Be Prepared.

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (129 posts)

55
EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years ago
Yes, be prepared. Discussion forums are for discussions and not teaching others about things they don't understand. The idea is to prepare yourself about the subject matter before contributing to a thread. Of course, if someone actually does wish to take the time to educate someone else about a topic, that is fine, but it is certainly not expected.

With religion, it is a simple matter of reading the scriptures, usually one book covers it all. The Bible covers Christianity, the Quran covers Islam and so forth. So, it is a simple matter for any of us to read these books to educate and prepare ourselves for those discussions.

One of the biggest problems here is most believers are ill prepared for some of the discussions here because they have never taken the time to learn about them. Evolution and cosmology are two of subjects most believers have never understood. All the manage to do is wave their bibles around frantically as if it is supposed to refute the subjects of evolution and cosmology. They don't.

I have recently been asked to provide the "evidence for evolution" from a believer who claims to understand evolution. They went on to claim evolution was a belief system. It is so very obvious that person does not understand it at all.

In order to refute these topics, one has to understand them and then address the actual postulates or evidence contained within them. Stating that Genesis, for example declares we were created in our current forms does not refute evolution or abiogenesis.

Of course, you can't fool anyone who does understand the subject matter into believing you understand them. It is so very obvious if you don't. By saying you do understand them when it's clear you don't only shows dishonesty, and no one is ever going to take you seriously.

So please, stop denying and rejecting the facts about our world when you don't even understand them. Take the time to do so and then come back with your refutations, if you have any.

You can't contribute to a thread if you have no idea what everyone is talking about.
reply report
1. 0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  
  It's even funnier because you couldn't fathom why you honestly couldn't understand why I'm laughing.
  
  Yes, if one sets out to argue against something they should be knowledgeable about the subject matter. However, that goes across the board. I can't count the times you've chimed in on spiritual issues when you don't appear to grasp the concept. Much less take it any more seriously than some believers can grasp, or take seriously, discussions on evolution.
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Is it because you are so very often not prepared for the discussions here?
  
  Yes, I have asked many questions about "spiritual issues" because there is no evidence of "spiritual issues" even though so many believers here talk about it. Of course, when you ask them, they usually refer to emotions.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I just read your exchange with Jerami in another thread. That's the point. You not only have no idea what you are talking about, you don't understand the subject matter well enough for anyone to explain to you why you don't. And, that's OK. I promise i won't start a thread specifically to lament that fact, or to suggest you refrain from posting until you have a clue.
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You and I both know that's not true, but I can see why you would fabricate falsehoods, it's your forte.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, it is obvious you don't know what i think, so maybe you are the one who has the need to fabricate falsehoods.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Emile, don't be absurd!
  
  It's obvious that someone who believes in God has no understanding of science, let alone has ever opened a book in their entire life.
  
  And therefore, fabricate falsehoods, believe in unicorns, and have illogical fallacies.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I can't believe all the believers around here, frantically fabricating falsehoods!
  
  The nerve,
  reply report
2. 83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Which Bible are you talking about? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Church of the East? There are different biblical cannons depending on denomination. The shared parts are then subject to different interpretations based on denomination. So exactly which Bible, and which interpretation of that Bible is it that "covers Christianity"? Likewise different denominations of Islam have different interpretations of the Quran. Which interpretation "covers Islam"?
  
  One of the biggest problems I've seen here is that many "non believers" are ill prepared for discussions because they have never taken the time to learn about religion. This leads to the belief that Christians, for example, are a homogeneous lump that all believe exactly the same things. It also leads some to suggest that reading the Bible is the same as understanding Christianity. It isn't.
  
  I agree completely.
  
  Edit: actually I think someone can contribute, as long as they don't confuse the limitations in their own understanding of a subject, with being correct.
  reply report
65
aka-djposted 10 years ago
I don't agree that all (or even most) believers know nothing about evolution theory.

Nor is it true that they don't understand what is being accepted as commonly taught on the subject.

Nor is it even a case of trying to "convert" believers in evolution to creationism.

The issue, as I see it, is that evolutionists outright REFUSE to hear "us". We have legitimate doubts, based on evidence, that are never honestly addressed.

We are constantly being thrown cliches like, you just don't understand evolution, or you need to educate yourself, etc.

Just how much education does one need to get, before they are taken seriously?

Do you expect everyone who "educates" themselves to only have attained enough, to be taken seriously, when they see things as you do?
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your doubts are heard, and nearly always addressed. You don't like the answers, but that is because you don't want to think it is all true.
  
  Address your own doubts, create your own theory. One with evidence, with peer reviewed research/testing. You will be heard.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The doubts I have, I don't have alone.
  Many a great scientists have moved away from evolution, based on the same evidence.
  
  They are clearly not heard. Why am I required to come up with my own.
  
  Common sense, logic and reason alone are enough to question the accepted evolutionary positions.
  
  Of course, these are ditched by the very ones who use it against doubters.
  
  I could cite a number of illogical, unreasonable evolutionary views that are all dismissed by evolutionists.
  
  Proving, you don't listen to real world objections.
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but we know that's not true.
  
  By all means, there are plenty of evolution threads here, lets hear your views, that is, if they do indeed address evolution.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How many non-believers, that do not believe in a god, do you think also do not believe in evolution? Or is it cheating to ask that question?
  
  Common sense, "knowledge" passed down through generations, has nothing to say about evolution except maybe that we can see it now it was probably around back when. About the same for logic; if we see it now it has probably been around for a while.
  
  Evolution is a possibility, with a great deal of evidence. If you don't like it, supply proof that specif parts, or the whole, is impossible. Not unlikely, impossible. And/or supply a new theory with evidence, because evolution is absolutely possible and right now there is no other theory (with evidence) at all to take it's place.
  
  Second time asking for that new theory with evidence - what happened to it?
  reply report
2. 55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  
  Those who deny or reject evolution without addressing it are usually the ones who don't understand it.
  
  Waving a bible around screeching out verse from Genesis are not doubts about evolution. Stating that we evolved from apes, so why are there still apes is also not addressing evolution.
  
  That is because those who understand evolution can plainly see those who don't.
  
  No one is asking you to get any education if you don't want any, but if you come to a discussion forum to reject or deny evolution, there is an expectation you would need to understand it so you can address the postulates and evidence. This goes for any topic, not just evolution.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for reinforcing/proving my point!
  
  You have shown just how "open minded a free thinking, logical reasonable" person you are.
  reply report
3. 94
  Phyllis Doyleposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The reason the OP started this thread is because when I asked him to answer some questions about evolution (in another thread) he refused to do so. I believe he could not answer my questions because he did not know the answers. He instead kept accusing me of being "uneducated" and "not prepared" to join in a discussion. I believe in Creation. I have studied evolution and it only confirmed and strengthened my belief.
  
  I do believe that there is evolution within species. This is called
  'speciation'. The OP could not reply to that, he had no answers to any question I asked -- therefore, out of frustration, I believe, for his own lack of knowledge in what he professes to believe in, he created this thread.
  
  I do not mind discussing Creation and Evolution, however, I prefer to discuss with someone who has an open mind and knowledge of what he/she believes in rather than just criticizing what I believe in.
  
  Criticism and avoidance of questions is not an intelligent discussion.
  reply report
  94
  Phyllis Doyleposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  This hub on evolution is one that I can totally agree with:
  
  http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com/hub … -Evolution
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you serious? That is one of the most ill-informed an uneducated hubs on evolution I've read here. All it does is rant about atheism, the war on religion and teaching evolution in schools. It also makes completely false statements about evolution being refuted, which is not true at all.
  
  Here's the gist of the hub:
  
  "It was Darwinism that declared war on God; not the other way around."
  
  Hilarious.
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you actually want to learn something, start here:
  
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That is entirely false. What you asked would require a great deal of work on my part, the work that YOU should be doing yourself. I am not here to educate you in evolution, which is what your questions would have required. It would be like me asking you to explain the Old and New Testament. Try keeping it honest.
  
  And yet, your claim to have studied evolution does not resonate with your posts at all, quite the contrary. Try keeping it honest.
  
  Sorry, but that is entirely false, yet again. Your questions required a tremendous amount of work on my part, which is work you should be doing yourself. This is a discussion forum in which you should be prepared. I have never asked anyone to explain any concepts that I can't find our for myself. Try keeping it honest.
  
  Then, you wouldn't be asking questions in which entire books and essays are required to answer them. Try keeping it honest.
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 10 years ago
Evolution within any giver species ... Sure; why would it not be so? BUT Life springing up out of non life never happen. Something evolving from nothing ?
I've read about one scientist claims to have done it. But a sterile "Vacuum" was not substantiated. I've not heard of any experiments of this nature being replicated successfully. If there have been I would like to read about it that I might change my mind about it.

Can a thought exist without a seed for thought?
reply report
1. 59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How would you suggest God created life? Is your answer any more plausible than life evolving from inorganic, sterile matter?
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I've never claimed knowing how. All I've been saying is science can reverse engineer "how it happened" only so far until even they are stumped.
  It is traced back to a magical act.
  To tell you the truth, ... I'm not convinced I am real. I may be a figment of your/my imagination.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I see what you're saying, and I sort of agree with it.
  
  I don't think that God poofed the Earth into being, and then took some dirt and poofed man into being.
  
  I also don't believe that we accidentally came into being through random chance. I don't believe in random chance.
  
  I don't think that there was an accidental chemical reaction that took place a few billion years ago, by a chance lighting strike in a pool of mud with just the right combo if ingredients.
  
  I think that it was a CONTRIVED chemical reaction of some sort that sparked life into being. I think the Universe was carefully arranged to specifically come up with life, and that evolution is a process that took 13 billion years to get to this point.
  
  Yes, I also agree there was some type of "magical" thing that sparked the whole thing into motion, in the sense that whatever it was, it is so strange and indescribable that we as humans can't explain it.
  
  I am "egotistical" that I even think God had us in mind when creating the universe. Not because I have a big ego, but because I see evidence for it all around me.
  
  I don't think we are the end product of evolution though, but the end product will be our human selves evolving towards a spiritual being. Maybe one that will be able to understand God and why we are here.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  13+billion years, billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and planets all for us. Look how special we are. Please!
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Also, don't feel alone.
  
  I often wonder as well whether or not I am real, or anything else is real.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for replying and I apologize for taking so long in replying. Not going to go into details just going to say, i can only spend so many hours upright and have to spend that time wisely in this game of life.
  I agree 99% with most everything you described.
  OK, maybe all of it. I believe with everything I got to believe with (???) that this physical reality and everything about it is a product of a higher plane of existence. I think the essence of who I am (DEEEEEP) down inside is having the experience, while my concious self is just coming along for the ride. Is anyone's imagination great enough to imagine more than a very small portion of the possibilities before us. Well I been rambling long enough.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You must not be rambling, because I know exactly what you mean.
  
  And I think it's the most important thing in the world to figure out.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wish I had had an inkling of it 0h about 50 years ago instead of thinking about the things I was thinking about.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder what the world would be like if everyone thought that way from childhood, instead of the way children do.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  (Warning … getting up on my soap box: We can allow children to be as they really/ naturally are. The first six years is when the psyche is forming. We must allow the psyche to grow according to the child's own Inner Life. We need to stop bombarding them, be quieter, kinder and more helpful.
  They follow us. Let them follow goodness.
  Let them follow boundaries.
  Let them follow wisdom and intelligence.
  And they will absorb all that is in their environment. When we get on the same page and create a worthwhile environment, children will not only surprise us, they will teach us.
  What is the awareness of a child?
  We need to observe.
  We need to observe carefully...
  and stop bombarding them with our preconceptions.)
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  i know exactly what ya mean. will just leave it that.
  
  i know exactly what ya mean. will just leave it that.
  
  edit. it's in the AM and I'm getting sleepy so better go while it lasts.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Me too.
  
  I think maybe we have to go through the nonsense first, before we can wake up and start wondering what's really going on. It's like we are children, just hitting puberty.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It's like when kids start to question whether Santa exists.
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Try to prepare yourself for the discussion. Scientists are not stumped such that they just give up.
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago
A lot of implausible things turn out to be true.
reply report
1. 0
  Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Can I quote you on that?
  reply report
78
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
Be prepared for the unprepared.
OK?
reply report
59
Jeramiposted 10 years ago
It just seems to me that if the bible describes anything accurately ... and half of what we have been discussing is relevant..... then we are not supposed to understand the whole story until close to the end of this journey through time.
Then the most important thing to do would be to get along with everybody, enjoy the ride and spread love and happiness and not strife. If reincarnation true ??? When we come back ? We gotta deal with all them seeds we planted in our past life. I'm talking about society as a whole.

Somebody been planting a whole lote of bad seeds for a very long time.
reply report
1. 59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think one of the main goals is to learn that we can't be horrible to each other. To make the conscious decision to be good not for the sake of ourselves, or out of fear of retribution, but because it's the right thing to do.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are right, BUT at the same time ... when we are being selfless gotta watch out not to be surrounded with selfish folks. I try to do what is right even when it is hard to do, I keep telling myself things are going to work out for the best whether I like it or not. Hope I'm right?
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I know. Sounds good, but putting it into practice is a whole different story.
  
  I actually don't even know where to begin with it. I know it theoretically, but I am hardly close to being "good". I am rude and judgmental. I could fill a book with my flaws. I try to consciously observe my behavior, and alter it when I catch myself being insensitive to other people.
  
  I guess the only way to really guage improvement is when my actions match my thoughts. When I can actually "think" more nicely about other people, instead of just behaving that way.
  reply report
2. 55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And, since the bible doesn't describe anything accurately, it is rather worthless. That is why we now have science, to understand things.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Science and religion are one. So, I agree. Bring the facts on board. They will back up belief.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't understand anything I said (that you replied to) Amazing!
  You might say I was speaking in a parable which you were unable to understand. No I wasn't. You just didn't understand what you were reading. Amazing!
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Science and religion can be one. Jesus knew science… More than present day Christians know.
  IMO
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I am sure that he did.
  I wish there was more of Jesus's teachings written. I suppose there is a very good reason that not even 1% of his teachings were included in the bible.
  Gotta go get some glasses // broke mine, latter
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well they are there. They are there. 100 percent. Did the people of the time understand electricity? energy? He had to speak in parables. "If thine eye be single thy whole body will be full of light." "Light" is a non-sicientifiic word for energy. "Eye" is a non scientific word for the area of the brain where the 6th sense of intuition is located.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Light" is a non-scientific word for what the human eye can detect, not energy.
  
  "Eye" is also both a scientific and non-scientific word for the organ used to receive light and transmit the image to the brain. As there "IS no 6th sense of intuition" and no area that could possibly be identified as one, the word "eye" has nothing to do with it.
  
  You're really grasping here, Kathryn. You simply can't invent new meanings for words from 2,000 years ago and decide that's what they meant. Particularly as Jesus used neither word, but another one in another language.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are denying the obvious truth of the matter. Have it your way.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  From that you deduced Jesus understood more about the universe than our brightest minds today.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What are you two talking about? Do you have some evidence that he had any knowledge of science? Did he explain relativity or something? How do you know the bible omitted 99% of his teachings?
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The dead sea scrolls contain much that was left out of the bible.
  In them it was revealed that Jesus even referred to God as mother. As you know, Constantine threw out many other books of the bible. Probably ones that focused more heavily on reincarnation. But even in what remains as the New Testament, there are references to previous lives: ( Refer to excerpts concerning Elias and Elijah.)
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Keep in mind that they are all stories of his life written years after he was supposedly dead. One or two of the omitted scriptures states he was married. But that "Probably ones that focused more heavily on reincarnation" really is funny because I think the omitted ones were (probably) the ones where he said Mohammad will be burning in a few hundred years and will give all the right answers.
  
  Probably?
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Based on what was LEFT in the NT. so yeah, probably.
  What is your probably based on, besides nothing?
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The same that your probably was based on. Nothing but wishful thinking.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Matthew 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
  Matthew 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
  Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
  Matthew 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I get it know, you think that because the bible says that God reuses prophets we all get reused. Wishful thinking.
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn L Hill
  Science and religion can be one. Jesus knew science… More than present day Christians know.
  
  That is not saying much, 90% of professional science -ist are Atheist or agnostic
  
  Many Christian have told me Adam was the most intelligent man in human history , that would be de-evolution
  on. From my studies it's reverse, the average person today, is wiser than Moses was.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "That is not saying much, 90% of professional science -ist are Atheist or agnostic." Castlepaloma
  
  Stats please.
  
  Newton believed in Astrology. Einstein was searching for an equation for God. Many scientists believe in God. Don't have the stats either. Yikes we are not prepared. Ulp.
  Dunce hats for both of us.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Where do you get this stuff.
  
  Newtons was wrong about gravity and Einstein was right about gravity, the reason he was right is because is mind wasn't looking for a God done it answer.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  He believed in God.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but he did not view the universe through a lens distorted by that belief.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, he viewed it through an alchemical lens, since that was his main interest, not science.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It is also difficult to know the extent of his faith as at that time in order to be a professor and make money from his science, he had to be a member of the clergy. So clearly he was required to claim the Christian faith for that reason. I suspect he was Christian but of a very unorthodox sort.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think so too. I know he practiced alchemy, spiritual and physical, behind the back of the church.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What in the world is spiritual alchemy? I understand turning lead into gold (transmutation of one chemical into another) but turning one spirit into another?
  report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure you have heard of it before, wilderness, you seem to be a well read man:)
  
  Spiritual alchemy is the process of attempting to either to become one with God, as in Yoga (union, or yoking) by opening your chakras, until you have reached the seventh. Some say it is not a union with God, but just uniting your intuition and reasoning into a whole.
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You may be confused, there are musicians called "Prodigy And Alchemist" who made an album called, "Albert Einstein"
  
  http://www.xxlmag.com/rap-music/reviews … um-review/
  report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Firstly, I was talking about Newton.
  
  Secondly, it's common knowledge that Newton was an alchemist.
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Terribly sorry about that, a thousand apologies.
  
  Here's something about Newton and alchemy:
  
  "After purchasing and studying Newton's alchemical works in 1942, economist John Maynard Keynes, for example, opined that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians". In the Early Modern Period of Newton's lifetime, the educated embraced a world view different from that of later centuries. Distinctions between science, superstition, and pseudoscience were still being formulated, and a devoutly Christian Biblical perspective permeated Western culture."
  report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yep.
  
  I'm not sure what you're trying to get at though.
  
  That he wasn't into science for the sake of science?
  
  If that's what you're getting at, then I would have to agree.
  
  But I still don't see the point you are ultimately trying to make.
  report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's up for debate isn't it. But he was certainly not looking for an equation for God.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Einstein believed in a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas," devoid of a personal God who rewards and punishes individuals based on their behavior. A book he wrote "rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.[38] He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery."
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I would fake being a christian Nazi if it meant saving my skin.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Drawing on newly discovered letters of Einstein--many translated here for the first time--years of research, and interviews with prominent mathematicians, cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers, Aczel takes us on a fascinating journey into "the strange geometry of space-time," and into the mind of a genius. Here the unthinkable becomes real: an infinite, ever-expanding, ever-accelerating universe whose only absolute is the speed of light.
  
  Awesome in scope, thrilling in detail, God's Equation is storytelling at its finest."
  I stand corrected.
  I guess I misunderstood from hearing the title of this book which was written by Amir D. Aczel.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And all just for us. Imagine the arrogance it would take to think the entire universe is just for us?
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  God made everything in the universe, including us, for Himself. God is very self-oriented in the final analysis.
  (PS Most children after they have created an art work or something with their hands, have the instinct to keep it for themselves.)
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So it not that we are incredibly arrogant it's that God is incredibly selfish.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who does not love his own child?
  report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, It's because we love our children that we raise them to be independent contributing members of society.
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
  
  In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
  
  Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
  
  "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
  
  http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008 … e.religion
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you suggesting Newton wasn't smart because he was wrong?
  
  Of course he was smart. He was a genius.
  
  You don't have to be absolutely correct to be a genius.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Newton was arguably the smartest person to have ever lived, but he was wrong about gravity and was wrong in stating that no math would explain the solar system because it was done by God. Once he decided God did it he stopped thinking. Einstein looked for natural causes and found them.
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Newton was not wrong about gravity. The theory of gravity is an extremely accurate mathematical model for specific physical conditions. Namely, non relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields. Relativity just expanded the range of physical conditions over which the theory applied. Even relativity (general) is not applicable to all physical conditions, e.g. within a singularity. That does not mean Einstein was wrong. It is fully expected that both theories of relativity will be expanded upon in future, just as the theory of gravity was. That incremental accumulation of knowledge is how science works!
  
  Have you not just displayed the type of ignorance the OP is criticizing? I notice none of the non-religious contingent corrected you. How is this not an example of hypocrisy and double standards?
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, he was wrong about gravity, he thought gravity was instantaneous and a pulling motion, which is termed, "action at a distance". Einstein came along and corrected Newton.
  
  Yet, the concept of a singularity came directly from derivatives of General Relativity.
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  To suggest Newton was wrong is disingenuous. To this day most non-relativistic calculations relating to gravitation are made using the theory of gravity, the calculations of which are still perfectly valid. Such calculations landed astronauts on the moon. Yes, the theory of gravity assumes instantaneous force, but Newton could not fathom how or why this would be the case, which he admitted himself:
  
  "That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers"
  
  Einstein's work described that "agent" as space-time. General relativity superseded the Newtonian model, expanding it so descriptions of light and mass were consistent with all available observations. It did not refute the theory of gravity.
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And yet, it is a fact.
  
  And yet, they are not accurate calculations because Newton was wrong. Einstein came along and corrected them as he did the explanation.
  
  Hence, he was wrong.
  
  And yet, that's exactly what you just said:
  
  "General relativity superseded the Newtonian model"
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Something isn't a fact because you declare it to be. You wouldn't accept that response from someone with religious beliefs. Is there a reason anyone should accept it from you?
  
  His calculations are accurate. That's easily provable by going through the maths, which I'm happy to do. You are free to disagree regardless, but without reliable evidence, I'd be inclined to believe you don't know what you're talking about.
  
  Not understanding how something works does not equate to being wrong about it. That's a non sequitur.
  
  Supersede means to take the place of something, not to refute it. To suggest that superseding the Newtonian model means Newton was therefore wrong, is another non sequitur.
  
  So you claim something to be fact without demonstrating it with evidence. Then use invalid reasoning to support your view. If someone with religious beliefs did this, you would be the first to criticize. Do you think it would be sensible to apply the standard you want to see in others to yourself? Preferably before making ridiculous generalizations about "most believers" as in the opening post.
  reply report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Newton's Theory of Gravitation requires that the gravitational force be transmitted instantaneously. Given the classical assumptions of the nature of space and time before the development of General Relativity, a significant propagation delay in gravity leads to unstable planetary and stellar orbits.
  
  While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations implied. "
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s … ravitation
  
  "Newton's Theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury, which was detected long after the life of Newton"
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s … ravitation
  report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are displaying a lack of knowledge on the subject. Newton asserted that his calculations explained the widest range of observed phenomena, which they did as proven through experiment. He was not comfortable asserting action at a distance because he couldn't understand the notion as you have shown. He also explicitly stated it was "an absurdity" and left it to his "readers" to decide the nature of the agent that causes gravity.
  
  The fact his calculations implied something he could not understand, does not make Newton wrong, and admitting a lack of understanding does not constitute being wrong. It constitutes good science. Newton explains this much better himself:
  
  "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you stand alone and others are telling you the same thing that I am telling you. Oh well.
  report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Consensus by mass appeal?
  
  The majority is always right?
  report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you suggesting because someone else agrees with you, you are therefore right? Because nothing you have said makes me think you would make an argument so obviously flawed in its reasoning. If so then I have to conclude it's either a joke, a mistake, or you are saying it for some reason I'm not aware of.
  
  If you are serious, then wow! It's the equivalent of saying: the majority of the world's population are theists. Therefore non-theists are wrong. See any problems there? If not, then I don't think you're in a position to make pronouncements about the level of understanding of "most believers", and expect to be taken seriously.
  
  Also, I strongly suspect if a theist made the same argument, they would have been challenged on the validity of their reasoning by now. I note no other non-theist has challenged you on yours. Hopefully that's just coincidence. If not, then it's intellectually dishonest in my opinion.
  report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't he the OP?
  
  Looks like he didn't even heed his own advice.
  
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The point is that I made some statements and backed them up with sources that agreed with me, and then others came along and said that too. You are the one disagreeing with those points. You said Newton was right about gravity, yet the facts say otherwise.
  
  I was not attempting to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy, but instead to show that you are the only one disagreeing with the facts.
  report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, you think you made some statements and presented some facts that agreed with you. What you actually did was make a statement, then erroneously concluded that the facts you presented agree with you. They don't. The root of that error is an evident lack of knowledge of the subject. And the fact someone else shares the same ignorance does not strengthen your argument in any way.
  
  If you had more than a cursory knowledge of the subject you would know Newton famously rejects action at a distance in his “Letter to Bentley”. He wrote:
  
  "Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without ye mediation of something else wch is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact."
  
  I suggest you read the book, Isaac Newton's Scientific Method: Turning Data into Evidence about Gravity and Cosmology. There are other references on this subject you might also find useful. I'd be happy to share them with you.
  
  So what have we learnt? We've learnt that even non theists can be "ill-prepared" for a discussion because of a lack of knowledge. And we've learnt there is a difference between facts, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them.
  
  P.S.
  
  Your comment was not an appeal to authority, it was an appeal to popularity. It might be useful to learn the difference between logical fallacies if you intend to comment on them in discussion. Please remind me, what's the title of this thread again . . ?
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It is something you need to do. Scroll to the top so you can see what it is.
  report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  One of us is criticizing swathes of people for arguing from ignorance, while doing exactly the same thing (clue: it isn't me). Take your own advice.
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever it is you're doing, it must have some reading comprehension issue attached, because the sources I provided agreed with what I said, sorry that you disagree with that, but it just shows how ill prepared you are.
  report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Denial when presented with evidence contrary to your own opinion, unwillingness to address or even acknowledge such evidence, stereotyping, cherry-picking evidence. Seen that pattern anywhere before? It's an example of cognitive bias. By displaying it yourself, you are helping me demonstrate it is not restricted to theists, despite what you and some others would have people believe. Non theists are no different to theists in terms of human nature, regardless of how much you seem to wish that were not so.
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I just did from you, after I presented my sources that agreed with me. I don't see why you're still arguing about this. I will re-post it since you obviously missed it.
  
  "Newton's Theory of Gravitation requires that the gravitational force be transmitted instantaneously. Given the classical assumptions of the nature of space and time before the development of General Relativity, a significant propagation delay in gravity leads to unstable planetary and stellar orbits.
  
  While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations implied. "
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s … ravitation
  
  "Newton's Theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury, which was detected long after the life of Newton"
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s … ravitation
  report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The thing about discussion is that you actually have to read and digest what the other person says for there to be a meaningful exchange. Like the part where I acknowledged the references you cited; explained that your conclusion is a misinterpretation based on a lack of deeper knowledge; then cited some references of my own which support that view. You have completely ignored that whole part of the discussion as if it didn't happen.
  
  You are displaying the same cognitive blind-spot that some people display when you are trying to explain evolution. Sometimes people believe they know all about evolution because they have read some facts about it on Wikipedia; but if they lack a deeper knowledge of the subject, they may draw false conclusions from those facts. They simply cannot accept that from you though. They have their facts, and their conclusion. They can't see any fault with that conclusion, therefore they feel they must be correct. Likewise you have your facts about Newton, you see no fault with your conclusion, therefore you feel you must be correct. That's entirely natural behavior.
  
  My point, in case you still haven't understood it, is that you (like everyone else) display cognitive bias. Such deviation in judgement is caused by many things, but it is essentially an aspect of human nature. It is in no way unique to people with religious belief as your opening post falsely implies. The discussion about Newton is simply a practical demonstration of that fact.
  report
  55
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That is entirely false and you know it.
  
  And, you are just trolling this thread.
  report
  83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It's in black and white on page 6. I acknowledged you had presented some facts, but then explained that you mistakenly believe those facts agree with you because of a lack of knowledge.
  
  "No, you think you made some statements and presented some facts that agreed with you. What you actually did was make a statement, then erroneously concluded that the facts you presented agree with you. They don't. The root of that error is an evident lack of knowledge of the subject."
  
  I then explained what that lack of knowledge was, by giving you evidence (including source) that Newton did not advocate action from a distance:
  
  "If you had more than a cursory knowledge of the subject you would know Newton famously rejects action at a distance in his “Letter to Bentley”. He wrote: "Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without ye mediation of something else wch is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact."
  
  That's a quote from Newton that directly contradicts your conclusion that Newton advocated action from a distance (he was actually agnostic to the many ideas about how gravity actually worked, and simply asserted that his calculations explained the widest range of observed phenomena, which they did). You completely ignored this evidence and its source.
  
  Here's the part where I gave you another source, and offered more:
  
  I suggest you read the book, Isaac Newton's Scientific Method: Turning Data into Evidence about Gravity and Cosmology. There are other references on this subject you might also find useful. I'd be happy to share them with you.
  
  You ignored this also.
  
  When someone is faced with an argument that opposes the conclusion they have drawn, they may switch their attention to the source of the argument, i.e. the person making it. It's called an ad hominem attack, as I'm sure you know. The idea is that if they discredit the person, they also discredit the argument. It's just another way people try to maintain cognitive consistency when faced with contrary opinions. It's entirely natural, but again can be unhelpful. It's also a logical fallacy. You have given another practical example of this type of behaviour, which further demonstrates that cognitive bias is not unique to those with religious belief.
  report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The thing is Newton was wrong. He thought all objects are attracted to each other, the large ones like planets and suns are more attracted to each other. That's not how gravity works and that's not how gravity is taught. His equations were valid, but not accurate.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wiser? I doubt it. We know more about some things, less in others.
  reply report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You don't have to doubt it. Research it. Humans are becoming smarter and better looking.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, we are becoming smarter. But you said wiser, and that's an entirely different thing.
  
  You don't have to be smart to be wise. Or vice versa.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not certain why the myth that 90% of scientists are atheist or agnostic persists. Wishful thinking, or blatant refusal to review facts?
  
  As to Moses. Seriously, how would we know how intelligent any semi historical figure might have been?
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of biologists declared that they were either atheist or agnostic, much higher than all scientists in general!
  There. Other surveys are lower numbers, still most nonbelievers are scientists
  
  Show me one survey today, updated, shows most scientists are Christian, I need a LO
  
  Your right, ancient Moses would be difficult to record his intelligent along with mystical magical Merlin.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say they were Christian. Not sure why you brought that up. But, unless you can prove your claim I have no need to prove anything. From what I've read, it really depends on the field; as to the percentage of scientists within that field who are atheistic. Unless, you are going to do the Christian thing and claim that any scientist who isn't an atheist isn't a real scientist. I have heard that one, so you wouldn't be the first to make me laugh about it. Or, funnier still, you can claim only biologists are real scientists.
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Cannot find one surveys that suspect that most scientists are Religious, that's not good, considering 80-85% of the world is religious.
  
  Wiki conducted in the United States had the best numbers on the religious side towards being Scientist. Generally about 1/3 of scientists are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God, although some may be deistic, leaving it wide open.
  
  If I were to master Law like Moses, I would simplified his 10 commandment down to two
  1 DO NOT HARM
  2 BE HONEST
  LIKE MY GOD VOICE?
  
  Most of us are unable to achieve it or find it impossible to follow Moses commandments. Resulting in Christian predominate countries being world champions at being Sodom and Gomorrah like. With their background of mass murder, prisons, wars, crimes, drugs etc. etc.…
  
  Hope I demonstration how I can be wiser than Moses and how I’m not much smarter than the average person today.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's not how you behave!
  You DO present yourself as one knows better than others. Including me.
  
  So, will the real you, please reveal yourself.
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm living proof of a person living his whole life with clean hands by following those two simple laws.
  
  Everyone dose something better than the next person and so on. On this one point, show me one Christian who has never broken even one law out of Moses's 10 laws.
  Remember lying is American's greatest pastime
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If these two are YOUR laws, it stands to reason you will not break them.
  In fact, there is no requirement for you to define what they actually mean.
  If the meaning is subjectively defined, it can be whatever you want it to be.
  
  (Remember, pedophiles "love" children. They don't mean to harm them.)
  The Bible actually makes it explicit, that the Law of Moses was never intended for man to keep!
  It clearly states that it's purpose is to show every human to be "sin(ful)", when judged by it.
  
  I don't live in America.
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I use American christain as an example more often because the highest Christain populated countrry in the world is the US.
  
  The Bible has too many rules that man cannot follow causing more harm than good. Even worst for their after life for where their whole life they prepare for. Hell is where most people will end up for their sins, thats where most of our love ones will be punished, worst than the crime.
  report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  People already generally know what is right or wrong as our laws are based on that.
  Do not need feel quilty about sin, just correct the mistake so you don't regret it again in the future.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There is a difference between not being able to present evidence, and not needing to.
  
  I'll be honest. This whole push some make to insist there are greater numbers than is readily visible...the need to insist scientists back personal beliefs...what is it a sign of?
  
  I don't care if there is anyone who agrees with cosmic conclusions. It doesn't make the cosmic conclusions any more valid. Harboring a need to prove agreement would feel pathetic.
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I only like to get closer to the truth or have closer understanding of what this Christian God Yahweh lord is. The more I try to understand and study Yahweh lord, the more evasive and elusive he become.
  
  The aim of natures laws and love, gives me consistent personal growth and understanding of the Universe. Would not want the need for a one sided Religion conflicts. Or to slow down the learning process or the imagination or explore the millions of other cultures and ways of thinking.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, judging by your judgment of the Christian religion it sounds to me as if you have certainly blocked one avenue of progress in understanding. You've hemmed yourself into belief in a very fundamentalist Christian approach. Which is OK. I suppose.
  
  I see good in all religions, just as there is bad in them. That's a mirror image of most of life. Don't you think?
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Satan is not so BAD, Save Satan don’t blame Satan.
  
  Good/Bad, Front/Back, Up/Down, Jing/Jang and so on, I have faith in it all. Wonder why Christians can’t make intelligent balance or middle ground solution more often? Why do they act all superior to all Gods and their cultures?. Yes they lead conflicts, wars, prisons, crimes, and so on is that a good thing. When they claim the whole Universe and everything it, to me they are world champion of the fight clubs that cause more harm than good.
  report
  55
  Dr Lambposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The average person today is smarter than the average person 50 years ago. That's why IQ tests are constantly adjusted so the average is 100.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, we are evolving, but my parents generation had way more common sense and patience. We need to catch down in those ways.
  reply report
55
EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years ago
Don, I'm not saying Newton was totally wrong about gravity, but he was wrong about how it worked. His equations are valid in low, non-relativistic gravity situations, I would agree.
reply report
55
EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years ago
It's amazing how fast threads get destroyed by kettles.
reply report
1. 83
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The thread has been "destroyed"? That's a bit over dramatic. You've been criticised, that's all. Amazing how some are quick to criticise faulty reasoning in others, but can't take such criticism themselves. Not a good idea to throw stones if you live in a big glass house.
  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)

Be Prepared.

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

Be Prepared.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies