So, it is most about personal opinion and freedom to hold to a personal opinion without some governmental enforcement imposing their opinion?

Interesting from article you linked:

In 1793 he published The Age of Reason in which he promoted reason and Free Thought and advocated the theological position of Deism. Deists were not atheists. They believed in a Creator God, but they followed their own creed based on personal reason. Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine were themselves Deists. In other words, they were considered Freethinkers.

@Word : Not just a government, but a church, tradition... It is allowing one to draw one's own conclusions based in reason.

Because I consider myself a freethinker, it does not mean that I have to entertain nonsense. And, it does not mean that I cannot be firm in my convictions. I simply have to be open to the possibility that I could be wrong; and I will give due consideration to what I consider to be reasonable hypotheses or propositions.

Also, it was not unreasonable for the original freethinkers to have believed in the god of deism; they were pre Darwin and pre modern astrophysics. Their god was the more reasonable god to believe in (and it still is). I would bet that if they lived post Darwin and/or in the modern age of astrophysics, more would have been atheists.

@Joanne the logical evaluation of Darwinism and astrophysics is that you cannot use nature to disprove supernature.

What illogical atheist believe and what a lot of atheit buy into is like this:

Here is a rock, this rock proves supernatural cannot exist. This rock have more power than anything supernatural.

Do you see, or understand what Logic is saying? You cannot use science - the study of nature, to disprove supernature. This is not to say supernatural is proven, it just means science in view of natural phenomenon cannot disprove supernatural.

Yes, there is the apparent discrepancies in what has been written in ancient text and what would appear to be observed in nature.

If supernatural exists and has the supernatural capabilities over and above nature, then supernatural today could place carbon 14 dating in a manner that looks scientifically dated to an older date.

Again, logical evaluation simply says, you cannot DISPROVE supernatural with natural or scientific observations.

@Word: Science does not care whether or not there is a god and it does not seek to prove that one does, or does not, exist It simply wants evidence.

What modern science shows us is that no god/creator being is necessary in order to explain the workings of the universe.

This does not mean that some creator being cannot exist, but that there is NO NEED to insert one? This only adds unnecessary complexity--especially when one gives this being human attributes and people claim that it communicates with humanity through holy books or individuals who claim the authority to speak for this god/being.

@Joanne you say, "... but that there is NO NEED to insert one?"

This seems go on an assumption that the "people" assert "as if" they pretend and do not consider people's claim that "something " actually asserted to them.

@Joanne maybe I could make my observation more clear. "Something" is the causation for some claims by people that are not caused by people "pretending " or just making something up. This causation does not appear to be scientifically understood by what explinations I have heard from scientific sources, especially those that are biased against "something " existing to be a causation.

@Word : No one knows what what "caused" the universe to come into existence. The Big Bang and its after effects is a reasonable explanation based in science. But, what "caused" the Big Bang will likely never be known; this is most likely outside the abilities of science. But, because science cannot provide an answer, it does not mean that there must be a god.

It is reasonable to conclude that energy/latent energy/potential energy has always existed. To add a consciousness, will/volition to this energy is simply not necessary; and, as I state before, adds complexity which requires further explanation.

Occam's Razor basically states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And, the simplest explanation is that energy has always existed. Energy is both creative and destructive. Everything is energy in some form. Sometimes energy becomes matter and sometimes matter becomes self aware and is able to question how it came to be.

@Joanne you sound like you are agreeing with biblical text. Ruach is a force. Some what of an erroneous translation into English as spirit.

So, biblically "Ruach-kinetic energy " became a person. So, we could say the energy of the universe is personified into us? That then, in part, is reason why biblical text says we are gods.

@Joanne and I don't particularly believe in the big bang scientific myth

@Word : The energy of which I speak has no consciousness. No self awareness. No will. No volition.

I agree with Carl Sagan's statement "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."

I don't know what you were taught about the bible; but that we are gods was certainly not what I was taught to believe.

In the Genesis story, this god kicked the Adam and Eve out of the garden after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge because it feared that they would become like the gods if they also ate from the Tree of Life.
They would have eternal life and the knowledge of pro-creation. They would have been making a bunch of other gods.

No god made us in its image. We made the gods in our image.

@Word : The Big Bang isn't a myth (no matter what you may choose to believe). It is a reasonable theory based in science. You are free to try to present your evidence to disprove it. That is the good thing about science--unlike religion, it does not claim to have all the answers, it simply is the best way to try to find them.

@Joanne john 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

If I said, I am "son of human" it means I am a human and a product of human(parents). It is well accepted with in christianity that people refer to themselves as a "child of God". This I understand may not be explained to people but what they are say is that they are a God.

@Joanne Carl Sagan at 2 minutes and 50 seconds clearly stated "the big bang, our modern scientific creation myth "

And, I will have to dig for my references that gives theories that makes the big bang myth void as a theory.

@Word Looks: Well, certain people at that time were believed to be "gods" and "sons of God." That does not mean they were.

And, anyway, the bible could say all throughout it that people are gods-- I don't give it any credence--whatsoever.

The Bible is nothing more than stories and myths mixed with a little bit of actual history--nothing more.

@Joanne to say we are human, is no different than to say we are labeled as to what a God or a homo sapian is. There is a lot that have definition and connotation that "god" is about pasta in the sky with meatballs. This is why people, like yourself, cannot get over the ideal of labeling what we are to be gods.

@Joanne I have explained to another in this way: it's like You, and atheist alike, are of a Greek culture language mind set. Then you are introduced to biblical text, Hebrew/Jewish/,Israeli concepts and language that doesn't exactly match up.

To Greeks, god is about pasta in the sky with meatballs, to biblical text culture, god is about what we are labeled and no different than being labeled human by politics and homo sapian by science.

@Joanne atheist think "son of pasta in the sky with meatballs " this person is claiming to be small spaghetti.

No, as biblical text starts with Adam and Eve, "son of God", [humans] that when they die, their body goes back to the dirt (elements and compounds) that it was made from. Later, in Genesis it clearly says, " the "sons of God" ... were MEN of great renown (popular), [this is like to say modern rock and movie <stars> Gods of the silver screen and entertainment or warriors that won great battles.]

@Joanne look at modern usage in scholarly book of a secular dictionary. It shows people are labeled as the greek word for god, to be deity. They are famous or powerful as bankers.

@Joanne yes, it is true I really do exist. Atheism is illogical.

@Joanne are you ready for more, are you ready to understand why it is written Jesus character call himself "son of man". ?

If you need to get thru your greek culture mindset confusion first, I can waite to further explain.

@Word I don't care why the Jesus character is called the "son of man." I don't care what the bible says--about anything. It means nothing to me. It is not a book of truths. It is a collection of ancient writings--nothing more.

@Joanne I can understand if you have no interest and I am not here to force truth onto you if you do not want it.