Hello. Just for the sake of some comic relief, i thought it would be nice to create a forum discussing the possibility of an independent country - specially for atheist. What would it be called? where would it be? and how many people would actually live there?
What kind of government would it have? or would it be anarchy?
Consider this to be a question in social science fiction. It could be utopian or Orwellian.... anything. Just some creative fiction. Cheers.

Views: 277


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Come to the UK. We've had multi culturalism rammed down our throats for so many years that it's pretty much a level playing field. All viewpoints are now essentially equal. Only thing you have to put up with is continual political correctness.
Here here it has happened to Canada too. Sikhs can bring knives to school but not other Canadians, and can wear their turban instead of the police head attire. Muslim women can have the government pay for their hymen fabrication surgeries so they can bleed on their wedding night (no joking). Recently in Montreal, a lady was told BY THE COURTS that she had to replace her bathroom window with translucent glass, or translucent mactac because she was offensive to the new synagogue recently built next door!

Secular country DOES NOT equal multi-religious country (like those funny little stickers promoting religious tolerance, all religions equal, bla bla bla).

If multiculturalism means multi religionism, I want nothing of it.
If only the churches paid their fair share of taxes, this country would be a lot closer to ideal.
I have to agree on this one Rusty. The idea that religions are exempted from the taxes that all individuals and businesses pay is an anathema to a secular society. They benefit from protections and the infrastructure paid for by taxes they need to contribute their fair share.
Render unto Caesars that which is Caesars and..... (and other stuff they are supposed to believe in)
Tom, you are missing a very important point. Sincere religious belief is a psychological disorder, and should be treated as such, it would be remiss for us to not try to stop the spread of it. This is not about freedom of speech, it is about those people who are a danger to themselves and/or others because of a psychological disorder. An atheist country would be the least likely to restrict thoughts, ideas, and speech. However, we would have the common sense to either treat those with mental illness in medical institutions and/or limit the damage they can inflict upon the general populace.

Since we would probably have limited funding in the beginning, the town hall idea would be more cost efficient and diplomatic than trying to treat every foreign visitor in need of psychiatric therapy. I’m sure that other countries would take great offense at our country holding large numbers of their citizens in psychiatric wards.

Furthermore, if you were appalled by that, than you must be horribly appalled with America, as our country has been restricting thoughts, ideas, and speech since its inception. Most religious children in America are usually not given a choice about being religious and are indoctrinated with religious concepts from the earliest possible age. They are threatened, bribed, and rewarded into believing that they must not think whatever thoughts that they would like to, say whatever they’d like to, and are certainly not allowed to express views contrary to their religious upbringing whenever they’d like to.

If they try to go against this upbringing, they are seen as bad, sinful, unworthy, laughable, and deserving of the worst possible punishment. The majority of their friends and family are unsupportive and often openly hostile in such a situation.

Public education is an absolute atrocity in America. It is extremely difficult to find any ancient times social studies textbook in America that does not have at least one chapter on the life and times of Jesus Christ. I have yet to find a single text in the public education system that has the balls to question the veracity of Jesus Christ, the Christian religion in general, or any other religions, for that matter.

On the flip side, however, science in the public education system is constantly under fire from religious groups. Evolution, genetics, and many more areas have been dumbed down or completely removed from state curriculums in an effort to pacify angry parents and communities.

How is it that real science is under attack and often stifled, while questionable religious events and characters are seen as absolute truth and/or unquestioned in the PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM? This from a country so proud of its “freedom of speech.” Yeah, right.

If a sixth grade teacher tried to explain to her students (while studying the chapter on Christ) that it is possible that many of the events and characters (such as Jesus Christ) from the Bible are not necessarily proven fact, she would most likely be fired or suspended. However, Bible clubs and regular prayer sessions are allowed on school grounds.

Here are a couple of sad examples:


Make no mistake. Freedom of speech doesn't apply solely to things that you agree with. Freedom of thought doesn't apply solely to good ideas.

"Sincere religious belief is a psychological disorder, and should be treated as such"

"This is not about freedom of speech, it is about those people who are a danger to themselves and/or others because of a psychological disorder."

This is the same type of language that an oppressive regime uses to justify subjugating a people. Can you prove either of these statements such that a theist would have to agree?

Beware that while fighting that which you hate you do not become it.
Again, this is not about freedom of speech. Really.

This excerpt came from the 2001 Encyclopedia of Psychology:

Typical delusional ideas are categorized into delusions of grandeur, in which a person imagines for him or herself some God-given purpose or, in some cases, believe they are in fact historical personalities of great importance. Other types of delusions are delusions of persecution, in which a patient will believe that some person or group is out to harm him. Still another set of delusions involve what are referred to as "command hallucinations," in which a person hears voices telling him or her to commit an act. These delusional thoughts can lead people to acts of self-mutilation or to violent criminal acts.

Many psychological disorders feature aspects of delusional thought. People suffering from depression often experience delusions such as beliefs that they are worthless, sinful, or too unlikable to engage productively in society. Other forms of delusional thinking occur in people with somatoform and dissociative identity disorders. These include body dysmorphic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and multiple personality disorder.

I do not hate religious people, but I do loathe what religion does to them. I definitely do not agree that we should just allow theists to continue practicing their beliefs if they are harmful. This is not about stifling people’s personal freedoms. It’s about stopping them from doing extreme harm on multiple levels.

I do not have a problem with theists who are truly innocuous. The only boyfriend I have had since I divorced my husband nine years ago was an animist, not an atheist. I loved him dearly, but more as a friend than a lover, so it didn’t really work out.

There are many behaviors in society that I disapprove of, but am happy to coexist with. I don’t drink alcohol, but I’m not interested in stopping those that do--as long as they’re not hurting anyone else as a result. I have never smoked pot and totally disagree with people who do, but I really don’t have any desire to stop them if that is what they want to do. I don’t agree with nudism, but I think people should have the right to “let it all hang out” in public or private, if it makes them happy. I also don’t have a problem with polygamy, cows in the streets, or people who chant and/or meditate all night because it makes them feel good.

So why do I think that we should stop people from being religious? And yes, that is really how I feel. No apologies.

For the sake of their religions, people: starve their children, beat their children, molest their children, verbally abuse their children, refuse medical treatment for themselves and their children, terrify their children with religious threats, force their own psychological disorder on their children/family, stifle the natural development of their children’s critical thinking, maim their children and family members, cause irrevocable emotional damage that can even include post-traumatic stress disorder, and even murder their children.

They also use their religions to subjugate women and any other groups of people they feel should be subjugated. Religious doctrine is also used to justify every type of bigotry.


In other countries: children and adults are raped, beaten, publicly whipped, stoned, tortured in every imaginable way, enslaved, murdered (including drowning, poisoning, stabbing, you get the idea), disowned, abandoned, amputated (“eye-for-an-eye” laws), mass murdered, and convinced to kill themselves. All for religion.

This is NOT acceptable. It must stop. How could anyone not agree with that? We non-believers can help end this insanity, but we have to stop pretending that we must allow harmful religious beliefs because…because…because why? I really haven’t heard a decent argument for this one. I’ve heard plenty of religious arguments, but they’re nonsensical.

It has become traditional to look the other way at crimes committed in the name of religion. We must break that tradition.

Think of it this way. What if it was absolutely certain that a child would die without a blood transfusion, but his atheist parents refused the treatment simply because they could? Would you still think it is okay to look the other way?

Religion does not make everything okay. It makes everything so much worse.
I don't understand any of your disapprovals... hmmm, but I quite agree with your stance on religions as dangerous psychoses. Atheists have been too tolerant too long.
The reason why I personally disapprove of alcohol is because my father was an alcoholic and it ruined all of his relationships. I have no desire to touch the stuff, but I don't have a problem with other people doing it as long as they can handle it.

I can't stand marijuana smoke because I have asthma, and I am not interested in mind-altering drugs. I only disapprove of me as a nudist because I've tried it and didn't enjoy it. I'm totally okay with anyone else being a nudist, though.

I actually don't have problem with polygamy or the other things I mentioned at all, I was just trying to demonstrate that I'm open to different lifestyles.
I think sometimes bad people are just bad people, mind altering substances don't change that.

My father was a violent and abusive father, he practically never drank...

My best chemistry teacher in high school was a drunk, a brilliant drunk. Just like the many celebrity artists who's inner life is so intense and turbulent. It's what creates the greatest art.

As for smoke, both my parents are deathly against marijuana, but smoked 3 packs each of nicotine while raising us. I was sick for 17 years because of their 'LEGAL' addiction.

Just saying :)
"Again, this is not about freedom of speech. Really."

I disagree. The ideas that people espouse, however delusional or harmful, to their children, neighbors, and countrymen either by voice or in print is speech. Christianity (Islam, and other religions too, I'm not trying to generalize) is little different than Fascism in that it is an ideology which provides for an authoritarian leadership and promotes extremism. I do not agree with your comparisons to alcoholism, drug use, or nudism. I do agree with your estimations about its effects on society though. I would like to see religion wiped out just as much as you as well.

Where we apparently disagree is how to deal with the religious. I'm not certain what you think the solution is. I believe you mentioned locking them up in mental institutions but it wasn't clear if that was a real proposal. I confess that I don't have any good answers either. I found an interesting article which ponders the question of whether or not freedom of speech should extend to fascists.


Public opinion seems to be mixed on this question. Do we undermine our own values by restricting rights that we enjoy to others whom we disagree with? Are there views which are so toxic and so viral that they must be attacked and destroyed with prejudice and, if so, are Christianity and Islam examples of such? It seems clear that you think the answer is yes.

What I have tried to say above is that eliminating or prohibiting views risks degrading our freedom. For the record, I have no more desire to live under a totalitarian atheist regime than under a theocracy. As for what rights should be extended to extremist ideologues, I am keeping an open mind if you have anything further to say.

This is WAY off topic now and I apologize for dragging this humor discussion into the mud.
But does religion qualify as an "idea", I think not. The point of religion is to NOT think. It's wonderful that you're so tolerant, probably makes you a really nice guy and easy to get along with :)

I really agree that religion is a mental disorder, and religious people running rampant in society are a danger, in the similar way that other mental illnesses can be dangerous to society and warrant sequestration.

In a society where it is illegal to brainwash a child with religion (like we ban child pornography), there would be VERY FEW religious people, so few that society at large would recognise that they ARE deranged.

Of course this mental illness aspect could not be concurrent to the change in education approach. We would FIRST have to make sure that minors are not indoctrinated. Then when that is done, the mental illness aspect would be more relevant.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service