This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Atheism: the cheapest alternative?

Treeroy's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Treeroy

I have to say, I disagree with using this as an argument.

Regardless of how much it will save, we need to be arguing our case using reason, facts and generally things that are scientific (or philosophical for that matter). Using the argument of "You should be an atheist because you save money" shows that we are reverting to money because we don't have a proper argument - so it shows a weakness of us that isn't actually there.

In any case, we aren't (or, at least, I am not) trying to free people of religion for the sake of it, or for the sake of building numbers. I want people to be atheists because they believe, for scientific reasons, that there is no god. I am really not interested in the number of people I convert, which is all this argument would achieve.

Of course, I do know that religion is having a huge, negative impact on many aspects of society and the world, however I really do feel that there have to be valid reasons to convince people to not be religious.

So no, I don't think we should be using this as part of our argument for atheism. It doesn't explain why we are atheists, why there is no god and why religion should be eliminated.

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 09:22:32 UTC | #949735