You mean I misunderstood you, or I was 'wrong'??

If it was the former, then I dispute that too, you are using imperfect logic. Belief is belief. You can believe that it is wrong, but it still makes you a believer in your own belief. And things like sacred spaces are in many and varying parts wholly subjective, which precludes 'right' and 'wrong' , but does not perhaps exclude 'useful' or 'useless'

?

In the absence of an OED:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sacred

K x

You Baza stick to the rigid dictionary definition of sacred which I guess is fair enough, but is indictative of the rigidity in which you are selfbound to percieve any matters spiritual.
I have argued that that definition is too narrow, and unrealistically inflexible when one considers the potency of the idea of having a sacred 'thing' or space. A space, regardless of it's history, can me made sacred by belief.
I would also argue that even the most scientifically rigid of brains have their own notions of sacred space; a space that has a deep emotional resonance to their beliefs (belief being in 'fact' or something other) . For example I would wager that to some astronomers, deep routed in their science , the obersvatory at Greenwich would be a kind of sacred space, even if they would balk at the term, purely because of the impact of the place in the history of their beliefs. And the same might go for 'sacred' science spots everywhere in many disciplines.
Sacred is bigger than God and religion to me.