From the latest Harper's Index:

Factor by which a religious website is more likely than a pornographic site to infect a computer with malware: 3

––––Connect PR (Provo, Utah)

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:49 am From the latest Harper's Index:

Factor by which a religious website is more likely than a pornographic site to infect a computer with malware: 3

––––Connect PR (Provo, Utah)

Isn't most religion malware?

It's the oldest software virus in existence. It's affected the brain's software for thousands of years, leading an otherwise, rational, intelligent, individual to believe in invisible creatures and invisible realms, for all of which there is no scientific evidence. When one points that out to a person whose software is infected, they invoke the name of this invisible being, call him God, and answer that because he's God, he can do anything.

If only there were an antivirus program to eradicate religion.

Well, I don't know about the SAFER part, but I WILL say that it is much FUNNER...









--- and so forth...

I don't know if porn is safer, but I can tell you that it's less addictive.

After all, religion is the addiction that you couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't give up. Every congregation is a group of enablers.

Cool info.

Though I would hazard a guess the influence of porn is safer than the influence of faith too. People are way more likely to act on their faith and impose it upon others than they are to do the same with porn. You don't hear people on the street saying "have you heard the good news about the size of black men's cocks" or "have you found female ejaculation?".

I've yet to see a hoard of horny guys riding to the holy land to kill any infidels.. I'd say porn freaks are much less dangerous than religious freaks...(Speaking for myself, of course, hehe) smooches Jackie

I do not consent to being bullied.

From Articke I, Section 18, of the Wisconsin Constitution, as found in pdf form on the Wisconsin State Government web site:

"The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries."

I happen to be a Wisconsin resident, and am therefore governed by the Wiesconsin Government Constitution. Well, as everyone is, by law, presumed to be cognizant of the law, else there is no limit to the excuse of ignorance, I shall take it to be a fact of law that I am congnizant of the law in Wisconsin. (Oh, yes, my conscience informs me, without dictatte, that facts of law may be of the nonsense realm of science... Oops!)

Well, if "Almighty God" does not, as a fact of science, actually exist, then I surely have the right, in accord with the Wisconsin Constitution, to worship nothing according to the dictates of my conscience. To do that while in compliance with the Wisconsin Constitution, I need to have dictates of conscience, and, to act with full cognizance of the law, surelhy need to understand the dictates of my conscience accurately; or, put another way, without error or ambiguity.

To not be in violation of the Wisconsin Consatitution, I find that I need, as a fact of law, to know, be familiar with, and understand the dictates of my conscience well enough to state the dictates in words, which I immediately hereafter shall do, to wit:

"My conscience dictates that it has two dictates, the first of which is that it has two, and only two, dictates, and the second of which is that my conscience has no other dictates." Decades ago, I "kind of" fell in love with set theory.

My conscience informs me, outside the realm of all possible dictates of conscience or other than conscience, that religikon is a human brain neurological proccess whereby human brains deal, however tragically, with what the human whose brain is so dealing, with what the brain of a human does not understand.

For myself, I observe that what I do not understand plausibly verges on the infinite or transcends it; while what I do understand is, by contrast, infinitesimal. Therefore, almost the whole of my life is inescapably religious in form and function, and is so by default.

I do not consent to being bullied.

I have yet to observe any establioshment religion which is totally bereft of beliefs; perhaps my ignorance has led me to overlook one or more irreligious religions; if so, I apololgize for my beyond-immense ignorance. Meanwhile, taking, in error or else, that organized religions may have teachings in the form of expected beliefs, partcularly beliefs in the forms of dogma and doctrine. I have found it effectiovely mandated by the Wisconsin Constitution that I have clear knowledge of, familiarity with, and understanding of my religious dogma and doctrine, which I next state, to wit:

I have one religioius dogma, which is, "There shall be no other dogma."

I have one religious doctcrine, which is, "There shall be no other doctrine."

Therefore, in accord with my Wisconsin Constitution right to worship Almighty God according to the dicatates of my conscience, I find that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jiurisprudence, in its present form and function in Wisconsin, is a blatantly unconstitutional established religious cartel comprised of people who function in the manner of actually-innocent, tragically, severely, and traumatically brain-damaged, religious-zealot bullies.

I do not consent to being bullied.

Neither do I find any fault with people who were tramaticaly coerced through the threat of unbearably painful unbounded terror into adapting to live by emulating those who bullied them, and who invariably have dones so for want of any other way of sufvival whatsoever.

I do not consent to being bullied.

george2u2 (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:30 am I don't know if porn is safer, but I can tell you that it's less addictive.

After all, religion is the addiction that you couldn't, shouldn't give up. Every congregation is a group of enablers..

The first amendment to the US constitution states that the first religious freedom is freedom from religion

of course FAITH is different than RELIGION.

Both are based on BELIEF.

And BELIEF is not TRUTH or FACT.

PORN is real, it is a FACT.

If FAITH helps you to get through each day, go for it.

If PORN helps you to get through each day, why not,?

RELIGION however can be bad news.

RELIGION is frequently other people trying to control your mind, and how you live or don't live your life. (In addition to emptying your wallet. )