Talk:Golden Age of Freethought

2004
See also Talk:Robert G. Ingersoll

This page was created by someone moving the Sandbox here, thus creating an article with an enormous and irrelevant history. Recreated from scratch to drop all the old history. The author of the current page was User:Writer@Large, not Curps.

It should also be noted that this page has no incoming links. Curps 20:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, that didn't work. This page still has all its old history, no doubt taking up an enormous amount of storage space. The true history of this page is no more than the last few revisions by Writer@Large. Curps 20:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some admin has now truncated the history, thanks. Curps 06:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who erroneously copied the Sandbox here. It was unintentional, and I didn't mean to copy the entire history, etc., over. Hopefully, I've learned my lesson and I won't make the same mistake in the future. :) Writer@Large


 * Don't worry about it - it happens several times per month. The software really should have an option to allow us to "pin" a page so that no-one can move it, but it doesn't (yet).  Some folks make up a sandbox in their own userspace, edit the article there, and then move it to its proper place in the main encyclopedia namespace. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 13:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Origin of term ‘freethought’?
Can anyone date the first use of this term. Ted Porter almost suggests that Karl Pearson invented it – see p.109 of ISBN 0691114455) “Despite frequent appeals and invitations, he (KP) was too strong-willed and idiosyncratic to join anyone else’s movement. Instead he definied his own, which he called “freethought.” TPKP109
 * Johnbibby 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Darwin
Darwin was influential on various skeptical types, and did not personally hold fully orthodox Christian views, but he did not speak out publicly on such subjects, so it's a little difficult to see how he can be grouped together with public advocates such as Ingersoll... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of freethought is antiatheistic, archaic and agnostic
You speak emotionally and dialectically, you don't respect probability theory and mathematics.

You being agnostic you're open (but not certain) to the existence of God.

Most human invented gods, statistically are persons. Especially the god of the main religions.

Probabilistically, even if "god" existed wouldn't be a human or an extremely human (superhuman) bring in it's reflective nature. (superhumans are more than humans and not less, because humans created these mythical beings to satisfy their urges, even in an allegorical manner).

God being human in conduct is one option out of infinite others. One out of infinite makes zero.

Zero I repeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_biology
 * no intelligent person-god is needed, simple rules can do the job

Purpose and the Universe by Sean M. Carroll - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jar-Wzy1gsI
 * do we need a person-god (not personally known, but a pure person with urges)???


 * all possible topological algorithms exist and cause different universe, anything topologically solvable eternally exists, we live in one relative friendly universe (of medium density) due to the anthropic principle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8212:1300:BC24:865B:2101:C910 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Susan Jacoby
''"Author Susan Jacoby backs up these claims in her published work “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism” and “The Age of American Unreason”." '' What claims? Why'backs up'? Notreallydavid (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this sentence is basically the source citation for everything that has come before it. Ashmoo (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)