http://www.dubai-architecture.info/DUB-GAL1.htm

So Poirot, is religion behind the architecture being built in
Dubai?

Sometimes people, organisations, countries do things because they
can, like when they have far more money than they know what to do
with.

George, brains and computers function a little differently, so
you are comparing apples and oranges.

The trouble with the discussion here, from my point of view, is it's got bogged down in metaphysics verses rationalism, and these are the terms the new atheists want to contest and as I've said, have the running in. But fascinating as all this is, as I've also repeatedly said, I'm much more interested in the hear and now and I'm critical of the New Atheism because it has no vision or larger agenda--which it should have if it wants to organise, but it's just populist, a fad. I'm critical of our "whole" system and not just ideologies within it. Thus I want "macro" reform, not "micro" reform. In fact micro reforms are like pro-biotics, they make the organism stronger. So here's where I part company with both sides, which despite their ideologies are essentially conservative.

I'm away today but will try to respond to other stuff later.

Yabby,

>>brains and computers function a little differently<<
So you did not get what I wanted to say. Fair enough. One cannot explain a metapohor. Maybe some people here understood.

I did… But that might just be my superego talking.

If you ever feel so motivated please feel free to explain the Poincaré conjecture (wasn't covered in year 11 general maths), because I definitely don't understand that – nor Perelman's proof.

There you go Squeers. We differ again. No surprise there.

>>...I'm critical of the New Atheism because it has no vision or larger agenda--which it should have if it wants to organise<<

And I'm critical of it, for wanting to "organize" in the first place.

Organizing around a non-belief is like trying to prove a negative. You can dance around, pointing at circumstantial evidence all you like, but in the end you come up empty. The only possible outcome is a noisy lobby that stands against the privileges that religion arrogates.

Superficially, this is a valid stance. But ultimately it has nothing to do with a belief in a deity, and everything to do with social inequity. So while conventions such as this leave their participants with the warm glow of self-righteousness, their activities have absolutely no connection with atheism.

Witness the keynote speech from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which was basically an anti-Islam diatribe, that took the opportunity to wag a finger at "secular liberals" for being less active in this field than Christians. But what was crystal clear from her complaint was that being atheist has no bearing whatsoever on being anti-Islamic. She would, I'm sure, have been equally anti-Islam in front of an audience of Southern Baptists.

The New Atheist (the caps are significant) movement is well on the way to establishing itself as an alternate religion. Which in my view is the single biggest mistake that it could possibly dream up.

Yabby,

Of course buildings are erected for all sorts of reasons. Their styles change with tastes and advances in technology.
Yet, you don't seem to grasp that buildings enclosing [what is deemed] "sacred space" were/are sanctuaries from the world. They provided a conduit from the corporeality of life to a place of repose and mental and spiritual succour. They were meant to be "read" - to convey a message - not only intellectually, but also spiritually. They provided a material entity that matched the cathedrals in our minds.
Sacred architecture is more than the sum of its parts.

Pericles,

It seems to me that yours and Squeers' views aren't too far removed. He seems to be saying the same thing - that the New Atheism is forming itself into a movement, and if that is the case, does it stand for any objective other than the obliteration of religion as a potent force in society?