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.
Then the author asks "but will it convince any religious adherent to cross over?" "It's unlikely", he answers. But the same would be true of any atheist visiting a cathedral, wouldn't it? He might enjoy the architecture, but not the message. So why not build a place where he can enjoy both? De Botton is a popularizer of philosophy. [2] This project seems to me to be a continuation of that, with a focus on atheism. I don't think the De Botton is promoting a "narrow" version of atheism, nor that it has "its own unified philosophy" and "set of rules". Isn't the whole purpose of this to see that beauty can come from anywhere? Anyway, I jut don't get the hate. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0... [2] http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/philosophy-guide-to-happiness...