Over here! A Philosophy Forum. No Religion Allowed! :D

Jump to Last Post 1-25 of 25 discussions (91 posts)

58
Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago
lol
reply report
1. 64
  pisean282311posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  @mark there is not true philosophy than bible...come to lord and be saved...u still have time...
  reply report
  60
  f_hruzposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We are talking about RATIONAL philosophy ... not about religious absurdities from some outdated story books only used by the intellectually less developed who have yet to learn how to think in rational terms ...
  reply report
  53
  boyatdelhiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What is the true philosophy....
  reply report
  60
  Sharpedonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There are several schools, quite often conflicting each other. Yet you really have to start with the Ancient Greeks. But even they have different schools. I lam fond of Epicurus, Heracletus and the Big 3. There is no such thing as true philosophy btw.
  reply report
  62
  Greek Oneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  all of us ancient Greeks are Christians now
  
  reply report
  60
  Sharpedonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh come on, "Love me or burn in hell" (said Jesus)? Really? Do you really believe that Jesus would play it like this
  reply report
2. 0
  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, I could kiss you for this!
  reply report
3. 60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Over here! A Philosophy Forum. No Religion Allowed! "
  
  God will get you for that...
  reply report
  60
  f_hruzposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ... some serious religious scare? ahaha
  
  At least spell it out, which of the many gods you think will be the one to find the time for it ... and add a hint of how they may decide on who, when, where and how!
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'd post one of my infamous disaster pics, but I'm trying to get 3 of these on my profile page images:
  
  Headed towards Europe...
  reply report
  60
  Sharpedonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I do not believe in any kind of (personal) god yet my views flirt with pantheism, which is not an organised religion or maybe a religion at all. Epicurus' paradox (about the omniscient - omnipotent - benevolent God) and the rest of similar paradoxes cannot and do not apply to pantheism, since the above three qualities have nothing to do with the pantheistic "god-universe", a "god" that is not even sentient or conscious. So while I am technically not an atheist I still do not count as religious. Right?
  reply report
4. 62
  kingmaxlerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What idea or ideas would you like to philosophize about? Personal ethics? The role of government? Education? Science? The human condition? How to promote the well being of the planet as opposed to the health of homo sapiens? Diversity: social, biological, natural? What matters?
  reply report
  81
  quicksandposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I guess the choice is yours. You get to select the topic and those with similar interest will "respond!"
  reply report
5. 59
  moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  MarK,Paradigmsearch,f_hruz!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!!
  reply report
6. 81
  quicksandposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Inevitably one is going to lead to the other!
  reply report
60
f_hruzposted 11 years ago
Good idea!

Maybe in the process of discussing these questions, we get to see more clearly the dividing line between rationality and absurdity?
reply report
1. 59
  moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 81
  quicksandposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Absurdity requires more space!
  reply report
  60
  f_hruzposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This makes sense. There tends to be more of the less insightful and lower grade, than the clearly defined, more appropriate and useful, giving raise to positive developments and substantive discoveries on a much slower scale than the production of excrement and religious BS ...
  reply report
76
Shadesbreathposted 11 years ago
And yet here we are discussing religion.
reply report
1. 60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  God will get us for that...
  reply report
  59
  moneyfairyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 0
  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Just popped in on the last post and saw this. Was thinking the same thing.
  
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yup - people will insist on bringing religious beliefs into philosophical, scientific, moral, ethical etc discussions.
  
  The only reason I opened this up was because I saw a fair few people asking if it would be possible to discuss philosophy without bringing religion into it.
  
  So - here we are.
  reply report
58
Salty Tannedposted 11 years ago
Different philosophies create discussions that further knowledge and understanding.

Different religions create wars and killings.

Therefore it seems quite civilized to discuss philosophy and barbaric to discuss religion. Unless you believe the end justifies the means.
reply report
77
Mom Katposted 11 years ago
My philosophy is that people fear the unknown and so seek out those who agree with their (sometimes) narrow views and understandings. This gathering offers them security and support, providing the illusion that since there are so many who believe the same thing it must therefor be true; which in turn offers the feeling that as they are "right" they have the right to force this view on others who, thinking differently than they do, are clearly wrong.
Nonetheless, it all started with fear of the unknown... that fear must still exist to some extent or there would not be the urgency and need to force more people to share that belief, thought, or idea... somewhere deep down, they still experience a mistrust for their perceived "truth" as just knowing for themselves is not fulfilling enough for contentment....

Just a thought....
reply report
1. 64
  heatblast92posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  huh, if I remember correctly, scientology does just that, getting people to share a nonsensical belief system, while cutting them off from rational discourse, and gobbling down large sums of money for good measure.
  reply report
  77
  Mom Katposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know much about scientology, just that some pretty crazy famous people follow it. I'd have to study up on it before giving an educated response.
  reply report
2. 71
  Alastar Packerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Or perhaps fear of another kind as well. For speculations sake, what if "Others" of great technological prowess came to this planet in the mist of times past and set themselves up as gods thus fomenting religion. A rational argument could be made for this theory some would say.
  reply report
  77
  Mom Katposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Weren't people hesitant of cars in the beginning? Telling those who first bought the earliest models to "get a horse". The fear of different, new, or unknown doesn't have to be confined by religious views.
  Aliens, technology, and social "norms" can fall under this category as well.
  Thank you Alastar Packer for looking beyond & finding the rationality and logic of the theory/philosophy
  reply report
3. 73
  austinhealyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So very well put !
  reply report
64
heatblast92posted 11 years ago
Do pseudoscientific notions such as feng shui and crystals count in your definition of philosophy?
reply report
1. 77
  Mom Katposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I've never met a pushy feng shui practitioner... lol
  
  But I live a pretty sheltered life, so they could be out there I guess
  reply report
  64
  heatblast92posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  well, they aren't supposed to be pushy, at least not to the extent that they aren't paid to.
  reply report
89
GA Andersonposted 11 years ago
Is there room for logic in a philosophical discussion?

Because logically speaking - I have doubts that there can be any serious philosophical discussions that do not address, or at least recognize religion.

From Socrates to Locke, religion was included in the philosophies.

GA
reply report
1. 60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is logical philosophy. And then there is illogical philosophy. I think Mark just wants to discuss the logical philosophy. And since it is his thread, he gets to define what that is...
  reply report
81
quicksandposted 11 years ago
Thank GOD for this thread!
reply report
81
quicksandposted 11 years ago
At times philosophy makes less sense than religion judging from the actions performed by philosophers of the past!
reply report
55
janderson99posted 11 years ago
Is this where you find Filo and So recipes for Free?
Disappointed!
reply report
62
kingmaxlerposted 11 years ago
How about not bashing religions or people who do not believe in a higher power. We could talk about fear of the unknown and how that effects homo sapiens. Maybe we could banter on the change that technology is having on the governments of the world. There is far too much anger over "the other" and not enough acceptance. Let us put down the daggers of fear and try to move forward into understanding.
reply report
58
Salty Tannedposted 11 years ago
GA "I think therefore I am" is not too religious.

I believe Descartes was not a religious philosopher, quite to the contrary, he was shunned by the pope.

Religions use fear but also disease, poverty and physical handicaps to recruit and keep followers. But thank God I’m an atheist.
reply report
1. 89
  GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Glad you were able to find an opening to declare your "non-believer" status...
  
  But back to Descartes, I can't agree that he was not a religious philosopher. He openly claimed to be Roman Catholic. In Meditations he expressed his thoughts on the nature of religion and existence. etc. etc.
  
  My point was not the pro's or con's of religion in philosophy - just the fact that it is difficult to discuss deep philosophy without the involvement of religious declarations or considerations
  
  Take Mark K. for example - obviously he wants a non-religious discussion because he's bald (Allah already took his hair, Budha took his good looks, God gave him flat feet, and... and... and finally - Zeus stole his thunder)
  
  ps. sorry, Mark, Hope you didn't mind the illustration - but since I'm fat and ugly with a Simian brow - I didn't think you would mind me calling the kettle black...
  
  GA
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why is that? You think philosophy always has to include irrational religious beliefs? Surely it is possible to have a reasonable philosophical discussion without resorting to majik?
  
  And - no I don't mind you taking the piss. Although - I may be bald, but I don't blame it on majik. lol
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I was unclear. I was intending to make a point that philosophical thought, or discussion, almost certainly has to recognize the involvement of religious context.
  
  It does not have to be in the context of right or wrong - true or false. Nor is it required to be recognized as a foundation of thought or action - or not.
  
  My only point was that the very concept of philosophic thought, as an activity, (not a single philosophical tenet or statement) cannot be completely divorced from religious concepts - whatever they may be.
  
  back to Descartes...
  his "I think therefore...." declaration was relative to his understanding that he existed, that at least he was a "thing" - even if he could not be sure his senses were telling the truth when he looked in a mirror a saw that he was a man. (which is a point I think he defends very well) But even that concept was prefaced by his thoughts on the essence and birth of his existence - which he attributed to a religious explanation.
  
  GA
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why can they not be divorced from religious nonsense? In fact - I don't see how any serious philosophical discussion can be had with the introduction of religion.
  
  Descartes had no option but to include irrational religious nonsense because to do so was to ask for death. But - if you read him - it is clear he believes in no such thing. Descartes is one of my favorite philosophers of that era for that reason.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I'm going back to school - to learn to write more clearly.
  
  you just used my point to refute my point. I suppose if I stated that I am neither a proponent or opponent of religion, ( I simply don't know - and I have trouble "taking things on faith"), it might help me be less often misunderstood.
  
  Your explanation that his writing makes it clear he did not believe in the validity of religion simply affirms my point that philosophy necessarily has to address the issue - to be complete.
  
  You are correct to point out that in his time - it was deadly dangerous to be an outspoken non-believer, or even *gasp* a debunker. Many other early philosophers had the same problem. And not just philosophers - even Galileo's astronomy studies/findings/writings had to be verbally camouflaged.
  
  GA
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It may well have been impossible to have a philosophical discussion without religion in Descartes' time. Which is why so much philosophy pf the time was warped.
  
  But - we are no longer hindered in that fashion, and I don't see how it is possible to have a philosophical discussion which includes any religious input. It is - at best - superfluous and need not be addressed.
  reply report
  62
  Greek Oneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  agreed...
  
  now, let' talk about the Old Testament
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What is that?
  reply report
  62
  Greek Oneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  $5 and I will tell you all about it
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You can keep it.
  reply report
  62
  Greek Oneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  you atheists / agnostics / Frenchmen are such cheap asses!
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here's a modern philosophical question for you, with no religion in it:
  
  What DOES exist?
  reply report
  62
  Greek Oneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  according to my bank, my mortgage
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Concepts and objects.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sweet. So, how do you know if a concept or an object exists? I'm especially interested to how you know a concept exists, but objects are almost as problematical.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Objects have physical presence in reality. Concepts exists in your mind only - not in reality.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You just said objects exist if they have a physical presence.
  You said those things exist in reality.
  Reality is a concept.
  You said concepts only exist in your mind.
  So reality only exists in your mind.
  Can something that only exists in your mind be said to exist at all?
  What is "existence" if it has no physicality?
  Furthermore, by this reasoning, objects can only have physicality in your mind.
  But that cannot happen, because "mind" is a concept.
  What we call "mind" exists in an object, the physical object of the brain and body.
  For the mind to exist, the physical object of the brain must exist first.
  So, your assertion seems to be that objects create the reality in which they exist.
  That looks like paradox.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  On the surface - yes.
  
  Reality is both a concept and an object (rather a space filled with objects.) The concept of reality exists only in my (or your) mind. Physical reality is filled with objects and is independent of me. i.e - it is there whether we can conceptualize it or not.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are calling reality space.
  Space is not an object. By definition, it is the absence of object.
  If there is no object, there is nothing.
  So your assertion then is that things that do exist (objects) and things that do not exist (nothing) both exist.
  How can nothing be said to exist?
  
  Additionally, you say that "reality" exists only my (or your) mind.
  Is the reality in my mind the same as the one in yours?
  If so, do we agree on what that reality is?
  If not, then which of our realities is correct?
  Is there a correct reality?
  What happens if neither of our realities is the right one?
  
  You also say that "Physical reality is filled with objects and is independent of me. i.e - it is there whether we can conceptualize it or not."
  Since you said, and I concede, that both something and nothing exist, then you must agree that things you cannot see and/or cannot conceptualize exist.
  I hate to tell you what that means.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No - I am calling reality space filled with objects. This is not "nothing."
  
  Conceptual reality appears to vary from person to person quite drastically, but has no effect on physical reality.
  
  The fact that things I cannot see or conceptualize exist has no bearing on whether or not they exist.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh the joy and rapture that your once vanquished theist adversaries would have if they saw that last bit.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am thinking "quarks," myself.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Aha! Yes, those are easier to conceive .
  
  Well, sort of. I'm actually having fun with the binding forces at work on them as mana in my book. Fun stuff. Speaking of which, I need to get back to work.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. Can't see 'em, can't conceptualize 'em.....
  
  Yes - finish that bloody book - I need you.
  report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You know the sucker's already finished his second one!? He's already onto the third. Puts the rest of us to shame, I say.
  report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  .....'Former' theist adversary comes marching in with joy and rapture!...
  
  And quietly leaves the atheists and devil worshipers to continue their non religious philosophical discussion.
  
  report
  64
  heatblast92posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wasn't Descartes also an advocate of the notion that animals are nothing more than machines and the sounds they make out of supposed pain are actually generated by the grinding of inner cogs and gears?
  
  I suppose the idea, that animals from a mechanistic viewpoint lack a 'soul', also laid the foundation for French's penchant for burning animals centuries back.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not so sure about that. I think they had a rudimentary understanding of animal biology even then.
  reply report
58
Salty Tannedposted 11 years ago
Philosophers who did not include some religion in their writings were not “published” and if they lived in religious countries, and few were not, they risked punishment.

Today all this has changed. Scientists can be free thinkers and most now affirm their independence from religions.

Why would be a logical necessity to include a religion or even religious thoughts when one philosophizes? Of course it is hard to imagine eternity or an eternally changing universe since we are temporary. Hard but not impossible.
reply report
81
quicksandposted 11 years ago
Since religion appears in the header, it would be bad SEO not to discuss it !!!
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It says "No religion." lol
  reply report
  81
  quicksandposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How about discussing GOD? He's got no connection with religion!
  reply report
  85
  DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A diety figure is the ultimate connection to religion, since it is religions that invented the concept!
  reply report
60
f_hruzposted 11 years ago
The question of where the human species belongs within the great variety among the many different forms of life on this planet, can be addressed in clearly RATIONAL terms ... why don't we try to put more focus on this?

The preoccupation of man being seen as superior to other highly evolved forms of life on earth, while having no interest in developing any meaningful communications with dolphins and whales, etc. makes our proclaimed desire for contact with higher forms of intelligence quite absurd ... especially since we let our minds endure a continuous process of nationalistic, commercial and religious mind pollution from all kinds of sources ... and do virtually nothing about it!

Why do we still endure this kind of mind abuse?

It's fairly obvious to me and a growing number globally, it only makes us quite retarded as a life form and a lot less integrated into our NATURAL support system common to all forms of life on earth.

Franto
reply report
1. 81
  quicksandposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, there's no use communicating with dolphins, they know only about amphibionism! Let's abandon stuff like commercialism and reach out to another realm, and go for something higher. Let's aim for the "highest" source, the absolute!
  reply report
  64
  heatblast92posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Now let's not be too hasty to think that dolphins have nothing important to convey to mankind; they, being supposedly the second smartest creatures on the planet, could still be trying to tell us that the Earth may be removed from its place to make way for a hyperspace bypass in the near future.
  reply report
  60
  f_hruzposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's typical of self absorbed humans to think in such short sighted ways of alternative forms of intellect which exists all around us in nature ... it would take a lot more, in my view, for humans to make a convincing claim to having the most intelligence of all the many species on earth.
  
  Our basic economic model is simply insane ... our inability to live in greater harmony within the confines of nature, is one of the most obvious facts of our retardation.
  
  Watch this interview and you will have a much better understanding how close the end of our current global monetary system really is ...
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKprapaB … r_embedded
  
  Franto in Toronto
  reply report
  81
  quicksandposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
85
DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years ago
Ok--since the OP asked for 'no religion,' then IMO, that is a clear "invitation" to those who wish to discuss religion to simply not participate, or leave the thread. It is foolish and counterproductive to try and force a topic off-track by deliberately bringing in the very points that were listed as not desired in the first place. There are always those who won't follow rules, it seems....
If you want to discuss, and insist on including religion, there are plenty of already extant threads for that; go play over there. For my part, I am intrigued by a philosophy-only thread, and I have no particular use for religion of any stripe.

That said, I'm proceeding with the topic at hand, and I even have a hub I posted several months back that tackles some wacky, just-for-fun philosophical speculations. I'm not putting the link as I don't want to be accused of 'self-promotion,' so you may go look it up or not, as you choose. But the title is something like, "how the universe works--talking over coffee late at night."
It's written in a humorous vein, and is intended as satire, but even at that, it is still a form of philosophical supposition and theory.

"I think, therefore I am," is a good starting point...but then...how do we know we are; that we exist? Have you seen the movie, The Matrix? Some scary sh** in there about what is real and how would you know!
reply report
77
Mom Katposted 11 years ago
Ever notice how when your told not to do something or that it isn't allowed ~ THAT is all you want to do or all you seem to think about?
Kinda funny how that works, isn't it?

I would say epic fail on adhering to the one singular rule placed upon this forum via the title.

What a bunch of rule breakers, oh my goodness!

Even the theories, philosophies, and ideas shared that DID adhere to the rule were snatched up by another rule breaker and twisted... what is this forum coming to?

I'm calling a vote - all those in favor of renaming this forum "No talking about Philosophy allowed!" say aye, maybe then the only thing people WILL want to talk about is philosophy

reply report
1. 60
  f_hruzposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Some people are not even able to pick up on a simple hint and express a clear and thoughtful view on where they see REALITY to end and ABSURDITY to begin.
  
  All concepts and ideas are confined within specific parameters.
  
  How do YOU demonstrate your grasp of RATIONALITY?
  
  Franto
  reply report
81
quicksandposted 11 years ago
Some people have a sense of humor, other people don't. Humor is an essential part of life and it enables an easy flow irrespective of when and where it is used. (Of course conditions apply!) However hot the topic is, a little bit of humor sprayed into the playing area has the potential to bring on positive results.

Humor, like most concepts comes in various forms and has to be properly understood in order for judgement to be passed on its quality. Absurdity does not begin with humor, neither does it kill reality. It adds flavor to both. Of course there is a time and place for humor, but when opportunity strikes, with just one option ... what else do you expect "some people" to do?

I did not mean to "interrupt" or "intrude." ... Peace!
reply report
64
heatblast92posted 11 years ago
Agree with a few posters here that it is nigh impossible to hold a discussion on philosophy completely free of religious elements. Religion had been entitled as a widely acknowledged authority, however undeserving anyone would think it may be, on almost every aspect of a believer's existence, excluding rational thinking of course. It is more appropriate to say that we heathen ones demand a better discourse on the meaning of life than what religious scripture should offer (getting through the pearly gates of heaven, fraternizing with 72 virgins in heaven, etc) by building on what the latter lacks (logical reasoning), that we want to dispense with the notion of sin and soul, both of which, even if true, doesn't seem relevant to the betterment of all life on the planet, and convince everyone else to accept the fact that they don't exist (Well, murder is one sin that obstructs any means to this end, though it doesn't seem to stop people from killing each other for their beliefs.)

In other words, yes, I believe that we are all soulless bast**ds who really should think we are better off without one. As our minds evolve, I'm sure we can come up with a few bright ideas that would lead us to the opposite of our utter demise.
reply report
75
Kangaroo_Jaseposted 11 years ago
How the hell can you folk discuss philosophy without coffee?
Incidently who brought some?
reply report
81
quicksandposted 11 years ago
Cheese! ... What? ... No takers for filo?
reply report
60
KenChaseposted 11 years ago
Religion is it's own scripted philosophical belief for those who need to be told what to believe.
reply report
60
f_hruzposted 11 years ago
Let's draw a clear division between RATIONAL philosophies which try to develop a better understanding of REALITY based on what NATURE really is and does outside of all the idealistic philosophies which impose absurd religious ideas created by delusional minds who can't produce a clear form of thought which rejects make-belief gods, angels and miracles for not having any value in providing a better grasp of reality and advancing human rationality.

Franto in Toronto
reply report
81
quicksandposted 11 years ago
There is no reality. The truth is relative!
reply report
81
quicksandposted 11 years ago
You cannot draw clear lines, those separators are always porous.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Over here! A Philosophy Forum. No Religion Allowed! :D

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Over here! A Philosophy Forum. No Religion Allowed! :D

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies