I peruse Massimo Pigliucci's blog every once and a while and after I read a post he made I thought that his views on rationality, philosophical, especially ethics are a bit dogmatic. So, I asked myself what exactly is the difference between a polity run completely by atheists who espouse rationality, philosophy, and view truth and the Good to be of most value and the theists who believes the same but includes the worship of a God. To my own understanding their is not much of a difference. The atheist may say I believe in free speech and expression but seriously they only say that in public, but in private they wish all people were like them.

"but in private they wish all people were like them." - I disagree with that. I'm not gonna say anything about the percentage of good versus bad theist people compared to good versus bad atheist people. But just look at current or past theocraties and the atrocities commited in the name of the rules / world view they hold. I can not imagine the same scale of darkness in a society ruled by the atheist values you listed. I know where I would make my cross.

The problem is many theists that are actually in our government may espouse rationality and truth, but don't practice them. Any belief in a god, especially one that expects worship, and a believer is going to be hard-pressed to keep to rational thought and a desire for truth, which is primary? Will a true believer abandon god when the inevitable conflict arises?

H. L. DEAN SAID: "I peruse Massimo Pigliucci's blog every once and a while and after I read a post he made I thought that his views on rationality, philosophical, especially ethics are a bit dogmatic. So, I asked myself what exactly is the difference between a polity run completely by atheists who espouse rationality, philosophy, and view truth and the Good to be of most value and the theists who believes the same but includes the worship of a God."

LINDA SAID: What is rational about belief in a God that tells you to kill your kids for smart mouthing you, and what is the philosophy in that book that is mostly a book of conquest it's not "love they neighbor" its more like "rape, pillage and burn... in that order. Jesus nor your God ever spoke out against slavery or the mistreatment of women and children, who were mistreated by the neanderthals that believed this crap, also they were neanderthal men who believed that they owned the women and children. Why would anyone want to worship this God, an egotistical ass-hole that requires constant worship. I'm afraid that they simply don't understand that they can't get any real atheists to listen to these kinds of religious musing. Non-believers and believers are a million miles apart and it's not about their manners.

H. L. DEAN SAID: To my own understanding their is not much of a difference. The atheist may say I believe in free speech and expression but seriously they only say that in public, but in private they wish all people were like them.

LINDA SAID: Really! I've never seen atheists swarming Christian message boards like the Christians do, and I've never known of an atheists to pretend that they were theists to get their message on a Christian message board. It looks like it's the other way around. Atheism requires the use of critical thinking to find the real answers and investigate religious claims. Religious belief is on faith alone and does not require rationality what-so-ever.

An "atheocracy" does not tell you anything about what particular hang-ups, dogmas, political ideologies et al are going to be applied. Theocracy, at least, gives you an idea that it is going to be chiefly based on a non-negotiable 'mythos' about human nature and how to best curve it or channel it. As it is, neither tells us very much about the kind of society you'd be having, but I'd prefer one without an ironclad'ish, unquestionable ideology (regardless if it is based on a theistic mythos or just a "political mythos"=marxism, maoism etc).