I saw what appeared to be a survey asking what people thought about atheist churches on the main screen a while back. That puzzled me. If the question was about having facilities to help indoctrinate secular values into youth, I would think that atheists would have the sense to not indicate a particular religion when doing so. Atheists can be former Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and even born and raised atheists. I support the notion of advocating secular values, but I would like to use a term like temple. I know, some people would say that temple indicates Judaism, but there are many cultures that make "temples". There are Buddhist temples, Jewish temples, Greco-Roman temples and temples of doom. What do you think?

Views: 160

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Congregation" might be a passable word to use. Or "circle." The "Nature Chaplain" channel grew from my Nature Temple website. I think an inclusive term makes sense. Of course the main issue is: how to gather freethinkers in the first place.
Fellowship Hall sounds good. Halls of fellowships. FHQ's. Can't wait to build ramps and mural walls.
Ah, I love the idea of a mural. I'm a bit of an artist myself.
Has anyone suggested forum, as in the Roman Forum? Or how about Atheist Exchange? I really liked Johnsky's suggestion of Agora. Atheist Agora makes a very nice alliteration.

I agree with others that "temple" is the wrong word. Christians already love accusing atheists of practicing a religion and something like this would give them all the more reason to.
I don't advocate any of this. Such ideas merely perpetuate the ignorant belief that atheist's are members of a religion.

If I have children they certainly wouldn't be sent to such a place. My secular values equate a well-rounded education and critical thinking skills, which invariably lead to the 'correct' modes of though and belief.
Oh, I should mention that I AM a member of an atheist/agnostic meet up group in my local area (I travel across the state line to Mississippi actually!) But that is a far cry from forming a 'temple'. We are a diverse group who espouse often similar but sometimes differing beliefs regarding social ideas and such. Temple's would splinter us as a diverse group of free-thinkers and men/women of reason. Has no one ever seen the Richard Dawkin's episode of South Park where Cartman traveled into the future and found warring sects of 'atheist's'?
No, never saw that but would sure love a link to it if you can find one.
I'll look but I will warn you now: it's a twisted episode. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/44805/

The accompanying blurb on that page makes a very good point, I notice. South Park did kind of take a very deterministic view regarding human behavior to pull this off. They definitely implied, basically, that atheism and any idea of this nature is destined to be fought over in the same way with the same zealotry as religion. I disagree, as I am an optimist and have great faith in the growth potential of humanity. For me, to be an atheist is to be an optimist.
That sounds like an interesting episode. I personally think that it is important that a culture that cultivates the life that you advocate is important to build. atheist/agnostic meet up groups are important in these regards. I'm leaning more toward a name like Secularium Seclorum. Or possibly Ordo Seclorum, which would drive conspiracy nuts mad. I would also argue that 'correct' modes of thought and believe do not necessarily equate to values.
I agree that there are too many people who view atheism as a religion and we don't need to give people reason to think that we have faith. However, the world has seen multiple dark ages in which great swaths of culture have been demolished. With all of the Temples, Synagogues, Churches, Cathedrals, Mosques, pseudo-science museums and even amusement parks, I think that we need more lasting cultural signs of what secular culture is. Otherwise, we could be granting future generations a world where atheists and other secularists are trying to re-invent the wheel and fight against a vast majority of powerful religious folk over nearly everything, with few options for gathering support. The networking advantages of such buildings are great. The cultural and artistic impact of buildings are greater than smaller artworks (note that many cities are built around either a church or a sports stadium), and such structures could even function as safe havens for non-believers. Many have had a hard time when leaving religions and many who have never been believers have encountered difficulties where it would be nice to have some friends around.
Not all temples had monks or even rabbis. Greek, Roman and probably some middle-eastern temples were open to the public and many didn't have an aristocracy for them.
As long as it is an open discussion and doesn't become the "one person speaks while everyone else STFU and follows" that all Christian churches are today. I think that setup is a horrible idea. That could lead to mislead ideas being advanced as the morals codes of atheist. but i would hope in that case, the followers would disregard the preachings.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service