Are You Open-minded Enough to Concede that God Might Not Exist?

Jump to Last Post 51-67 of 67 discussions (872 posts)
  1. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston

    The Deists reason that God created the heavens and earth and left to continue creating in other worlds.  The Christian God created  all life and the earth to supply all thngs for man.  When Adam was created, he was created to till the soil.  That was his purpose from the beginning. He was a farmer in the Garden of Eden.  When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were driven from the Garden and told they would have to work to provide for themselves.

    This is very logical in the scheme of order and creation.  God gave man the a list of foods he could eat.  He also forbade some foods because they made man sick.  Some fish and swine are forbidden because they are scavengers and toxins remain in them.  Therefore, they are not good for man.  That does not mean that man will die instantly if he eats those foods.

    Here you see two sets of laws.  Both the result of created order. Obedience to the laws lead to blessings and disobedience leads to sickness. So it is perfectly logical to see how things are created for a purpose.  All things have a purpose.

    The interactive Christian God is the result of Jesus' sacrifice for all people.  However, those who do not believe are not working interactively with God.  It is not that God doesn't love them, it is that they refuse to believe. 

    If I do not believe my car will run, I will never start it.

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don,

      Let me simplify this.  First, you don't own a car.  smile

  2. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston

    I own two cars.  One starts and the other doesn't.  Cars were created for a purpose.  So was everything else.  Or if those things were not created for a purpose, they must have just happened.  Right?  And it they just happened, someone who was really sharp decided to say pigs should not be eaten or catfish should not be eaten.  And they said that in the Bible.  Wonder why?

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, Don, I don't wonder why.  You seem to miss a most compelling point.  Throughout history intelligent people have looked for evidence of god and have never found any, yet ignorant people always found him - and each time ignorant people found god, lo and behold he had the attitudes, laws, beliefs, customs, looks, attributes, emotions, and wants as the very people who found him!

      How convenient. 

      The book you claim is holy and so full of knowledge also claims that the method to cure leprosy is to kill two morning doves, sprinkle their blood throughout the house before burning their carcasses.

      Gee, I wonder what the ancient Jews who found this god did to try to cure leprosy?  Antibiotics?  Nah.  Dove blood.  You bet.

      How convenient that the god they found agreed with their dove cure.  Too bad the cure didn't work. 

      Antibiotics?  Well, they happen to cure leprosy.

      Scientists found antibiotics; priests gave you charred dove carcasses.  If Jesus was god, he would have known that antibiotics could rid the world of leprosy.  He could have told us.  But, he didn't, did he?  Want to know why?  Because he didn't know - he wasn't really god. 

      You stated early on that matter could not be created or destoyed, which is a reasonable proposition that is backed by evidence.  An automobile is simply a rearrangement of existing matter - it takes intelligence to rearrange that matter into a useable form.  But there is no reason to think it took intelligence to create the matter itself - not when matter cannot be created.

      The car analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question of matter.  If matter is eternal, the only need for intelligence would be to transform existing matter into a different shape and use.  Like making an end table out of existing wood.

      At least that goes along with the idea of the carpenter.

  3. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston

    No, Don, I don't wonder why.  You seem to miss a most compelling point.  Throughout history intelligent people have looked for evidence of god and have never found any, yet ignorant people always found him - and each time ignorant people found god, lo and behold he had the attitudes, laws, beliefs, customs, looks, attributes, emotions, and wants as the very people who found him!

    Reply

    Well, of course intellegient people looked for God and didn't find him. And naturally the ignorant would find a God with attributes similar to their own.  So those intelligent missed a simple truth, didn't they.  Recall that God said "Let us crat man in our image."?  Well, I'm intelligent enough to recognize that God must have the same attributes as man if man is created in God's image.  Can you reach any other conclusion?  What would it be?

    Well, let's see another approach would be to say that God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.  Well, if God is Spirit, one could easily conclude that spirits are eternal and never change.  So unlike matter and energ, the form does not change. The spirit of fear is always the same.  The spirit of power is always the same and spirits are neither created nor destroyed.


    Now those intelligent people who are looking for God may be so filled with pride they will not find him.  The reason should be obvious. Pride keeps you from finding God.  And what is it about intelligent people if not pride.  Your pride of intelligence has just said that those who are ignorant find God.  Is that not your pride speaking because you are so much better than the ignorant?  In not, give me the reaswon for saying that only the ignorant fingd God in their image?

    May I suggest that you read Luke 10;18ff.  You will discover that the seventy had found the power of God.  In that same section, Jesus says that he is thankful that this power is hidden for the intelligent.  (Just paraphrasing.  But igf you choose to ignore the evidence, you may bne ignorantg.  Nothe the relationship between ignore and Ignorant.

    And finally, you might wish to note that in healing of diseases, science has made many discoveries since the ritual for healing of the Old Testament days.  They knew nothing of modern science.  BTW, I expect that it worked many times. But the fact that you wish to keep religious belief in the days of the Old Testament shows that you wish to ignore the truth that home remidies work until something better comes along. Is that what you call intelligence?  Well if it is, you are not being open minded.

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, Don, use of home remedies does not mean the remedies work at all.  Besides, I specifically wrote about dove blood being used to cure leprosy.  Are you really suggesting that killing two doves and sprinkling the blood around the house and then burning the carcasses actually cured leprosy? 



      Yes.  You need intelligence to know there is a difference between using a rememdy and the efficacy of that remedy. 

      Open-minded does not preclude ruling out the impossible.  I am open-minded enough to realize that morning doves and their blood has no correlation to the disease of leprosy.  But are you open-minded enough to admit that?

  4. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston.

    Well, it appears that you misunderstood what I said.  Do you not realize that people who live miles from doctors use home remedies?  That's all they have to use.  They did not have doctors and medicines in all the areas of the country as we do today.  They did theiir best.

    Did it work? We4ll maybe it did in some cases.  In testing new medicines, there is one group that receives sugar pills while the other group receives the experimental drug.  Sometiomes the sugr pill works better because the patient believes he has received the real drug and the drug has worked. You have hear of such cases=, havn't you?  Well, consider the faith of any sick person who really believes that something that you and I would consider worthless because we believe the drugs work.  But what if you did not know of drugs.  What if you were sick without any hope. Nodrugs available.

    See, Winston, you believe that those people who had no knowledge of modern medicine should have known that what they did was wrong.  But I will venture to say that some may have been healed with that very mnethod.  In fact Jesus healed the leper and told him to offer the sacrifice of Moses.  (Those Doves)  You may say it is all fiction just as you say sugar pills have never worked or that people have been prayed for and healed of cancer.  It has happened.  I know of instances that it has happened.  In all cases?  Of course not.  But do drugs work in all cases?  Of course not.

    I am beginning to think that you dop not have that open mind.  I do have an open mind. I know that things are not always 100% sure.  Even in the science lab, experiments do not always yhield the same result, but they should H2O should be wter.  Every time?  No. Not ev ery time.

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don,

      This is called the "placebo effect", and I have done more than heard of it as I have also researched it.  This is what critical thinkers do - we do not jump at the claims that seem out of keeping with reality.

      What my research found was that the entire belief in the placebo effect was traced back to a single doctor who used a few of his patients for an experiment and then wrote up the results.  This in no way satisfies the criteria for double-blind testing that is the cornerstone of research into new medicines.

      Furthermore, the researchers found that in every instance where the placebo effect was claimed to occur, the effect was a subjective one, i.e., pain level, nausea level, etc., in other words totally unverifiable information that is prone to natural change and other types of falsifications, including trying to please the tester.

      When a true double-blind study was conducted using objective criteria as a basis, there has been no placebo effect found.

      Sorry to burst your bubble.  Mine, too.  I always had thought the placebo effect real - but then I checked the facts and changed my mind.

      What will you do, Don?



      Well, Don, then I would die, which is what used to happen to people before we discovered things like antibiotics and vaccines.  And it hasn't been that long ago - penicillin was first used during WWII.

      Going further back to medievil time, barbers would bleed the ill to rid them of contaminents.  The life expectancy back then was about 50 for the average man, so the "faith" placed in bleeding seemed to have no effect on mortality rates.

      As humans, we are terrific and finding false correlations, but there is one correlation that is genuine, and that is life expectencies have grown longer as medical knowledge replaced superstition and "faith". 

      You can go to the witch doctor for some herbal tea, Don, when you are ill, and good luck to you.  As for me, I am going to an M.D., thank you very much.



      You say that because you believe that dove blood could have at one time cured leprosy that you have an open mind.  Let me ask you this, Don: are you open-minded enough to admit that the remedies of ancient Islamics, Hindus, and Bhuddists also may have worked, or do they only work when ordained by the correct god? 

      Is it possible that the Harry Potter books are the word of god? 

      Your claim boils down to this, Don: nothing is impossible.  But that is not true.  Some things are impossible.  Intersecting parallel lines.  Square circles.  Understanding what is rationally possible and rationally impossible is part of being open-minded. 

      Claiming anything is possible is fantasizing.

  5. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston

    I know one person who was healed of cancer.  Of course the doctor then denied that the person ever had cancer.  There are cases of healingthat have been recorded and documented.  You may call them fantasizing, but such things are documented.

    Why it works in some cases and not in others is still a mystery.

    I had a friend in the Navy who wrote me a letter several years ago,  He was married to a woman of faith.  He watched healing after healing.  You sy it is fantasizing or the person wasn't really sick.  It is all in what you choose to believe.

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I guess we found out the answer to that.

  6. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston

    I know one person who was healed of cancer.  Of course the doctor then denied that the person ever had cancer.  There are cases of healingthat have been recorded and documented.  You may call them fantasizing, but such things are documented.

    Why it works in some cases and not in others is still a mystery.

    I had a friend in the Navy who wrote me a letter several years ago,  He was married to a woman of faith.  He watched healing after healing.  You sy it is fantasizing or the person wasn't really sick.  It is all in what you choose to believe.

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don,

      Quit being a sucker.  Peter Popoff used to earn $4,000,000 a year as a Christian healer - until a guy named James Randi exposed him as a fraud and Popoff filed for bankruptcy.

      Check it out: http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/q7BQK … opoff.aspx

      1. mischeviousme profile image61
        mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Sometimes the biggest charlatans are those that feed on the faithful...

        Take George W. Bush for example, he claimed to be an evangelical christian and stole the presidency.

        Jim and Tammy Fay Baker

        I could go on forever, the point is, one rarely sees such displays outside of christianity. There are snake oil salesmen all over the world, it just appears that they are found more often among christendom. This is not to say that it is confined to just christianity, only a majority of the time.

        1. rdcast profile image61
          rdcastposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          mischeviousme, if it's SIN, it's not in Christendom, so let's be clear about that. When Satan himself performs evil as a "Christian", that doesn't help your argument. It simply points to how evil, evil can be.

          If you don't know of the love of Jesus Christ, that's your failing, not His.

  7. wilmiers77 profile image60
    wilmiers77posted 12 years ago

    Faith says that God exist. Saying that God might not exist is committing faith suicide; no one is foolish enough to do such. Answer is NO.

    1. mischeviousme profile image61
      mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Faith is just as much an illusion as the belief, a few only think it's true because someone told them it is. I will never trust in the words of, no matter how many thousands of years dead they are. The true tragedy is that it's preached as fact, not metaphor.

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Wrong!!! I was taught the main tenets of Christian faith by the time I was 7 years of age. I did not understand at that time. I didn't fully understand Christ Jesus until I was over 30 years of age, and this was influenced from my worldly experiences from the school of hard knocks which is as secular as it gets.

        I began to slowly learn the truth of Jesus as "Come let us reason together said the Lord..." We went thru many of my main beliefs learned from the secular world, and arrived at "So that's why."

        "If God is on your side, than who can be against you."

        1. mischeviousme profile image61
          mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The one's that believe God is on their side... lol

    2. rdcast profile image61
      rdcastposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly wilmiers77, and well said.

      Might I add, God of the cosmos and eternity, creates. Creator is just one of His many likenesses that He manifests in us as He described, "let Us create man in Our image". So, as our Creator creates, so we too need to create, for having been created with that God nature in us. Now think about it wilmiers77, as born again believers, our first tangible creation that will endure forever, is our FAITH through Jesus Christ, His Son. Yes, we create our faith and eagerly give it to our Lord. Our created gift to Him. This, by the way, is the most precious gift and the only one He wants from us. Thank you God for so empowering Your children!

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks very much. I see more light concerning the creativity of God.

  8. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston

    While you may point to many who were not heled, I know some personally who were healed. Of course the doctor was certain that the ptient had cancer and all of the tests proved he did.  But when surgery was performed, there was no evidence of cancer.

    Guess what?  The doctor denied that the patient ever had cancer.  So there is science that contradicts itself.  So one gets to believe what he wants to believe.
    The pure in heart shall see God.  Think about that one and examine your heart.  Impure?  Perhaps.

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Until surgery has been performed, a doctor can't KNOW that a patient has cancer. When a CT scan detects a mass, the doctors perform a biopsy -- a surgical removal of tissue to determine "the presence, cause, or extent of a disease."

      bi·op·sy
      noun /ˈbīˌäpsē/ 
      biopsies, plural

      An examination of tissue removed from a living body to discover the presence, cause, or extent of a disease.

      Sometimes the mass is fatty tissue, and sometimes it is an abscess or a cyst. A cyst frequently goes away on its own.

      Was your friend healed? Maybe, but maybe not.

    2. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don,

      I am not a layman concerning healthcare.  Exploratory surgery is not cancer surgery.  Blood tests may indicate the chance of cancer.  Cancer may be suspected but the only way to verify a cancer diagnosis is a biopsy.

      Believe what you will, but there has never once been a documented case of confirmed cancer being cured by prayer. 

      After all, why did the subject you discuss go the doctor in the first place and not to the faith healer?

      P.S.  My own uncle was thought to have had lung cancer many years ago and taken to surgery.  It turned out to be some weird condition caused by exposure to chickens and not life threatening at all.  He is still with us at 90+ years today.  Miracle?  Not the least.

      P.P.S.  If you want to convince me, find someone who is at the oncologist being treated with chemotherapy for cancer and have your friend cure that cancer.  Otherwise, you're just buying into superstitious mumbo jumbo and imagining correlations that don't exist.

      If the doctor said there was never cancer, the most likely correlation is the doctor is admitting he was wrong and the intitial diagnosis was wrong, not that some schmuck who knows nothing about disease processes waved a magic wand and made the cancer go away.

      Take the schmuck to the ocologist - there are lots of cases there who need the magic wand.  Then we can find out for sure how much magic is in that schtick.

      1. Insane Mundane profile image58
        Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        You might enjoy reading this, "If life is energy, how can healing not be an energy function? If living cells and tissues are energy, how can they be injured except by energy? When injured, how can they heal except with energy? How can the subject of energy ever be dissociated from the subject of healing? And yet in medical circles the very mention of the word energy invites derision. I clearly recall how much hesitation I felt before I used this word in my medical writings for the first time. Why?"  Read more, here:     http://www.mindpowernews.com/MindHealing.htm

  9. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

    If God exists, I wish he would re-direct the solar wind. I've been in and out today with my net connection.

  10. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    I think the question is "Are you openminded?"  That wouldmean that you have studied both side4s of the issue.  Now when you reason your conclusion, there is no need to remain open minded because you have found the truth.  It may not be the truth that others have found, but you are satisfied enough that you no longer need to search.

    So the better questions are:  Have you realy given God a chance to prove Himnself to you.  Have you really searched for God?
    And the other question is "Have you really been at the point that you questioned the existence of God? I would assume tht people qho have really questionedthe existence of God would have found Him or conclud4ed that He does not exist after a few years of dilligent searching.

    Not everyone reaches the same conclusions because people give diferent weights to difference sets of evidence.  So, yes, I have been on both sides of the issue.

    Anyone who has had an experience similar to that of Paul will know more about the existence of God that one who goes to the mountaintop and looks higher.  He still doesn't see God, so he continues to believe that God is to far away to see or that He does not exist.

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Being open-minded, to me, is understanding the provisional nature of any "certainty." However, that is an uncomfortable situation for many (most?) people, and I respect that.

      1. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I think it is only uncomfortable for the closedminded.

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I think it is uncomfortable for people who invest emotionally in their beliefs. Maybe this emotional investment is an ingredient of close-mindedness; I don't know. What I do know is that I have zero emotional investment in any factual claim, and that this seems to make me rare.

          1. A Thousand Words profile image67
            A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It does, indeed sir. I'm becoming a tad more like that as time goes along. When I was a Christian, I had some STRONG emotional investments, for sure...

            1. aguasilver profile image70
              aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Did you stop believing in Christ, or was it Churchianity you rejected?

              Not challenging or anything, just genuinely curious. smile

              John

              1. A Thousand Words profile image67
                A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                That's a perfectly valid question, Agua. But it was Christ, not "Churchianity." I've heard that term used multiple times, I think I used it myself once or twice, I certainly new its meaning and addressed it when doing "sermons" and the like, even without using the term itself. (No, I was not a pastor, but I was a "youth leader, " and we were sometimes asked to do sermons, and I also would give "advice" to other young people in my youth ministry, as much as I could, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (or at least what I believed to be the Holy Spirit), and according to the scriptures, and what I myself had gone through/experienced.)

                It would take a REALLY long post to go in depth about everything that lead to my current state of mind. Now, I am not an atheist. I have yet to want to actually label my current "worldview." But for descriptive purposes, for a while it changed between apathetic agnostic, agnostic, atheist, (kind of continuously and in different orders) and now, I really just couldn't tell you. LoL. My "worldview" is slightly secular, with a respect for Eastern thoughts and philosophies, and some mysticism  somewhere in there. And that's been a constant for a while now.

                If you are interested in reading my back story, than I could certainly write that long post.

                1. aguasilver profile image70
                  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Might make a powerful hub?

                  I was fortunate to get all my stuff worked through before I came to faith, made my acceptance of Christ as authority over my life easier to understand and aim at adhering to!

                  I refused to allow my son to get baptised when he wanted to, told him to get over puberty first, which he did, and went his own sweet way until he was 18, then came to faith completely outside of my influence, I'd figured that it would be hypocritical to tell him not to do all the things I had enjoyed doing as a happy sinner, and did until I was 42 years old.

                  I did tell him what I advised he avoid, including treating women as objects to be used, the heavier drugs, learning how to drink but not get drunk or aggressive and how to stay out of jail.

                  He managed to stay out of jail.

                  Now he works with Metro Ministries in NYC (Bronx)for the last three years and I guess he is a youth pastor, nada to do with me!

                  Go figure!

                  Write that hub, putting it here would draw flak from people and not get it out to as many folk as it may help or challenge.

                  Being challenged about faith is good for anyone, and if you ever truly belonged to Christ, you will not be lost, but then you know that already, it's written in those scriptures you used to preach from.

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Nice post. You always give me indirect advice from your conversations..

                    They've been 'whispering' me... [arg.. lol - must.. be.. temperate..]

                    But I'm trying to have fun.. They are reallyyy good at provoking.. hmm

                    Maybe I'll become a forum muse.

                    smile

                  2. A Thousand Words profile image67
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I have been considering writing a hub about it, actually. And what an interesting story!

    2. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don,

      How can one reduce a muti-faceted problem to two sides?  The question is not only is there a god, but also what kind of gods are possible.  I would have no problem with the idea of a pantheistic god.  A single, bipolar god who kills his own son to appease imaginary slights that he has the power to appease in less severe ways does not pass the smell test.

  11. genuineaid profile image65
    genuineaidposted 12 years ago

    There is too much evidence for me in my life which encourage me to believe that the Creator does exist, and if I'd say that God may not exist while being Christian than I would be a hypocrite hmm

  12. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    @Winston.
    My understanding of the thread is to have an open mind that God does or does not exist.  I din't know we had to define the Christian God, the Muslem god or the Jewish god or any other god.  Just the open mind to question the existence of god.

    1. vector7 profile image59
      vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well said.

      He's kinda, well.. it's his way of saying "I care." wink

      smile

  13. vector7 profile image59
    vector7posted 12 years ago

    Let me cast a projector on the wall, of the vision I'd like to show you all.


    >...........................

    Bob and Bill walk down a hill, and find a pond that's large.

    Bob and Bill want to know whether, the pond holds catfish with barbs.

    So Bob and Bill walk either side of the hill, and split up to search wisely.

    Bob yells to Bill "I see, I see, a catfish under this fallen tree!"

    Bill runs around, with no catfish to be found, yet Bob insists he saw.

    So again they split, and begin to search it, until their feet are raw.

    Bob says to Bill, "Must we search still, I seen the fish I know."

    Bill responds to Bob, "I think you're wrong, unless a fish you show."

    Bob looks at Bill with eyes very ill, and begins to walk for his rod.

    Bill says to Bob, "Where are going? You said you seen one not a lot."

    Bob replies, "I know there's catfish in that pond, I seen it with my eyes."

    Bill thinks a moment and then He says "Are you open minded enough to believe not?"

    >.............................

    If you haven't seen the truth that God exists, then fine, you still can't see Him. But when someone sees things they know are there, especially 'large', no... 'enormous', no... 'centuries' worth of people seeing this and it's truth, reality, and obvious existence to them, . . . .

    It's a little unreasonable to say "You are a narrow minded bigot for believing what you think you seen, you must be hallucinating because we haven't seen any catfish, and you are crazy."

    Enjoy your "discussion"..

    I seen, I believe, I know. If I hadn't seen the truth in it, I wouldn't be a Christian now would I?

    God is real.

    I seen the fish.

    The matter is solved for me.

    I'm going to get my rod.

    I know there's a meal.

    You know where I will be.

    smile

    God bless you guys,

    -v7

    1. A Thousand Words profile image67
      A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think you missed something in your story, though. Maybe Bob wanted so badly to see a catfish, that he really saw one, was completely convinced with all of his heart, but there was a possibility that he didn't actually see one? Or that it wasn't what he thought it was? So, should Bob be open-minded enough to believe that the Catfish was his own creation? The mind is a very powerful thing...

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        If one can't believe in his eyes, than what can one believe in? Frivolousness gets one nowhere.

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Frivolous? So there has never been a fisherman who thought he saw a fish -- under a submerged log, no less - who was wrong?

          It would serve no serious purpose (i.e., it would be frivolous) to deny the imperfection of my senses, and show both honesty and good judgement to acknowledge that maybe I had been wrong.

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Let not "Frivolousness" stop any action. This world demand action in order to survive.

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              True, but a non sequitur.

              Please, cast your line. I might be doing the same, if I believed I'd seen a fish.

              1. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                maybe i should have mentioned Bob and Bill's ten mile walk to their poles and back?

                that's the point, no pole in hand, why else would they look around first?

                1. profile image0
                  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  So, you ignore my objection -- specifically addressed to you -- and respond to my subsequent objection to a tangential issue, which was addressed to someone else?

                  As for Bob, Bill, their fishing poles, and that lengthy walk...

                  Bob and Bill were wise to reconnoiter, I agree.

          2. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Now, an atheist who claims practical solutions to all problems, is preaching doubt about a worldly situation. "I admit that I doubt my eyes?" NO, it's "lets check it out" in this imperfect world.

            God's Spirit is perfect. His Word shall come to pass with possibly many manifestations during the interim.

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              First, I'm not claiming practical solutions to all problems. I'm not claiming solutions to anything at all, actually. Second, doubt is often wise. I recommend it in many instances. Most atheists make the same recommendation.

              1. A Thousand Words profile image67
                A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Exactly. To automatically accept something as truth because it sounds good without doing much research (as objective as possible) on the matter, especially where it counts, is dangerous and ill-advised. I am not an Atheist, per se, but I am a Free Thinker, and one who asks questions, and seeks plausible truths, while keeping an open-mind to a degree, because I have experienced things, but the jury's still out on whether they were simply natural/physical experiences, which is likely, "supernatural" ones, or if we're making an unnecessary separation of the two states of being (which is why I like Eastern thought/philosophies so much).

              2. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I'm not claiming solutions to anything at all, actually. Second, doubt is often wise

                This is the problem with atheist, without the position of opposing Jesus they have no position.

                Doubt call for caution in all cases in the practical.

                "We walk by faith, not by sight."

                1. profile image0
                  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I have several conditional positions that are relevant to the topic of this forum, and many that are not. However, none of them involve any opposition to Jesus.

                  1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                    wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Since you are a man of "doubt", are you really sure that you are not opposing Jesus? You are either on His side or another.

                    "If God is for you, who can be against you."

      2. vector7 profile image59
        vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Wilmiers is right number one.

        Number two, I didn't miss anything.

        It seems as though you are wanting to see something badly enough to make doubt appear.

        Bob seen the fish, Bob knows he saw it, and you are a PERFECT example of Bill.

        Just in case you didn't notice. wink

      3. rdcast profile image61
        rdcastposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        A Thousand Words -
        "should Bob be open-minded enough to believe that the Catfish was his own creation? The mind is a very powerful thing..."

        Assuming Mr Bob(my name btw) is indeed open minded and came to believe he was hallucinating over a mud sucking catfish, we can only hope he is open minded enough to check himself into a rehab clinic. Or at least get the heck out of the sun.
                                                http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6369551.jpg
        So you see, the open mind may not be so mush a powerful thing, but rather quite feeble...

        1. A Thousand Words profile image67
          A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I don't think we should consider seeing things as a sign of psychosis or the like so quickly. Often times, people think they hear or see something. Doesn't mean that they are crazy. Just means that they're imagination might've been playing tricks on them. And the mind works in mysterious ways. You can completely convince yourself that a lie is true and even form memories that seem valid in your mind, but they are completely false. There was a story about a girl who had convinced herself that her father had been molesting her, come to find out she had literally made it all up, as there were serious issues.  Now there was some outside help from incest "therapists," no lie. But one cannot deny the power of the human mind, whether tainted by outside influence or not. Here's the link if anyone cares to read about it.

          http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2011/05 … white-lie/

          1. rdcast profile image61
            rdcastposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I too have specific memory issues. Difficult to describe, but it shifts.

        2. A Thousand Words profile image67
          A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Only at the extent to which the mind is open... But the mind itself is a powerful thing, in general. Or rather, the brain.

          1. rdcast profile image61
            rdcastposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's a marvel of Creation, if that's what you mean.

    2. profile image0
      Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Your analogy doesn't work. Catfish exist; neither Bob nor Bill dispute this. Maybe Bob saw a catfish, maybe he didn't, and this Bill has to concur. Catfish exist, after all.

      For your analogy to work, Bob and Bill would have to be searching for a species of fish that neither have ever seen. They have heard rumors of this fish since they were kids. Others allege to have seen it, but neither Bob nor Bill know whether to believe those rumors. Maybe Bob saw this fish, maybe he didn't. Still, it is reasonable for Bill to doubt. After all, this fish might not exist.

      1. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Chasuk,

        Actually, it would be even deeper than this.  B&B would have to be looking for a legendary invisible water-dwelling creature that was not a fish but had the attributes of a fish.

        1. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          "...had some attributes..." or throw your Webster out of the window. Remember, this is the atheist way of thinking. All is here!!! You can see it. Prove it by logic and reasoning.

          "see fish..." why should you doubt?

          1. profile image0
            Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Prove it by logic and reasoning."

            I thought you were the proponent of faith?


            If I saw the fish, I would probably believe. However, in this metaphor, I'm Bill, not Bob. I haven't seen the fish.

            1. vector7 profile image59
              vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Thank you..

              I know I'm stubborn, but I like you around in the forums..

              Honest.

              1. profile image0
                Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Thank you.

                I appreciate that, honestly.

            2. wilmiers77 profile image60
              wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Your are right about my faith.

              Bill must have faith in Bod.

      2. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        This is where you are missing the point completely. We know the fish exist in our spirit, the mind. We are planning to fry the fish soon. Substance of faith.

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          If you "know" that this fish exists, fair enough. However, understand that this non-transmissible knowledge can't provide objective evidence of your spiritually-perceived fish.

          1. vector7 profile image59
            vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The fish exists... 

            The story wrote is equivilant to reality..

            Bill hasn't seen it and wants evidence just like you, when BOB is the one who already WITNESSED the EVIDENCE and KNOWS...

            But can't GIVE the evidence to Bill....

            How do you people screw up a children's analogy?

            1. profile image0
              AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Unwarranted assertion and inaccurate analogy, to boot.  A more accurate analogy would be: the non-fish exists.

              Unwarranted assertion, in other words, your opinion which, frankly, isn't worth much. 

              At least you understand the nature of proof and evidence - it is always subjective - i.e., an opinion.

              He could if it were not observer-dependent, i.e., objective. 

              By acting like adults.

              1. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                blah, blah, blah.....

                sum of your post....

                Read the OP again.

                "Open-minded"

                I seen, therefore.. subject CLOSED.

                Not in your shoes.

                OP answered, NO.. I'm not 'open' any longer as it is solved for me.

                1. profile image0
                  AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Correction - sum of what you comprehended of my post.  Did you have your fingers in your ears while you were reading it, too?  HINT: that only works with spoken words.

                  1. vector7 profile image59
                    vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I see I objectively answered the OP TWICE now.

                    smile

            2. profile image0
              Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              We recognize a children's analogy when you see one, and dismiss it for its flaws, as I have done several times.

              1. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                lol, dismiss it?

                Well it's staying posted, and I'll just take the criticism.

                I want a simple number of errors and what they are if it is flawed.

                smile

          2. A Thousand Words profile image67
            A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Indeed.

          3. aguasilver profile image70
            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If one of the two were wearing polarised sunglasses, they could see the fish, that the other was blinded to by the reflection from the water.

            The polarity of the glasses worn change the ability to 'see' the fish.

            But of course some people are afraid to see the fish, they prefer to deny it's existence and refuse to put on those polarised glasses.

          4. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Vector and I are continuously imparting knowledge in the spirit, a truth just as gravity in the natural.

            The finite follows the infinite.

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              The spiritual pearls that you bestow might be a waste of time. We might be swine.

              1. A Thousand Words profile image67
                A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                *Oink oink*

              2. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Imparting doubt in things has no end. When are you going to give us something to have faith. What is your answer to having a happy life.

                1. profile image0
                  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I have faith in many things, just not supernatural things. Fortunately, my happiness doesn't depend on faith in supernatural things.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image61
                    mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    If there is no doubt, there is no room for reason.

                  2. wilmiers77 profile image60
                    wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    What about 280 million Others?

      3. aguasilver profile image70
        aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        What about someone who has seen the fish, even partaken of eating the fish, but now denies there ever was a fish?

        Would that be rational?

        1. A Thousand Words profile image67
          A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Did that person ever actually physically eat of the fish, or in "spirit?" The man decided to make a fish he believed he saw his god, and all further experiences pointed toward his experience of "seeing" the fish. Then there comes a day, when he realizes what he actually saw, and that all that followed were experiences, likely unrelated, that he was able to tie together to further the idea that he actually saw said catfish. He labeled that which he believed to be the fishes doing, as doings of the fish, when there were other, more plausible, but less special sounding explanations, and that some things, though unexplainable, don't necessarily need to be explained by the fish, but it's easier to believe in the more "satisfying" life experienced.

        2. profile image0
          Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          And:



          I'm going to combine two replies here; I hope you don't mind.

          I've worn the polarized sunglasses. While I was wearing them, I saw the fish and ate the fish. However, after removing the sunglasses, I came to believe (realize?) that the sunglasses caused optical, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory hallucinations.

          It would be perfectly rational to keep them off, without having anything to do with denying or refusing to acknowledge the existence of fish.

          1. A Thousand Words profile image67
            A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I like your answer much better.

            1. aguasilver profile image70
              aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              No wonder, you have taken off your polaroids also! smile

          2. rdcast profile image61
            rdcastposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Glasses like those could prove detrimental, even to death, given that biology requires biological sustenance, whereas spiritual requires spiritual sustenance. Metaphorically, reality might dictate biology foreshadows spiritual.  Don't we all start life desperately clinging to the dictates of our bodies? I'd encourage you to dawn earphones and listen to the following reading. It describes the metaphor of the body describing the spiritual:
            http://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/kjv/John.6
            It's almost 9 minutes and builds a clear end message. May the Holy Spirit be with you to make the Word of God penetrate your souls.

          3. aguasilver profile image70
            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Nice reply, except I would change:

            "I came to believe (realize?) that the sunglasses caused optical, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory hallucinations."

            to:

            I came to believe (think?) that the sunglasses caused optical, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory hallucinations.

            If you had got to the point of realisation beyond doubt, you would have said 'KNOW" as it is, maybe you need to look at things with and without and find a definitive answer.

            1. A Thousand Words profile image67
              A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I think he may have just been looking for the right word to use. Then again, I am not a mind reader. Also, yes, I did take them off. There were days I seriously missed having them on, but I've come to love what I see without them.

            2. profile image0
              Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I used the word "believe" precisely because it is not dogmatic, and I used the word "realize" in the sense of becoming fully aware of something as a fact. I grouped the question mark with the word "realize" because it is polite, and because my agnosticism trumps my atheism.

          4. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You already have prior knowledge of the fish. Nothing has changed with glasses on or off.

  14. vector7 profile image59
    vector7posted 12 years ago

    Insane is right, you people can complicate a cheese sandwich......

    They found a pond.

    Their poles are 5 miles away, ten round trip.

    Catfish aren't always in a pond and they probably fished out the one they fish in all the time, as ponds aren't oceans..

    denial, denial, denial....

    Simply love to argue and throw doubt..

    Next time you see a plane in the sky please ask youself..

    "Am I sureeee I see a plane..? Are my eyes working? Am I real? Is that the sky or the ocean as both are blue? What if the plane isn't a plane but is a bird? What if this is just a dream?..... blah BLAH   BLAHHHHH.."


    I can do what you do without even trying..

    Goodness, it's NO WONDER you people can't see ANYTHING...

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Catfish or planes, your analogy doesn't work.

      I've already explained why.

    2. vector7 profile image59
      vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Look, I'm Winston...

      "Oceans aren't always blue, and it could also be a helicopter.

      God isn't a plane, so you couldn't have seen him.

      Bill sounds like a reasonable individual and Bob can't be sure it was a catfish anyway as water deflects light and deforms whatever image he thought he was seeing, much like you think you see something of which you don't."

      Well, that wasn't so hard.. Goodness, and it sounds JUST like you too.. roll

      Trolling through the threads, like donut eating feds; nothing else to do, but try to skew the view.............

      1. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        You back?  I guess you gave up on finding that Old Testament prophecy of a resurrection in 3 days - the one that doesn't exist?

        1. vector7 profile image59
          vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          No, I refuse to hand that over to you..

          Remember no casting pearls before them was one you're aware of?

          Recall the following verses on WHY?

          smile

          1. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I recall that you cannot produce an Old Testament verse that says that the messiah would be resurrected in  3 days - so the claims of Jesus in the New Testament that his resurrection in 3 days would fulfill scripture is fantasy.

            1. vector7 profile image59
              vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              lol

              You want the verse?

              Find it.

              I don't need to prove it, others know of it and see your lack of knowledge of it.

              I don't push hard on things that aren't there.

              wink

      2. profile image0
        Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        You apparently still don't understand what analogous means.

        I'm going to assume that you aren't being disingenuous, so I'll attempt an explanation.

        An analogy is a comparison between two things that -- by virtue of their correspondence or similarity to each other --  provides some explanation or clarification.

        The similarity between the compared things isn't an optional component of the analogy, but the integral component.

        The dispute here concerns the existence of God. Not the presence of God, because disputing the presence of God entails a priori acceptance of God's existence. Bob and Bill agree that catfish exist. Theists and atheists don't agree that God exists. That's the essence of the dispute. In order for your analogy to be sound, it would have to involve a thing with a disputed existence. The existence of catfish is not disputed. The existence of God is disputed. In a sound analogy, catfish, indisputably existent, cannot be compared with God, disputably existent.

        I'm sorry for being so redundant, but I wanted to be clear.

        Now do you understand why your analogy fails?

        1. vector7 profile image59
          vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          No no, I may seem like I'm just bull headed [ kinda am ] but I don't want you to let it go if I am wrong [disclaimer -- not an admission big_smile].. You guys are good debaters sometimes (you, and certain select others. Winston is like my chip on shoulder unbelieving brother.. He just THINKS i hate'em, lol) [Then, he might hate me... hmm]

          The existence lies within the pond.. of course the fish exist.. but there is NO evidence they are in that pond.

          If you want an equal, but politically correct version from your posting definition, just change it to a baby loch ness..

          Bob sees'em, Bill don't.

          Net is at the house, and Bill won't believe.

          Picky details wasn't my point. I know it's 'easier' to believe there might be a catfish in the pond, but the similarity is there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL..[that B & B can see initially]

          Aside from Bob seeing one that is.

          1. profile image0
            Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, your analogy works better using Nessie instead of a catfish.

            As it happens, Nessie is particularly appropriate, because I don't believe in Nessie, whereas I have friends who do.

            I would have to see Nessie to believe in her. My Nessie-believing friends are not as picky with their evidence.

            You might consider labeling yourself a deist, and not a theist. A deist argues from reason and logic. A theist argues more for entertainment than to justify, because a theist ultimately argues from revelation and faith.

            1. vector7 profile image59
              vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              But I have arguments from both.. hmm

              Can I be both? Like a Detheist?? lol

              I see your point, but on this side of the discussion, the revelation is a powerful thing. I know people that have had revelations I haven't, whereas I have had small ones that many other people haven't.

              I don't know why God picks certain ones, but He does. And I can alwaysss tell the liars from the real deal.

              No matter the scale, big or small.. I can tell.

              There are TONS of liars out there lying about 'revelations' they've had, and you DO have to be careful.

              I don't judge you for doubting, it's STILL hard to believe in how amazing God is for me sometimes.. For YEARS I walked in your shoes and questioned everythingggggg...

              One day, God slapped me, and I found out Heaven isn't too good to be true and Hell, though too horrible to believe is real too.

              I refused to believe the nazi's did what they did to the Jews in school, 'til the teacher showed the black and white rescue tapes.


              I already know what you see.. A silly fairy tell that is just TOO good to be reality.

              But if you search honestly.. You'll be GLAD you did.. This life ends, where you are after never changes.....

              No one has to fear God because He loves them, and that's why I love Him....

              I talk like this because He wants you to look for Him, and if you do you won't need me to tell you the truth.

              1. profile image0
                Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                If the Holy Spirit has revealed itself to you, then you have "had a revelation," though maybe you haven't had a "Revelation."

                At least, that's how I considered revelation, when I was a Christian.

                1. vector7 profile image59
                  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, not sure I follow exactly your meaning..

                  But He has made me unable to deny Him.. I know how Jonah felt, that's for sure [subtract the whale thing]..

                  I still ask for more proof though I don't think He likes it.

                  I know He is there but I want to SEE an angel.. I've heard accounts I knew were lies, and accounts I KNEW were true. I can't explain it with words exactly..

                  I'd go NUTS if one finally popped up and spoke to me about God..

        2. vector7 profile image59
          vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          hmm

          I see why the analogy didn't work for you.

          I know God exists, therefore the catfish representation fit well.. [as for me the existence isn't questioned, but whether you can see what I see.]

          But for you, seeing or not-seeing isn't the issue, it's ALL about whether He exists.. [my bad.. tongue]

          The analogy was just to show I am not open because I see what another does not, for to me He already exists, and it's not me questioning that, but rather the point was I won't deny His existence and I CAN see Him.

          Hope the loch ness thing works for you.

          smile

          1. profile image0
            Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes.

            Thank you for your efforts in understanding my perspective. :-)

            1. vector7 profile image59
              vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Anytime.

              wink

  15. vector7 profile image59
    vector7posted 12 years ago

    Yes, I'm being irritable, as I can't BELIEVE what I'm reading..

    For once I'm with you.. I see it, like Bob.. But I can't believe it like Bill.

    How in the WORLD did you make it this far???

    Do you eat cheese sandwiches? Or just question whether the cheese is cheese or if it should go on the bread at all?

    It's like you'd NEVER get to eat the thing because you wouldn't get through making it without asking "Is this cheese still going to be cheese if I add bread?" "Will the bread really give me any energy? How can I be so sure?.." 

    You'd NEVER eat it..

    I GIVE..

    TO YOU.. God will NEVER exist in this life until your death registers you incapable of denial.....

    I love you all you crazy, nutty, and obsessive people.. Sincerely.

    You amazeeee me.

    God bless.

    -v7

    1. profile image0
      AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Vector,

      You should really consider a remedial analogy class because you really suck at them.

      1. vector7 profile image59
        vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        lol lol lol

        The term 'blind' mean anything to you?

        At least you make me laugh Winston...

        smile

  16. Don Crowson profile image60
    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    So yuou make the assumption that Christians are all good and nonbelievers are all bad.  Far more logical to see that there is a little good in the worst of us and a little bad in the best of us.  It is each person dealing with each issue and the choice he makes. You can choose to be helpful and compassionate or you can choose to kick butt. And the next hour, the next day or thenext week you may choose to do the reverse.

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Who are you replying to, Don?

  17. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 12 years ago

    God does exist and we all know it.

 
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)