You mean like religious people?

Atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient for feeling superior.

Many countries would benefit from the banning of evangelicalism. Look at the US, Brassil, and soon Venezuala. They all, and many more, have had their political processes taken over by fascists who are evangelical.

you would not need to ban it, just remove any privileges religion enjoys that secular institutions do not.
Most would collapse in a matter of months, without sociological indoctrination an tax exemption.

Could you take her with you, or is she ensnared by the dark side?

@prometheus

What dark side? Claire, 30, is not going anywhere.

@LiterateHiker the one that she wouldn't want to go with you? But hey, this thought experiment is all about voluntary actions. I get family over freedom from religion.

I fear in such a community, if religion itself is not banned, they would quickly take over. "Saving souls" is one of their main objectives and we would be inundated by these missionaries if they were not banned from the community. A town, could be I think turned into a private property to keep these folks out

@misstuffy In the UK and most European and Scandinavian countries religion is becoming an irrelevance. I believe in freedom of choice to practice a religion or not, and basically that is what I already have, so why would I want to change that for a country that bans things...today that could be religion, but tomorrow it may be something else like opposition political parties, for instance.

@Marionville I wish America was as forward thinking as Europe and especially the Nordic countries are, I myself am of Dutch/German/ Swiss and Scottish heritage. We were certainly founded on the ideal, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Unfortunately, the despots have taken over and are busy taking over not only civilian life, but our government as well. Laws that clearly go against our constitution are being put on the books on a daily basis. You cannot even get elected in this country unless you are saying "God Bless" with every public appearance.

@misstuffy I realise that, and am glad I don’t live in the USA for that reason, and others too...for instance health care. I’m very grateful that we have our NHS. You have my sympathies.

@Marionville Thank you, if any good comes out of this pandemic at all I hope it is the realization we need healthcare for all here. We are unfortunately a very selfish culture and I notice that the most selfish seem to be the more religious folks. They seem to think if you are poor, sick, have health issues of any kind, then you did it to yourself and you are unworthy of good health and a decent living wage. I am still amazed Trump got elected. I call him Dumpster myself and I am a huge fan of the Brits for flying the Baby Trump Balloon, that was sheer brilliance.

The idea of a christian caliphate of the American states... nightmarish

How about waking them up?

They could start with an international agreement to make religious tax exemption illegal and each institution charged for retrogressive evasion at 15% of their current holdings for however many years they have existed.

And hateful .Just look at some of these reply’s and comments.

This is true, but we have common law for that. I'm 100% aware that not being a theist is no prerequisite for being a good player in society. But being free from religion does give the sociopaths and psychopaths one less place to hide and feed on the weak and vulnerable with the usual blind eye turned by government "in the defense of religious freedom".

I think I would still allow people to do or believe whatever they want in private which is by definition not public. If your "private" beliefs affect others, no bueno, they are simply not private any more.

And my definition of religion is belief in a high power without reason. Card tricks and magicians are entertainment. No adult of sufficient IQ believes "magicians" have supernatural powers.

I'm not exactly sure what spiritualism is. Could you define what you think it is?

@prometheus You must not have heard of David Blaine...that stuff is REAL!

@Larry-new

You are right. Agnosticism is the world's greatest source of comedy. Count the imbalance of non religious versus religious comedians

I think you misread what I said. This is all voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to move to such a society.

I would also say that bringing kids to such a society that don't have empirical and legal autonomy to consent to such a move should be disallowed and would be morally wrong. Since coercing children with religion is page 1 of their memetic mind control playbook I think I'd have to give a free pass to children born in such a society until they attain the age of majority.

I guess a problem world come if most of the world, or regions that sometime had free access to move to, became like it. At that point would society as a whole set up religious "zoos" - protected enclaves where the religious a free to roam and practice their exotica lifestyles. Not that many religions don't already do that by self ghettoisation.

To be free of all the bullshit, evil, and poverty that religion often entails and brings down society as a whole.

I don't see America ever fixing the tax thing - not in my lifetime and probably a few more after that - and the church and state thing is supposedly the law but they have coopted government to prevent that from being enforced.

Maybe the way to solve it is everyone becomes a church. Everyone is tax free. And everyone of us influences government like they do - isn't it supposed to be government of, for, and by we the people?
Just dilute the crazy by making it banal. Of course that might make them more crazy - I guess we'd find out.

I think there's a chance that atheists could become block voters - but maybe not a great one since we are about as cohesive as a herd of cats (just look at this comment thread!)

Well that is a very good point. I think it sucks that atheist have to live a life being defined as "not religious". Maybe we could define "rational humanism" and everyone is a-rational a-humanist, or in other words irrationally inhuman.

So you'd prefer to live in a society where nothing is banned?

The same way you willingly participate in the terms of service when you use this website, no one forced you to use it, and you have the option not to. Ditto Facebook, Twitter, Google search. Or almost any business when you walk through their door.

Think of Amish communities as an example. Even smaller scale - condominiums and co-ops.

For intents and purposes you could still practice religion privately without bothering anyone. But if you ever made it an issue for others you'd be asked to leave and find some place else.

@prometheus The things you mentioned are not banned. You said that the religion that they practice is banned, but they can freely practice it so long as they don't bother others. Well, banning means it's against the law to do it. So you cannot "freely practice" something that is against the law.

What in your scenario disallows people who all share the same belief from gathering together so long as they are't proselytising and asking the powers that be to accommodate them?

@redbai well many communities in the US ban public nudity and fornication. But in your own homes anything goes. Personally laws that respect privacy in your own home would be fine by me, but I that wasn't really within the scope of what I was proposing.

I would hope though that someone who was emotionally mature enough to elect to move to such a society wouldn't feel the need to "cheat" at home but instead voluntarily leave. But at least they would be effectively admitting that the merits of freedom from religion make it worthwhile sticking around and practicing their religion in private only.

@prometheus You're moving goal posts. The original post said nothing about being banned "publicly". Regardless, in places where public nudity and fornication are banned, you cannot "willingly participate" in either in public without the chance of running into the law. How does that make your point?

@redbai I was just clarifying that privacy laws would trump others - as they generally do in the US. Smoking pot is still illegal in much of the US, but in all practical terms of you do it privately and don't bother anyone and don't advertise the fact then you're safe.

My point about nudity was that generally societies that ban things ban their public manifestations precisely because privacy trumps other considerations. It probably wasn't the best choice though because it's really only the ultraconservative who'd ever give a damn about private nudity.

I like your thinking and I feel your pain and frustration. If it was to be done I think that's how it should be. In most cases you don't even need to "ban" something - religious people really don't want to be around "godless heathens" or however they categorize us "nones" anyway.

No matter which state of the US you live in, the influence of religion at the Federal level is a huge drag on society IMO.

You mean if we banned Christianity and Islam they'd be more popular?
THERE'S an unsettling thought.