http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/alain-de-botton-temple-atheism

Basically Alain de Botton wants to build a 'temple of Atheism' in London, built to rival the grand churches that are dotted around the city. With grand architecture that includes:

...details of a temple to evoke more than 300m years of life on earth. Each centimetre of the tapering tower's interior has been designed to represent a million years and a narrow band of gold will illustrate the relatively tiny amount of time humans have walked the planet. The exterior would be inscribed with a binary code denoting the human genome sequence.

Personally i think this would be a good thing. While atheists have no real need of temples due to people like Richard Dawkins, who Alain describes as having a "aggressive" and "destructive" approach to non-belief, Atheism is seen as a bad thing when really it shouldn't be. If there is somewhere that looks as awe inspiring as some churches and has the same community feel to it then peoples views on atheism may begin to change.

And if all else fails it does sound like a pretty cool idea for a museum.

Thoughts? comments?

A cool idea. It would be an impressive artwork. But is has nothing to do with atheism. Not much with anti-theistm either.

Well, I think it's a neat idea, but it's also missing the point. Atheism isn't something you belong to, it's a lack of belonging to a certain class of groups. To build a temple for atheism is a lot like designing a game console for nongamers. Of course, someone tried to actually run a marketing campaign based on that premise, so yeah.

Personally, if someone asks me what monuments secularism has that rival cathedrals and other religious wonders, I would point out the International Space Station, the Internet, the modern computer, and the eradication of smallpox and polio as our greater achievements. Cathedrals merely point towards the heavens. We actually got there.

Fucking stupid.

By all means, go ahead and build the structure. It sounds like a neat tourist attraction. But dont tarnish non-believers names. Inevitably, big names like Richard Dawkin would be linked to it, and thus to me. No offense, Dawkins and all you other "aggressive" atheists, but I really do not feel the need to be linked to you, or to this atheist church of sorts.

Why would we need a temple? When I became an atheist, temples were the very thing I was trying to get AWAY from.

so we can call atheism and antitheism a religion now? fucking sweet now we can make blanket statements all day like a boss.

McMullen:
Well, I think it's a neat idea, but it's also missing the point. Atheism isn't something you belong to, it's a lack of belonging to a certain class of groups. To build a temple for atheism is a lot like designing a game console for nongamers. Of course, someone tried to actually run a marketing campaign based on that premise, so yeah.

I won't go so far as to say atheism is a belief, however, as soon as we identify ourselves as one thing or another we inevitably are identified by others as being a part of that "group". It's not really that different from someone saying they are a Christian and then other people assuming they adhere to whatever the word Christian means to them.

On that note, I think this atheist temple is acceptable. However, I thought atheist already had temples we just called them Museums of Natural History.

Because science and history is ONLY accepted by atheists. Us idiot believers reject all facts and logic.

It's an utterly stupid idea.
There is zero need for such an obnoxious waste of money, if you want to make a statement then build a hospital or school.
An entire building devoted to something you don't do is stupid.

It's stupid. Atheism isn't a religion and isn't supposed to be treated as one. I'm an atheist and I'm not religious. Building a temple for atheism is like being the leader for an anarchist group, a jewish nazi and so forth. Atheism shouldn't grow to the power of religion, religion is supposed to be dropped down to the level of all others. Your religious views should not matter and as such should not affect anything outside a persons personal circle. If people want to gather in a place talking about these views, sure. But atheism does not belong there, atheists should just... live discover new things, working together on them. But we don't need any religioun-like special buildingswhere we gather on sundays and talk about how we are better. We have the internet fo that. :)
But lets not waste time with this and rather be in labs discovering new things, in libraries learning about them, in offices talking and making these talks public. Slowly but surely getting more people in with reasoning or just talk. Atheism is a rising view, it's growing faster then any religion. Let's just stick with the current trend and not to become what we hate.

aPod:

McMullen:
Well, I think it's a neat idea, but it's also missing the point. Atheism isn't something you belong to, it's a lack of belonging to a certain class of groups. To build a temple for atheism is a lot like designing a game console for nongamers. Of course, someone tried to actually run a marketing campaign based on that premise, so yeah.

I won't go so far as to say atheism is a belief, however, as soon as we identify ourselves as one thing or another we inevitably are identified by others as being a part of that "group". It's not really that different from someone saying they are a Christian and then other people assuming they adhere to whatever the word Christian means to them.

On that note, I think this atheist temple is acceptable. However, I thought atheist already had temples we just called them Museums of Natural History.

I thought that's exactly why it shouldn't be built. We'd be validating a misapprehension held by people who are not atheists and do not know what the term means, and have shown an unwillingness to learn what the term means. Why should we say to them, through the building of this temple, "Ok, fine. Sure. We're a religion."?

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Why would we need a temple? When I became an atheist, temples were the very thing I was trying to get AWAY from.

What, are you allergic to steeples? Among the complaints of religion I'm aware of, issues with the buildings are some of the more trivial concerns...

TheDarkEricDraven:
Because science and history is ONLY accepted by atheists. Us idiot believers reject all facts and logic.

I'm glad you understand the situation.

This doesn't actually sound like a temple of atheism. It sounds more like a temple for the glorification of knowledge or human understanding or some such. Atheists often like both, but there is no necessary connection between those and atheism.

Is there going to be a fashion parade of all the different hairstyles of "bald"?

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Fucking stupid.

By all means, go ahead and build the structure. It sounds like a neat tourist attraction. But dont tarnish non-believers names. Inevitably, big names like Richard Dawkin would be linked to it, and thus to me. No offense, Dawkins and all you other "aggressive" atheists, but I really do not feel the need to be linked to you, or to this atheist church of sorts.

Why would we need a temple? When I became an atheist, temples were the very thing I was trying to get AWAY from.

Richard Dawkins....agressive?

Dude, have you ever read and/or heard of anything he has ever done? Hes basically the complete opposite of what you suggest, hes only considered "aggressive" because he and Christopher Hitchens get lumped together as just "atheist". While in truth, Hitchens is actually the "aggressive" one (and an anti-theist at that), while Dawkins is the understanding fellow who would rather educate than insult.

Seriously, his book The God Delusion (despite its attention-grabbing title) is pretty much a book about logical fallacies, arguments and personal insight. There's no religion-bashing, he just carefully explains why this and that arguments are wrong, through logical reasoning and understanding.

If you think that Dawkins and Hitchens are just plain "atheists", then you've proven that you know nothing of their work or personal stances.

To get things straight, atheism is the BELIEF that there is no higher power. In contrast to religion, which is the belief in a higher power.

Now, back on topic. It'll be interesting, in a sort of ironic way, I guess.

Promethax:
To get things straight, atheism is the BELIEF that there is no higher power. In contrast to religion, which is the belief in a higher power.

Now, back on topic. It'll be interesting, in a sort of ironic way, I guess.

Nope. That's anti-theism.

Atheism is the recognition that there isn't any evidence whatsoever for any "Higher Power".

Olrod:

Promethax:
To get things straight, atheism is the BELIEF that there is no higher power. In contrast to religion, which is the belief in a higher power.

Now, back on topic. It'll be interesting, in a sort of ironic way, I guess.

Nope. That's anti-theism.

Atheism is the recognition that there isn't any evidence whatsoever for any "Higher Power".

nope im sorry to tell you that your wrong but you really are. anti theism is opposition to religion. atheism is a belief that there is no deity(deities). your more less thinking of agnosticism.

Olrod:

Promethax:
To get things straight, atheism is the BELIEF that there is no higher power. In contrast to religion, which is the belief in a higher power.

Now, back on topic. It'll be interesting, in a sort of ironic way, I guess.

Nope. That's anti-theism.

Atheism is the recognition that there isn't any evidence whatsoever for any "Higher Power".

Anti-theism is opposition to religion. Atheism comes in different flavors. Positive atheism describes what Promethax said.

Atheism is as much of a "belief" as not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

Hmm... Atheist church, eh?

OT: Coming from a Christian, this sounds like a stupid idea. "Giving more ammo to those who say atheism is a religion? Sure, why not! Let us take all that money that could go towards more useful things, or hell, even build a museum that would accomplish the same thing, and make a large, pointless structure to celebrate the fact that we don't believe in god!" -_-

Hyper-space:

Richard Dawkins....agressive?

Dude, have you ever read and/or heard of anything he has ever done? Hes basically the complete opposite of what you suggest, hes only considered "aggressive" because he and Christopher Hitchens get lumped together as just "atheist". While in truth, Hitchens is actually the "aggressive" one (and an anti-theist at that), while Dawkins is the understanding fellow who would rather educate than insult.

Seriously, his book The God Delusion (despite its attention-grabbing title) is pretty much a book about logical fallacies, arguments and personal insight. There's no religion-bashing, he just carefully explains why this and that arguments are wrong, through logical reasoning and understanding.

If you think that Dawkins and Hitchens are just plain "atheists", then you've proven that you know nothing of their work or personal stances.

I'll agree that Richard Dawkins' isn't aggressive... But he has ideas that I would say don't have any scientific backing and do require a bit of faith to believe in. For Example, he believes there's a gene that makes us selfish (I.E. "The Selfish Gene") and that it's basically been bred into Humans... Which I find ridiculous.

OT: A Temple of Atheism is basically the most moronic, idiotic thing I have ever heard, and I am a Catholic! Atheism is supposed to be a lack of belief in God! A Temple is a place to worship a god! This is only enforcing my stereotype that Atheists are just as Religious as Religious Folk.

As being a relgious person i think this is funny. There is nothing more terrible to those terribly huge and expensive chruchs claiming to be for there followers that pay thier priest, preachers, or whatever. Welcome to the big leauges athiests you are now a religion welcome to the club its time for the big leagues.

Olrod:

Promethax:
To get things straight, atheism is the BELIEF that there is no higher power. In contrast to religion, which is the belief in a higher power.

Now, back on topic. It'll be interesting, in a sort of ironic way, I guess.

Nope. That's anti-theism.

Atheism is the recognition that there isn't any evidence whatsoever for any "Higher Power".

Incorrect. Anti-theism is being AGAINST religion, thus the prefix "Anti".
Atheism is simply the belief in no higher power.

"a-" is not.
"anti-" is against.

Basic English.

Hazy992:

Yes you do -_- /sarcasm

You got that right. The world was created yesterday! It's turtles all the way down!

TheDarkEricDraven:

Hazy992:

Yes you do -_- /sarcasm

You got that right. The world was created yesterday! It's turtles all the way down!

Turtles? Turtles you say? Hmm...

But srsly, no. The world was created by a Japanese teenage girl. Everybody knows that!
reference all the god concepts! ALL OF THEM!

*sigh*

No...

Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF.

Seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?

Olrod:
*sigh*

No...

Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF.

Seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?

once you start building temples for your "non-belief" it becomes a belief. simply as an atheist you believe that god does not exist, or am i wrong? Richard Dawkins himself said he is not 100% positive about there not being a god. so stating that there is no god is a faith based claim.

BreakfastMan:

Turtles? Turtles you say? Hmm...

But srsly, no. The world was created by a Japanese teenage girl. Everybody knows that!
reference all the god concepts! ALL OF THEM!

It's actually a reference to the expression that inspired that bit. Though I have nothing but good will for priests of Suzumiya.

Yeah... Atheism isn't a belief. It's just a word to describe the lack of belief. To call Atheism a belief is like saying bald is a hair color.

thelittleman66:

Incorrect. Anti-theism is being AGAINST religion, thus the prefix "Anti".
Atheism is simply the belief in no higher power.

"a-" is not.
"anti-" is against.

Basic English.

Incorrect. Atheism is no belief in a higher power, not belief in no higher power. There's a distinction, and it's an important one.

keiskay:
simply as an atheist you believe that god does not exist, or am i wrong? Richard Dawkins himself said he is not 100% positive about there not being a god. so stating that there is no god is a faith based claim.

You're wrong.

Acknowledging that there's no evidence for any of the multitude of different higher powers is the complete opposite of a faith based claim.

Olrod:

thelittleman66:

Incorrect. Anti-theism is being AGAINST religion, thus the prefix "Anti".
Atheism is simply the belief in no higher power.

"a-" is not.
"anti-" is against.

Basic English.

Incorrect. Atheism is no belief in a higher power, not belief in no higher power. There's a distinction, and it's an important one.

keiskay:
simply as an atheist you believe that god does not exist, or am i wrong? Richard Dawkins himself said he is not 100% positive about there not being a god. so stating that there is no god is a faith based claim.

You're wrong.

Acknowledging that there's no evidence for any of the multitude of different higher powers is the complete opposite of a faith based claim.

ah the old lack of evidence argument. i admit that there is no evidence but i think its possible that there is a deity, but i view said existence as non important (apatheism) and am more worried about my personal self. you know there used to be strong evidence against heart surgery? yet we now have heart surgeries that can be performed and are actually fairly successful now.

Olrod:

thelittleman66:

Incorrect. Anti-theism is being AGAINST religion, thus the prefix "Anti".
Atheism is simply the belief in no higher power.

"a-" is not.
"anti-" is against.

Basic English.

Incorrect. Atheism is no belief in a higher power, not belief in no higher power. There's a distinction, and it's an important one.

Believing that there is no higher power is still a belief.