Should we define ourselves scientifically or theisticly?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (58 posts)

60
cjhunsingerposted 10 years ago
For most theists the idea of evolution is a contradiction to the supremacy of a god and the creative powers bestowed upon it. For the Atheist the claim of a creative god violates the current capacity of humanity to reason. That is not to say, that 25,000 years to the advent of modern science and objective thinking that it was not unreasonable to believe in such omnipotent forces.
Let us consider that the current scientific human definition is wrong, as it is based on a science of discovery and evolution. Should we consider a religious definition, one that would denote a creation by deity? For example, the ancient god Atum of Egypt, who is a self sustaining deity and began the process of humanity through the creative process of masturbation. The Sumerian god Marduk, who dates to around 3,000 BCE and is noted in Hebrew as Merodach. It would seem though that Marduk became the Son of Ea, the Father and, “Ea voluntarily recognized the superiority of the son and hands over to him the control of humanity.” A savior god, the Son.
Since the advent or invention of writing, at about 6,000 BCE, by the Sumerians, 4,000 deities are noted to possess supernatural and creative powers. This does not include the 300,000,000 gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheon.
Of the monotheistic beliefs, Aten, Judaism, and Islam ( I do not consider Christianity monotheistic, as it purports three deities. Judaism held a polytheistic belief, with a singular god, as supreme, but evolved into a monotheistic belief with the influence of Akhenaten of Egypt.) Aten is, perhaps, the blue print of monotheism, as Islam is a plagiarized version of Judaism and Christianity. So, as Aten (Aton) is the original one god, should we define ourselves in the image and likeness of the sun, the representation of Aten, the giver of life? The children of the Sun. Perhaps, this is a truthful observation, as Carl Sagan once said, “Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff.”
This is good and it is a scientific fact, but it is lacking something enormously critical to the structure of humanity. We are more than a rock, more than water, more than air, more than an organic structure, as in a plant or, perhaps, a French fry or a squirrel. We can reason. We can ask a question and, in many cases, much to our detriment, we are the only provider of the answers to those questions. It is that element, our capacity to reason, that prompts the definition of Homo sapiens-sapiens, the wise man, the discerning man, the reasoning man.
We, as the wise Men however, did not just simply pop up in the middle of the desert or in a garden; we had older relatives and they are called homo sapiens, also intelligent beings with a language and they too, had older relatives called, to name a couple, homo-erectus, home habilis to our most distant relative, to date, an old codger that goes by the name of “Sahelanthropus tchadensis” who may be as old as 7 million years.
Should we change who we are, homo sapiens-sapiens, the reasoning Man or redefine ourselves in accordance with the first monotheism of Aten or in accordance with the beliefs of the other three semi-monotheistic beliefs of Judaism, Christianity or Islam?
reply report
1. 60
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  CJ, you have once again done a fine job of conveying your beliefs, but the entire segment above is bereft of a single fact, (except I suppose that the quote is from Carl Sagan).
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Check your Egyptian history of mythologies.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No need, unless your claiming they contain proof that “Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff.” There are no facts in that comment, but many share your belief. We've been indoctrinated since our earliest years to believe such things, so few challenge them when they get older, yet if they did they would have to honestly conclude it is merely an unprovable belief.
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  bBerean
  I am sure, of course, that you are right. Should you decide to do some research aside from a bible you may find it interesting.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Easy enough to dismiss, but you should think about it. There really are no facts there. You too have likely been indoctrinated into scientism, as evidenced by your thinking and representing that there was a fact. Considering the high priority materialists generally claim to put on tangible proof, much of what they believe is just speculation based on speculation based on speculation, with a possible factual observation at it's inception. Implying I wouldn't think this if I simply had more exposure to the doctrines of speculation that permeate academia is simply a way to avoid the challenge. It's done here all the time.
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  bBerean
  I have to admit my ignorance when I came across the word 'scientism', so I had to look it up. I found that it was a word originally coined, as a pejorative and used to describe those who felt that an objective and reasoned approach to our questions on existence were best answered with science. In, essence, a word that is bias to an emotional definition of existence and a purported creator. It is much like the word, 'Atheism', which was first coined to diminish the standing of those who refused the belief in a particular deity.
  I will not try to educate you. If you refuse to accept the basics of what Sagan was talking about, for example the speed of light, then any other instruction will be ignored off hand. I have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the creationist account of creation, as I spent much time in the company of Jesuit priests, who expounded on such abilities. That was until 1959 when the encyclical Humani generis, issued in 1950 by Pope Pius XII trickled down to the high school level. You are familiar with the Catholic Church? There are about 1.3 billion Catholics. Larger than all protestant denominations put together and many would say that if it had not been for the Catholic Church and Constantine, Christianity would simply not exist. Anyway the Church endorses the evolution of Man and of the universe. So you see the original and largest Christian organization believes as Carl Sagan. There is a caveat here though.
  But this does not, even though I find it pleasant, answer my original question. If you can find a way please respond to it.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Referencing:
  
  CJ
  You predicate an either/or question on a 500 word preamble establishing your beliefs, which must be accepted for the question to even be relevant. To respond would be to validate the premise. This is why my original post was addressing issues within the preamble.
  
  You spend even more words responding, but only to dismiss the challenge as being the fault of a lack of education or understanding on my part, which you only assume to be true because I disagree with you and Sagan. You never actually address the fact that your OP was lacking facts.
  
  You did spend time trying to build credibility based on how impressed you seem to be with your own education, experiences, and oddly the Catholic church. It appears you are impressed enough for both of us, so excuse me if I don't jump on that bandwagon. Your credentials, real or imagined, do not resolve my concern.
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  bBerean
  
  You are excused.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, like that's your option. I can see why it would be your preference. Scientism masquerades as possessing the truth of science when mostly it is doctrines and beliefs based on speculation and wishful thinking.
  reply report
  54
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Is it really just speculation and wishful thinking? Or, is it reasoned prediction based on consistency, fact and evidence? It surely does resemble more the latter, don't you think? I mean, what is written there that is indeed speculation and wishful thinking, and why would you even consider mentioning it?
  
  Seems more like a detraction from the subject matter.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Science discovers and reveals facts. Scientism speculates on what those facts might mean, thereby developing a diverse, disjointed belief system. It's adherents deny this is what it is, as they choose to see themselves above religion. They produce a myriad of gods, giving credit for our existence to processes, laws or forces...anything that does not require accountability it would seem, but then deny they have in so doing defined a god. So in the end, since science cannot answer our philosophical questions, a religion results, meaning nobody can define themselves by science, it all becomes theology. Is that a more direct hit on the subject matter?
  reply report
  54
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that physical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."
  
  As you can see by the definition, Scientism is not about speculating on what facts might mean, but instead taking accepted facts and evidence to understand our world rather than accepting beliefs as explanations and knowledge.
  
  Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about... producing gods? ...defining a god? ... what does all of that mean and from where did you get that notion?
  report
  78
  Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, you've been gone for a long time. Were you banned, like Chris, for a month?
  report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  bBerean
  
  You are excused.
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  bberean
  
  You are excused.
  reply report
  61
  Paul Wingertposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Its apparent that bBerean never heard of chemistry. Must of had a home schooled christian pseudo education. Burger King and Starbucks can use people like that.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  One would have to apply the typical assumptive logic prevalent in scientism to reach this conclusion. It will be interesting to see how you defend making the charge. Explain if you think you can. Please be sure to include whatever fact you think I am ignorant of and we'll see how that holds up. Should be a cake walk for one with such a superior intellect, if indeed you posses one, as you imply. Or are you just interested in taking pot shots from the sidelines?
  
  edit: Please don't take my response as disparaging home education. I wish I had been spared the indoctrination of the public school system and academia. Admittedly, not everyone should attempt home schooling, but when done properly it far outpaces the generic application of education afforded by the public sector, (particularly now with resources so readily available via the internet).
  reply report
2. 60
  God shetposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Realistically.
  reply report
77
psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago
Do you describe a banana by shape or color?

I mean seriously, why would this be an either/or choice?
reply report
1. 60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  psyche
  
  Can you elaborate on your response. It seems a bit obscure, seriously.
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
"For example, the ancient god Atum of Egypt, who is a self sustaining deity and began the process of humanity through the creative process of masturbation."
H U H ? ? ?

Shall I write another poem?

Are we part star?
Should we change who we are:
Homo sapiens-sapien, the reasoning Man?

Or are we of Aten?
Or maybe of Atum?
Or maybe we're of atoms of Adam?

Is it too much to ask
Where we are from?
Is it too much for us to know?

God with his mind
Should find the time
To tell us who stared the show.

Yeah.
reply report
1. 80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I meant *started* the show…
  But, maybe He did *stare* the show!…with his *eye* of consciousness!
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn
  I am convinced that your response was meant to add a positive note to the conversations. Is it possible that you could make another effort.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The essence of Heaven/Spirit manifests in all that exists. Evolution is just evidence of the Great Scientist. Something like that.
  But this may not be a positive note for you, an atheist.
  reply report
2. 60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathyrn
  
  Great Job!
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why, Thank You. Your OP is fascinating.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you could explain this statement:
  "For the Atheist the claim of a creative god violates the current capacity of humanity to reason."
  (I understand God to be a force manifesting in all creation, life and us.)
  
  The ability to reason is based on a sense of logic. A sense of logic is based on awareness. Awareness comes from consciousness. Consciousness comes from God. We are a small portion of the Whole of Consciousness. Jesus rejoined the Whole. He teaches us how to rejoin the Whole, as well. The Whole is the realm of Spirit. This realm consists of love, joy and peace... or Bliss.
  
  TWISI
  and
  Pardon My Craziness.
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn
  Best definition of reason, Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses-----Logic, is the use and study of valid reasoning.
  Your logic is good until you come to, " Consciousness comes from God." This has nothing to do with reason or logic, but is that leap of faith.
  It can be said that the existence of a god is based upon Man's ability to reason that a god exists. Man exists, nature exists, the universe exists, therefore all of this had to have a creator--a god creator. Again, gods existence is based on Man's capacity to reason such an existence, the ultimate creator. Is the belief in a god, god perfect? Yes, with reference to the belief. There can be no other truth.
  Problem, as the existence of god is based upon Man's capacity to reason god, than Man's capacity to reason is perfect. No, it is not and therefore, the premise of a god is based upon an often wrong and erroneous foundation, Man's capacity to reason.
  Logic is not truth, it is a pathway to that elusive goal. For example, a dog is an animal that has four legs, a head, fur and a tail. A horse is an animal that has a tail, four legs, a head and fur, therefore a horse is a dog. This is logical, providing one goes no further in the examination of what is. This is the difference between a god believer and one who demands more information, as we go down that path. One looks to the road signs for added information and the other does not.
  I hope this was helpful in understanding reason, logic and belief.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "This is the difference between a god believer and one who demands more information, as we go down that path."
  I would agree. One must be open to reality however it is discovered to be manifesting. Being a god believer is being open to possibilities, I would say. Of course, I come from being an atheist at one time. Proof is vital. Proof comes only from oneself.
  reply report
  59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Being a god believer closes your mind to all sorts of possibilities. Might want to look up the word "proof" - what you seem to mean is "opinion,".
  reply report
  54
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  However, based on cjhunsinger quote above, god believers do not look for information, hence a god believer would be of a closed mind, not open to possibilities.
  
  For example, do we see atheists here open to the possibility of God? Sure. Has anyone ever provided them a shred of hard evidence? No.
  
  On the flip side, are theists open to possibilities? Do atheists provide them with hard evidence of nature and reality as far as our senses and technology can detect? Absolutely. Do some of them accept it? Of course. Do many vehemently reject or deny it? Yup. Not open to possibilities.
  
  And yet, that is so very hard to believe considering those who are atheists based on the very accurate statement in the OP...
  
  "For the Atheist the claim of a creative god violates the current capacity of humanity to reason"
  
  There you have it Kathryn. If you were indeed an atheist, you have therefore chosen to willfully violate your capacity to reason. From reading your posts and hubs here, it sure looks like you've been a god believer most of your life and never an atheist.
  
  That makes no sense. You are basically saying that whenever you want something to be proof, you simply decide to make it so even when it is not any kind of proof at all. That is more like wishful thinking.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What is valid reasoning actually based on? I would say it is based on love… which, lo and behold, is a spiritual thing!
  reply report
  59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsense. To both statements.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What IS it based on then???
  reply report
  59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thinking things through.
  
  http://maartens.home.xs4all.nl/logic/va … soning.htm
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Accordingly, invalid reasoning is any drawing of conclusions that may be false when the premisses on the strength of which they are drawn are true, and invalid reasoning thus has the dangerous property of leading possibly to false conclusions from true premisses. As long as this is clear and intentional - as with irony or when being rhetorical - this may not matter, but as soon as inference is believed to lead to a true conclusion where in fact it does not, whoever believes the conclusion may get into serious troubles, for he believes reality to be other than it really is."
  
  Yes. I agree. This does not disprove what I said.
  reply report
  59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it does. Nothing to do with "love." Oddly - it is rather ironic you skimmed through and picked this up as supporting your statement. Perfect example of invalid reasoning.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  For instance, all laws are based on love.
  Why can we not do as we wish at all times? Because sometimes what we want for ourselves hurts others. Preventing injustice is based on love.
  reply report
  59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsense.
  report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn
  
  Perhaps, one word, knowledge. Valid reasoning still, I do not think, provides an absolute. It is just more valid, a step toward a greater knowledge, a greater truth..
  Democritus was a Greek who lived roughly 2400 years. He was quite the thinker, probably more so than Socrates, who was born later and probably learned from Democritus. Anyway Democritus 'reasoned' that all things, the universe, was composed of very tiny, indestructible things, which he and his buddy named Epicurus defined as 'atoms' and that atoms composed all things. This was the, "Atomic Theory" that stood until the early 1900's and the discovery of sub-atomic particles.
  By virtue of previous knowledge, which he held of nature, the observation of nature, he reasoned the existence of an atomic structure in all of existence. His reasoning was valid, as has been proven. Valid, yes, but not complete. Not a complete truth.
  Democritus and his buds were probably the first Western World Atheists, pragmatists or materialists.
  One could make the argument that their 'love' of knowledge (Epistemology-"the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion") and their heightened capacity to reason "objectively" brought them to their conclusion and ushered in the age of science, until the Catholic Church (Christianity) and The Dark Ages.
  Your idea of, "love of", as a force unto itself is tantalizing. Such love or passion however, is sadly a rare commodity among us humans, ideas, knowledge, but advanced to a higher level.
  I hold two US Patents and, as one who invented something that did not previously exist; I can attest to the fact that there is nothing really new under the sun. My inventions were based upon previous inventions, ideas, previous knowledge, which were only brought to a higher level. This knowledge building is critical to human existence.
  It would be interesting to pursue the, love of, as a singular human motivating force. If you start a Hub, I would be like to contribute.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I said valid reasoning is based on Love... and you say valid reasoning is based on Knowledge.
  what is knowledge based on?
  Facts.
  Love is a fact.
  not a sentimental emotion, not a passing feeling,
  A fact.
  I may be leaning toward poetry… uh oh..
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn
  I think you need to define love. Aside from the generic understanding, it may be a subjective feeling that does not translate from one person to another in quite the same way. One may have a love of mathematics, a passion, if you will, but certainly it is not the same as a love for ones self or another or a child. These, too, will vary in degrees, depth and even definition depending on culture.
  You may refer to a transcendent love, a uniform, unchanging or static concept, but, I think, you would be hard pressed to show that such a concept is universal.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "You may refer to a transcendent love, a uniform, unchanging or static concept."
  Why not a universal reality?
  ...of course it is.
  In its purest universal form it manifests in infants
  ...and children who are allowed to progress naturally.
  ...and domesticated animals.
  …and animals in the wild toward each other in the same species ...and often toward animals in other species, as well.
  …and getting back to humans, in mothers and fathers.
  
  What is universal love?
  
  It is good will toward others.
  what promotes it?
  good will.
  what kind of will?
  Good.
  What is "good?"
  Ask Plato and Aristotle.
  reply report
61
Link10103posted 10 years ago
If we defined ourselves theistically, we probably wouldn't have the internet.

What a terrifying world that would be...
reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
For Instance, it is logical to follow the Ten Commandments of Jesus or the Eightfold Path of Buddha because these guidelines will prevent us from suffering. It is reasonable to follow them, based on love for ourselves and others.
reply report
1. 59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No it is not reasonable to follow them for these reasons. No graven images huh?
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't even know what a graven image is. DO YOU?
  reply report
  59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not surprised at all. So - you don't know what 10% of the ten commandments even mean.
  
  Possibly the worst selection of ten morals to follow ever actually.
  
  Edit - yes I do.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh really?
  Here is a forum topic! I will do the honors of posting it. May I quote this?
  
  "So - you don't know what 10% of the ten commandments even mean.
  
  Possibly the worst selection of ten morals to follow ever actually."
  reply report
  59
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Feel free.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why, thank you very much!
  reply report
2. 54
  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  This is from the above definition for 'invalid reasoning'.
  
  "invalid reasoning is any drawing of conclusions that may be false when the premisses on the strength of which they are drawn are true"
  
  There are indeed people who follow the "Ten Commandments of Jesus or the Eightfold Path of Buddha" that have suffered. It is a highly unlikely probability that anyone could go through life without suffering, with or without the aid of a philosophical worldview. Believing in such a premise that one could go through life following any given belief system and never suffering would be absurd considering all of the varying chaotic external forces reality throws at us each day.
  
  It leads to further quotations from the above quote once again...
  
  "whoever believes the conclusion may get into serious troubles, for he believes reality to be other than it really is.""
  
  You're right, that may very well be true, many folks do follow a lot of different philosophies, but reality will always override them. I mean, most philosophies are just words on paper, right?
  reply report
60
mishpatposted 10 years ago
It would seem that, considering "knowledge by" and "knowledge of acquaintance" theories, the objective mind would define man by both, without prejudice.
reply report
1. 60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  mishpat
  
  You pose an interesting couple of thoughts, but it is the, "without prejudice", that I find most endearing, as it goes to a definition of truth.
  I am not quite sure of your point in, "knowledge by or knowledge of association". I will not try assume here, as I believe your thinking here will stimulate my own. I will l wait for your reply.
  reply report
  60
  mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  First a correction 1) knowledge by acquaintance and 2) know by description. (My apologies. I left something half done for a while and failed to correct the finished product when I returned.) These two turn of the century (20th century) off shoots of epistemology surface every once in a while, but I haven't looked at them in earnest for some 40 years. I take them as I understand them. Knowledge by acquaintance is includes personal experience which may not have credible proofs but are accepted by the holder. Knowledge by description is acquired knowledge through study and research. Credible proofs would include that which is accepted by not necessarily truth. But here in your OP, man can be defined by each or either depending on the subject matter and the proponent.
  
  PS - I toy with a third, "knowledge by association" which I was considering above.
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  mishpat
  Are you speaking of empirical knowledge, that which is experienced or personally observed. I would also think that, 'knowledge by association' would fall into this category.
  Any reference I make in defining that which is, ie, Man would be based upon a systemic knowledge, which would be that knowledge previously known and built upon by previous generations. I would also appeal to a, a priori form of knowledge and a combination thereof. There are many ways of achieving knowledge, but to actually define knowledge is difficult, as each processing center, the human brain, is different.
  I do not think that we can give definition by simply wanting something to be something. We must ask, why we want it to be so? Do we look at something objectively or through an eye piece of personal preference, want or need? Without prejudice is easy to say, but difficult to achieve, as we sometimes fail to understand our own motivations.
  When I made the transition from devote Catholic to Atheist, a period of years, it was not to be an Atheist, it was, rather, to possess a knowledge of god, Catholicism, that would set me apart from the rest of the sheep, as I wanted to be a priest. Simply put, I had to possess the ultimate truth of god and why a god, how a god. This meant that I had to know why I needed one, why anybody needed one and why did some say that there was no god. My meager abilities at the time were certainly not steeped in great philosophical wisdom or thought, but why 1+1=2, but the square of 2 is not 1. If I may use that analogy.
  
  ,
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
Internal Hell (of consciousness) is worse than any external condition foisted upon us.
This is reality.
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)

Should we define ourselves scientifically or theisticly?

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

Should we define ourselves scientifically or theisticly?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies