrongly) conclude Dawkins is the best atheism has to offer. Atheism would be better off without his book–and the truth would be too.