Jump to content

Talk:Freethought

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed info:

[edit]
One may be viewed a freethinker by simply not conforming to an area's dominant religion, while still believing in (some form of) god or divinity (neither capitalized, as existence is not assumed).
In that context, in the predominantly Christian nation of the United States, one may be a freethinker simply by being a pagan. Some think all pagan religions cults, and thus pagans are not freethinkers.

because rationality is not different in America than elsewhere. A freethinker should be free to accept the dominant view if that happens to coincide with its own. See also the text I wrote in the article to replace the above. --FvdP 19:58, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I want to know the dictionary defintion too and not just the POV self definition. Here is the Merriam Webster definition
one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma
Andries 21:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • the is not a predominantly "Christian" nation. This is primarily a Deist and Agnostic nation, persuaded by a media and peer pressures of atheism, naturalism, materialism, fascism, relativism, open theism, and political correctness. Freethinking is an illusion. Whether aware of it or not, you are molded, conditioned, and told what to believe. The choice is either go with the flo or just say no. Truth exists. Right and Wrong exist. People like to think that the way they perceive reality is right, even when it may not agree with reality at all. Is freethinking really freethinking?

North Texas Church of Freethought already mentioned in text

[edit]

As of 27 dec 2005, the article began with " Freethought is a religion of the North Texas Church of Freethought."

Article already refers to "1994 ... founding of the Church of Freethought, which now exists as two active congregations of freethinkers: the North Texas Church of Freethought and the Houston Church of Freethought", so I've removed this inappropriate beginning. -- 27 december 2005

Introduction and Overview

[edit]

Please keep the introduction and overview simple and concise, instead of convoluted and redundant (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freethought&diff=356082516&oldid=356010234). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.166.185 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freethought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

misses the mark

[edit]

Sorry; an essay, but attempting to work out why I've yet been unable to reshape this article.

My great-great-grandfather was an avid Freethinker and quite proud of it, a calm and reasonable non-churchly man in the early 20th century, a voracious reader and organizer. We were never proselytized, much less steeped in Freethought (I don't recall learning the term until I was off to college), yet my generation remains much the same. But when I cruise around the Internet, I find that "Freethought" is dominated by "skeptics" (who often show up to angrily defend their own sacred preconceptions) and "libertarians" (who, past an unshakeable and unexaminable faith that the Koch-funded vision of absolute free trade will solve all problems, often seem to have no thoughts at all). As much as I dislike that… repurposing, it ought to be more clearly reflected in the article.

This article appears to date "modern" Freethought from about 1600 CE. This when it'd be silly to apply such a date to (say) "modern China" though that civilization has existed since at least 2100 BCE. I'll come up with a more appropriate section head.

Though I respect the Unitarian-Universalists and have had rewarding interactions with them, it's widely believed in the U.S. that they're just another Christian church, so citing UU as support obscures the eventual deistic core (often "cold") of Freethought.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. 2600:1700:B5A1:6860:90BA:7BE:179A:1AD4 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freethought&oldid=1235143773"