Do atheists need temples?

[naomi24]

The Telegraph says "Two of Britain’s most revered non-believers have come to blows over plans to build a £1 million “temple for atheists” in the City of London."

http://www.telegraph....ng-non-believers.html

I'm with Richard Dawkins on this - it's an appalling idea - and incidentally I object to the Telegraph's use of the word 'revered'. 'Respected' would have been far more appropriate.

[Zeuhl]

An interesting building suitable for quiet contemplation or meeting with the like-minded?

I think we all could find, if we wished, such a public building or place already within easy reach. A gallery or museum. A town hall or pub. A woodland glade or a rain shelter on the prom.

Personally, I have no problem taking my atheistic contemplations or occasional spiritual meditations into an old church. They are plentiful in my area, largely under-utilised and interesting spaces - even if they are devoted to misguided beliefs and rituals.

[joko]

i hope they build it. eventually they will accept its so under used that they'll sell it on and open a club or something good with it...

[Ankou]

"An "atheists' temple" is an oxymoron. The very idea is utterly absurd."

no it aint, i've got one each side of me head. and atheists can have temples if we take the true original meaning of it to be a place of sanctuary (templum).

its the whole 'place of worship' bit that really bothers me. if i really wanted to worship summink then i'd stand staring at the mirror all day.

[naomi24]

It seems much of the money for this project is coming from an anonymous group of property developers. I wonder what's in it for them? ;o)

[emmie]

Appalling and stupid, why on earth do i need to go to a temple, if i don't go to a church, mosque or other then certainly don't need this, another idiot idea, what they should be doing is stop killing London with these ugly buildings, glass and steel boxes and to what purpose, is it to house more worker ants running back and forth, then escaping back to their country hideaways.

[emmie]

buildings like The Shard, which has blighted the skyline for many who enjoyed looking across the thames down to St Pauls, i hate what the planners are doing, as to a temple no bloody chance.

[Ankou]

"much of the money for this project is coming from an anonymous group of property developers"

probably stringing him along for the land deal (i.e. they buy the land then he pays for the surveys and design work, planning rejects it, they keep the land and build summink more commercially viable).

de botton is said to have inherited over £420m from his dad and lives off book earnings, so i don't think financing is an issue.

[emmie]

happy to go into a church for it's architectural qualities, there are many fine ones in London, but stopping and nodding my head to some unseen deity don't think so.

[naomi24]

De Botton says 'That could mean a temple to love, friendship, calm or perspective', but non-believers do not need a building in order to connect with any of those things - and it's rather presumptuous of him to declare that he chose the country's financial centre because he believes it is where people have most seriously lost perspective on life's priorities. His philosophy borders on the religious and is seriously awry.

[Ankou]

well thats a bit rich innit. his dad was a very wealthy banker, hence the cash for him to 'put summink back into the community'!

i don't think we should spare him any more of our precious thoughts.

[naomi24]

He clearly doesn't realise the amount of charitable works the people in the city are involved in. If anyone's lost perspective, it's him. In fact, with this absurd suggestion, I think he's lost the plot entirely!

[Ankou]

not yet, but when planners refuse his building proposal and he has to dispose of the plot on the cheap, then he would have practically given the plot away....

[Nadis]

What would atheists do in a temple?