In general, I find atheists need a unifying tome about as much as men need nipples. I’m of the opinion that to properly educate yourself on morality, ethics and philosophy, you need more than what a single book can provide; you need a lifetime of education, thought and what some would call “soul searching”; the act of reflecting on one’s actions.
Our general dislike of sacred tomes hasn’t bothered Professor AC Grayling, the president of the British Humanist Association. He’s recently written an “atheist bible” in the hopes of providing a useful, overarching guide for non-believers:
Without any reference to gods, souls or afterlives, it [the book] aims to give atheists a book of inspiration and guidance as they make their way in the world.
I’ll reserve my judgement until after I’ve read it, but I generally dislike this sort of publicity. It lends credence to the idea people need “manuals” for living their lives. Some of the most contemptible people in history have lived according to such doctrine, and I like atheism specifically BECAUSE we don’t bother with that nonsense. Still, I did like the comment of one religious commentator:
You might think that Christians would find such a book an insult to their own Good Book, but not Rev Dr Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral.
If anything, however, Rev Dr Fraser believes that The Good Book is a bit tame, a little “cheesy”, in comparison with the “full-blooded version”.
Yeah, it’s cheesy when you don’t have stories about rape, incest, murder and genocide, right? Now that’s the “full-blooded” shit we should all be reading!