Religious websites are three times riskier than porn sites for malware

If I understand correctly then, religious sites are attractive to online criminals because of the general (mis?)perception that they are more moral, therefore less threatening, than secular or naughty sites? Funny old world....

Most dangerous sites are celebrity image sites bar none... and I'm not talking about sites like Just Jared and Eyeprime.

I'm not the type of religious person that tries to convince people. I just punch them in the face if they offend me by condescending. Then I repent and am forgiven.

By the way I am religious but am not blind to its contradictions and if I am I wouldn't see it anyways, maybe I could smell it, mm smells like chicken.

@Tree

While im sure there are a few disreputable religious leaders out there who do use hacking to attack other religions, my comment was directed at the fact that hackers would go after any religious order. Not that I hold any religion higher then any other, just that churches ect arent really going to be doing a whole hell of a lot online. Sure they would have a website. Maybe do emails from one branch to another. But in general theres not going to be a lot of serious traffic. Just kinda shocked me for a few mins.
What are they going to go after next?? Old folks homes? Vetranarians offices?? How about organ doner sites are they next?
Going after religious sites seems to me to be more disrespectful then anything else. Its not like God is going to take away their internet or anything. I guess I expected them to turn a blind eye to religious groups. Since im sure most of these hackers have family that would attend.
When are we going to see hackers doing something they can truly brag about? Like exposing coruption in major companies. E-robbing some super rich dictator and giving the cash to the ppl the dictator rules. When are we going to see these hackers doing anything useful to our society? Prolly never...l.but it is to dream lol.

Hackers do not have morals. If hackers had any morals they would not have become hackers. No one is safe from a hacker, if there is anything the hacker thinks they could gain from an attack. There is a larger crowd behind religion than there is Apple, so why wouldn't religious sites be targeted?

I see that but really, the article wasn't about atheist vs religious sites. Which would be an interesting statistic. Atheist sites might suffer less hacking because they need to be hardened against religious hackers?

Maybe one of the most arrogant, laughably pretentious and ignorant posts I've ever had the misfortune to come across. For a minute I thought you were trolling but then I came the stunning realization you were serious.

*edit: "ignorant <i>series</i> of posts".

Or maybe it was because science hadn't been invented yet, and pretty much <I>everyone</I> believed in God? Most of the great early scientists were looking for evidence of divine creation - they were seeking to prove that God exists, rather than the opposite. Funny thing, too..most of them actually became <I>more</I> devout as they learned more about the universe they inhabited. Somewhere along the way, however, people decided, for whatever reason, that the idea of "creation" was incompatible with "adaptation". I haven't found a single line in any Protestant bible, the Koran or various other sacred texts that would suggest this is the case. Its actually pretty remarkable how much effort anti-religious types spend misrepresenting religious tenets or practices - they seem especially fixated on reaching back to the Middle Ages to shore up their arguments. This seems particularly disingenuous centuries after the Reformation: if you ask almost any Buddhist, Christian or other practicing member of a generally tolerant and voluntary faith you'll find they don't believe in things like divine mandates. Christians in particular understand that their religion was essentially held hostage by corrupt Catholic and Anglican leaders during the feudal periods. But the thing people forget is that faith and <I>religion</I> are really different concepts. Religion is the collection of traditions surrounding a particular faith, and there are no two churches whose traditions are exactly alike. However, at day's end its really just the believer and his God - everything else is window dressing to give some kind of context to the gathering of people with similar beliefs. I have nothing but respect for those who are willing to walk the narrow path that some religions demand, as long as their not using their faith as a means to some material end..or to attack those they feel threatened by, like atheists seem to feel regarding those who believe in the divine.

Oh goody, here' the pot calling the kettle "troll.

I notice that you're a "newcomer in training". It's always nice to welcome a "new troll into the fold", so to speak.

Anyway, the exact same thing could be said of the religious establishment, With them constantly trying to pound their views into the heads of an unsuspecting public, by whatever means they deem necessary. In support of that., I'd like to remind you that the Spanish Inquisition didn't formally end, until 1868.

And then, (may have been Plato), said something to the effect that a society can't succeed without an unprovable reward, and an unprovable punishment.

If you took organized religion out of the mix, and just taught the "golden rule", think how many religious zealots wouldn't be running on at the mouth constantly, and they actually might achieve something, or simply get jobs. Oh, sure then they have to pay taxes, because they relinquished their NPO status.

Moving on, there is a plausible psychiatric theory that states something to the effect that, "many of the prophets and even ordinary people of the past, would be diagnosed as "raving schizophrenics" by today's standards". This by virtue of the fact it is possible that people of olden times were unable to distinguish their own conscience from messages from an outside source. Works for me. "Dog told me to kill my neighbors", symptomatically, (and syntactically), differs little from, "God spoke to me from a burning bush".

In any event, do us the courtesy of not registering post after post, simply to inform us that you've said rude things and ranted. We're better off not knowing. And you'd be better of by not serially posting inflammatory nonsense.

Which is by all means not to say, "don't post inflammatory nonsense". Simply because that would make me a hypocrite. Knock yourself out, but learn to use the edit features of the forum. And that suggestion is simply because, to the best of my knowledge, it's against the rules not to.

I know, I know, so many rules. Rules made by God for man. Rules invented by the churches, to control man, by claiming they've come from God. And now this insult, forum rules. "Religion is the opium of the people". I think somebody famous said that.

I suspect that you're going to find it increasingly difficult to be be as right, righteous, and self righteous, as you so very obviously believe you are, all the time. Open forums just seem to work like that.

"If you took organized religion out of the mix, and just taught the "golden rule", think how many religious zealots wouldn't be running on at the mouth constantly, and they actually might achieve something, or simply get jobs. Oh, sure then they have to pay taxes, because they relinquished their NPO status."

Ya take religion out of man's history and see what happens when science isn't around to provide the same comfort for what is still ultimately unknown.

Sorry not the same comfort. A similar comfort.

First, religion is was what was holding science back for a thousand years or so. And second, if you can't reconcile that we're only here for a short time, and still be a decent, happy person, then load up a pipe full of your, I'm going to live forever in paradise, because I'm such a great person, and I deserve it" powder, and smoke it. Did you ever question the old saw, "you're having a pipe dream"? Now you know what that's about. Religion is behavioural modification via propaganda, period.

"Fame, I'm gonna live forever"..... (music from "B" movies can be uplifting too, can't it? Eight bucks a month to Netflicks will get you a salvation of sorts also). You bet! good always triumphs over evil, and then there's the happy ending. So, here's a toast to mankind's delusion of a permanent happy ending!

In any event, I would like to give a great deal of credit to organized religion, for precipitating the invention of the pipe organ. An instrument which the sound of, on its own, can take you straight to heaven.

(And furthermore, pipe organs don't get hacked, religious websites do.. Another big plus for the "old ways"). Which brings us back to topic.

Replacing the unknown with religion, still leaves the unknown...

"First, religion is was what was holding science back for a thousand years or so."

I don't doubt that "religion" held science back for a while, but that does not mean science was not at some point "too weak" for the human conscience. Religion, at "your" best, only drew that out for a while longer.

"if you can't reconcile that we're only here for a short time, and still be a decent, happy person, then load up a pipe full of your, I'm going to live forever in paradise, because I'm such a great person, and I deserve it" powder, and smoke it."

Actually I can live with that LIKELY possibility of not being eternal, but personally I prefer the "why" to my perception of existence seeing as it is not even proven impossible, but also because there is literally no point in giving that up if I choose not to... there's no point to give it up because there is no point otherwise. In fact, if I were to stop believing one day I would have to be agnostic. At least agnosticism would not be filled with logical fallacies while at the same time claiming to be "logical." But hey, everyone's a hypocrite right? We can all make assumptions.

" Religion is behavioural modification via propaganda, period."
I would agree that much maybe even most of "religion" does this, but that most certainly is not conclusive to all religion.

"Replacing the unknown with religion, still leaves the unknown..."

Good point. But first of all how likely do you think it is man will one day know what even the majority of existence is let alone our own universe? Its even far less likely to happen in our lifetime. Don't get me wrong. If the "how" were one day complete and in doing so we still find no reason for the "why" this convo would be entirely different on all sides... or I guess just one side.

But if there is no "why" it shouldn't matter what we do or do not know anyways.

Apologies, my browser seems to be messing up my posts. Reposted...

Maybe you can share your experience with the rest of us? How do you know when you are communicating with God? How do you know your perceived relationship with God isn't your own personal illusion?