Religious websites are three times riskier than porn sites for malware

By on May 4, 2012, 12:30 PM

Religious and ideological web pages are more dangerous than pornographic sites with regard to malware infection according to the latest Internet Security Threat Report (PDF) from Symantec. In fact, pages featuring adult content didn’t even make the top five most infected list, instead placing tenth overall.

Symantec found that religion-based sites on average have three times the number of threats as opposed to pornographic sites. It may sound a bit farfetched but the reasoning behind the numbers is pretty legitimate.

The security firm believes that because pornographic website owners already make money from the service they provide, they have a vested interest in maintaining a satisfied customer base. Loading a customer’s computer with click-generating malware would, in the short term, net increased revenue from fraudulent ad clicks but at the same time, would drive away repeat business. It’s a business model that’s ultimately set up for failure.

Hackers know that “trusted” sites like those based around religion generally seem safer to the public and as such, make a perfect target for malware.

Topping the list of most dangerous website categories for 2011 was blogs / web communications sites, followed by hosting / personal hosted sites and business / economy pages; shopping sites and education / reference pages round out the top five.

Data from the report was collected through the Symantec Global Intelligence Network which is comprised of nearly 65 million “attack sensors” that monitor activity in more than 200 countries.




User Comments: 54

Got something to say? Post a comment
TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

OK - as an agnostic, that just cracks me the hell up!

yRaz yRaz said:

god bless my anti-virus

ramonsterns said:

Well, there was a study regarding intelligence and being religious...

psycros psycros said:

Well, there was a study regarding intelligence and being religious...

..done by atheists. Guess what it revealed! I guess that all the great minds throughout history, the overwhelming majority of whom were people of faith, no longer meet the "objective" standard of "intelligence" - i.e. being an atheist. That aside, this shows that Symantec doesn't have a clue what their talking about. They don't even list <i>piracy</i> sites, which are far and away the #1 source for browser infections. I don't think I'll be buying the latest Norton products with this kind of "intelligence" being involved in its design.

TechM633 said:

Well, there was a study regarding intelligence and being religious...

..done by atheists. Guess what it revealed! I guess that all the great minds throughout history, the overwhelming majority of whom were people of faith, no longer meet the "objective" standard of "intelligence" - i.e. being an atheist. That aside, this shows that Symantec doesn't have a clue what their talking about. They don't even list <i>piracy</i> sites, which are far and away the #1 source for browser infections. I don't think I'll be buying the latest Norton products with this kind of "intelligence" being involved in its design.

Bravo!

Newton, Boyle, Edison, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Von Braun, Mendel, Pasteur, Einstein, Faraday, Joule, etc, etc..............all believed in God.

Also....on your other observation regarding Symantec. I completely agree.

treetops treetops said:

I don't like all the pro rape in the bible.

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm\

Let the debating begin!

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Do you know what used to happen to you if you didn't believe in a god? You were killed, imprisoned, or tortured. I wonder why so many scholars in history were religious...

Guest said:

Interesting. I've known some porn sites that would deny access if the user's pc is infected lol

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

Well, there was a study regarding intelligence and being religious...

..done by atheists. Guess what it revealed! I guess that all the great minds throughout history, the overwhelming majority of whom were people of faith, no longer meet the "objective" standard of "intelligence" - I.e. being an atheist. That aside, this shows that Symantec doesn't have a clue what their talking about. They don't even list <I>piracy</I> sites, which are far and away the #1 source for browser infections. I don't think I'll be buying the latest Norton products with this kind of "intelligence" being involved in its design.

Bravo!

Newton, Boyle, Edison, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Von Braun, Mendel, Pasteur, Einstein, Faraday, Joule, etc, etc..............all believed in God.

Also....on your other observation regarding Symantec. I completely agree.

I'm glad that there are at least some sane people left here on the interwebs.

The most widely stated fallacy is that religious people don't seek to know the unexplainable. That when confronted with something unknown, they throw their hands in the air and say, "It's magicalness, herpa derp". Only those who are willingly obtuse state such idiocy. It's especially ridiculous when religious books, such as the Bible, repeatedly emphasize the importance of gaining knowledge and understanding. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown were all founded by Christians.

Tygerstrike said:

Shawn great info article!!! I'm actually kinda surprised tbh. I would have never thought hackers would go after religious sites. Makes a perverted kind of sense tho. I would hazard a guess that the hackers stopped using porn sites simply because the user base was getting wise.

I have a freind that has multiple anti-programs on his computer simply because he likes to go to porn sites. He even keeps backups on a spare external hard drive just in case. Since most religions frown on things like porn, the religious sites themselves being infected makes perfect sense lol.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

See, it's like I've been saying all along, "God is within each and everyone of us"!! And now, he's inside your computer as well! It's probably a whole "Sodom and Gomorrah" cleansing paradigm, to wipe porn from the face of all our hard drives..... YaY....!

Actually I never even thought that......I have my mouse pad with a big ol' pentagram, and a bookmark folder the size of the King James Bible, to take me straight to hell! (Well, by "hell", I mean porn sites too numerous to mention).

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Well, there was a study regarding intelligence and being religious...

..done by atheists. Guess what it revealed! I guess that all the great minds throughout history, the overwhelming majority of whom were people of faith, no longer meet the "objective" standard of "intelligence" - i.e. being an atheist. That aside, this shows that Symantec doesn't have a clue what their talking about. They don't even list <i>piracy</i> sites, which are far and away the #1 source for browser infections. I don't think I'll be buying the latest Norton products with this kind of "intelligence" being involved in its design.

Bravo!

Newton, Boyle, Edison, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Von Braun, Mendel, Pasteur, Einstein, Faraday, Joule, etc, etc..............all believed in God.

Also....on your other observation regarding Symantec. I completely agree.

I'm still not sure how some basic statistics has got everyone so riled up? (Not that a use Symantec products).

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I'm still not sure how some basic statistics has got everyone so riled up? (Not that a use Symantec products).
And you'd don't see where this thread is basically an open invitation to a religious argument?

First, many scientists of the past would face persecution if they didn't pronounce their faith.

Second, the human ego is massaged to no end by this, "and on the sixth day God created man is his own image".

In that context, it makes sense that people should seek out the wisdom and ways of their"creator", and attaching the term, "science" to their endeavors.. After all, we're cut from the same cloth as him.....Him,,,hmm...

IMHO, faith in God is, and always has been, the premiere path for the creation of some of the best music ever written.

Which brings me to this musing, "a nun a priest, and a rabbi, where arguing about the identity of God. It was a heated exchange. "God is a man! No, God is a woman! God is black! No, God is white"! Just then, a layman walked by, overhearing the conversation and said, "so it's true then, Michael Jackson is God"....???

I'm going to come down on the side of Chuck Darwin in this argument......

treetops treetops said:

Shawn great info article!!! I'm actually kinda surprised tbh. I would have never thought hackers would go after religious sites. Makes a perverted kind of sense tho. I would hazard a guess that the hackers stopped using porn sites simply because the user base was getting wise.

I have a freind that has multiple anti-programs on his computer simply because he likes to go to porn sites. He even keeps backups on a spare external hard drive just in case. Since most religions frown on things like porn, the religious sites themselves being infected makes perfect sense lol.

Why do I think it is hackers of rival religious groups?

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Why do I think it is hackers of rival religious groups?

Well, that's a silly thing to say. It's because "group A's" religion, is better than "group B's". You just ask anybody in group A", they'll tell you, "it's common knowledge". On the other hand, everybody in "group B" knows that God is on their side. Haven't we learned anything from the Crusades?

hitech0101 said:

From the above thread, my problem has never been with god its always been the devotees.

Nic Nic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Re-post due to quotes being messed up on my post...

Religious people are just as intelligent as the rest of us ... they are simply more superstitious and will remap/reinterpret reality to fit their beliefs. They will ignore anything they can't remap, believing they will be able to do so later. Atheists don't suffer from the same levels of superstition as our religious colleagues (we are all superstitious to some degree, its genetic), and to atheists religious people seem irrational ... atheists find it difficult to understand why they are unable to see through what seems so obvious to them. One thing I've learned is that you will NEVER convince a religious person that their beliefs are an illusion ... they need to reach that conclusion for themselves.If god exists, then why does he allow believers to become infected through visiting religious websites? Most of these people probably don't even use anti-virus as they have faith that god is looking after them...

Nic Nic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

When a religious person is 'talking' with god, what they are really doing is reinterpreting their subconscious as 'god'. If you ask them to ask 'god' a question that they themselves don't know the answer to, they always fail (you can't test god). When they do communicate with 'god' they always receive vague responses that send them on the (often) wrong path ... later they receive further 'communication', realise that they should change their path, then go on their merry way again. Go figure...

Nic Nic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Incidentally, I have many friends who are religious ... to each, his own :=).

Doctor John Doctor John said:

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....

Guest said:

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

Guest said:

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. :)

treetops treetops said:

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.

Tygerstrike said:

@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.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I guess I expected them to turn a blind eye to religious groups.
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?

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

I'm still not sure how some basic statistics has got everyone so riled up? (Not that a use Symantec products).
And you'd don't see where this thread is basically an open invitation to a religious argument?

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?

psycros psycros said:

When a religious person is 'talking' with god, what they are really doing is reinterpreting their subconscious as 'god'. If you ask them to ask 'god' a question that they themselves don't know the answer to, they always fail (you can't test god). When they do communicate with 'god' they always receive vague responses that send them on the (often) wrong path ... later they receive further 'communication', realise that they should change their path, then go on their merry way again. Go figure...

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.

psycros psycros said:

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

1 person liked this | psycros psycros said:

Do you know what used to happen to you if you didn't believe in a god? You were killed, imprisoned, or tortured. I wonder why so many scholars in history were religious...

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.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

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

*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.

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.

Guest said:

"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.

Guest said:

Sorry not the same comfort. A similar comfort.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

"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.

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.

Nic Nic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

"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.

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

Guest said:

"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.

Guest said:

"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.

Guest said:

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

Nic Nic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

When a religious person is 'talking' with god, what they are really doing is reinterpreting their subconscious as 'god'. If you ask them to ask 'god' a question that they themselves don't know the answer to, they always fail (you can't test god). When they do communicate with 'god' they always receive vague responses that send them on the (often) wrong path ... later they receive further 'communication', realise that they should change their path, then go on their merry way again. Go figure...

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?

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.

Nic Nic, TechSpot Paladin, said:

When a religious person is 'talking' with god, what they are really doing is reinterpreting their subconscious as 'god'. If you ask them to ask 'god' a question that they themselves don't know the answer to, they always fail (you can't test god). When they do communicate with 'god' they always receive vague responses that send them on the (often) wrong path ... later they receive further 'communication', realise that they should change their path, then go on their merry way again. Go figure...

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.

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?

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

"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.

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.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Animals don't suffer from self pity or despair, they just go on being what they were designed(*) to be.
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.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

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......:eek:

Guest said:

"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.

Guest said:

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.

Guest said:

"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.

Guest said:

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

Guest said:

on May 8, 2012

12:41 PM

"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.

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.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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.
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.

ryanb2145 said:

"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 shit 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.

ryanb2145 said:

"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 shit 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

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.