Why God Created Atheists?

Jump to Last Post 151-168 of 168 discussions (2281 posts)
  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    Gosh Mr Noggin- that seems awfully closed minded and unreasonable of you.

  2. ReneeDC1979 profile image61
    ReneeDC1979posted 11 years ago

    Just to let you all know, I am pleased that this conversation has lasted this long - God was mentioned so many times.  I love it!!! Thank you Lord!  Okay, back to your normally scheduled tomfoolery.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So glad it's made your day, Renee! Now back to your pie-in-the-sky.  Hope your dreams are realised!

      smile smile smile

    2. dianetrotter profile image62
      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Renee, I hope you don't mind me posting here.  I was under attack by Mark, Jmc, Rad, artblack and the mob.  I couldn't figure out where to jump in.

      Jmc - with regard to grace and the new covenant:  I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. By "the law" is meant the moral law, as appears from the whole discourse following: this he came not to "destroy", or loose men's obligations to, as a rule of walk and conversation, but "to fulfil" it; which he did doctrinally, by setting it forth fully, and giving the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect obedience to all its commands, whereby he became "the end", the fulfilling end of it. By "the prophets" are meant the writings of the prophets, in which they illustrated and explained the law of Moses; urged the duties of it; encouraged men thereunto by promises; and directed the people to the Messiah, and to an expectation of the blessings of grace by him: all which explanations, promises, and prophecies, were so far from being made void by Christ, that they receive their full accomplishment in him. The Jews (t) pretend that these words of Christ are contrary to the religion and faith of his followers, who assert, that the law of Moses is abolished; which is easily refuted, by observing the exact agreement between Christ and the Apostle Paul, Romans 3:31 and whenever he, or any other of the apostles, speaks of the abrogation of the law, it is to be understood of the ceremonial law, which in course ceased by being fulfilled; or if of the moral law, not of the matter, but of the ministry of it. This passage of Christ is cited in the Talmud (u), after this manner:

      http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm  The challenge is that God's Word is foolish to the wise.  In studying God's Word, you go from milk (simple things like salvation) to more complete doctrines.  So the points you bring up are usually taught in Bible study classes that discuss passages before and after, as well as companion passages.

      1. dianetrotter profile image62
        dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Mt 7:21)
        Response - this must be taken in context wih what comes before.
        Not every one that saith ... - The Saviour goes on to say that many, on the ground of a mere profession such as he had just referred to, would claim admittance into his kingdom. Many would plead that they had done miracles, and preached or prophesied much, and on the ground of that would demand an entrance into heaven. The power of working miracles had no necessary connection with piety. God may as well, if he chooses, give the power of raising the dead to a wicked man, as the skill of healing to a wicked physician. A miracle is a display "of his own power" through the medium of another. An act of healing the sick is also a display of "his power" through the agency of another. In neither of these cases is there any necessary connection with moral character. So of preaching or prophesying. God may use the agency of a man of talents, though not pious, to carry forward His purposes. Saving power on the mind is the work of God, and he may convey it by any agency which he chooses. Accordingly, many may be found in the day of judgment who may have been endowed with powers of prophecy or miracle, as Balaam or the magicians of Egypt; in the same way as many people of distinguished talents may be found, yet destitute of piety, and who will be shut out of his kingdom. See Matthew 7:21; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. In this last place Paul says that, though he spoke with the tongue of angels, and had the gift of prophecy, and could remove mountains, and had nor charity or love, all would be of no avail. See the notes at 1 Corinthians 13:1-3.
        Matthew 7:15 is about people coming in sheep's clothing claiming to be prophets.  What follows is a warning about these people.  When you lift one Scripture out you take it out of context.

      2. profile image0
        riddle666posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame Proverbs 3:35

        Words from a wise man's mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips. Ecclesiastes 10:12

        The challenge is that God's Word is wise only to the foolish. Riddle 6:23

      3. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Gosh - No one was "attacking," you unless you consider pointing out the division your beliefs cause as an attack.

        But - I guess you need to do that don't you?

        I see you have not actually responded other than to tell us that what the bible says actually means something other than the words written. That seems to be the usual response.

        1. dianetrotter profile image62
          dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Mark? Is that what you got out of that???  No problem!  I was just getting read for devotion.  I am remembered to bath you in prayer.  If you are in the US, go to bed.

          I'm glad my heavenly Father slumbers not nor sleep.

          Get all of your Winter Solstice shopping done.  Make sure you have presents for everyone.  I stay away from the malls.  My life is much less complicated this way.

          thanks for the smiley tip!  hmm  big_smile  smile  lol  tongue  cool

  3. ReneeDC1979 profile image61
    ReneeDC1979posted 11 years ago

    Thanks johnnycomelately - nice name!!!! - Keep Hubbing!

    1. LucidDreams profile image65
      LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have a problem with god fanatics or anything of the sort. I just wonder what religion some of the people here follow. What book? What practice? How could you think one is right and all of the rest are wrong? Does this make any sense really or is it just that blind faith that makes people just keep on believin! Oh well, take your pick....

      Christianity
      Islam
      Hinduism
      Chinese folk religion
      Tribal religions
      Shamanism
      Animism
      Sikhism
      Judaism
      Spiritism
      Confucianism
      Jainism
      Zoroastrianism
      Shinto
      Taoism Note 4
      Wicca Note 5

      Look at all of the clubs one could join. It's so nice to have options. Amazing to think that each one of these, along with many others still, think that they are correct in their belief and teachings. That itself is pretty comical!

  4. EinderDarkwolf profile image59
    EinderDarkwolfposted 11 years ago

    This thread is still open?

    ....good to see people still can't get along wink, sure does keep things interesting here on hubpages.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's good to see you back.... are you staying for a while, or busy on other  Sites?

      1. EinderDarkwolf profile image59
        EinderDarkwolfposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I planned on being back indefinitely, however am waiting to here back about something from the support team first and then we'll see what happens wink.

  5. profile image52
    Clubberposted 11 years ago

    No.  He hasn't.  All this was here for millions of years before we were.  It will likely be here after we are gone.  Then, it will all be gone.  Sorry.

  6. profile image29
    puellaposted 11 years ago

    Closed mind, open mind, and so forth and so on…we become ‘circular’ with these opinions, mere opinions… and deflect the real issue or points.
    Attitude is perhaps the most important factor to affect our personality, yet, our attitude is pretty much or can be another output  of a ‘circular’ mechanism: just like the famous quote “ someone who does not read is better off than that who will not read” attitude will determine what we will ‘read’ from human affairs, then, circularly, what we have just ‘read/interpreted” will sway our attitude.
    Is there a qualitative difference in the way we ‘experience’ reality? You bet!
    A mental illness and a mental healthy guy, are they too far apart?  It will obviously depend on… such a vast mixed-up set of causes…who will be  to disentangle and come up with definitions? It will depend on how conservative the analyst is and how stuck to his/her points of views and … fears to lose control of his/her own convictions ) therefore…? Just as mental illness is not a simple thing, similarly, mental health isn’t either…
    The ever present circularity when talking about God’s existence: to believe in God is a personal matter; to believe in the Bible message is another personal matter, regardless of proofs; to pretend to say that there is proof that God really exists because it is written in the Bible, is just not working for non-believers…they need their own kind of proofs for ‘validity’; their need is valid but the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, for us Xtians,  the pudding is full of cultural context, genetics, illnesses, ways of interpret reality, personality type, upbringing, education,  and a big long etc, which lead us to ask several questions: our behavior is set in motion because of our physiological needs or because of beliefs based in principles values etc or on both?  Can we say that our state of mind (closed or open, healthy or ill, dogmatic or flexible positive or negative, etc) is determined by the past and so future is predictable? Or are there unconscious forces together with all that jazz?  Who can deny this? Scientifically?
    All these are topics I read in a e-text by Dr. C George Boeree We, here, have sort of talked about all this, but, nay, it is not doing it; I believe that this forum works like a shrink would in a private session: let us vent our frustrations about …well… you know…God and His elusive presence smile
    Can science control : love, anger, awareness? Then do we make room for “spirituality” whatever that means to each and everyone who experiences it even when not aware of reasons? Scientifically? Your answer does not interest me; it’s your own business and your requirement to be true to yourself…not to me as I will never be sure of who you are or you be sure of who am I…in a inner-way of knowing I mean…in the mean time...cheers

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The reason I can walk away from the religious, christian perspective now, is that I have done my "inner" questioning an searching, and have come to the conclusion that a non-acceptance of a judgmental god as believed by the christian does not suit my understanding or logic.

      I am fully happy to consider there is no "judgment" of me, no "after-life" consciousness that I need to worry about here in the short time that is left for me.

      People of "faith" can do their darnedest  to try and convince me otherwise, but they will not succeed.... because my choice is my choice, period.

      However, this choice has allowed me to allow the christian to have his/her belief(s) without judging them, provided....... they respect my choice.   If not, I will defend myself against any prayers, supplication, presumption of superiority whatever.

      I am also quite happy to read of good, sensible, informed, researched ideas that come out of the mind of persons like HeadlyvonNoggin, because I can "take it or leave it," and he knows and (I guess) accepts that with good grace.

      And visa versa, of course.

      1. profile image29
        puellaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        JCL, I understand you and agree with; in fact, it cannot be different of what you just wrote 
        If you see more closely, the need for judgements is more related to a type of personality: conservative (too attached to our way of seeing and feeling and analyzing); it's not about the behaviour of the others but to this need to 'control' the behaviour of others...nothing to do with the faith itself but with the way to do things around and being faith or no-faith just another element in the life of that controlling mind....And that maybe the most irritating thing that bothers others: that we see then that his/her faith is a fake because he/she is not living up to what is said to believe...I do not know how better express it...he/she does n ot follow that particular faith yet pretends to make others to follow it or judge them for not or even for following it but falsely...

  7. JMcFarland profile image68
    JMcFarlandposted 11 years ago

    Headly:
    Again, I apologize that it’s taken me so long to reply.  I’ve done research when I’ve had free time, but my free time is not as abundant as it used to be.  I started a new job, got the flu and had to deal with a mass layoff at my previous employer all in the same time-span.  Needless to say, my life has been a little hectic.  Since I respect you and find you to be intellectually honest and thoughtful, however (at least for the most part, there are some aspects of both of us that could use some improvement, especially when we start devolving into frustration) your post required some attention on my part, and I didn’t want to mock or dismiss it out of turn, without devoting some time to it in depth.
    Firstly, I think there are some problems with things on a definitive level.  You told me that this was your personal hypothesis, but after looking at your post, it doesn’t seem to fit the definition of a hypothesis at all.  At best, it’s only a theory.  A hypothesis, by definition is:
    1) A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
    2) A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.


    Scientifically speaking, a hypothesis can be tested, and your claim by default cannot be.  How do you work to prove it?  How is it tested, repeated and peer reviewed?  It can’t be.  It’s simply your theory of how things MAY have happened, and I see no way to move forward to develop it further, rather than spinning your own interpretation of the bible to suit and custom-fit your theory.

    Secondly, I think you’re guilty of a lot of revisionism – like most Christian apologists that I’ve encountered are.  I don’t fault you for that – almost every aspect of Christianity is open to interpretation, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  Not to succumb to an argument from authority, but your position is almost unheard of in your own community.  I believe that, were it more probable, that it would be accepted by Christian apologists and used in their debates – and it’s not.  That leads me to believe that there it stands (or falls) on very flimsy ground.

    Thirdly, I believe that your entire premise is going about things in the wrong way.  You’re starting with a conclusion and working backwards, rather than starting in the beginning and following the evidence to its conclusion after research, study and combined efforts with others.  Science doesn’t work that way.  You can twist almost anything to mean whatever you want if you start backwards.  I’m sure that you’d use the same argument if I worked my way backwards to the big bang theory – or whatever plausible theory I chose to define the origins of the universe.  I, however, am content to say that I don’t know how the universe initially began – or if it began at all.  For the most part, I find that theists like yourselves are the ones that are obsessed with tracing everything back to the beginning.  “I don’t know” is not an accepted or acceptable answer, because you have an underlying need to insert a god into the gaps – instead of just admitting that some things are unknown – and may always remain that way.

    Genesis offers a lot of wiggle room.  Since there’s no proof of a global flood, however, or a jewish captivity in Egypt, or many of the other fantastical stories found within it, I am willing to go a step further and say that it is entirely untrue.  It’s a mythological origin story of the jewish people.  It made them feel connected with the power they related to – the power that governed them.  The power that they gave all of the credit to when the achieved certain victories, but none of the blame when things went awry.  It taught them that they were evil and morally bankrupt people that needed a god in order to be “right” instead of acknowledging that deity to be the one that made them wrong to begin with.  It’s fantastical.

    In later posts, you have made great efforts to distinguish your god as a spiritual being, and therefore cannot be proven or equated with physical things.  That goes back to one of my original statements to you  - one that I will reiterate.

    Either a god exists, or a god does not exist.  We agree on that.
    If a god exists and does not manifest in the physical world, that god is INDISTINUISHABLE from a god that does not exist at all.
    If a god does manifest in the material, physical world, there should be ample evidence of his existence.  There isn’t.  Using a book supposedly written by that god to justify itself and its god’s existence is not proof by any standard of measure.  This god supposedly intervened in the course of human existence.  He is capable of miracles like stopping the earth and flooding the entire world.  Yet none of these acts can be demonstrated.  Magnificent, extra-ordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence, and I’m sorry, but there simply isn’t any.

    I could go into more depth about the original Hebrew used in Genesis if you’d like.  I’d be happy to talk theology and scripture in depth with you.  But ultimately, I find your proposed hypothesis to be a theory that is not only unsupported within your own community, but unsupported by any evidence either. 

    You recognize that the traditional interpretations of genesis don’t make sense – and that is a good thing on your end.  Instead of questioning things as a whole, however, you spun it to fit the dissonance in your mind – to make it make sense to you.  I don’t fault you for that.  I do, however, implore you to follow things to a rational conclusion. 

    If you want to check some other sources out, try talkorigins.org.   the sight has a huge FAQ page and archive that may lead you on your way to further discovery and answer some of the lingering questions that you seem to have.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This sort of posting I like!   It's generous, considerate, objective, respectful and obviously can lead us on to better discussion.... Thank you.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image60
        paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Shut up!

        I am sick of religion threads being shoved in my face.

        1. calynbana profile image77
          calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          All you have to do is click unfollow...and then not click on any future religious threads. The only one who can shove them in your face...is you.

        2. profile image0
          jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The 2 most useful 2-letter words in the world:    um....   No !

          1. dianetrotter profile image62
            dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Go Johnny go!

          2. profile image29
            puellaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, they are useful of course, but... winkwink as with many other 'useful' fixes in life, people do not acknowledge them and/or will not 'read' any of the two partes involved wink the 'n' and the 'o'...hence.... a lot of patience and circularity takes on...
            When we 'reply' it's perhaps more about sharing or correcting the ideas... bt really it is very possible that we over react too depending if certain vocabulary'jargon is used... However, it's always challenging to 'argue' blindly wink...blindly? yes, well, yes... I have not seen the faces of any of you, I do not know any of you, and hence, I will not miss any of you if you do not show up anymore or if you do not answer or refer to me and I hope the 'vice versa' happens identically.... It is not particulalry a topic to create or generate friendships,it's too personal and hence too sensitive and hence open to arguing and hence open to bitterness or sarcasms or separation or worse stuff and all because I do believe and can't prove it to higher brains winkwink and poor of me if I pretended them to 'prove' the opposite; last I heard that any proof was our burden because we are the ones saying that God exists  wink You see? we have to prove that we believe in something 'factual'...a condition imposed by them, logicians wink  if its factual, then to believe is not vane, just like Paul said: Had not Jesus resurrected our faith would be vane"...yet it's been called vane for even less that the resurrection as it is been termed a fancy and that  it lacks witnesses!!!!! see?  So for a book of which a lot has been found true, we need to prove those archaeological findings 'really' true and that only to 'convince' some people that we are not lying...Why, I ask myself, would I be interested in convincing someone who says I am lying? see JCL?

            1. dianetrotter profile image62
              dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Puella, everyone has the right to believe whatever they want without proving it to anyone else.  Some people just have a strong desire to win ... either a) win people over or b ) just plain win.  As you get to know people, there is obviously some attraction that continues the discussion.  People have attacked me and then later apologized.  No problem!  I don't attack and I forgive.  The more you know a person the harder it is to dislike them.  I can't prove it but why else do they keep making comments?

        3. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Ha ha ha ha ha. You're sick of it and yet want more!!!!!! I like how you try to make a point without saying anything.

          1. psycheskinner profile image77
            psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You mean we should be quiet and let the forum continue to be a morass of dogmatism?

            No, maybe it's time we spoke up.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There are many forums that I have no interest in so I don't bother. They seem to enjoy taking about nonsense so I'll let them entertain themselves. What do you think, your the Mom coming in and telling us to clean up the room.

              Just hit the unfollow button as I'll do when I'm done.

        4. dianetrotter profile image62
          dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Paradigm, can you choose to not read stuff that you don't want to hear.  Even though many people disagree hear, it looks like they enjoy sparring.  I' amazed that these discussions are lasting so long; however, commenters have a right to make comments.

          1. dianetrotter profile image62
            dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            oops!  Disagree "here" not "hear"

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              No problems, happens to me all the time. You can edit your own post within a certain time frame, and you were certainly within that time frame.

              1. dianetrotter profile image62
                dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks Rad!  Through all of the sparring, different views, etc., bonds are developing.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  We're all in this together, but from different perspectives.

      2. JMcFarland profile image68
        JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you, I try.  I don't always succeed, but at least I put in my best effort. 

        I appreciate the compliment :-)

    2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      JMcFarland, thank you for the time you put into this. I know exactly what you mean about finding time. It's taken me two days to respond to three comments, and I don't have near the justifiable reasons for that lack of time as you do. I have nothing more to blame than just the normal everyday hectic-ness of life and my inability to adequately manage it.

      I don't recall now exactly how into this 'hypothesis/theory' (I've been criticized for using either word at one time or another) I got in my comment to you, and am not sure just how much you've followed along with my discussions with others, but most of what I posed to you was more specific to the bible side of things. I have a lot in the way of supporting evidence, but was looking to get your input as to whether or not this view holds water based more on your intimate knowledge of the source material. Hopefully we can still have that discussion, but it seems it's unavoidable in the initial stages of these discussions to first have to address the assumption that this idea I'm proposing is nothing more than a wishful-thinking believer who hasn't really thought it through very well and is instead just trying to justify his beliefs through twisting things around in the bible to make it all fit.

      I have followed things to their rational conclusion. I've considered this god-less existence scenario and it just doesn't work in my mind. There's too much order from chaos for me to buy into. Not to mention it means reducing everything being a human is all about to random artifacts born of the interaction of naturally evolved traits, like love, empathy, passion, pride, art, music, creativity, the purpose and value we apply to life, etc. I can see the desire to buy into this idea, but I see it mainly as a rejection of man-made religious ideals and not so much a realistic viewpoint to explain who/what we are. It serves well as a basis for scientific exploration and discovery, as you cannot exactly account for divine intervention in a controlled experiment, but it fails to address the entirety of existence from a philosophical/existential standpoint in my opinion.

      This idea I'm putting forward doesn't necessarily need to be 'tested', though it could certainly guide further investigation if there's any validity to it. The evidence that supports it is the same evidence that everyone is already fully aware of. The only disconnect is that assumption about Adam being the first human. Once corrected, it's pretty obvious where in history the events of early Genesis took place. Just do what I did. I took the fact that Abraham interacted with an Egyptian Pharaoh in Gen12, and the fact that according to Genesis Abraham was born just under 2000 years after Adam's creation, and used this to nail down a timeline. This would mean that Adam could not have been created any earlier than about 5500 BC or so. So, taking that as a starting point, just look at the history of the region specified, Mesopotamia. It's all there.

      The history of southern Mesopotamia matches right up with what's described. Starting with the Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC) you not only have Cain's city from Genesis 4, but you also have the inventions attributed to his descendants originating in this region and timeframe. This was the culture that invented the first human city. While there were other large human settlements that existed for centuries prior to the north, this city, Eridu, is classed as the first 'city' because it's the first existence anywhere of a settlement that consisted of a ruling and working class. According to the Sumerians, the founders of the first human civilization and inventors of numerous things that we still use to this day, Eridu was established by an immortal god they called Enki. The Sumerians believed they were meant to serve this god and his family as that's what they did. The patron god of each Sumerian city (there were 5 pre-flood cities according to them, most of which have actually been found) lived in the temple at the center of each city, and organized the labor that the people carried out. What's truly significant is that this culture that invented the first human cities came to an abrupt end that's still to this day not totally understood. And this culture lasted right about the same length of time that Genesis says took place between Cain's banishment and the flood, about 1500 years. Though flood evidence in this region is sparse, considering it's in modern day Iraq, back in the 20's there was found the tell-tale sign of a flood in the region of the Sumerian city of Ur, a layer of 'sterile deposit', that literally sealed off the Ubaid artifacts, meaning this flood most likely played a significant role in that culture's 'abrupt end'.

      Around 3900BC, there was a dramatic climate shift in this region that transformed the Sahara into a desert permanently (5.9 kiloyear event) that some say was the reason for the 'abrupt end'. This resulted in massive human migrations that literally dispersed the humans of that region in all directions, much like what's described at Babel. The confusing of languages can even be seen as the people forced back into nomadic lifestyles by this climate change were the same ones that brought the Semetic and Indo-European languages into Egypt, Sumer, and Europe. And with them also came those behavioral changes.

      Then another culture sprang up in this same location and basically picked up where the previous left off. It's referred to as the Uruk culture (4000-3100BC), named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, built towards the beginning of that period. They shared many similarities with the Ubaid culture, including class stratification. These were the first cultures where humans began to be much less egalitarian. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say the city of Uruk was established not long after the flood. It's attributed to Nimrod in Genesis and Enmerkar on the King's List. Both describe the founder of Uruk as a 'mighty hunter'. Genesis also specifies Eridu as being another of Nimrod's kingdoms, which also happens to be the site of the world's oldest ziggurat, or tower.

      This all lines up with Genesis down to the specified time table. As I pointed out, Adam not being the first human resolves those confusing lines in Genesis 4 about 'others' that Cain feared when he was banished and in Genesis 6 that speak of 'sons of God' having children with 'daughters of humans'. The biggest tell-tale signs in what we know about these cultures is the dramatic change in human behavior that brought about the first non-egalitarian human societies, and are linked to the dawning of multiple civilizations. This is where the first human civilizations sprang up, and this is where humans first began to act very contrary to nature, unlike any other time in the tens of thousands of years that anatomically modern humans have existed. Behavioral changes that closely resemble what Genesis says Adam and Eve gained by eating the forbidden fruit. Not to mention, the humans that inhabited this region, who eventually became the Sumerians, who invented/pioneered many things including cities, government, laws, complex irrigation techniques, year-round agriculture, crop rotation, calendars, astronomy, mathematics, writing, etc... didn't give credit to their ancestors, but instead claim they were taught by immortal beings, male and female, human in form, who inhabited the temples we know actually existed in the center of the Sumerian cities we know actually existed. Like Genesis says, Adam and his descendants lived for centuries compared to 'mortal' humans who only lived 120 years. And, as I'm sure you're aware, the Sumerians weren't the only civilization from this region that claimed immortal beings existed in their ancient past and believed these stories to be their actual history.

      As for the flood, it clearly wasn't global. For one thing, even in the traditional sense, a global flood would not have been necessary, as it happened just 10 generations after Adam. Just how much of the world could they possibly have inhabited? Plus, it's made clear between Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 that there were survivors of the flood whose descendants lived long after (the Nephilim). Not to mention the whole part in Genesis 4 about Cain's descendants being the 'fathers of all those who raised livestock/played stringed instruments/made metal tools' would be irrelevant in a global flood scenario considering they all would have died. And regarding the lack of evidence of Jewish enslavement in Egypt, this timeline places that happening way sooner than most are looking for it. This would be an era of Egyptian history without much in the way of written history being available.

      As for 'detecting God', notice how God's presence on earth, with the exception of the Garden of Eden story, always specifies it as being His 'spirit'. Whether it be His 'spirit' hovering over the waters during creation, talking through a burning bush, the ark of the covenant. When God appeared to Moses in Exodus He was described as having a physical form (hand, back, face). And in Psalms it talks about God sitting on His thrown in heaven watching the earth. It is clear that God exists before/outside of this existence, as does Heaven, and His interactions as being mostly indirect/non-physical. Besides, having 'ample evidence of God's existence' suggests God, though He's described as being the creator of existence, would somehow be subject to His own creation and its laws, thus 'detectable'.

      If this is something you're interested in pursuing further, I'm all for it and would love to hear what you have to say, but please don't feel obligated to respond if you're just not feeling it or if devoting the time required just isn't feasible. I completely understand, though I still hold out hope we can have the 'bible' discussion at the very least, as I'd be really interested in getting input from you in that regard.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

        then...

        The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

        God clearly appears to Abraham as a man.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That's a good point, Rad Man. That's an interaction I had not accounted for. In reading back over this it makes it clear to me this is something I need to look into more closely. If you've never read about the 'documentary hypothesis', I encourage you to look into it. Whether or not you put any value in the bible as a moral/religious document, I think you'll find the anatomy of the document itself, specifically those first five books, interesting for just historical reasons.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

          If you'll notice, there's a section of Genesis between those first 11 chapters that talk about the pre-flood world, and the time of Moses, that basically reads like a discombobulated collection of stories about Abraham primarily, which is where the bit you pointed out is located. I do not deny that these stories as they are today in the OT cannot be 100% accurate. The biggest clue of this is the duplicated stories in Genesis 12, 20, and 26. It's basically the same story happening three different times, but happening to different people. Abraham and an Egyptian Pharaoh in 12, Abraham again and Abimelek king of the Philistines in 20, and then again in 26, but this time it's Lot instead of Abraham, but it's still Abimelek as the king in the story.

          Genesis says the time between Abraham and Moses was 400 years. 40 and 400 are often used to represent an uncertain long period of time. Like the 40 days/nights of the rains that brought the flood, or the 40 years in the desert. So it's not clear just how accurate this really is. What is clear when reading Genesis is that the story becomes much more of a cohesive narrative once you reach the story of Moses. Before that it's just these random collections of stories edited together in the best way possible to convey a kind of fractured narrative of the time of Abraham, which makes sense if you consider that, according to the story, the events of Abraham happened before the centuries-long enslavement of the Jewish people by the Egyptians. That could maybe explain how these stories could be so fragmented by the time somebody got to writing them down way later.

          I go into all of that to say this. The documentary hypothesis I referred to earlier is an idea put forth by bible scholars who objectively studied the texts to explain the apparent 'pieced together' nature of the books of Moses. In some places, especially prior to Exodus 3, it sometimes refers to God with the personal name YAHWEH, and other times it refers to Him in the more generic word for deity, Elohim. The portions that describe Yahweh as anthropomorphic are attributed to the 'Yahwist' source. This source is said to be more 'concerned with narratives'. It 'presents a theology of history, rather than a timeless philosophical theology' and God/Yahweh's character is 'known by his actions'.

          The descriptions of God in a more impersonal way (speaking through dreams, prophets, angel of the Lord)  are attributed to the Elohist source. What's interesting in this source is that God is described as 'human-like' and is referred to as 'Elohim' up to the incident of the burning bush, but then after Elohim then reveals Himself as Yahweh. This is why it becomes much more difficult from that point on to discern which is which as far as source material goes, because both from that point forward often refer to God by the same name, Yahweh.

          So, it's hard to say when dealing with that stretch of Genesis. What is interesting is that in all the stories leading up to that point it often just says 'God said to Abraham' (Gen12,13), but doesn't specify if He's standing there, if it's a voice in his head, an audible voice in the clouds, it just doesn't specify. Other times it says God appears to Abraham in a vision (Gen15), or that Abraham first fell into a deep sleep (later in Gen15), then God spoke to him. Then, in Gen17, it says God 'appeared' to Abraham when Abraham was old and Abraham fell face down. Then, in Gen18, the one you're referring to, God and two angels appeared as 'three men'. This chapter is attributed to the more narratively-based 'Jahwist' source, so it could be a kind of literary device used to tell the story. I really can't say.

      2. profile image29
        puellaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        HvN: what an excellent piece of research!!! I am nearly 70 and have been rai sed, instructed, educated in the Catholic faith and a whole lot of histories and leturgias and etc; however this approach of yours is certainly enlightening, interesting, serious, supported,:I thank you for your efforts in this venue...Just excellent!

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you, puella. I have had no formal training of any kind, so it means a lot to hear that from someone who has. I have studied significantly and diligently, bordering on obsessively, on my own, but am by no means an expert. So it's good to hear that someone who does have a basis of knowledge formed through more official means can see cohesion and possible value in what I'm presenting.

          1. artblack01 profile image60
            artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Are you open to the idea that your belief that the Bible and the existence of God is wrong?  Are you open to the idea that God does not exist and the Bible is merely someone's documentation of what they believed or what they wanted to believe actually happened even though/if it did not happen?

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Are you open to the idea that your disbelief in the Bible and the existence of God is wrong? I get what you're getting at. In your mind my faith in God inhibits my ability to look at reality realistically/objectively/rationally. You feel I have a default disposition to insert God where there are no answers. That my 'problem' is that I just haven't thought it through logically.

              But have you? Are you sure it's me not thinking things through? That it's me that is rationalizing?

              I have questioned what I was taught. I have never doubted God's existence, however, because, while I understand the concept/viewpoint of a god-less existence that just came about on its own through random chance, I don't see that as a realistic conclusion. I see that more as a rationalization born of the desire to rule out the God that the largest organized religions of the world are based on. The religious institutions that many (myself included) view as an obstructive, flawed, discriminating, and oppressive force in human history.

              But I just can't get on board with the idea that an intelligent, rational mind capable of grasping the complexities of the universe came from an unintelligent process of random mutation and natural selection. Order and intelligence born of unintelligent random chaos, while it's a necessary viewpoint where scientific investigation is concerned, is not a realistic conclusion in my mind to answer the bigger existential questions of who/what humans are and where we came from.

              1. artblack01 profile image60
                artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, I am open to every idea that is backed by evidence, you don't seem to realize or remember if I had not told you already, I grew up a Christian, if you want to know more about that I have a new hub on recovering from religion, it's not easy shedding your belief in the supernatural so I do understand your desire to defend your beliefs but what you don't realize about me as an atheist is that the word atheist barely describes me as a person, all it says about me is that I lack a belief in a God.  MY ENTIRE FAMILY is either Catholic or some fundamental Christian and do you have any idea what it's like for me going to any sort of Family function?  Every Thanksgiving and Christmas my cousin (who is very rightwing conservative Christian) and I have debates (unfortunately through the entire event) on how I am going to hell or how his religion or his politics or his economics is right and I am wrong....  What do the rest of my family do?  The help him sometimes... I am not alone in my family, I have an Uncle, another cousin and my father (who is usually too occupied to help) on my side however they don't really help either because they don't want to expose themselves in their nonbelief.  Trust me, I didn't just one day decide to stop believing, I decided the truth and justice is more important than anything else. 
                "But have you? Are you sure it's me not thinking things through? That it's me that is rationalizing?"
                Yes I am and yes I am sure, we have had this debate before and I have pointed out the flaws in your arguments and your logic and I have watched you rationalize them away as if that would make them true however you don't have anything but rationalization to back you up, which is what most delusional people have in any belief system.  The fact that " I have never doubted God's existence" proves my point that you HAVEN'T thought it out, or truly questioned the validity of your own beliefs, you are afraid to and I realize that. Fear is what keeps you in these childish beliefs.  "random chance" had nothing to do with existence except in what direction development happened, existence is.  Yes, it just is.  Now you can rationalize a God into it but if you use a God to explain the universe you must prove not only that God exists but provide an explanation (if that is all you have and it is) of God's origins as well.  But you neither have evidence for a God just a rational for why you think God is necessary for existence nor do you have a valid explanation for the origin of a God.  That is why your belief in a God is irrational.....

                What you also don't understand is that if you can prove that God exists I would go back to believing in God.

                "But I just can't get on board with the idea that an intelligent, rational mind capable of grasping the complexities of the universe came from an unintelligent process of random mutation and natural selection."  But you can you just choose to ignore it, look at children and look at their development, now imagine that all adults on the planet from age 7-the oldest adult all die.  none of the children know how to do much of anything, we would go back to being wild animals and we would slowly develop back to how we are now over a few thousand years, that is how it happened and you can ignore that idea if you so wish but are you willing to accept it if it were true?  You just admitted to disliking one idea and liking another not accepting an idea for being true and rejecting another for being untrue, you have to follow the evidence not what you WANT to be true.
                Which is why I am an atheist.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I get that, Art, and I definitely get what you're saying about family get-togethers. My family is convinced that I'm endangering my salvation with these crazy ideas of mine. They've gotten to the point that they can't even hardly talk to be about it because they get all emotional. My grandmother finally just had to go lay down the last time I saw them, and then I just spent the rest of the time getting looks that basically say, "How dare you! Look what you're doing to your poor grandmother!"

                  I don't agree that it's fear that drives me. If it turns out I'm totally wrong then there's really nothing to worry about, right? As long as I'm careful not to be harmful to others while I'm here, to try to do more good than damage, then that's really it. It's nothing beyond this. So what's to fear?

                  My problem with the 'god-less existence' viewpoint is purely logical. Even with the extreme length of time to allow for it, I just don't see it as plausible. I don't doubt that you've taken a good hard look at what you were taught and have formed your own understanding. I've talked to you enough to know that your viewpoint is earned through your own contemplation and not something you were just taught because you can adequately explain it.

                  My point has more to do with your conclusion. Especially considering your upbringing and the conflict your viewpoint causes with family and such. Are you certain that your feelings about God and religion as seen through your family are not maybe making you more willing to accept something beyond reason?

                  I think Einstein said it better than I've been able to up to this point when he said, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

                  I can certainly understand rejecting the Christian version of God, but to then go from there to determining with certainty that there is no deliberate purpose, or intelligence driving the obvious harmony that can be seen in the cosmos and in life is a bit of a stretch.

                  Whether or not you agree, I at least hope you can see that it's not something I've arrived at lightly or that requires a total abandonment of logic and reason.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image62
                    dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I find it interesting, and difficult to respond to, that people "grew" up Christian or were forced to be a Christian and then changed their minds.  Any and everybody should be welcome in church to "get the information necessary to make a decision."  Just the fact that one goes to church and follows rituals doesn't make one a Christian.  The Biblical definition of Christian is laid out in the New Testament.  Rejection of the criteria means a person chooses to "not" be a Christian.  It is a freewill decision.  Parents taking you to church does not make you, or your parents, Christians.

                  2. artblack01 profile image60
                    artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    "Are you certain that your feelings about God and religion as seen through your family are not maybe making you more willing to accept something beyond reason?"
                    That is a hilarious question considering I answered it in my statement.
                    I cam to my conclusion of whether or not there was a God based on my need to know what was real vs what was fantasy.  The problem with any conclusion is it's basis.  What is the conclusion that there must be a God based on? It's NOT logic. Saying there must be a God because you can't understand how the universe and the intelligent beings that inhabit the Earth came about with out an "intelligent designer" is an argument from ignorance.  If you don't understand how something came to be the best you can say is "I don't know how something came to be."  For example, what happened before the big bang?  I don't know.  How did the big bang happen, not sure, I can barely speculate.  I can only base my idea on scientific evidence and it's not yet totally conclusive.  Particles do go in and out of existence.  This is best explain in Stephen Hawking's show "Curiosity." 
                    One of the basic misconceptions people have about nearly all Atheists is the assertions.  An atheist merely does not believe there is a God, not because there is or isn't but because God has not been proven to exist nor has there been any evidence to support the possible existence of such a being.
                    I call myself a Gnostic Atheist only because the evidence presented shows no need for such a being to exist in our universe at all.  The Gnostic part is merely arbitrary because I have not been shown any evidence that contradicts that the idea of God is impossible.  God is merely our anthropomorphic embodiment assigned to the things in the world/universe for which we have not yet achieved an understanding of.
                    I hate it when people quote Einstein on this topic because quoting famous people is actually tricky, the quote only shows what he thought at the time the quote was made, it is not his total belief, he changed his mind about things many times.  It would be like quoting me 25 years ago, the me of now would not agree with the me of 25 years nor of the me of 5 years ago.

              2. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Why not? It seems to me a much better and much more logical way of explaining human intelligence then stating an invisible super being that was alone forever nowhere suddenly poofed it all here and is now watching outside our universe.

                1. artblack01 profile image60
                  artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  He really desperately needs to take an anthropology class.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Apparently you do too ...



                    Because it must be me who's wrong, you go ahead and make the statement that my statement 'shows basic ignorance of human history and prehistory and human nature and reality'. Bet you didn't really look into it to first see if there was any validity to my statement. Granted this is still a relatively new understanding taken from studies done over a wide range of archaeological and historical records in combination with an in-depth cross-cultural review and mapping of data from over 1000 distinctly different human societies, from standard anthropological data bases.

                    You might want to look again before assuming it must be me who's wrong.

                    Here's a place to start .... 'Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James Demeo

    3. artblack01 profile image60
      artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I think he's aware that he spins things and makes excuses for why his contradictions actually aren't contradictions.  He loves to spin things and rationalize different reasons to make them make sense to him.  What he doesn't get is they only make sense to him because he wants them to.

  8. jay_kumar_07 profile image60
    jay_kumar_07posted 11 years ago

    Why Atheist become NonAtheists and NonAtheists become Atheists among us.

  9. psycheskinner profile image77
    psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

    The evidence of the scientific accuracy of Genesis plays fast and loose both with the contents of Genesis and the meaning of "evidence". Cue discussion about what a "day" is.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly, dismissed categorically for arbitrary reasons. No need to consider any of it. I'm just a crazy believer that just doesn't get it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

      1. artblack01 profile image60
        artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "dismissed categorically for arbitrary reasons"  No dismissed because we've had this conversation over and over and every time a bring up a flaw in your argument you make excuses, you say that everything in genesis shows that it must be true because it tells of things that happened 4000 years ago but consider that it was written around 3500 years ago...  you also dismiss anything humans did 10000 years ago which is when the oldest Pyramid was built or started... 
        No matter what I give you as reasons for your arguments being flawed you (the vagueness and contradiction) you defend it without thinking it over. 
        "I'm just a crazy believer that just doesn't get it."
        You got that right.  That is why I refuse to have a real conversation with you anymore, why would one want to talk to a brick wall?  We had a super long conversation about this before and now you ant more?  I am tired of your BS.
        Dismissed.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well, first off, it should be pointed out that you initiated this particular discussion. And considering we've had lengthy discussions in the past, it's not like you didn't know what you were getting into. So you really only have yourself to blame. Second, I have devoted a lot of time and research to this. I'm not just making stuff up or twisting things around to make Genesis fit because my faith isn't hinged on whether or not there's any literal truth to Genesis. I think that's an assumption you hang on. That my faith is hinged on this so I'm all desperate to make it work. No, I've just found good reason to think Genesis was misinterpreted as far as Adam being the first human. So I took that and compared to history and have since found overwhelming support for this story with that one correction in place that goes a long way towards answering questions that still linger to this day if true.

          If you gave me valid reasons or illustrated true flaws then I'm open to hearing what you've got. But you haven't. Take this comment for instance....

          "you say that everything in genesis shows that it must be true because it tells of things that happened 4000 years ago but consider that it was written around 3500 years ago...  you also dismiss anything humans did 10000 years ago which is when the oldest Pyramid was built or started..."

          There's so much wrong with that statement I'm not even sure where to start. First off, the primary events I'm talking about that line up with Genesis 2-11 are 5500 to about 3800 BC, which is 7500 to 5800 years ago, 1800+ years off of what you thought. When Genesis was actually written is unknown, but scholars estimate that the oldest surviving text (written roughly 300BC) is redacted from multiple hypothetical sources probably written around 950, 850, and about 500BC respectively. And even those probably came from something older. Those dates are based on titles used, like the Sumerian city of Ur being called Ur of the Chaldeans, though the Chaldeans didn't settle in the region of Ur until about 850 BC. The main point here is that the events I'm referring to happened a good 1000 or more years before writing was even invented, and even longer before writing had reached a point that it could be used to tell a story and not just be used for basic administrative uses.

          And the pyramid thing is a whole other problem. The oldest known pyramids date no earlier than about 3000 BC, or 5000 years ago. If you count Ziggurats as pyramids, which some do, then the oldest was built in Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian city of Eridu, dating back another 1000 years or so earlier. This is still a good 4000 years off of your mark. But, maybe you're aware of something I'm not? I'd be fascinated to hear what you're referring to because that would date back to an age when the majority of humans were still in hunter-gatherer mode with the exception of a small section of modern day Turkey where the first horticultural practices were in effect. But there are no pyramids from this age to my knowledge.

          But the bigger problem with your statement is that it illustrates that you don't even have the most fundamental of a grasp of what it is I'm talking about. The fact that you think a pyramid and how long ago it was built is even relevant is telling. And your statement that I 'dismiss' anything humans did 10000 years ago is just plain false. I've discussed this timeframe in relation to what I'm talking about in this very forum discussion. So I'm confused as to how exactly it is you can illustrate 'flaws' in my argument when you're not even sure what my argument is.

          1. artblack01 profile image60
            artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "it's not like you didn't know what you were getting into. So you really only have yourself to blame. "  Even I had hoped that maybe your lame argument had changed.  (See even atheists use the idea of hope).
            "I'm not just making stuff up or twisting things around to make Genesis fit because my faith isn't hinged on whether or not there's any literal truth to Genesis."  Yet you aren't saying anything that hasn't already been debunked by not only myself but by everyone in science and archeology (who doesn't have a Christian Agenda).

            "I think that's an assumption you hang on. That my faith is hinged on this so I'm all desperate to make it work."  No just an observation that I questioned you on over and over again, I asked you several questions on the subject and you brought up the same thing every time.

            Like I said, though, you've been dismissed and I can't stand continuing this lame debate over a Bible no older than 3500 years talking about things that the people who wrote the Bible experienced, that's no special revelation. 

            If you want to prove your imaginary friend yo
            u call God, you are gonna have to find another method for doing so than the Bible....  which by the way is NOT the oldest know writing and Christianity is by far NOT the oldest religion out there still being practiced today.

  10. Gail Mudget profile image55
    Gail Mudgetposted 11 years ago

    I tried to follow what point was being made here because I am an atheist and new to Hub Pages. Is this supposed to be a slam to atheist? Humour without a punchline? Or did I miss something. Atheist are or just to speak for myself. I have a strong belief in being moral. Honesty is a principal I live by. And I do have little patience for the ignorance that is prejudice. And trust me.. just saying I'm an Atheist makes people, like students I may be in a group with, To roll their eyes, become hostile and oh yes,,..... the always immature..silent treatment. Wake up people, we're getting too old to play make believe, aren't we?

    1. profile image29
      puellaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I too live by principles and try my best to be true to myself; do you get mad at someone who from scratch says that she/he believes in God and then she/he tries to present ideas behind, etc etc etc...only to be called irritating...go read more about Marilyn Monroe (my way to say what you are reading is much much less relevant than MM wink sorry for the figure) , or, do you seriously listen and try to converge (not give in but not quarrel either...are we kids then?? (seriously, I wish I was...) ; is it really that it's impossible to have a conversation w/o someone from the other side getting to call another "ignorant" or "idiot" or "ridicule"...I was taught since little that yelling, and/or using insults was the characteristic of people who could not otherwise formulate and interchange ideas w/o trying to twist arms or impose or manipulate..then,it is not about ideas and beliefs, it is about... impositions...and that it is due to a lack of people skills....If opinions opposing to ours were to make me ill, then why, I ask, why then that person engages in a discussion in the first place; I tell you, Freud would not be that curious about some issues: he would have a swift analysis of it... Intolerance to any human choices only means intolerance to oneself (puella dixit). But none the less,I said genuinely, that I, as a Xtian, forgave him winkwink  and I really do...I am olde you know, and I am...not... trolling... I am really really really trying to be informed of any new discovery by scientists or...sorcerers on the topic...
      By the way, are 'feelings' any kind of evidence? do feelings "exist" per se; some 'existences" change dynamically like 'feelings'? what is feelings to faith? and what is faith to feelings? what is really to believe? is it to knee before an image and...pray with closed eyes and closed...mind...? What is prayer...do only Xtians or believers pray? Pray is simply to verbalize mentally or not the longings, the dreams, the needs... Has someone here gone to a process called visualization? (it's used in big corporations workshops to enhance team members abilities to be proactive positive, achievers...

      1. dianetrotter profile image62
        dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Well thought out and written Puella!

      2. artblack01 profile image60
        artblack01posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Pointing out hypocrisy is not an attempt at insult it's an attempt to tell you you are the pot calling the kettle black and have nothing to contribute to this conversation.

  11. paradigmsearch profile image60
    paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago

    Why was I brought here. I mean, seriously.

    1. dianetrotter profile image62
      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Divine intervention?

  12. chatpilot profile image68
    chatpilotposted 11 years ago

    Here is my atheistic point of view on the God question. It's quite simple actually. Man created gods not the other way around. Our history is rife with a myriad of gods from every culture and nation around the world both known and unknown. We acknowledge all those other religious beliefs as nothing more than ancient superstitions and myths. so why should the Christian God be any different? In fact, if you took the time to study some comparative religion objectively and honestly you would immediately recognize some Caananite and Persian influences in the Christian religion.

    There is no evidence for the existence of the biblical God or any other god for that matter and if there were a God he is completely useless to mankind. The world and all of the calamities and "natural" disasters that we face on a daily basis is best explained naturally. All these events are random and in many cases have a perfectly good explanation (earthquakes) that does not require the supernatural. The invisible guy in the sky is just that invisible and seems only to exist in the minds of those that choose to believe that he exists. Sort of like children who are taught to believe in Santa Clause till they grow up and realize that it was mom and dad who bought them all those presents throughout their young lives.

  13. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    Yes - that is what I got out of that.

    Remember - "He who is not with me is against me." Divide. Them and Us.

    Hope the praying makes you feel better. I guess you really, really want me to believe the same stuff you do huh? Then your Invisible Super Being will not throw me in the lake of fire. And you still worship this thing? Weird. sad

    My pleasure with the smileys. big_smile

    1. dianetrotter profile image62
      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Mark, I certainly want the best for you and all of the guys, mentioning no names like Rad and JmC, who are "picking" on me.  Yes ... picking.  HOWEVER, you are more than capable of making your own decisions and I respect that.  1 Corinthians 13:7  Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.  cool

      This one probably doesn't even apply but I love those smileys!

      1. JMcFarland profile image68
        JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        how exactly am I picking on you?  I've been perfectly polite.

        1. profile image0
          riddle666posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Isn't it obvious? The christian idea of love and respect is perfect acceptance of what they say without questioning. If you ask a question, or even make a grimace you are attacking! Humble people they are, you know!

          1. calynbana profile image77
            calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I think you will find that often the questions asked here are dripping with sarcasm, or condescension. Coming both from the theists and atheists. I think there have been bouts of disrespect and unnecessary picking from both sides. It isn't simply about asking questions. I am sure many of the Christians here would LOVE to be asked serious questions, in which their answers are taken seriously. By which I don't mean blindly accepted, but actually given some thought.

            Christianity is not a religion of blind faith. It is a faith which requires a lot of self examination and fact checking (Unfortunately the facts are not always checked, and the "other" is more often examined).

            Do you have some serious questions about Christianity? Ask them with a tone of respect, and I am sure you can expect some well thought out, loving answers. At least that is what you should receive. If not you could always just go read some C.S Lewis, I think he covers most questions asked tongue

            1. profile image0
              riddle666posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              The problem is all Christian belief turn out to be what C S Lewis wrote - fiction.
              I did ask some serious question, either the Christians didn't even answered it or they used deceptive language which when pointed out the retort was that I'm not interested in learning or I lack understanding.

              1. calynbana profile image77
                calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                What are some of those questions? Perhaps I can offer a non deceptive answer. I would love to have a civil discussion void of any ridicule and ad hominems.

                1. profile image0
                  riddle666posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Have you read C S Lewis?
                  Aslan came to a planet and modified it and made that into a nation. The planet was already there, Aslan only created the nation.
                  What do you think of that?

                  1. calynbana profile image77
                    calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I think that it is a wonderful narrative for children. I think that Lewis may have intended Aslan to represent Christ. Seeing as Christ came into the created world and died for our sins, was risen and is to return and when he does there will be one nation. This is what Lewis was attempting to capture in the character of Aslan. There are representations for the Father and Spirit as well. Did you notice them?

                    I was referring to the adult books that Lewis wrote however. His children's books were amazing, but the adult series was genius.

                    Have you read The Screwtape Letters or Mere Christianity?

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              How can you say Christianity is not a religion of blind faith when that's exactly what it is?

              What "facts" are there in Christianity?

              1. calynbana profile image77
                calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Before I answer your question, I would like you to explain why you think it is a religion of blind faith.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Obviously, because all you have is a book and nothing more, a book written decades after the alleged event of the Christ by people who never met him. That would be blind faith.

                  1. calynbana profile image77
                    calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Okay. Is it just one book? Who do you think wrote the book?

        2. dianetrotter profile image62
          dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I was kidding about the "picking."  In my life I hae experienced a lot of picking.  You guys are combining forces for a joint assault!  JUST KIDDING!

      2. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I don't understand - how is quoting the bible "picking on you."? 

        Remember - you are either with me or against me. wink

        1. dianetrotter profile image62
          dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well Mark it is a little more involved that the Bible quotes; however, I don't mind talking about a few.  I didn't know you wanted to have Bible study!  I am certainly not against you.  I'm glad you made it through the night.  Now you've got to buy a new calendar.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't believe in calendars. big_smile

            OK - so - you are not against me - you just pray that I start thinking the way you do and ignore what Jesus says?

            1. dianetrotter profile image62
              dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              What Jesus says?  What is that Mark?  1 thessalonians 5:17  Never stop praying.


              Praying for our unsaved friends is the best way to begin reaching them for Christ. The following verses give us a biblical outline for these prayers.
              For God to draw them to Himself
              "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . . " (John 6:44).

              That they would seek to know God
              "But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 4:29).

              For them to believe the Scriptures
              " . . . faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17).

              That Satan would be prevented from blinding them to the truth
              "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                There you go again. Unsaved and Saved. Them and Us. You have the Light and They are in darkness.

                This is why your religion causes so many fights. you think you know what is best for me. I reject your religion because it is divisive nonsense. I hope the praying makes you feel better though. wink

                1. dianetrotter profile image62
                  dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  thank you Mark!  My faith is not in the prayer itself but in the object of the prayer.  It is so wonderful that we can discuss this and not be upset with each other.  It's not about one trying to convince the other.  We are both expressing who we are.  That's a good thing!  Notice "we!"

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Well - I am used to it now, but many people are offended that you think you are saved and they are in need of saving and you have the answer.

                    Because you don't. wink

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Funny, how you have no idea that those "unsaved friends" think your beliefs are just childish myths that have absolutely no bearing on them whatsoever.

      3. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Diane, sorry you feel this way, I was concerned so I looked back to the last time I replied to one of your comments and I had to go back to page 102 (5 pages ago) where I said.

        "Actually the stats tell an interesting story. Christians are over represented in prison and of the approximate 16% of Atheists in the U.S. less than 0.5% of the prison population are Atheists. So, claiming Christians are more ethical than Atheists is just simply wrong."

        You had made the claim that Christians were more ethical then Atheists, so I just defended myself. Now, if I had made the claim that I was more ethical then you as you did then I could see how you could perceive that I was picking on you.

        1. dianetrotter profile image62
          dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Geez Mark!  Did I say that Christians are more ethical than atheists?  I don't think so but Christians should certainly be ethical if they are sincere about their faith.

          I was addressing what defines "morality." The Bible details what morality, for Christians, should be.  We all do things that are immoral.  As we grow in our faith we should do the right thing more often through discipline, undergirding of other believers and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

          My point was "What defines morality for atheists?"  I think JMC brought up secular humanism.  If it wasn't you JMC, I apologize.  Anyway, if secular humanism is what motivates atheists to be moral, then the key is secular humanism.  However, not all atheists are secular humanists.

          The main point is we can classify ourselves any way we want.  The question is, "Does our behavior line up with what we say we are?"  That goes back to the definition of morality.  Wow!  I'm dizzy now that I have completed the circle.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry Diane, you're mixing Mark and I up.

            Diane wrote:
            "The Bible details what morality, for Christians, should be."
            I hope you are speaking of the NT and not the OT. You may be surprised how little your own set of ethics/morality comes from the bible. Our ethics tell us slavery, rape, and murder are wrong, but the bible endorses those things.

            1. profile image29
              puellaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              bible endorses what? 
              it's  said that selfrighteous gals aren't usually equalitarians...i read this in the newest testament here in this frm.... and that flannery o'connors always believed that 'a good man is hard to find'. and that was cause a lady character felt above the rest in quality and quantity of values and hence, she was purrfect according to those  who tended to make an efficient use of grey matters.....
              .

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I said the bible endorses slavery, rape and murder and I can back it up.

                Ephesians 6:5 (NLT)
                Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

                Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
                However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way. 

                Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT
                Anyone who is captured will be cut down—run through with a sword.
 Their little children will be dashed to death before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked, and their wives will be raped.
                “Look, I will stir up the Medes against Babylon. They cannot be tempted by silver or bribed with gold.
The attacking armies will shoot down the young men with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies
and will show no compassion for children.”

                Exodus 21:15 NKJV
                And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

                Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV
                If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

                1. profile image29
                  puellaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  and the context was...what? year 2025 or  3K? or they were, at the times of the old testament, say close to Neanderthal? please...loiteral interpretation? then, if a medicine needs to be "taken 3 times a day" i cant  interpret that i can take it with one minute or one hour or one second interval? and that will satisfy the dose of 3 a day? or I need a bit of more cooked gray matter?

                  Endorsement means?? if a man rapes...then he needs to pay...and maarry... etc Is that an endorsement? if there is a fine and/or the obligation to reapir reputation thru marriage THAT is not endorsement!!!  there is no endorsement...maybe a fine is little, but even today, someone is innocent until proved guilty beyond readonable doubt winkwink and if that is not being consensual on big cases then what? 
                  read back a dictionary and come back without fanaytism of your owm fancies!

                  1. JMcFarland profile image68
                    JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    If a man rapes a woman and has to pay her father a fine (as the old testament dictates) how is he being punished?  Women were considered property in the old testament.  Since the man took away everything that made her valuable in the eyes of society, the rapist had to pay her father (not her) what she was worth.  Additionally, the woman was FORCED to marry her rapist, and he could never divorce her.  How is it moral to force a woman to live with, sleep with and have children with the man who raped her?

                    Additionally, if the rape happened within city limits and they determined somehow that the woman did not scream loud enough in protest - SHE was to be stoned. 

                    That's morality to you?

                  2. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Interesting that you didn't argue that the bible doesn't endorse or condone murder or slavery? You picked Rape to argue against. I could supply many more scripture, but no need JM took care of that section very nicely.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, but the Bible does no such thing. It only commands you to obey and worship your god, and shun those who don't obey and worship the same god. Morals are not taught in the Bible.



            No, WE don't.



            Logic and reason.

            1. dianetrotter profile image62
              dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Trouble, I respectively disagree.  I may not agree with you but I certainly respect your right to have that perspective.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                It doesn't matter if you disagree. You are unable to show any validity in your claim that the Bible teaches morals, when it does no such thing. Show us where it teaches morals, if you can.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
                  However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.

                  Well, what we learn from scripture is that it's okay to buy slaves from other nations if you're Israeli, and you can buy non-Israeli child residents. They can be treated as property much like a shovel, BUT never treat an Israelite like property. Strange, sounds like something a group of people would right to have their people guilt free.

                  Oh wait, you weren't asking me... Sorry.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image62
                    dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    There are people discussing this on the Internet.  One example:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 838AAesoye   Commenters stated that the Leviticus passage was about Jewish custom.  Not my comment but it appears that most criticisms quote the Old Testament.  Jesus came to earth to free us from the Old Testament of law and bring us under the New Testament and the Age of Grace.

                    I maintain that a passage should not be lifted out and taken out of context.  When one doesn't believe in salvation, certainly none of the other passages will make sense.    Debating specific passages is not profitable and, from Christian perspective, cannot be intelligently discussed in a vacuum.

  14. Raitu Disong profile image61
    Raitu Disongposted 11 years ago

    Tired of this discussion###$$.... Let us conclude here.... wise man and woman!

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm always amused when someone decides that we are done with a particular forum. Control issues perhaps. You don't have to stay you know. Just press the do not follow button.

      1. profile image0
        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Are there any people with greater control issues than those of the "christian right," who tend to be judgmental, holier-than-thou, dogmatic, yet more concerned with the "life-here-after" than actually doing what is right here and now?

        I am not knocking those who have a simple, personal faith that helps them through the difficult times of life, and encourages them to think outside of themselves, to the down-to-earth needs of their neighbours.  Because such faith as this can also bring great joy and celebration in times of plenty and grace.  Yet these people are not those who are judgmental of others.   Some criticism of course is in order, as long as it is shared lovingly.   But out-and-out, blind application of dogmatic biblicism is, in my opinion, one of the most negative practices in our world today.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I saw it first hand in another forum last night directed at JMcFarland. First time I ever reported someone. No thought given to the human on the other end of hate. So unChrist like for a Christian if you ask me.

  15. Raitu Disong profile image61
    Raitu Disongposted 11 years ago

    There are more people who believe in God than atheists!
    We live in this democratic world where everyone's voice should be heard...
    Majority wins.. God exists... Atheist need to follow ..just a thought

    1. JMcFarland profile image68
      JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The majority does not always win, and might does not make right.  That's what the nature of democracy means - it protects the rights of the few from the will of the many.

      Sorry you're bored - why don't you check out another forum and let the rest of us continue to converse like we enjoy doing.

      Saying "more people believe in god than don't" is nothing more than an appeal to authority.  Doesn't mean all of those people are right.  It is possible that they're all wrong.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        That is true. You need look no further than the album sales of boy bands in the 90's to see that large numbers of people can be completely wrong.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well, if those boy bands sold that many records/cd's they must be good, so we should all listen to them... LOL

    2. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously? lol

    3. dianetrotter profile image62
      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      From the mouths of babes!!!  smile

  16. Raitu Disong profile image61
    Raitu Disongposted 11 years ago

    Oh! A good politician here!.    .. I was giving just a thought; I don’t mean to make a fuss ..well, I leave you guys in peace to continue this endless debate, …

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The hopes of many christians are endless, and without good reason..... only belief, made to individual order.

    2. profile image0
      riddle666posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I was giving a thought and you dared challenge me,  so I'm leaving.  If you had cheered and applauded me, I might have ....

  17. dianetrotter profile image62
    dianetrotterposted 11 years ago

    There was no reply button after jonny's comments to me.  Here is my response:

    You:  With respect Diana, what you are describing is fanaticism. As though "one-size-fits-all." You don't have to accept, or even understand, everything about another person's point of view or opinion. The world is large enough for all of us to live side-by-side.

    Response:  If it is fanaticism, so be it.  One-size-fits all – absolutely!   John 14:6 says, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me". Acts 4:12 says, Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
    I agree that the world is large enough to live side by side.  The Bible tells us that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and consider others more valuable than ourselves.

    My not believing in what you believe should not hinder your belief, IF your belief is more than surface deep. If your belief IS only surface deep, if it's only there for show, to attract people of similar beliefs to look up to you, admire you for it, then your belief is so shallow, so weak, so unimportant in the long term it's not worth worrying about. If your belief is worth keeping and going to serve your deeper needs, it will withstand any amount of critique and debate, without others such as myself supporting it.
    Response – your beliefs do not hinder mine.  If I were a Bible teacher it would be my responsibility to read about other religions in order to teach about them.  I’m not a Bible scholar and my days are quite full.  When we have Bible studies that compare other religions with Christianity, I find out information about those relisions.  I don’t recall asking you or anyone to support what I believe.
    But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,  1 Peter 3:15

    In other words, don't wait on me agreeing with you. Don't even wish that I should agree with you. Respect my atheist understanding, which for me is really much more substantial than "only skin deep." I have come to my understandings and opinions over a long period, with lots of questioning of my self, my desires, my needs, my yearnings. I am so strong in the answers arrived at, that I can freely allow you your choices without endangering my own.

    Response – This is ironic.  Is it something that you do … respect my Christian understanding, which for me is really much more substantial than “ony skin deep.”  I was actually responding to JMC.  In your response you appear to be accusing me of things that I did not do or say.

    Yet my mind is still open to new information, other ideas, other possibilities. NO! Please don't take this as an invite for you to evangelise me! I would be offended if you did. Just accept me, as I am, in the same way that you hope your "God" will accept you, just as you are..... Ok?

    Response – I don’t engage in debate.  If you will look back at my responses and over all Hubs on which I comment.  I certainly accept you as you are.  The question is … do you accept me as I am without attacks about shallowness, weakness, unimportance, etc?

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No attacks at all, Diana, just putting my case so that there can be no misunderstanding of my position. 

      Unless I respond to you as I do respond to any christian who thinks they have the answers to my life, then I would singling you out and that would be unfair.

      I do not accept any of the biblical beliefs which you have stated.  I don't accept that there is a "judgmental god" that sits in judgment of you or me or anyone else.   You of course are entitled to come to your own conclusion.   This is the part that I respect.

      Lack of a willingness to debate is probably a good thing on your part, because such a debate could never be resolved in a Hub like this one, as has been shown throughout the several thousand posts we have seen..... it's a total waste of time.   So yes, all I can do is accept that your position, your belief(s) will not change, and let you be.

      I would never again set foot inside an evangelical church, not for a baptism or a marriage or a funeral.  Because I know that I would be subject, as a "captive audience," to a sermon attempting to change my opinion..... and at that point it would be all one way..... I would not be in a position to discuss.   So I would not attend.

      I would be happy to attend a catholic or high anglican services for any of the above,  even though the teachings and beliefs are not mine; because for one thing I could spend my time looking at the beautiful art and listening to beautiful music.  Secondly I would be able to concentrate on celebrating the individuals who were the centre of attention.The liturgy  I could excuse with a smile!   Admittedly the art and the music has been inspired by the faith and belief of sincere people in the past.   I can admire, yet do not need to "take on board."

      No, Diane, I cannot accept that "one-size-fits-all."  That is not even "faith."  It even puts restrictions on the god that is involved, and "infinite" implies no boundaries.

  18. profile image0
    OllieTrolleyposted 10 years ago

    I'm Wiccan, but I don't believe there is a right or wrong religion. I have other Wiccan friends, gypsy friends, atheist friends, and Christian finds. They respect me, I respect them. Simple.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)