A nice website, but of course I am looking at it from a position of a LW fan; I don't know how it will seem to other people.
One part I didn't like was the rationalization video about "why death isn't so bad". (Spoilers: because if you know you will die, it motivates you to do important things faster.)
To illustrate why it is bad, imagine the reversal: if you would get immortality, would you rather trade it for mortality (defined as: you will die in a random moment during the following 100 years) as a cool way of Getting Things Done? I would think such decision is quite stupid for several reasons. First, the random moment may happen even today; I don't see how that helps you accomplish plans that take more than one day. Second, plans that require at least several decades of work become unlikely even if you work hard. Third, it limits the total number of plans you can accomplish.
Generally, the whole reasoning about the benefits of death is motivated thinking. We already know the bottom line (almost certainly we are going to die, probably quite soon); and the real reason is that our bodies are fragile, and it is extremely difficult to coordinate humanity on fixing this problem (all the necessary medical and technological research, plus the necessary economical and political background). That's it. It would be too much of a coincidence if this situation would also be somehow optimal.
(However, optimizing the website for me could make it less attractive to an average reader.)
EDIT: The quotations from "The Last Christmas" should be formatted differently than the surrounding text. For example use dark grey font, and a vertical line on the left (something like "font-color: #333; border-left: 2px solid #333;"). Don't separate different quotes by bullets, but enclose them in different "div" tags (with the vertical line it should be visible where the next "div" starts).
On the "Arguments" page, the different arguments should be probably formatted by headings ("h2"), not bullet points. I think in general that the bullet points look ugly, unless used for a list of short items.
Yes, I considered adding exactly that kind of status quo bias rebuttal to the note that some atheists argue that death isn't so bad.
But I didn't want to make it TOO LW-ey, and I'm hoping that by including that view, along with the views of the Methuselah people, and the cryonics people, that people would be able to take them all seriously without feeling like I was biased in my presentation
I'm open to adjusting that strategy, but that was my thinking behind it. Not to appear like an arguer, merely an unbiased presenter of information, who apparently took ...
I've put together a website, "New Atheist Survival Kit" at atheistkit.wordpress.com
The idea is to help new atheists come to terms with their change in belief, and also invite them to become more than atheists: rationalists.
And if it helps theists become atheists, too, and helps old atheists become rationalists, more the better.
The bare bones of it are all in place now. Once a few people have gone over it, for editing, and for advice about what to include, leave out, improve, re-organize, whatever, I'll ask a bunch of atheist and rationalist communities to write up their own blurb for us to include in a list of communities that we'll point people to in the "Atheist Communities" or "Thinker's Communities" sections on the main menu.
It includes my rough draft attempt to basically bring down the Metaethics sequence to a few thousand words and make it stylistically and conceptually accessible to a mass audience, which I could especially use some help with.
So, for now, I'm here to ask that anyone interested check it out, and message me any improvements they think worth making, from grammar and spelling all the way up to what content to include, or how to present things.
Thanks to all for any help.