What it comes down to (the existence of life and its meaning) - in plain language - is this:
There eternally exists an ultimate Spirit/Consciousness, and this consciousness resides beyond what we call and perceive as 'time'. Our physical universe resides inside IT's spiritual world - and - is an expression of its artistic and engineering creativity.
We are - I mean most of us - are direct split of this 'God Spirit Consciousness'. It's like someone breaks his/her index finger and that finger then becomes a little conscious human being, and then it is sent into a small-world specifically designed to fit its size and needs and requirements.
The reason we are here? - it's a bit complicated to explain. Just as complicated as to explain the reasons why couples want to have kids of their own.
God wanted to have friends whom He can love, and who can love Him in return. He didn't want to create some unconscious spiritual program. But He wanted to have 'real people'. Conscious entities who are as good as He is.
Entities who can create for Him opportunities for loneliness... and reunion.
Nice statements, but they would be much better for a little evidence.
What can you provide, for instance, showing there is an eternal entity, or that our universe is a part of it's? And no, scripture whether from the bible, Koran or any other "holy" writings does not count.
What can you point to clearly showing your god wants friends it can love and not dog food for it's pet?
It can be 'shown' that this 'Consciousness' (God) indeed exists. But it requires some effort, because, you see, we are, in terms of size and scope, quite small and weak when compared to the physical existence (the universe).
We are subject to its 'unchangeable' laws and must function within their limits. In that sense - we are not really 'free'. We can't live forever, if we want to. We cant really search (physically) the edges of the universe and see if there is an 'other side'.
As such - we must rely on the clues and hints that we encounter during our 'not so free', and short, lifespan. We must be open to grander possibilities and must be willing to learn. If so - we may begin to understand that the 'spiritual' is indeed a reality.
And that this is the *source* of everything that we have ever encountered.
If it was shown to you, then you should be able to show it to us. Please do. Or, will we now be subject to a host of lame excuses as to why you can't show your 'Consciousness' (God) ?
I can't 'show' that over the internet. In real-life setting - yes. These things require direct physical contact.
And that requires a 'little' organizational setup, a little funding, and - most importantly - the willingness and courage to make a positive change in the world.
I'm on the way...
Is that's the 'lame excuse' that you suspected?
Yes, it is a lame excuse. Thanks for offering it.
That's how you see it.
And you're not actually seeing it - maybe because you are unwilling to see. Yet, you can be equally thanked for offering it. And I do.
Ah, the old, 'it's my fault you can't produce evidence for your claims' lame excuse. Which lame excuse will you be using next?
Infantile emoticons, hahaha!
Well, I said I'm on my way to demonstrate these things. I'm not sure what you really understood instead.
Perhaps, you should take that up with Hubpages staff, who have placed them here.
I understand many believers who came before you said the same thing, but failed to produce anything other than their irrational beliefs. I also understand you'll be following in their footsteps.
Well - there you go! Your post shows that you have a belief concerning me!
1st (possible) belief - that I'm a believer.
2nd belief - that I'll "be following in their (believers') footsteps".
You have set a pretty good record for yourself.
Well, zero funding - now, is everything okay? I'll travel the world on my feet. And eat biscuits in hotel rooms.
Hey. I'm a firm supporter of everyone believing what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. You want to see yourself as a baby god; OK. I've heard crazier ideas.
I've got zero funding for my beliefs too. Go figure.
Ya! And you've got zero funding for all those churches and vaticans and etc and etc and ... large hadron colliders too.
Ahh, funding… Surprise. What do you need $100, $1000 or $10,000? I'll wire it right to you. I have way to much money and no one to give it to. Just post your name and address and I'll get you whatever you want. I can't wait to see you prove God exists.
God wanted to have friends so he created us tiny pathetic creature that can't even begin to comprehend his intelligence. I guess it's like me wanting friends so I create ants.
Something seems off here.
I have no idea what that means. What belief are you speaking of. They do exist, you know.
Well, you seem to 'believe' that a large hadron collier has a utility and purpose to serve. and you seem to believe that it will achieve that - and therefore you wouldn't mind if your money is supporting that project.
So - you have beliefs on something - and that is paying it money.
OK. If you place your personal beliefs on the same level as scientific research I could see why you might think you deserved funding for rolling things around in your head. I don't see where your personal musings are of as much use to me (or, for that matter, humanity) but you are certainly free to believe what you want. Sounds like an ego trip. But, that's just my opinion.
Well - as you said correctly - that is an opinion.
Only if you place your personal musings on the same level as scientific research. Unfortunately for you, you would be the only person willing to do that.
It seems that you have a pretty solid faith on scientific researches.
I have faith that scientific research is only attempting to broaden our understanding of the reality we exist in. It is not designed to be built on belief.
Your personal musings are the exact opposite. One has to put faith in you. Why would someone sign on to do that? You can't prove anything. You can simply share what you believe. Should we be funded simply because we are egotistical enough to believe we know something that the rest of the world doesn't?
"You can't prove anything."
- How do you know that?
If you could, we would already know it. If I could prove that I knew some cosmic mystery I wouldn't be spinning my wheels arguing with people on Hub Pages. I'd be out doing it.
I think the larger point is that I think you have no valid point.
"I can not 'demonstrate' that through the internet. It would require a real life setting to 'show' these things..
And, for that, I need a 'little' organizational setup, a little funding, and - most importantly - the willingness and courage to make a positive change in the world.
I'm on the way..."
[Well, it was there waiting for you, and you've missed it. Very good. It would be, however, another issue if you think that what have said there is irrational - and therefore is not a 'valid point''.]
(note - I had to rearrange a few words because hubpages doesn't allow to repeatedly post identical replies.)
""I can not 'demonstrate' that through the internet. It would require a real life setting to 'show' these things.. "
The fact is - if you had some sort of "knowledge," some way to physically "demonstrate" your evidence - you could easily explain your process. You cannot - or will not.
That leaves one of two conclusions and neither are complimentary. You're either making this up as you go (highly likely), or you're locked in a con and you're just waiting for a silly poster to bite.
You seem to be rather very intelligent - because you seem to jump onto conclusions pretty quickly, without much laborious effort or consideration.
"The fact is - if you had some sort of "knowledge," some way to physically "demonstrate" your evidence - you could easily explain your process. You cannot - or will not."
Well, that is equal to asking to elaborate the process, through which one can demonstrate that things like 'love' or 'hatred' or 'empathy' or 'kindness' - indeed exist.
If you haven't experienced these things before - in your life - or have an idea what these things might be like - then whatever I tell you over the internet, will not be sufficient to convince you of their existence.
You might actually outright reject to accept that these things ever exist in our world. If you are more advanced - then you might try to convince me instead, that there is no room for these things in the electrical impulses that pass through the nervous system.
The same applies to the process of demonstrating that the ultimate Spirit/Consciousness (God) - indeed exists - and is a reality. If you want to have it through the internet - then I expect that you meet the prerequisites.
Otherwise - it requires real life setting - direct, immediate contact.
Prodio, you said:
” Well, that is equal to asking to elaborate the process, through which one can demonstrate that things like 'love' or 'hatred' or 'empathy' or 'kindness' - indeed exist.”
Since the dawn of time philosophers and authors have written reams of books that describe just that. They elaborate on the mechanics, physically, emotionally and ethereally on the subjects of love, hate, kindness and empathy. An honest person who wants to help others does not play, “I have a secret and I’m not sharing unless you meet my criteria.”
” If you haven't experienced these things before - in your life - or have an idea what these things might be like - then whatever I tell you over the internet, will not be sufficient to convince you of their existence.”
So – if I am not convinced, you’ve lost nothing.
” You might actually outright reject to accept that these things ever exist in our world. If you are more advanced - then you might try to convince me instead, that there is no room for these things in the electrical impulses that pass through the nervous system.”
Again, if I reject it – no loss. Nothing ventured – nothing gained. If I convince you that your opinion is faulty – and if you end up believing me – then your theory was false to begin with, right? And, if I do not convince you – again – no harm – no foul.
” The same applies to the process of demonstrating that the ultimate Spirit/Consciousness (God) - indeed exists - and is a reality. If you want to have it through the internet - then I expect that you meet the prerequisites.
By asking for “prerequisites” you admit, by default, that your theory is shaky. For, were it true – it could not be threatened. Reality cannot be threatened and if it’s not reality- it simply does not exist. I’m guessing you’re going to expound on “we’re all vibration” or “we are all universal conscience in physical form,” type of a thing.
But – you have nothing new – if you did – you would be singing it from the rooftops.
"But – you have nothing new – if you did – you would be singing it from the rooftops."
- Well, only time will tell that.
As I said earlier - you're not a deep thinker.
You didn't (totally) understand what I conveyed. Well, it is obvious that people have written books on 'love' and 'kindness' and etc. But that's not what I said.
Did they write down (in their books), what these things ('love', 'kindness', 'empathy' etc) actually are - what makes them up - what material exactly makes up love and all those things? Where are they located? Are they made of atoms - or radiation - or what?
Can they - despite all their expertise on these subjects - ever convince someone - that there exists a relationship of love, between two people? Or that someone is kind to an animal? How do they do that? What mechanical devices do they use to 'detect' and 'measure' love - hatred - happiness?
Does the existence of these 'feelings/emotions' depend solely on the evidences that establish them in our reality?
If an infant were raised in an extreme hostile environment - where there is only death, abuse and violence before him/her - could you - ever - convince that child what 'kindness' - truly is? Or what 'love' really is like?
If you read him/her aloud all the books that "since the dawn of time philosophers and authors have written that describe and elaborate on the mechanics, physically, emotionally and ethereally on the subjects of love, hate, kindness and empathy" - would he/she understand what those books really meant?
Without the relevant prerequisites - it would be a waste of time and effort to take up such an enterprise. It requires firsthand experience in real life setting.
I would definitely not lose anything if I write down the process - step by step - and if you do not understand. Agreed. But I must be convinced that I'm not trying myself before the undeserving.
All you're doing is backing up lame excuses with logical fallacies. Next.
Prodio, you said:
"As I said earlier - you're not a deep thinker. "
Be that as it may - I can spot a charlatan.
"I would definitely not lose anything if I write down the process - step by step - and if you do not understand. Agreed. But I must be convinced that I'm not trying myself before the undeserving."
In this - you give yourself away. The "undeserving." You fail to understand that truth - real truth - is available to all - or it is a figment of your imagination.
Separating people into the deserving and the undeserving smacks of far Eastern philosophies - the creation of caste systems. This is beginning to smell more like mind altering meditation, which, is little more than brainwashing and self-deception.
You're not looking for the "deserving." You're looking for a patsy that isn't bright enough not to know you're peddling false enlightenment. Dangle that carrot and hope that someone is emotionally weak enough to follow it.
We have our share of the Jim Joneses and the David Koreshes of the world.
That road leads to ruin.
If you have a shred of integrity - lay out your system - or peddle your wares elsewhere.
You wasted a lot of time - arguing with someone - who is not deserving.
(It would be helpful, by the way, if you can explain that word in its proper context. I've picked up the general meaning of that word.).
Not at all. I enjoyed myself, and in that enjoyment, I find validity. Not waste.
And - I don't argue - I assist. When you begin to understand that for what it is - perhaps you'll begin to deserve.
What is it about "my words" that lead you believe I've misunderstood "the edges of this conversation?" What in my "previous replies" do you find holds some wisdom for me? I'm not being negative - just curious.
I'm a courteous person by nature. I understand more than you think I do. Not understanding and rejecting are diametrically opposed cognitions. Three things I can say with certainty , 1) you don't have the answers you think you have, and 2) where you are - I once was, and 3) where I am, you will one day be.
Think about that for a little while.
There may be a test.
It seems that you are desperate not to leave this issue, and this forum thread.
Not at all - Prodio. This forum has a function whereby it notifies us when someone responds on thread where we have posted. When you asked me to recheck my words, it seemed as though you wanted to continue our discussion.
If you stick around, you'll find that I'm probably the happiest person you'll ever meet. It's been literally years since I've felt any sort of desperation. Now, however, it seems as though you would like our discussion to end and so I won't bother you on this thread again. There are a couple other poster here to which I'd like to respond. There is really no need to insult me - if you want to end a discussion - I am always agreeable to doing so.
Have a sunny day.
I found this to be very interesting - and it's quite recent (and sheds some light into the whole subject):
"It is amazing what people will read into what is not there simply because they want to."
"Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it and understand its meaning. An individual's ability to comprehend text is influenced by their traits and skills, one of which is the ability to make inferences. If word recognition is difficult, students use too much of their processing capacity to read individual words, which interferes with their ability to comprehend what is read. There are a number of approaches to improve reading comprehension, including improving one's vocabulary and reading strategies."
I think, one of the major ways we determine how much 'spiritual' knowledge someone may possess is by the way they interact with the world. Your comments here are not in line with any behavior patterns indicative within the thinkers we recognize as great spiritual thinkers throughout history. Which makes your claims of knowledge all that more suspect.
Ah. You see that as a compliment. That could explain a lot of the problems here.
I caught that too. It's a bit screwy. I suppose he's harmless - I don't think anyone is buying his charade, but if he truly believed in his "cause," he might want to start being more accepting and inclusive - instead of making snap judgements about who "deserves" his attention and wisdom.
Sorry, but that is a fallacy. We can all experience and understand love, hatred, empathy, etc.
What you are claiming is not remotely related because only you have this alleged knowledge and not us. That is why we are asking you to demonstrate.
But, obviously we all do experience those things and don't need you or anyone else to explain them to us.
But, we don't, hence the fact you are using a fallacy.
If we can experience and understand love, hatred, empathy, etc., and don't need you or anyone else to demonstrate it for us, then we have already met the prerequisites, the very same ones you possess.
Nonsense, we have not had any direct, immediate contact. If you can have that, so can we. But, since we have not and you have, you need to demonstrate it. But, you can't, because you are making it up as you go along. You surely can't believe we are so dim witted to not be able figure that out?
I read that. I think HowardBThiname explained better than I did why you have no valid point.
I excluded a few things for the sake of brevity.
Chocolate contains a lot of fat and sugar. if it did not contain so much fat and sugar, it would not taste yummy. Prodio, you are prodding those who do not want either the fat or the sugar. Just the chocolate. Why do you try to offer them more than what they want?? They like the bitterness of life. So, my advice is to just let them have it!
Each to their own!
The bitterness of life? False claims are not 'sugar'. False hopes are not 'fat'. Reality is not bitter. It is only those who perceive it as such who are in need of pretending that imaginary 'sugar' and 'fat' are necessary additives.
Thanks for the followup, Kathryn. Someone said something quite interesting recently: "God needs a marketing department."
As I see it - human spirituality is overdue a major update: it needs to be established as a reality. Currently - it is not. That's why we've got all these atheists and agnostics telling everyone that they are mad if *they* believe in God - or afterlife - or such things.
This attitude, however - is not only restricted to school curriculum and talk shows. But this attitude - side by side with 'religious attitude' (which has done a major harm to humanity, as well) - is running the world.
Both turn out to be wrong, when we investigate them microscopically (going as deep as we can - and evaluating them).
We need a serious update. I'm into it. Let's see what happens.
Objectively? I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
Sorry, but reality establishes itself, we have nothing to do with that, we don't simply declare something that is reality if it has no evidence for it's existence and has been part of myth and superstition for a very long time.
How do you investigate (microscopically, no less) something that by definition is not of or in this universe? To date, we have never found a method of detecting any such thing.
Q. 'How do you investigate (microscopically, no less) something that by definition is not of or in this universe?" ( I would add... and macroscopically)
A. In one word: Intuition.
Q. How does one develop intuition?
A. In one word: Calmness.
It becomes quite scientific.
Intuition - ah yes, that habit our brain has of presenting us with hunches, feelings and opinions, based on knowlege we've acquired but no longer remember.
The brain is a marvelous organ. Here's a good explanation:
"In the 1970s, University of Massachusetts psychologist Seymour Epstein, PhD, developed his "cognitive experiential self theory." In it, he points out that human beings process information through two systems: Just as we learn things consciously all the time--the cognitive part of the theory--we also learn things experientially, without realizing we've learned them.
"Intuition is just the things we've learned without realizing we've learned them. And sometimes they're useful. Sometimes they're maladaptive," Epstein says."
I've learned to trust my intuition and most of the time it serves me very well. As you say - it's quite scientific.
Thank you for the link to that article, it linked to another article regarding the failure of intuition and the many problems it's use causes. It certainly does explain a lot of how believers operate:
Because intuition operates on a gut level, its judgment is compelling. People develop heuristics--mindsets to view the world--using this system.
And that's where we can get into trouble. "Intuition leads us astray because it's not very good at picking up flaws in the evidence," Gilovich says. "It will be faulty when the world conspires against us and presents information that is unrepresentative and misleading."
Oh dear me…
Our Intuition is a product of our evolution and was intended to help keep us alive while roaming bare footed across Africa. It's very effective at instantly letting us know what can be dangerous given things we've seen and learned from the past. However that is how it should be used as that is how it's effective. When used instead of reason for things that are not things like it's intent (survival, or avoiding harm) it will be wrong most of the time, and you can check that by using reason.
For example if intuition is telling you that spirituality should be thought of as fact then reason will show you that there is nothing factual about something that can't be tested in some way.
Why do you try to refute the one thing that will get us out of this mess? The only way out is to intuit that God loves us and wants us to come home and that we can leave any time we want to rejoin Him. Why try to crush the undreamed of possibilities of others?
Well - you know this very well - that some people think (actually, they believe it) that there is nothing after *physical* death.
Well, you know this very well, that many people have experienced life after/beyond death in some way or another. Jesus was one.
I believe we can read another's thoughts. One time I was wondering what a child's name was and he told me without me even asking him! Two nights ago when my dog was being put to sleep, I felt what he was going through. It was awful. I had to leave the room. I now do not believe in Euthanasia until the absolute last moment, just to help the dying animal. My dog was not close enough to natural death. I feel terrible. He was very sick from cancer complications. I think I should have held out longer. I felt him experiencing the shutting down of his heart. It was not my imagination. (It was not the first time I felt telepathic communication with Atlas, my beloved, rat terrier.)
Sorry for your loss. They do become a member of the family. They certainly get the most attention.
Don't worry, dogs are not self aware and do not know they are about to die. You were projecting and using your imagination.
I bet the kid had a name tag.
Thank you for your sympathy.
The child looked up at me and told me his name. Honestly.
How do you explain the feeling of my grandfather' s presence, (who had recently died,) encouraging me while I was busily working in my garden?
I will reason that you used your intuition. Have you clicked that link yet?
I also had an instance, as I drifted to sleep the night after the euthanasia, of my dog feeling far away from us and feeling confused and forlorn. I really hope that was just alpha state hallucinating.
Well, that is what I need to hear and you are the one to tell me.
Thank you. I will take it. Imagination can be dangerous. I also have too much of that. When someone is telling me about their ailments I have to tell my self, "That IS their problem, not yours!" One time a woman told me all about her daughter's ailments and I came down with the same symptoms two hours later! They went away once I remembered the conversation.
Imaging = delusion.
Intuiting = reality.
It is really hard to discern which is which... for most of us at this point in evolution. I think we will develop intuition as we become more spiritually evolved/advanced.
Yes, that happens to all of us. Look up an ailment on the internet and you will suddenly have that ailment. That's where reason comes in and help you out. When we lose someone our minds try to fill in the gap. I still have some conversations with my mom and she has been gone for 10 years.
Please go back and read the conclusions of the three Harvard studies on the connection between intuition and religion and what it says about how often intuition can give you the wrong answer.
Thank goodness for reason… and imagination. I bet you enjoy those conversations with your mother!
So very sorry for your loss. I have dogs too and they are my family members for the most part. I lost one in February - she died in a vet hospital when I was not around. That haunts me to this day. I understand your feelings.
Energy does not die - it only changes form. We know our thoughts are energy at its most basic form. Although I do not see or imagine a deity associated with that. The human brain is an amazing organ. I think we will discover much more about it in time.
Thank You very much. I guess our dogs are fine. In the movie featuring Temple Grandin, she asked, "Where did they go?" when confronting some dead cows. That is such a good question.
I really do not think ( I hope not, anyway) that we (people, animals, bugs or even plant life) poof into nothingness at the time of death. There may not be death. Just separation from bodies, stems and roots.
He will be with God.
I would have asked you - but you have already mentioned it - that telepathic communication does not cease after death. So, I've two things to ask:
1) Have you ever received any telepathic messages (not encouragements to gardening or any such) from anyone who was/is not *physically* alive?
[Concrete messages - like they wanted you to complete any (unfinished) task/s for them - or descriptions of what they saw and experienced while out of their physical bodies.]
2) Do you think that there is any method to establish telepathy as a reality, to others (who *believe* that such a thing can not exist}?
(and thanks for the previous reply)
There would actually have to be some evidence for telepathy to be established as a reality, but so far there is none, which would make sense because the brain does not work that way.
One time? That would be what is called a "coincidence" because there are probably hundreds if not thousands of other times children never told you their names when you wondered.
Actually, you just imagined it, you couldn't possibly know what's going through the mind of your dog.
So terribly sorry for your loss, Kathryn.
It's just nonsense, our brains do not work that way, they are not capable of "broadcasting" thoughts, while on the flip side are not capable of "receiving" any broadcasted thoughts.
That's why we talk or write to each other, it's called "communicating"
Ah - magical thoughts. What a wonderful imagination!
It's not really bad to use that fine stuff from time to time. Especially - when access to reality has been blocked off!
I'm not dissing it - I think it would be wonderful to live in the world of the imaginary.
While waiting for someone/something to lift the ban!
[Edit (lost the 'reply'-button there): Well, EncephaloiDead , HubPages isn't the only place in the world where one can receive a ban. hahaha!]
[Edit 2: What was your original username? Why were you banned? -Well, I guess, the answers to those questions would vary from person to person! As the world is - might take only a second to change your life.]
What was your original username? Why were you banned?
If you mean you can't see a "Reply" button -it doesn't mean you're banned- I can't see them either when conversations get out this far. I just go back up to a response that has a Reply button and post using that one. I've heard that others have the same problem - but I don't know what causes it - or how to correct it.
That must be more of your intuition thinking. Try to remember what intuition is for and then try to remember what reason is for.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/Gre … JEPG11.pdf
Speak to me son, I will never know what's in your mind.
Perhaps you mean that we are gods "in conception"?
"You almost got it.....almost."
So (I'm assuming) - you meant that the 'Opening Post' of this thread doesn't have the 'full' picture (it doesn't have the meaning in its entirety) - while - it conveys almost the entire account - excluding a few points here and there (concerning life and God).
In my earlier reply to you - I was suggesting that I kept my 'Opening Post' brief - so that it could have a stronger impact. I have more things to say - and more points to elaborate.
Those (excluded) points might be what you thought to be missing in the 'Opening Post' of this thread. For example - I didn't mention - in my opening post - the subject of evil. There are more such things that I excluded.
Yet, all we can see there is a personal, irrational belief in life and God.
The OP has no impact whatsoever and no elaboration.
Yes, you excluded anything of value that would support the OP.
by God shet 4 years ago
We have been bombarded with (utterly absurd) 'Western materialism'. We have been forced to believe that we (as consciousness) are a product of matter and this is the predominant way that we view it (the entire material universe), and ourselves.But in reality - we are (the way it can be best...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
by shashigai 9 years ago
And it led me to believe that there must be something there. I don't profess to understand it, and perhaps later I will tell you my theory of why god must exist, based only on my experience and so not subject to debate as evidence for or against the existence of god. It doesn't make sense to me why...
by God shet 3 years ago
What is the smallest 'thing' in the universe, currently? Well, it's 'quarks'. Now the question is: What are 'quarks' made of? Is it true that 'quarks' are made of even smaller particles? Then, what are those particles (that are smaller than quarks) made of? And where would this chain of the...
by Castlepaloma 4 years ago
Energy exist everywhere and in each one of us as part of a bigger mass that functions in all earthlings. Earth has it's own energy accumulation consciousness over billions of years from north and southern pole is magnetic energy. The energy wants to improve itself and accumulate...
by Jeff Zod 3 hours ago
Are we gods?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|