Atheist Temple

Aern Rakesh · **#81** by **Aern Rakesh** » Jan 28, 2012 6:15 pm

Paul G wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:

Why does everyone associate ceremony and ritual with 'woo'? Do you all feel that way about spectacles such as the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games?

Yes.

Listen to the rambling on about the human spirit and togetherness through the power of sport blah blah blah

Well if it isn't Scrooge McKermit!

Paul G · **#82** by **Paul G** » Jan 28, 2012 8:50 pm

Nora_Leonard wrote:
Paul G wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:

Why does everyone associate ceremony and ritual with 'woo'? Do you all feel that way about spectacles such as the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games?

Yes.

Listen to the rambling on about the human spirit and togetherness through the power of sport blah blah blah

Well if it isn't Scrooge McKermit!

Fallible · **#83** by **Fallible** » Jan 28, 2012 11:39 pm

Paul G wrote:
Fallible wrote:

Agreed! We had a civil ceremony in a register office, but a nice, old, pretty register office with stained glass windows and oak furniture and pretty flower arrangements and all nice things an that. There were some readings from Donne and Shakespeare and a nice piece of classical music to accompany me walking in. We walked out and down the outside steps under an arch formed by my other half's teaching colleagues dressed in pretend professor gowns and caps. Then it was off to an inn for foodz and beerz. Hurrah! I'm perfectly happy for other people to never get married, to find it pointless for themselves. I suppose I can understand how they might think I did a stupid thing. But I don't see a need to justify it to them. When people tell me it's pointless and a waste of time, which has happened on this forum a few times, my immediate thought is 'who are you to tell me what's pointless for me?' I'm the only one who gets to decide that.

Pointless post

NilsGLindgren · **#84** by **NilsGLindgren** » Jan 29, 2012 9:04 am

Paul G wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:
Paul G wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:

Why does everyone associate ceremony and ritual with 'woo'? Do you all feel that way about spectacles such as the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games?

Yes.

Listen to the rambling on about the human spirit and togetherness through the power of sport blah blah blah

Well if it isn't Scrooge McKermit!

Seriously, "sport giving birth to noble sentiments", is utter humbug. My office is on the direct route from the railway station to the football stadium, and when Helsingborg (HIF) plays Malmö (MFF), you hear the yobs in chorus, "Hate! Hate! Hate MFF!"
Sports? Humbug, sir!

Scot Dutchy · **#85** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 29, 2012 11:43 am

Nils for me professional football is not a sport. It is big business and nothing else.

Agrippina · **#86** by **Agrippina** » Jan 29, 2012 1:02 pm

This atheist temple business has me thinking about a way to dissociate ourselves from the people who paint us as another religion.

Can we split this to a thread for some ideas about how to bring the whole idea of a disbelief in irrational nonsense into a whole new "movement."

NilsGLindgren · **#87** by **NilsGLindgren** » Jan 29, 2012 8:06 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Nils for me professional football is not a sport. It is big business and nothing else.

... and humbug. HUMBUG! Grumblegrumblegrumble ...

IronGiant · **#88** by **IronGiant** » Jan 30, 2012 4:22 pm

Alain de Botton has announced plans to construct a 150 foot high temple to atheism in the heart to London.
He claims that it is a terrible thing that many of our most historic and beautiful buildings were constructed for the worship of the religious and that atheism should have the same.

Mr. de Botton has faced criticism from both the atheist community and the believing public. Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins object to the wasteful use of such funds, "Atheists don't need temples. I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, skeptical critical thinking."

The defenders of belief use this fraternal disagreement to attack and skewer atheists in general, “I must say that some of my closest friends are atheists, and they are among the cleverest people I've ever known. In fact, they are so wise that they usually steer clear of matters philosophical, concentrating instead on things like politics, art, law or social commentary. Perhaps they tacitly agree with me, though they'll never admit this, that 'atheist philosopher' is an oxymoron. One can be either an atheist or a philosopher, not both.” (Alexander Boot, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ds-newsxml)

And being used as an attack on Dawkins in specific, “The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalized by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.” (George Pitcher, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ds-newsxml)

These attacks come from a deep misunderstanding of what atheism it and is not. It is true that atheism does not need a temple, but that does not mean that atheists do not like to gather to consider the mysteries of the universe or speak of philosophical issues. The deeply insulting idea that atheists can’t be philosophers (the worst insults are seemly always predicated with the phrase “some of my closest friends”) barely needs refutation except to say that even in the early days of the renaissance the leading humanist of the era and one of its greatest thinkers, Conrad Celtes began questioning the existence of a god over 500 years ago. In fact, one of the first goals of the early humanists, the first true philosopher in Europe sicnce the fall of the dark ages, was to attack scholasticism; the pseudo-philosophical belief that all forms of thought and philosophy could be reduced to a brach of Christian thought.

When one honestly explores the implications of the quest for knowledge and ethics one could just as easily argue more successfully that atheism is part of the ultimate expression of philosophy. If we agree with American philosopher John Dewey that philosophy is most useful when based on reason, and if we remember that Christian leaders from St. Augustine to Martin Luther, horror shows that they were, realized that reason is the greatest enemy of faith, we can see that philosophy equals reason, but reason does not equal faith.

To accuse Dr. Dawkins of lacking wonder at the universe simply because he forthrightly and effectively points out the fallacies of the faithful is to also say that Einstein lacked the ability to conceive of the wonderful awesomeness of time and space or that Sagan dismissed the beauty of the cosmos; they held the same views as Dawkins. Having awe in the face of reality in all of its fierce, order-from-chaos action and the counter-intuitive laws of the physical realm is much stronger than the fear of a capricious god.

Secular schools, public colleges and universities, community volunteer centers, offices of democratic government, modern hospitals, and the like are all temples to secular humanism which is as like atheism to have no difference. For me, it is the public library that is my temple of choice; a place where at public expense the knowledge of the world, presented without prejudice or comment, is made available to anyone who asks, presented in a peaceful and unobtrusive environment.

So, no, atheists do not need a temple because the modern world is our cathedral. No facet of modern life is untouched by the values of the atheist; science, reason, equality before the law, and respect for knowledge. We believe the world that we live in can be made better, that people can choose to improve their condition, and the lot of our existence as human beings can be improved; these are the inherent hopes of a people who do not place the responsibility for their decisions on ephemeral sky fathers or believe that some unknown heaven is more important than the well being of people in the here and now. These are the values and gifts of secular, humanistic atheists.

So, keep your temples; we’ll take the universe.

http://freethoughtnews.blogspot.com/

horacerumpole · **#89** by **horacerumpole** » Jan 30, 2012 4:36 pm

virphen wrote:A place of worship?

To worship what?

Maybe this:

?

Paul G · **#90** by **Paul G** » Jan 30, 2012 4:46 pm

Works for me.

virphen · **#91** by **virphen** » Jan 31, 2012 7:13 am

Apparently there has been more than a little misrepresentation of the idea going on.

http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/201 ... gle+Reader

I still think it's a waste, but all this crap about a place for atheists to worship is all in the imagination of the slime (aka the media).

Aern Rakesh · **#92** by **Aern Rakesh** » Jan 31, 2012 8:05 am

virphen wrote:Apparently there has been more than a little misrepresentation of the idea going on.

http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/201 ... gle+Reader

I still think it's a waste, but all this crap about a place for atheists to worship is all in the imagination of the slime (aka the media).

Thanks, Virphen. I disagree with you about thinking it would be a waste, pretty much for all the reasons stated in that blog. But that's just us having a disagreement as regards wanting such a place.

What is far more alarming is the fact that the misrepresentation of his intent managed to polarise us (i.e atheists, not you and me).

GrahamH · **#93** by **GrahamH** » Jan 31, 2012 10:05 am

Nora_Leonard wrote:
virphen wrote:Apparently there has been more than a little misrepresentation of the idea going on.

http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/201 ... gle+Reader

I still think it's a waste, but all this crap about a place for atheists to worship is all in the imagination of the slime (aka the media).

Thanks, Virphen. I disagree with you about thinking it would be a waste, pretty much for all the reasons stated in that blog. But that's just us having a disagreement as regards wanting such a place.

What is far more alarming is the fact that the misrepresentation of his intent managed to polarise us (i.e atheists, not you and me).

Alain de Botton wrote:Evidently the term ‘temple for atheists’ has set up uncomfortable associations. People have imagined I might be interested in worshipping an absent deity, or perhaps setting up a cult. Nothing as dramatic or as insane is on the cards. I’m simply arguing that contemporary architecture analyse the high points of religious architecture throughout history – and that we should allow a new generation of architects to tread in the footsteps of great secular creatives indebted to the ecclesiastical, people like Kahn, Ando and Zumthor.”

This is quite a different message to his TED talk on borrowing ideas from religion. If he is only calling for grander buildings then he should leave "atheist" out of the picture entirely (he should anyway). Are there not already numerous awe-inspiring secular buildings around the world?

I suspect a significant part of one's feeling for a building is due to what activities or people you associate it with. A courtroom has gravitas for being a place where people are judged and lives changed. A hospital is a "temple" to sickness and recovery, of human achievements over the cruelties of nature, the arrival lounge for most newborns. A sports stadium is more than the architecture and Glastonbury is more than a muddy field with a stage in it.

It seem to me this latest statement is a U-turn.

Aern Rakesh · **#94** by **Aern Rakesh** » Jan 31, 2012 10:12 am

GrahamH wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:
virphen wrote:Apparently there has been more than a little misrepresentation of the idea going on.

http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/201 ... gle+Reader

I still think it's a waste, but all this crap about a place for atheists to worship is all in the imagination of the slime (aka the media).

Thanks, Virphen. I disagree with you about thinking it would be a waste, pretty much for all the reasons stated in that blog. But that's just us having a disagreement as regards wanting such a place.

What is far more alarming is the fact that the misrepresentation of his intent managed to polarise us (i.e atheists, not you and me).

Alain de Botton wrote:Evidently the term ‘temple for atheists’ has set up uncomfortable associations. People have imagined I might be interested in worshipping an absent deity, or perhaps setting up a cult. Nothing as dramatic or as insane is on the cards. I’m simply arguing that contemporary architecture analyse the high points of religious architecture throughout history – and that we should allow a new generation of architects to tread in the footsteps of great secular creatives indebted to the ecclesiastical, people like Kahn, Ando and Zumthor.”

This is quite a different message to his TED talk on borrowing ideas from religion. If he is only calling for grander buildings then he should leave "atheist" out of the picture entirely (he should anyway). Are there not already numerous awe-inspiring secular buildings around the world?

I still think he's talking about a secular building that has the grandeur of a temple/church and can serve as the unifying centre for a community linked by some ideals. That would also offer the kind of pastoral services associated with churches, temples etc. Clearly some of us think that would be a good idea, whereas others are appalled. That's what I mean by polarised.

GrahamH · **#95** by **GrahamH** » Jan 31, 2012 10:16 am

Nora_Leonard wrote:I still think he's talking about a secular building that has the grandeur of a temple/church and can serve as the unifying centre for a community linked by some ideals. That would also offer the kind of pastoral services associated with churches, temples etc. Clearly some of us think that would be a good idea, whereas others are appalled. That's what I mean by polarised.

Yes, he should say more about what happens in the building that provides a unifying centre. The architecture is not the main issue.

I really don't like what he said about using something similar to religious models of propaganda, on general principle, and because I'm not clear what message he wants to promote.

I have the feeling there could be something of value in there, but I don't know what it is, yet.

Aern Rakesh · **#96** by **Aern Rakesh** » Jan 31, 2012 10:33 am

rainbow · **#97** by **rainbow** » Jan 31, 2012 10:51 am

Atheists should lack a Temple.

Fallible · **#98** by **Fallible** » Jan 31, 2012 11:00 am

GrahamH · **#99** by **GrahamH** » Jan 31, 2012 11:01 am

rainbow wrote:Atheists should lack a Temple.

Atheists should lack a temple dedicated to god. It seems De Botton is distilling the word "temple" to its human-centred purpose, which could be as applicable to human atheists as it is to human theists.

rainbow · **#100** by **rainbow** » Jan 31, 2012 11:03 am

Fallible wrote::yawn:

Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

The world is our cathedral

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Re: Atheist Temple

Who is online