The Nirmukta Freethought Community

The controversy is going on in UK over the temple to be build for atheism. The promoter Alain de Botton "wants to borrow the idea of awe-inspiring buildings that give people a better sense of perspective on life". Gurdian has published an article specifing the Dawkins opposite stand for this furistic building. What do you guys think of this?

The man has a right to his opinion and his right to voice it. But in my two cents, there is enough in nature to inspire awe and amazement. Actually speaking, we can laud and marvel at the architectural genius of the builders of the world's mosques, temples and churches!
The very concept of a temple is a place of worship and religious congregation. Why would anyone suggest an "atheist temple"? It may be a genuine call to appreciate the technological and scientific achievements of Mankind and to show us our insignificant place in the Universe, but it risks splitting the atheist community. Why risk a misunderstand?
You want to show human insignificance in the greater scheme of things while simultaneously raising scientific consciousness and dispelling religious ludicrousness?

Take a long, hard look at the Pale Blue Dot.

Peace,
Nick.

I don't think there is any need to have an "atheist temple". Temples are basically for religious gatherings. Moreover, his so called temple is actually like a grand museum of history of life on Earth. I think he does us all great disservice by calling this building a temple.
I do think that it is a great idea, at least on paper. Now, only if he would come up with a better name and description.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan...le-atheism

In my opinion, a temple for atheism is not something we should have. My reasons are:

1. Atheism is inspired by free thinking
2. The physical embodiment of any one person's or group's ideas might limit a person's thinking
   

Again, this is my opinion on this issue. Btw, have any of you read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand? If you have, this would sound very familiar.

I think temples are the proof of belief and they should be preserved to preserve their culture.

(18-04-2012 05:52 PM)anky2930 Wrote:  I think temples are the proof of belief and they should be preserved to preserve their culture.

The question was not anything about the preservation of the architecture but rather if atheists should build temples to their "unbelief" in a deity, simultaneously depriving the connotation usually associated with religion and appreciating mankind's engineering feats.

(19-04-2012 12:04 AM)nick87 Wrote:  The question was not anything about the preservation of the architecture but rather if atheists should build temples to their "unbelief" in a deity, simultaneously depriving the connotation usually associated with religion and appreciating mankind's engineering feats.

Too often, veneration is misconstrued as a pre-requisite for conscientious heritage conservation. As Dr. Kamath explains, freethinkers can be discerning tourists without being pilgrims and at the same time can continue to be strident critics of the unsavoury goings-on in 'temple-casino complexes'. We are not rabid iconoclasts, but are well within our rights to ask of our compatriots, "Don't we have more shrines than we need?"

I think we do have temples for rationalists and freethinkers in other words atheists. The universities, colleges, laboratories, factories and above all human mind are all temples for atheists though a temple like the one Howard Roark builds in Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is something I would certainly pay for if I had money.

Beat them at their own game is what I say. Simple-minded people may not be able to appreciate complex challenges that science poses to their faith. But some of them could be slowly initiated to that line of thinking. What's wrong with a building (call it a museum or a temple) that helps gently put across the concepts of humanism and rational thought? Besides, wouldn't it be nice where like-minded people congregate peacefully and discuss ideas without fearing persecution?