PS. don't worry about sending me a copy. I won't have the time to devote to it sufficiently. I just wanted to lend my support to your efforts. They are truly appreciated.

N: It would be interesting to see what E says about it. Exactly what does he believe doesn't exist. He certainly can write about theists, but there is much more; for starters there is positive atheism and negative atheism (see Michael Martin's book). In addition to the Bible there is the Koran and other "Holy books."

It appears you're trying to focus more on presenting a positive outlook on death from an atheist's perspective than in pointing out the arrogance of the theist's. Still, I really like something Judith Hayes wrote in her essay "Where Were You Before You Were You?" (http://www.thehappyheretic.com/10-97.htm):

"And our egos make no bones about it. They speak quite clearly on the subject. "Now that I'm here," we tell ourselves, "the world is an important place. And not only that, but I can see no possible way for the universe to continue without me in it. So, though I am smart enough to understand that I must die some day, that doesn't necessarily mean that I must end. I'm too important to just end." And the rest, as they say, is religious history."

That says it more succinctly than anything I've ever contrived.

The book is written by an atheist. For an atheist to write about a "God" that he believes doesn't exist seems ludicrous. All he can hope to do is write about theists and their behaviors as his proof of God's nonexistence; add to that, he can write about certain phrases in the Bible that apparently don't add up to his perception of what a non existant God would be like. All the discussions in the world will not change much of anything. Some atheists become theists, some theists become atheists and so life goes on.

To Ebonmuse,
you might find the most recent articles on The Economist.com rather interesting. It has some thought as to why religion is so prevalent, and the evolutionary advantages and disadvatges of religion, as well as the latest research on the human brain and religion. Although your boook is nearly complete, you might find a few things to insert during your rewrites.

Kevin

In other words what is the container, the placeholder, the vessel and the entity that is supposed to BE omniscient, omnipotent (omnimax), the creator, the eternal and a couple of dozen more adjectives? I would appreciate your views on what the "God" is supposed to BE (look into a telescope -- where is IT?) If theists can't adequately say what it IS, then what is the doubter supposed to believe in, be persuaded by? I think these thoughts are subsumed under the term "noncognitivism." Is there a place in your book for such a discussion?