Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
Sounds neat -- and I welcome the idea of a Temple to Perspective. But what does it have to do with atheism? I'm always irritated when people try to make atheism into anymore than a lack of religious or godly beliefs. If you're going to do that, call it something else. Call it Humanism if that's what it is, or make up a new name for it. Otherwise I'm content to leave the definition of atheism as minimal as possible.
I'm always irritated when people try to make atheism into anymore than a lack of religious or godly beliefs.
I agree with this. Personally, one reason why I avoid the term, is because IMO people often confuse 'atheism' with an opinion on religion. People like Richard Dawkins don't help. -If you want to convince people that there is no God, go for it. If you want to convince people that religion is bad, go for it. But, dammit, realize that they are two separate arguments, and mixing them doesn't make either one stronger. As for this Temple to Atheism, it doesn't bother me that they call it a temple. All temples are built for beliefs, but not all temples are built for worship. Atheism, at least how most people define it, is a belief. If people argue about it, I'd say the temple is doing its job.
sounds_sound · 4681 days ago · link ·
Agreed. The phrase "temple for atheism" is as oxymoronic as it gets, but there's something interesting in the article somewhere, and that's why I posted it. I just don't think the author did us the service of sussing out a potentially fruitful discussion. I think that Humanism is definitely a better word choice for the latent concepts. Ideas of monumentality and preservation are interesting when we hold them up to a secular light. And the Temple of Perspective? Didn't Zumthor already do that: http://artkitectorialist.blogspot.com/2011/10/peter-zumthor....
–
thank you for showing me this: http://cubeme.com/blog/2008/02/14/peter-zumthor’s-bruder-kla...