rationalskepticism.org

Nora_Leonard wrote:

laklak wrote:We've already got meeting places. Around here we call them "bars".

Well I for one don't frequent either bars or pubs, so wouldn't do for me. And surely bars are for everyone, religious and non-religious alike.

Any suggestion that you must believe X to go such a place is objectionable to me. The point AdeB is making to make culture a centre of society, and celebrate culture in some organised way. As such it would not be an "Atheist Temple" and should not be just for atheists.

I'm not sure what to think of the idea in general. I don;t like the propaganda aspect. That seems a very conservative ting todo. It would amount to an attempt to freeze social norms that are now judged to be idea and promote those norms to future generations. This is what religions do, and it is dangerous.

If culture is at the centre, what culture?

Repetition and whole-body involvement might be a significant point, but forget any sort of secular prayer ritual. Physically going to a place associated with ideas is a physical semi-ritualistic experience, with none of the objectionable elements of hard seats, kneeling etc.

The major problem with implementing something like this is motivating people to attend. It has to be enjoyable, stimulating, social, unifying.

If there was a place I could go to socialise, attend interesting and wide-ranging talks, discus intellectual issues, enjoy a range of music and art, all linked to the wider community I might well go.

If it was billed as an "Atheist Temple" I doubt I would be interested, although I am an atheist, and happy to say so. Atheism is disbelief in gods, not something to hang culture and community on.

Then there is communal singing. Not the dire CofE hyms style. Maybe more a tuneful mix of gospel choir enthusiasm and football terrace unity. There is something moving and unifying about getting involved in group singing, It might be good, but could so easily be awful.