Religious websites are three times riskier than porn sites for malware

I'm going to switch sides here for a moment. Humans have a conscience and are self aware, that's a given. So, lets say that it was indeed "God" that instilled those things in us. Under close scrutiny, you begin to realize what a lousy practical joke that was played on us. Animals don't suffer from self pity or despair, they just go on being what they were designed(*) to be. Without "God", self awareness, or a conscience, we could force preists and therapists to stop running their mouths, asking stupid questions, and get real jobs.

(*)"Designed"was just a word choice. No need for anyone to entertain an evolutionary versus creationism diatribe because of it.

Unless I totally misunderstood, I have no choice but to disagree. A couple of years ago, I might have agreed with you. Long story short, I picked out two identical puppies from a litter of pups. One was killed after being ran over by a vehicle and the other quit eating and crawled under the house to die within two days.

Yeah, I often wonder what would happen if I lost one of my cats before the other. We've been together for 7+ years.

Well, you've inadvertently proved my other theory that man isn't really different from the animals, and isn't entitled to "dominion over them". We're discovering more and more that animals are smarter than anybody gives them credit for.

Dogs are a special case, and people believe that their association with humans is accelerating their evolution, as they're specifically tuned to read us.

If you're a dog loved, you have to watch an older "Nova" episode entitled, "Decoding the Dog", I guarantee you'll never forget it. (cheapest place is, $1.99 @ Amazon "Unbox Video").

As to the original issue we're probably both correct to one degree or another, as all reports of emotion and self awareness specifically address themselves to higher forms of mammalian life.

Anyway, meet this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis They're extinct. We most likely killed them, and also likely ate them, after we did. Meh, they were probably considered "bush meat", and "God" granted us the divine right to have them for dinner. Consider the chimpanzee, a delicacy in some circles.....

Gotta jet, I'm going to hit a few religious websites for some comfort, salvation, and best of all, the free malware......

"I'm going to switch sides here for a moment. Humans have a conscience and are self aware, that's a given. So, lets say that it was indeed "God" that instilled those things in us. Under close scrutiny, you begin to realize what a lousy practical joke that was played on us."

Just to be fair, that could easily work for deism... im not sure if deism has any religious practices, however.

"If you're a dog loved, you have to watch an older "Nova" episode entitled, "Decoding the Dog", I guarantee you'll never forget it. (cheapest place is, $1.99 @ Amazon "Unbox Video")."

I saw that nova episode and it is quite amazing. The top of a dog's skull actually evolved to be more round as wolves began to live with us through the generations. Not even an expert interrogator can pick up the micro-expressions dogs can pick up on.


"Well, you've inadvertently proved my other theory that man isn't really different from the animals"
"Animals don't suffer from self pity or despair, they just go on being what they were designed(*) to be."

Wait a sec.

And still many here ignore the comment about the cited geniuses being religious. When given the choice in times past of avowing religion and being executed as a heretic, I think most here would choose avowing religion.

And of course, that the cited geniuses avowed religion means the religious can claim that all geniuses were religious when such claims are unprovable at best and likely false by the historical fact that many of the cited geniuses were called before the almighty God, er., uh Church, because they taught things completely against the church's point of view. Self-deception works wonders justifying a viewpoint that has no justification. If those geniuses were alive today, I bet at least some of them would detest religion and claim that they had no choice other than to avow religion.

I bet Symantec left off the pirate sites as sources of malware because it is so blatantly obvious. Really, you need Symantec to tell you that pirate sites are sources of malware?

A better reason that I think religious cites are full of malware is because the owners think that the divine would never infect them - besides the owners having little technical knowledge.

"besides the owners having little technical knowledge."

No im pretty sure that's the more likely reason. I dont pray to God everytime I'm hungry and hope food falls from the sky. The "divine" doesnt infect computers the people who make the malware do. Besides, I wouldnt be surprised many of the websites were set up in some way, if not completely, by volunteers rather than professionals (little technical knowledge). It appears you have some type of irrational opposition, not just an opposition, towards those with faith.... unless of course you were kidding.

of course if there is no "why" or point then an opposition to anything is technically irrational too.

Why would I kid? Whatever your religion, I hardly care what that is as long as you don't try to push it on me. If you do push it on me, then I tell you that I am syncretic.

What I do care about is those who cite fallacy as proof of their argument. Citing fallacy results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant, and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant.

Regardless of the power behind the malware, it is the site owner's responsibility to keep the site clean. It's pretty trivial, you know, especially if you are hosting the site on your own machine - think free virus/malware scanners.

And if the site is hosted on some third-party server, then it is the responsibility of the site owner to ensure that the third-party hosting agent keeps their servers clean. If not, it is still the responsibility of the site owner that malware was placed on the site by the evil Devil.

Whether you like it or not, this is casting aspersions on religious sites and putting them in the ranks of the pirate sites.

Until I start seeing resources put in place to shut down the sources of all Mal-ware, I'm not sure it would be right to place such demands on site owners. How can we place such demands, if we never start helping with the eradication of the problem? Continue telling yourself its not my fight and you will never see the end of the war.

"What I do care about is those who cite fallacy as proof of their argument. Citing fallacy results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant,
and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant."

The flip side to that is, of course, if an argument is weak, or at some point weak, citing fallacy tends to be the quickest and easiest way to show how weak it is or at least can be...If I had to guess, that's why these ignorant people you speak of in the study you didn't cite the source for do so... Isn't that what many agnostics and atheists do to people of faith anyways?

"Regardless of the power behind the malware, it is the site owner's responsibility to keep the site clean. It's pretty trivial, you know, especially if you are hosting the site on your own machine - think free virus/malware scanners. And if the site is hosted on some third-party server, then it is the responsibility of the site owner to ensure that the third-party hosting agent keeps their servers clean"

I agree. Not every volunteer as well as some "professionals" don't know or care enough to do that, however.

". If not, it is still the responsibility of the site owner that malware was placed on the
site by the evil Devil."

I do like humor. However if I remember correctly, christians don't actually think the devil has a computer himself to load malware onto the internet. They believe malicious intent is in man, obviously, it's just that the malicious or "evil" intent helps the "devil" in its own intent or cause.... Just clearing that up because for some, not saying you, can be just as ignorant on either side of the argument.

"Whether you like it or not, this is casting aspersions on religious sites and putting them in the ranks of the pirate sites."

This appears to be addressed to a different type of person but I'll reply to it anyways. If I had to guess on a likely cause for this here's what I'd guess: Pirates don't care for the malware in fact many support it. Religious websites, which are more than likely run by volunteers than anything, are simply not as aware. They would not be prosecuted in the same way that maybe msn.com would be if it started loading malware onto people's computers. I'd bet money that a good majority of religious websites don't even have the popularity that would be required for many of the site owners to give a **** anyways. I don't see verisign shutting them down either.

"A better reason that I think religious cites are full of malware is because the owners
think that the divine would never infect them - besides the owners having little technical knowledge."

religious sites* Anyways, what do you actually think is more likely? That they believe that they can just pray for food to cook itself or that they might actually have to cook it? But now that I've asked that question not only for you, but myself, I realize you must have been kidding.

"What I do care about is those who cite fallacy as proof of their argument. Citing fallacy

results in empty arguments; unless, of course, those who cite fallacy really are ignorant,

and there was a study done over 10 years ago that provided evidence that the ignorant have

no clue that they are, in fact, ignorant."

The flip side to that is, of course, if an argument is weak, or at some point weak, citing

fallacy tends to be the quickest and easiest way to show how weak it is or at least can

be...If I had to guess, that's why these ignorant people you speak of in the study you

didn't cite the source for do so... Isn't that what many agnostics and atheists do to

people of faith anyways?

"Regardless of the power behind the malware, it is the site owner's responsibility to keep

the site clean. It's pretty trivial, you know, especially if you are hosting the site on

your own machine - think free virus/malware scanners. And if the site is hosted on some

third-party server, then it is the responsibility of the site owner to ensure that the

third-party hosting agent keeps their servers clean"

I agree. Not every volunteer as well as some "professionals" don't know or care enough to

do that, however.

". If not, it is still the responsibility of the site owner that malware was placed on the

site by the evil Devil."

I do like humor. However if I remember correctly, christians don't actually think the devil

has a computer himself to load malware onto the internet. They believe malicious intent is

in man, obviously, it's just that the malicious or "evil" intent helps the "devil" in its

own intent or cause.... Just clearing that up because for some, not saying you, can be just

as ignorant on either side of the argument.

"Whether you like it or not, this is casting aspersions on religious sites and putting them

in the ranks of the pirate sites."

This appears to be addressed to a different type of person but I'll reply to it anyways. If

I had to guess on a likely cause for this here's what I'd guess: Pirates don't care for the

malware in fact many support it. Religious websites, which are more than likely run by

volunteers than anything, are simply not as aware. They would not be prosecuted in the same

way that maybe msn.com would be if it started loading malware onto people's computers. I'd

bet money that a good majority of religious websites don't even have the popularity that

would be required for many of the site owners to give a **** anyways. I don't see verisign

shutting them down either.

"A better reason that I think religious cites are full of malware is because the owners

think that the divine would never infect them - besides the owners having little technical

knowledge."

religious sites* Anyways, what do you actually think is more likely? That they believe that

they can just pray for food to cook itself or that they might actually have to cook it? But

now that I've asked that question to not only for you, but myself, I realize you must have

been kidding.


Apologies for the double post. The line spacing got all messed up
/retry

Ryan, I enjoy a good rant as much as the next person, possibly more. With that said, let me try to teach you how to get the most mileage from a rant. You should encapsulate the sentence or paragraph which you're responding to in quotes. In a forum context, this is the most effect way to construct an exchange of opinion.

For example, Let's say, I believe your first paragraph was nonsense, and you were talking in circles. I'm going to respond to it individually. I open the reply in another tab, then copy and paste just the paragraph into my reply, thus

Then I say, "Ryan", this is BS, you're trolling.....

In any event, you can break down a post into sections, then copy and paste the originator's quote box, ahead of the segment you'd like to respond to. Then you can type the close quote instruction, "[/quote]", (without the quote marks. Ironic, I know.) to close the section and then reply to just that.

You can also use (") icon in the menu bar to quote without personal reference.

Yeah, I hear you with that. This server has developed a couple of interesting quirks of late

We're saying the same thing, it unfortunately is a bit more difficult to explain in a fully coherent manner, than it is to do after a bit of practice.

I work across multiple tabs, especially if I would like to engage more than one member in the exchange.

With that said, yes it is also quite workable to hold to the OP's quote signature on the clipboard, and copy and paste it into the text as you reply to each point of the dialog. (Obviously typing "[/quote]" after each passage replied to which you've replied.

My point with even mentioning is, in this forum context, simple quote marks are ineffective in separating the statement for the reply, and after a bit, it's difficult to determine who said what, or even why they said it.

This is where my patience came to an end, as I believe, so did yours.....

I think the member has some valid points of potential benefit, but the communication of them fails significantly.

In a "value added" side rant, I would like to know why we have "Techspot Gurus" that simply are either unaware of the edit button, or value its significance? Preferring instead, to happily post one serial post after another.

I distinctly recall predicting as much.....

most of the people you listed would have gotten their heads chopped off for heresy if they publicly denounced god. How do you know their beliefs.