It almost seems like atheists don't want to believe in God. Do you just simply not want to believe in God because you don't want to give up your own free will?
ADMIN EDIT: Mercedes has left ThinkAtheist.com on her own accord. This discussion will remain, however do not expect a response from the author.
Surely, Rocky, you can do better than You're ridiculous.
Add a bit of evidence to support your charge.
A book on which all non-believers agree is the basis for non-belief?
Many books have been written (my personal favorite for why not to believe is "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith) but we can't exactly regard them as scripture handed down from on high and dogmatically demand that other atheists adhere to one of them; that's the sort of thing you do when you are trying to form a group, not dissociate yourself from others' groups.
Is that sufficient cause to maintain that Holo is "ridiculous"?
The Atheist community is disorganized, adrift in thousands of (often conflicting) disbelief concepts.
What conflicting concepts? How can not believing in the same thing possibly conflict? I don't believe in gods because I was never pressured into religion as a child, you don't believe because you realized that the religion was wrong. Our reasons may be different, but the end result is always the same. Not believing in gods. We all have our reasons on why, or how we got here, but disbelief cannot conflict other disbelief. You can't make two nothings conflict.
The Official Guide to Atheism.
There is such a thing. Although it is not a book. More of a sentence.
I do not believe in the existence of any gods.
That is the only "rule" of atheism. Everything else is humanism and reality.
If you start piecing together a "Atheist Bible", you are turning a disbelief into belief. If that is more your style, I suggest visiting FTB and joining A+. They are more into the hive mind mentality.
Children should benefit from science books, history books and reason. If they are introduced to those things, they will let go of fairy tales all on their own. We don't need our own version of the bible to do that.
Few, if any, children read the Judeo/Christian Bible, they get their brainwashing from their parents and Sunday School teachers, neither of which would read anything we wrote anyway - the status would remain quo.
The books are out there, Darwin's Origin of Species, Sagan's Cosmos, Hawking's A Brief History of Time, Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale - if they ever break free from their parents' gravity well, as Maulder said, 'the truth is out there."
1. The beginning is a point somewhere beyond the first Planck moment where time itself may not exist making the word 'beginning' irrelevant - or not.
1. And the multitudes believed in invisible skymonsters but a few brave few called, 'bullshit,' and walked out of the temples.
1. Being given no laws from a high power, mankind must figure out how to get along with each other. Don't be dicks.
1. And the humanist movement emerged and their numbers grew. Oscar and Stephen counseled them without making buggery a directive, and the people accepted Oscar and Stephen and harmony began to flourish.
Is this the sort of book you want?
Oscar and Stephen?
I don't know, Heather... Sounds kinda sexist... :P
Well our book only has one sentence - "We don't believe there is some supernatural being setting the rules."
That's all you'll get the entire community to agree on - because that's the only thing that defines us as a group.
I agree, Holo, that many of us put a lot of effort into stating how we differ.
Aquinas would agree with your suggested single Book of Atheism.
Drop the word Official; put WikiAtheism in the title.
@Holo gram - if you've got the idea, why don't you get it together? Although I think Richard Dawkins and a few others have already provided the orthodox classics for the militant kind of atheism. There's also the lone voice of Alain de Botton ("Religion for Atheists") putting it out there for the other non-apathetic kind of atheism, that which wants to learn useful lessons from religion. Who said that atheism is a religion? I can't remember. But it surely deserves a place in school religious education classes as the non-God alternative to religion. Right now, like you say, it's pretty much a void, as an idea - a belief in the non-existence of something. To give up religion is to drain away all the true spiritual [and other] benefits that religion has to offer, with nothing to replace them. So you could cover it all in about 10 minutes, if you took your time.
How about a book on how we can all get along? That might be the biggest problem people face. Maybe it is necessary to explain our beliefs. Like people who are into Wicca. In the UK, it's the norm to be non-religious. People don't care much, whereas in the US it seems much more polarized and political.
I was about to comment that you were beginning to make good sense, and that critics could possibly benefit from listening to some of your ideas, until I read that last paragraph.
RE: "I wouldn't want an atheist family moving in next door to me." - afraid your property values would drop? I promise, most of us look as normal as anyone else, you would never recognize us in the supermarket, and almost all of us have finally agreed that hanging baby skulls from our house eves on Halloween is probably not a good idea.
Another important aspect of the entire exercise is that even amongst ourselves, there is not 100% concurrence on every aspect of our non-belief. You'll find little pockets of side-debates and discussions sprinkled throughout these 36 (37 now) pages. I was a participant in some of these digressions.
It is far too easy for such a community to fall into complete harmony (with plenty of handshaking and patting on the back all around!); it's a great thing that there is so much disagreement (even when we agree), and someone poking the nest with a stick is often exactly what is needed to stir that up.