back to article Ever feel like all your prayers go unheard? The Catholic Church has an app for that

Pope Francis of the Catholic Church has launched the "Click to Pray" app, designed to connect the faithful via smartphones and fondleslabs. Wielding an iPad during his Angelus address, Pope Francis urged the young Catholics of the world to download the app and enjoy some damn good praying time ahead of World Youth Day. The …

  1. Jemma Silver badge

    Jeremy Clovenhoof....

    Come on down...

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Jeremy Clovenhoof....

      Presumably it just routes prayers to >DEV>NUL

      So is indistiguishable from other prayer options.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Jeremy Clovenhoof....

        NOW we know what they mean by “The Cloud”! /dev/hell anyone?

  2. Korev Silver badge
    Pint

    Down with this sort of thing

    Would be appreciated by Father Jack -->

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Down with this sort of thing

      That would be an eCUMENICAL matter.

      1. Korev Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Down with this sort of thing

        Yes!

    2. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

      Re: Down with this sort of thing

      Careful now.

    3. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Down with this sort of thing

      Would you get him to use a smartphone, though?

      I love my brick!

  3. LDS Silver badge
    Devil

    Holding an (holy?) iPad...

    ... many worshippers (of the Catholic god, not of Apple), would have to sell their souls to the Devil to afford one.... let's pray for them...

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Holding an (holy?) iPad...

      Well if they don't have a Windows PC, and they don't have an emulator, then they have to follow the Pope's advice:

      The pope encouraged Catholics to turn to Our Lady when facing difficult situations, and to echo her words, “They have no wine.”

      1. Teiwaz Silver badge

        Re: Holding an (holy?) iPad...

        Well if they don't have a Windows PC, and they don't have an emulator, then they have to follow the Pope's advice:

        The pope encouraged Catholics to turn to Our Lady when facing difficult situations, and to echo her words, “They have no wine.”

        But, Wine Is Not an Emulator.

        I know for a fact, that the Church I was emotionally blackmailed into attending as a child used Ribena*.

        And I know a Born again in Ulster who claimed to beleive all references to wine in the bible actually referred to fruit juice!!!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Holding an (holy?) iPad...

      The clergy often refer to parishioners as their "flock", a word most often associated with sheep, of course.

      1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

        Re: Holding an (holy?) iPad...

        "The clergy often refer to parishioners as their "flock", a word most often associated with sheep, of course."

        Of course. The Bible and the Church are very pro-sheep (tails hang down remember) and anti-goat (tails point up). Goats are too independent.

        As it says in the Dies irae:

        "Inter oves lacum praesta et ab haedis me sequestra statuens in parte dextra" (apologies for any misremembered Latin)

        "May I be placed among the sheep and separated from the goats, standing at your right hand."

        I'm going to try to avoid making a modern joke about being placed among the iSheep and not among the Huawei users.

        Incidentally the Orthodox patriarch isn't anti-smartphone; he was warning about the dangers of addiction through excessive use of all kinds of things.

    3. jmch Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Holding an (holy?) iPad...

      I worship the sun... but I pray to Joe Pesci

      ---> Cheers to the late great George Carlin

  4. Zebo-the-Fat

    No point

    I never understood the point of prayer, if god is all knowing and all seeing, why pray ... he knows what you want before you do! Don't waste his/her/it's time telling him things he already knows, he is busy keeping the gravity working and the planets moving!

    1. Waseem Alkurdi

      Re: No point

      The point isn't really in telling God about what you want. It's about your devotion, your communication to Him.

      1. Zebo-the-Fat

        Re: No point

        Why, he knows how devoted you are!

        The communication seems very poor, every year the pope seems to pray for peace in the world, doesn't seem to be working.

        Prayer seems to have the same effect as talking to yourself (I wonder why?)

        1. Toni the terrible
          Angel

          Re: No point

          it is said that God helps those who help themselves, or are properly unable to. So, world peace would seem to be a thing that Man could do if Man got off his backside and worked at it and while God would help it is not going to do it for you without your working too.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Toni - Re: No point

            Nice try, buddy! In this case, why would I bother worshiping him ?

            1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

              Re: @Toni - No point

              Yeh, the old REAL (tm) gods razed cities, flooded worlds and spread pestilence. Modern gods, wimps the lot of them

              1. Myvekk

                Re: @Toni - No point

                "Yeh, the old REAL (tm) gods razed cities, flooded worlds and spread pestilence. Modern gods, wimps the lot of them"

                The new gods move in different ways, take Media for example. She can arrange all of that if she wants. (Or at least arrange for us to to it to ourselves.)

                https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1898069/mediaviewer/rm813967360?ft0=name&fv0=nm0000096&ft1=image_type&fv1=still_frame

                https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1898069/

            2. Waseem Alkurdi

              Re: @Toni - No point

              Nice try, buddy! In this case, why would I bother worshiping him ?

              You worship God so he gives you stuff? So he gives you world peace? And not because you came to the conclusion (via your own research) that He created you, He ordered you to worship, therefore, He must be obeyed?

              Excuse me, but that's too ... childish.

              1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                Re: @Toni - No point

                "He ordered you to worship, therefore, He must be obeyed?"

                Yes, or you get cast into the pit of fire for all eternity, for you are either with god or against god. I therefore conclude that god is dysfunctional and probably sociopathic. I also conclude that god is an atheist, as he doesn't believe someone divinely created him.

                1. Waseem Alkurdi

                  Re: @Toni - No point

                  Yes, or you get cast into the pit of fire for all eternity, for you are either with god or against god

                  Doesn't matter. If God created this universe, then we play by God's rules. It's His universe, after all.

                  I therefore conclude that god is dysfunctional and probably sociopathic.

                  Your conclusion doesn't matter. It's your own opinion and you're entitled to one. The fact that a colorblind person perceives a particular wavelength to be a different color doesn't change the color's wavelength.

                  I also conclude that god is an atheist, as he doesn't believe someone divinely created him.

                  To be an atheist, there has to be another 'deity' above God, whether that deity is real or supposed by us, for Him to disbelieve in. That deity must also have entities which believe in "it?" to mark God as an atheist.

                  1. jmch Silver badge
                    Thumb Up

                    Re: @Toni - No point

                    " If God created this universe, then we play by God's rules. It's His universe, after all."

                    Except that we don't really know what those rules are, since many different people at many different times have provided a different rulebook. In those circumstances, the best we can do is try and work out what the rules are through trial and error.

                    Unfortunately none of the experiments so far has shed any light on what consequences await in the afterlife, or indeed if there is an afterlife, based on any rules for human behaviour. Fortunately the experiments HAVE shed a lot of light into how stuff behaves, which allows some interesting results, including me being able to send a highly controlled physical impulse through any or all of a collection of dirty sand, metallic wire, long strands of glass, spinning discs of rust and through-the-air radiation in many different frequencies until you can read what I am writing.

                    And for now that will do just fine

                    1. Waseem Alkurdi

                      Re: @Toni - No point

                      Except that we don't really know what those rules are, since many different people at many different times have provided a different rulebook. In those circumstances, the best we can do is try and work out what the rules are through trial and error.

                      Good. That's why one looks through the different religions for the reason behind this. God *may* have intended this on purpose to test people (or may not). But let's face it, that's the reality we live in. We have to assess the different choices and figure out for ourselves.

                      Unfortunately none of the experiments so far has shed any light on what consequences await in the afterlife, or indeed if there is an afterlife, based on any rules for human behaviour.

                      The question of the existence of the afterlife is bound to that of God's existence. Both are metaphysical, beyond material experimentation so far.

                      Fortunately the experiments HAVE shed a lot of light into how stuff behaves, which allows some interesting results

                      That's experimental, physical, material science. Today, it says nothing about God. Why do we take that to mean that it never will?

                      And for now that will do just fine

                      How about later? "Later" is determined by "now".

                      1. jmch Silver badge

                        Re: @Toni - No point

                        "That's experimental, physical, material science. Today, it says nothing about God. Why do we take that to mean that it never will?"

                        I'm not sure who says that it never will - certainly I haven't seen such a claim in any comments here including my own. Of course it may be possible that one day our understanding of the physical workings of the universe advance to a point where we can decipher not only HOW everything works but also WHY... or maybe not.

                  2. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                    Re: @Toni - No point

                    " If God created this universe, then we play by God's rules. It's His universe, after all."

                    An abusive parent builds the environment the abused child lives in. This should be allowed because the parent constructed the environment? If god is the father and we are his children then does it follow that the children should endure all the rules, right or wrong, and have no right to question or refute the rules of the environment? An unjust law cannot be morally obeyed without question, surely?

                    Whether god created things or not, this viewpoint is limited to say the least and immoral at best. If god does exist, then he should be held account for the evil he has clearly inflicted upon humanity over the aeons. Its no use saying that we, or the devil, creates evil either because the implication there is that something has been created beyond gods will which in turn would invalidate the idea of his omnipotence. Either he has created all things, and thus is responsible for all things, including suffering and the evils of man, or he has not created all things and thus is not omnipotent.

                    I will accept your point on my conclusion. It matters no more than yours does or does not after all. Unlike most religions, I as an aethist do not insist that you accept my conclusion and ask only that you consider it. Aethists do not have apostasy.

                    "To be an atheist, there has to be another 'deity' above God, whether that deity is real or supposed by us, for Him to disbelieve in."

                    This response is laughable. Aethists do not accept the presence of god(s) at all, so we do not need a god to not believe in. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either, so does that mean they must therefore exist? I think you need to chew that one over a little more. God, if such a being exists (and I do not preclude the idea, I just don't believe there is any more evidence for such than any other unfounded belief) then if I were to ask that being "who made you" what answer would I get? If its anything other than "my creator" then, by definition, the answerer does not believe in a Creator themselves, making them at least agnostic.

                    1. Waseem Alkurdi

                      Re: @Toni - No point

                      An abusive parent builds the environment the abused child lives in. This should be allowed because the parent constructed the environment? If god is the father and we are his children then does it follow that the children should endure all the rules, right or wrong, and have no right to question or refute the rules of the environment? An unjust law cannot be morally obeyed without question, surely?

                      Strawman argument here. "God = father" is mainly a "mainstream" Christian idea, not necessarily shared by all sects of Christianity, nor by Jews or Muslims, and (AFAIK) some Christians hold the meaning of "children" to be literary, not literal. As a result, your analogy and subsequent refutation of it is actually criticism of the literal understanding of "God's children" in the Bible, not of the issue at hand.

                      We're not children. We're creation. There's a fine difference here.

                      "An unjust law cannot be morally obeyed without question, surely?"

                      You're not omnipotent/omniscient/omni-whatever-enough to determine if the law is really unjust or unfair. Suppose it was unfair as you suppose. Unfair according to whom?

                      This response is laughable. Aethists [sic] do not accept the presence of god(s) at all, so we do not need a god to not believe in. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either, so does that mean they must therefore exist? I think you need to chew that one over a little more. God, if such a being exists (and I do not preclude the idea, I just don't believe there is any more evidence for such than any other unfounded belief) then if I were to ask that being "who made you" what answer would I get? If its anything other than "my creator" then, by definition, the answerer does not believe in a Creator themselves, making them at least agnostic.

                      Define atheism.

                      It's the belief that God doesn't exist. The notion of God, whether existing or not, is there. Some evidence is there. A discussion is there, that it warranted the creation of a term to describe this position.

                      Regardless of whether God exists or not, the idea of God is there.

                      I was mistaken when I asserted that a God *has* to be there for atheism to mean anything. I'm correcting myself: only the *idea* of God has to exist for atheism to mean anything.

                      Moving on:

                      I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either, so does that mean they must therefore exist?

                      The notion of them exists now, that you thought of it.

                      if I were to ask that being "who made you" what answer would I get? If its anything other than "my creator" then, by definition, the answerer does not believe in a Creator themselves, making them at least agnostic.

                      Okay, I *somewhat* agree.

        2. Waseem Alkurdi

          Re: No point

          @Zebo-the-Fat

          Why, he knows how devoted you are!

          If you don't obey Him (He commanded you to worship, etc), then you aren't devoted to him.

          The communication seems very poor, every year the pope seems to pray for peace in the world, doesn't seem to be working.

          Because war is there for reasons, not necessarily known to us, but not necessarily absent either.

          Without status=progress (or on non-GNU dd), you don't see anything while the command is taking place. Does this mean that the command is gone and bash is a whole load of bullshit?

          (Of course, it's improper to analogize in this way, but just to give an idea)

          1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

            Re: No point

            "Because war is there for reasons, not necessarily known to us, but not necessarily absent either."

            And all those fossils were planted there to test our faith. Heck, God even faked the ratio of lead isotopes to make it look as if the uranium had been decaying for billions of years.

            Teleology has no place in the modern world.

            1. Waseem Alkurdi

              Re: No point

              And all those fossils were planted there to test our faith. Heck, God even faked the ratio of lead isotopes to make it look as if the uranium had been decaying for billions of years.

              This doesn't have anything to do with what I have said, but anyhow.

              I'm not a young-earth creationist, nor I believe in the Biblical account of creation. But although that claim is illogical, it's still a possibility. Remote possibility, but still there.

              Teleology has no place in the modern world.

              What has a place in the modern world is following the evidence where it leads, regardless of any implications for one's atheist (or religious) views.

              If evidence pointed to teleology, then teleology it is, no matter what it means to an atheist (or a believer).

              1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

                Re: No point

                "This doesn't have anything to do with what I have said, but anyhow."

                Oh but you did.

                You suggested that a way of avoiding the benevolent-god-creates-evil argument was to suggest that war serves a [divine] purpose, we just don't know what it is.

                Therefore, the existence of this apparently evil thing involves testing our faith.

                Which is the fundie Prot argument about fossils and radioisotopes.

                Teleology went out of the window with evolution and the Big Bang (recognition of which by the brighter fundies is part of the reason why they fight them so hard.) Get rid of teleology and you get rid of Divine purpose, which is a big step to getting rid of deities altogether.

                Keep at it, with a bit more enthusiasm and less tendency to wander you might make a lower second grade in theology.

      2. joeW

        Re: No point

        Same issue again though, surely he already knows how devoted you are?

        1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

          Re: No point

          Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.

          Bad things still happen.

          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: No point

            Omnicorp.

          2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: No point

            This is known as the "problem of evil" or the Epicurean paradox:

            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

            Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

            Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

            1. Waseem Alkurdi

              Re: No point

              Ah, we're back to this.

              (I'm answering with Abrahamic faith in mind)

              Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

              Line 1 is obviously wrong, because this would contradict with God's omnipotence, a given in Abrahamic faiths.

              Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

              The conclusion is arbitrary. What if there's a reason behind this apparent evil? The fact that we don't know/understand the reason/see the justice behind it doesn't mean that there's no reason (aka God is malevolent).

              Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

              See above.

              Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

              I'm done here.

              1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge
                WTF?

                Re: No point

                "Line 1 is obviously wrong, because this would contradict with God's omnipotence, a given in Abrahamic faiths."

                Er....circular reasoning much? God is omnipotent because god is omnipotent. That's a "given" is it?

                "I'm done here"

                No. I don't think so.

                1. Waseem Alkurdi

                  Re: No point

                  @Bernard M. Orwell

                  Er....circular reasoning much? God is omnipotent because god is omnipotent. That's a "given" is it?

                  We're wandering to a totally different debate: the omnipotence of God as opposed to the problem of evil being discussed here.

                  No. I don't think so.

                  If this is the only objection left, and otherwise the problem is solved, then we could simply "end" this debate and move on to the next one, so yep, I'm done with this, unless you provide other arguments.

                  1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                    Re: No point

                    "We're wandering to a totally different debate: the omnipotence of God as opposed to the problem of evil being discussed here."

                    You started it. You established your argument with a statement of premise that something was a given absolute truth; that god is omnipotent. This is the basic problem of theologists; they proceed from an unproved assertion of one kind or another; god is real, the bible is factual, faith is personal and cannot be disproved etc. etc. If you are going to found your dissertation on a statement, then that statement must also be proven accurate or you are proceeding from a fallacy. I could, for instance, using your method, refute all your arguments by saying "Thor, and the other Norse gods are real, therefore your younger religion is baseless". It'd be equallty false, of course.

                    " I'm done with this, unless you provide other arguments."

                    You were "done with this" before I even raised my point, and now you seek to abandon the argument and retreat in the face of reason. Again, typical theology; can't deal with even the merest touch of reductionist logic being applied. You approached this debate with a statement of fact (as far as you were concerned) and offered no evidence and I assume you know what they say about extraordinary claims. The onus is on you to provide evidence for the existence of your particular deity (as opposed to the remaining 178 recognised gods), not on me to prove that you are incorrect. Although, I'm happy to continue pointing out how theological (a contradiction in terms if there ever was) argument are always irrational because they proceed from false premise and assumption.

                    1. Waseem Alkurdi

                      Re: No point

                      You started it. You established your argument with a statement of premise that something was a given absolute truth; that god is omnipotent.

                      (I'm answering with Abrahamic faith in mind)

                      Read this in my post?

                      This means that we have it that God exists and with attributes according to the least common denominator between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That is, an unseen, omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator who maintains his creation.

                      This is the basic problem of theologists; they proceed from an unproved assertion of one kind or another

                      So to please you, theologians (that's the word) have to prove God, prove his attributes, prove everything in faith every single time they ask an atheist for directions to the nearest supermarket?

                      It's done to concentrate on one thing and one thing only (also known as keeping on topic). Many topics, branching into many more, and the point of the discussion is lost.

                      You approached this debate with a statement of fact (as far as you were concerned) and offered no evidence and I assume you know what they say about extraordinary claims.

                      Because my point of concern here wasn't the question of whether God is omnipotent, but the answer to the paradox in relation to Abrahamic faiths, which is why I put this small "disclaimer" that you failed to notice.

                      If you are going to found your dissertation on a statement, then that statement must also be proven accurate or you are proceeding from a fallacy. I could, for instance, using your method, refute all your arguments by saying "Thor, and the other Norse gods are real, therefore your younger religion is baseless". It'd be equallty false, of course.

                      Let's take another example, one of physics perhaps.

                      A vase was broken and my son was standing next to it with his slingshot. I don't have to prove Newton's laws of gravity to make the assumption that my son must've shot at it!

                      This is because my concern here isn't the laws of gravity being true, but that the vase was broken. The laws of gravity, whether accurate or not, are taken to be true a priori, not because they are, but because they aren't my concern.

                      The onus is on you to provide evidence for the existence of your particular deity (as opposed to the remaining 178 recognised gods), not on me to prove that you are incorrect.

                      Good that you raised this point.

                      Put their names aside for a while.

                      Let me tell you about this fruit. It's round, sweet-sour, has peels, and we make the most common type of juice from it.

                      You call it an orange, being a speaker of English.

                      A Spanish speaker might call it una naranja, and the French call it une orange.

                      Does it make the orange any different?

                      Here, fruit = supernatural entity, and orange = a supernatural entity that created the universe.

                      Similarly, an entity which created the universe is called a god. The descriptions might differ, as do for example computers in their shape, but they are essentially the same computer.

                      The difference between religions is not in the presence of a God, whether multiplied by a thousand, or whatever attributes. It's in the attributes given to God and the way people worship God.

                      Arab Christians and Jews call God "Allah", and Muslims in English-speaking countries refer to Allah as God.

                      The attributes of God in Christianity differ from those in Islam and Judaism (God having a concrete image, that of an old man, incarnation as Jesus, et cetera). According to your logic, that's three different "gods". Nope.

                      Make that 178 gods one.

                      Although, I'm happy to continue pointing out how theological (a contradiction in terms if there ever was) argument are always irrational because they proceed from false premise and assumption.

                      Answered above, but TL;DR:

                      Some premises are taken as is to keep most discussions on track. That doesn't necessarily mean that all religious arguments are irrational.

                      It's like saying that the Pythagorean theorem is wrong because its proof doesn't prove every single postulate in geometry.

            2. jmch Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: No point

              "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

              The Epicurean paradox is a solid argument against a benevolent god, but not against a neutral god. Not intervening when bad shit happens isn't necessarily malevolent, just neutral.

              The other thing of course is - benevolent or malevolent according to whom? Maybe the world as it is today is a correct reflection of the values/morals of a benevolent god, but our values/morals aren't well-aligned.

              ...playing devil's advocate :)

              1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

                Re: No point

                So you're saying that God not only plays dice, he does it with a D20?

                1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge
                  Joke

                  Re: No point

                  Well, Jesus saves....

                  ...and takes half damage.

        2. Toni the terrible
          Devil

          Re: No point

          He does know. The point of prayer (as with mobiles) is for you to keep in contact, if you aren't interested in God or doing good then why should God bother with you?

          1. Rich 11 Silver badge

            Re: No point

            then why should God bother with you?

            Are you saying that good isn't all-loving after all?

            Damn. I'm just heartbroken to hear that.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No point

          > Same issue again though, surely he already knows how devoted you are?

          It's easy to 'forget' to be devoted and praying regularly is a way to remember; in the same way that I 'forget' that I'm supposed to be working when I'm posting comments here.

          Anon because He knows, but my boss doesn't.

      3. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: No point

        Insecure chap/chapess, isn't he/she?

      4. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: No point

        It's about your devotion, your communication to Him.

        What if he's opted-out under GDPR?

        1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

          Re: No point - What if he's opted-out under GDPR?

          God Doesn't Prayer Respond?

      5. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: No point

        It's about your devotion, your communication to Him.

        Is it really communication if nobody's listening?

        // not that I stay awake wondering

        // seems to be no $DEITY icon, so...

        1. Waseem Alkurdi

          Re: No point

          Again? Take a dd command for example.

          Does the fact that dd doesn't show its progress prove that bash is a whole load of shit and doesn't work?

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: No point

      Prayer is a form of meditation, and can help to focus the mind.

      Pray for guidance before going to bed, and voila! By the next morning your subconscious will have furnished you with some suggestions.

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: No point

        Suggestions such as "Grovel before Me, worm, or taste the eternal flames of Hell!"

        Ah, poor God. So badly misunderstood. One set of believers want to think he's a good and loving god and the other set live in terror of the Old Testament monster. Neither of them have an ounce of evidence that their delusion personified is in any way justifiable, so just to prove their dedication they occasionally spend some time killing each other. And that's just within any one of the three Abrahamic religions -- it's even worse when they start arguing over who has the bestest cuddly little prophet.

    3. jmch Silver badge

      Re: No point

      "...he knows what you want before you do! "

      The way I understand the theoretical concept, god supposedly is out of time and transcends time. So 'before you do' has no meaning. God can see the whole of the universe simultaneously in both space AND time. And even if individuals have freedom of choice, surely that also means that god can simultaneously see all possible courses of action that an individual can take/has taken/could take ie even if there are infinite parallel universes, god has perfect knowledge of all of them.

      Either way it implies that even though an individual seems to have free will, their choices and life path are known to god and therefore fixed. Sort of difficult to reconcile that to individual responsibility for sinful/non-sinful behaviour that gets punished/rewarded, given that as far as god is concerned the moment of creation and that of judgement (and resulting penalty) are one and the same.

      1. Waseem Alkurdi

        Re: No point

        The first paragraph is completely true.

        The second one though ...

        Sort of difficult to reconcile that to individual responsibility for sinful/non-sinful behaviour that gets punished/rewarded, given that as far as god is concerned the moment of creation and that of judgement (and resulting penalty) are one and the same.

        Your conclusion is entirely, entirely arbitrary. Does the fact that God transcends time have to imply that time doesn't flow for God?

        The way you thought of it is interesting, but not necessarily true.

        Let's give in for the sake of argument. Okay, the moment of creation and the moment of judgement and penalty are the same. How does the "punished" experience their punishment if time doesn't "flow" for the "punished"?

    4. Spamfast
      Headmaster

      Re: No point

      Use "its" not "it's" - the second means "it is".

      (Upvoted anyway as I'm a frothing Pastafarian fundamentalist.)

  5. TRT Silver badge

    Does this mean...

    That I have to remove the rubber cover on my iPhone?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does the app have omnipotent permissions?

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Ah!

      The evil root; it is the love of money. I hope it was a free app.

    2. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      Does the app have omnipotent permissions?

      Only for the mass storage device

  7. adnim Silver badge

    Would praying

    for the eradication of delusion work?

    </sarcasm>

  8. TRT Silver badge

    Was it written in...

    The Holy See++?

    1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Was it written in...

      Oh bravo!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Was it written in...

      Surely AngelScript?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Was it written in...

      Is that cross platform?

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Was it written in...

        Cross platform support; alter code.

    4. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Was it written in...

      There's definitely no Python involved.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: There's definitely no Python involved...

        The Holy Logic Bomb of Antioch...

    5. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Was it written in...

      Probably runs as a user process. I couldn't see having a "prayer daemon"...

  9. Velv Silver badge
    Flame

    Hopefully now the idiots can confine their "thoughts and prayers" to a private platform.

    And I don't just mean the Catholic ones, every single idiot that believes in deities. Don't care what else you've achieved, until you bring me PROOF a deity exists I'll continue to consider you an idiot.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Oh my word, let me start by saying I don't believe in deities.

      However lets dissect it from a philosophical perspective. What is faith and what is belief? These are tools to allow people to achieve certain things in their lives and without that belief or faith they would have nothing, My view is that religion is a necessary evil to keep some peoples moral compass on track, without it they wouldn't care, is that the sort of world you want? There will always be people that can't survive without working towards something (Afterlife/Heaven/Hell).

      Personally I try to follow Taoism, not exactly a religion per se but an interesting concept with multiple meanings without having any meaning.

      The moral of this comment is don't dismiss people that have faith, at least they are trying to better themselves. Forget the church, that's just a perverse representation.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        interesting concept with multiple meanings without having any meaning.

        That sounds like a functional specification that I was asked to develop code for

      2. Waseem Alkurdi

        I do agree with you on some points, but not on others.

        My view is that religion is a necessary evil to keep some peoples moral compass on track, without it they wouldn't care

        Or have morality. It's a big, complex problem.

        If the universe began from nothing/from something that doesn't care, and we're animals that made their way up the evolutionary ladder, then, providing that nobody knows, what's to prevent anybody from engaging in desires that can only be called sick? What's to prevent somebody from raping his mother and molesting his children? What's to prevent them from robbing the world clean? Why don't (other?) animals call this 'wrong'?

        1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

          "what's to prevent anybody from engaging in...."

          It's called the social contract. I don't do bad things to you, on the understanding that you won't do those bad things to me. Together, in this way, we prosper through cooperation. If one individual breaks the contract, then the greater number that abide by it can take collective action to reinforce it. Morality does not require religion, and I am often concerned when religious people ask where morality can come from if not from god; the implication being that if they weren't afraid of gods wrath they *would* be immoral. Scary.

          1. Waseem Alkurdi

            If one individual breaks the contract, then the greater number that abide by it can take collective action to reinforce it.

            Remember that I said that nobody, neither society nor law enforcement, saw the murderer or rapist in question. They (the criminal) have escaped both social prejudice and law. Does this make their action moral?

            I don't do bad things to you, on the understanding that you won't do those bad things to me.

            Doesn't justify people risking their lives to save others. How does this justify the oft-cited heroic act of a man jumping inside a burning, collapsing building to save a child from the fire?

            1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

              " Does this make their action moral?"

              That's an interesting concept, kinda like the tree falling in the forest, and it sparks two thoughts in me. First, are you suggesting that someone religious who committed such a crime would not escape judgement? I assume you think they will be punished in some after-life, which clearly means that they are still a threat in "this world" until such a time as they face that judgement. I don't see how morality or society is served by such a belief. Secondly, no, I don't think they are moral because they didn't get caught. If caught later, they would still be accountable to that society. I think this is just a "mortal" failing, if you will allow me that word. Society is not perfect and sometimes justice and the social contract doesn't get it right. I'd argue that Religion (as an alternative to the social contract) is no less fallible. Finally, would you argue that religious people are always moral and would not commit the same crime? Thin ice, I think you'll find.

              "Doesn't justify people risking their lives to save others."

              Yes, it does. Remember how I said that the social contract is strengthened by the greater whole? If you allow the greater whole to suffer then the contract is weakened. I save someone from the fire in the trust that they would save me too, should I be in that same situation.

              Let me reflect that back to you. If someone was suffering in a fire, or from an illness or an injustice, how does the deist justify intervening? Surely that suffering is gods will and thus infallible? What motivates them to save someone from a burning building? Why should they risk their life? Surely, if you die, its gods will and you go to "a better place"? Since when did mortal man get to gainsay that?

              1. Waseem Alkurdi

                That's an interesting concept, kinda like the tree falling in the forest, and it sparks two thoughts in me. First, are you suggesting that someone religious who committed such a crime would not escape judgement?

                Of course not. They would be judged equally, whether by society or by law. Law pays back society's debt, but people (mostly) don't forgive a criminal who has served his time in prison, because of the damage he had done to the victim (even if he pays it back by prison time).

                I assume you think they will be punished in some after-life, which clearly means that they are still a threat in "this world" until such a time as they face that judgement.

                I tried to be as Abrahamic-religion-neutral as possible in my former posts, but I think that I'll need to break that now.

                In both Judaism and Islam, there's a system of "religious law" to keep society in harmony, not present (AFAIK) in Christianity (technically, it's the laws of the Old Testament or something? I'm not sure). This means that both religious violation and social violation are "punished", so their threat in "this world", to use your word, is neutralized.

                Secondly, no, I don't think they are moral because they didn't get caught.

                Great! We agree on that one, right? :-)

                If caught later, they would still be accountable to that society. I think this is just a "mortal" failing, if you will allow me that word.

                They are accountable to society, true. But still, their crime harmed the victim, not society. Their punishment may pay their debt to society, but not to the victim. Many people do not forgive imprisoned murderers and rapists, even if they were their own sons and daughters, and of course, their hate is totally justified. They [the criminal] are dirty, even if their debt to society is repaid.

                Wait a sec.

                Why? Why do people tend to think about people whom they harmed? Why do people have such "conscience" if the world is nothing but an illusion, and we all die, to nothing after that?

                It's not unheard of that a prisoner committed suicide in prison, leaving behind notes showing their guilt. Why? According to the social contract, they are paying their debt to society. They should be fine. But still, they suffered pain on the inside.

                Society is not perfect and sometimes justice and the social contract doesn't get it right. I'd argue that Religion (as an alternative to the social contract) is no less fallible. Finally, would you argue that religious people are always moral and would not commit the same crime? Thin ice, I think you'll find.

                Again, we agreed that society is not perfect. But in light of the above, is society everything?

                Religion prevents crime in that it both justifies the existence of conscience and adds another layer of protection (fear of God), should conscience fail. If both failed, how could a person be still considered truly religious?

                That brings us to our conclusion:

                Religious people have for long committed crimes. Many even exploit religion itself to commit a crime (from simple things like embezzlement of religious funds, to rapes of worshippers and members of clergy, to all the killing that ISIS, KKK, and religious-extremist settlers in Israel do)

                But let's take these folks and analyze their actions. Could their crimes have been done with the criminal giving two damns about the victim? And could their crimes be done while in fear of God? [Except if the misunderstanding of religion is genuine and is in real ignorance, in which case it doesn't apply, but a crime is still a crime, and there's punishment in the afterlife if a person is genuinely religious and genuinely misunderstanding]

                TL;DR:

                Crimes are a result of primarily a failure of conscience and secondarily a failure of social contract and/or fear of God and/or both with religious law.

                We both agree that society is not everything, and there is still something else apart from the law and social misregard.

                If we believe that the universe is from nothing and to nothing, and we are in essence animals, then it's not a problem to do any crime.

                We don't think that this is true because of conscience.

                Yes, it does. Remember how I said that the social contract is strengthened by the greater whole? If you allow the greater whole to suffer then the contract is weakened. I save someone from the fire in the trust that they would save me too, should I be in that same situation.

                So you're saying that the trust in the fact that I'm going to be saved is what's driving me to risk my life to save somebody. The social contract.

                Good. Take this hypothetical situation.

                You are in a spaceship with a fellow astronaut. You lost contact with Earth (Terra, as the sci-fi books love to call it). The fellow astronaut got paralyzed because they touched a bare AC electrical wire while trying to fix the comms gear. They are now too helpless to save you if you fall into trouble from now on. Then the wire catches their spacesuit, causing it to go up in a blaze. You can save them, and the spacesuit fire is self-limiting, so you personally won't be in any risk if you don't save them.

                Are you not going to save them simply because they are no longer able to save you?. Think deep.

                Let's go back to a jungle, where we originated, according to traditional atheist thought. The only laws that apply are "eat or be eaten" and "survival of the fittest", according to the well-known scenario of Darwinist evolution.

                For what reason do I ignore my own survival and rescue a child from a snake's fangs? If I intervene, I could be eaten. I lose the game. Based on reason alone, it's irrational and straight madness to intervene.

                The fact that I might be saved if I fall in the same situation offers little consolation if any to a person seeing death in front of their eyes.

                Let me reflect that back to you. If someone was suffering in a fire, or from an illness or an injustice, how does the deist justify intervening? Surely that suffering is gods will and thus infallible? What motivates them to save someone from a burning building? Why should they risk their life? Surely, if you die, its gods will and you go to "a better place"? Since when did mortal man get to gainsay that?

                Sure. If I were an atheist, then the rational thing to do is not to save them/intervene. I wouldn't risk dying to save somebody else so that they would live. If my conscience asks any question, I'd tell it to shut the **** up, because that's simply emotional and not rational.

                Let's not fool ourselves and claim that nobody is like that. This is the model of a true, rational nonreligious person.

                However, I'm not, so I'd jump in immediately. It's my conscience knocking on the door, and conscience is a gift from God so that we don't follow reason blindly and think selfishly as a result. It [conscience] cannot be explained by materialism. If I totally failed to save them, then I'd console myself by saying that suffering is God's will and (because I failed to save them) it's infallible, and there's nothing I could have done to save them.

                What motivates me is feeling for the other, something that's in total opposition to the laws of the jungle from which we are supposed to have come from.

                If I die, then I wouldn't have died in vain. In Islam, I'd be considered a martyr, and I'd qualify for heaven instantly. In Christianity, it's quite similar. However, if there isn't a God, then my death would have been for nothing, and my irrational act would be merely a stupid waste of my life. This isn't how we people think, which is why a material view of life doesn't explain everything.

        2. jmch Silver badge

          "Why don't (other?) animals call this 'wrong'?"

          Other animals eat their offspring / parents / mates. we might see it as wrong, for them it's OK because it's the 'done thing'. Following that line of reasoning, an animal (including humans) behaving like an animal cannot be morally judged.

          The way I see it, human morality is a social contract. There are some things that are not done / taboo because that leads to a more harmoniously functioning society. That's why amoral/immoral people tend to be either people who feel they have been screwed over by society, or sociopaths

        3. adnim Silver badge

          Yo Waseem

          "... What's to prevent somebody from raping his mother and molesting his children? What's to prevent them from robbing the world clean?"

          Empathy

          1. Waseem Alkurdi

            Re: Yo Waseem

            @adnim

            Ah empathy ... nice metaphysical concept you've got there ...

            You gotta love it, the way atheists and other "strictly material world, no metaphysical BS!" folk start conjuring up all kinds of metaphysical constructs to justify a failure in their reasoning.

            Starting solely from material premises, please prove that "empathy" is a thing.

            Read this again:

            If the universe began from nothing/from something that doesn't care, and we're animals that made their way up the evolutionary ladder

            Also add to this: And our fate is a death followed by nothing.

            The only law that exists in the jungle is "eat or be eaten".

            The basic tenet of evolution is "survival of the fittest". The strongest, the fastest, the most merciless would survive (the lion is called "king of the jungle" for a reason).

            Don't give me any of this metaphysical article-of-faith shit about helping my species or anything. What drives an individual animal to even consider their species, if their own basic needs are fulfilled? What purely material reason is there behind species caring about mutual survival?

            A man jumps inside a burning building to save a child from a fiery death. What makes him risk dying (and in one of the worst ways imaginable) to save a child from such a death? Whether the child dies or survives doesn't provide a direct reward (it's the child who suffers, not the man in question).

            It's an irrational act, if we only consider reason alone. We don't, so empathy exists. Prove (no metaphysics) that it's a thing. Give me a chemical reaction, an evolutionary pathway, whose product is empathy. Our friend a few posts above (@Bernard M. Shaw) proposed the social contract. What do you propose?

            You might give me this stuff about conscience blaming him for the fatality. Conscience? Another fine metaphysical concept, outside of evolution.

            1. adnim Silver badge

              Re: Yo Waseem

              I won't down vote you. As I presume (rightly or wrongly) you did I

              You presume a lot about me from one word.

              I believe the Universe emerged because 'nothing' is unstable, it has to do with quantum mechanics. And yes this is just another creation myth without proof, although the evidence for this is far stronger than that for any god. And yes when we die only a memory in the minds of others will remain.

              We don't live in a jungle, some of us have evolved intellectually, emotionally and spiritually beyond blind belief and indoctrination. What's that you say, an atheist cannot be spiritual? If you believe that I think you have much to learn. Just look at the wonderful complexity that has emerged from nothing... I find that spiritually and emotionally moving and an intellectual challenge to understand.

              Yes we are animals or do you think we are a gods image? The lack of capitalisation of the word god is because we humans have created so many gods it is just a word.

              Some of us are critical thinkers and we even question ourselves. Note the word thinkers, we have choice to act beyond instinct.

              Some follow blindly believing what we are told in ignorance and spout quotes from others that fit our needs.

              "It's an irrational act, if we only consider reason alone"

              Seriously?

              Imho, it is a rational act to question everything and only consider reason.

              I can't help feeling that you're confused and that your words are not your own but words you have read from a book or the words of those that have filled your head with their own agenda. They don't seem to be the words of life experience.

              I don't have to prove anything, like you I am a product of my life experiences and I am certain of very little. I like it that way, there is still stuff to learn. Empathy stops me doing what I would consider bad and nasty things to others when I am angry or thinking irrationally. What guides you? A book of rules written to control the weak?

              Take care Waseem, I wish you well and hope you get to see beyond the box.

              I say no more, If you feel the need to reply, I won't be reading it.

              I learned not to piss into the wind a long time ago.

    2. magickmark
      Angel

      Gotta have faith

      One of the best definitions of faith that I have ever seen is:

      "Choosing to believe in that which you know cannot be true"

      Or in the words of the late great DNA:

      "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > And I don't just mean the Catholic ones, every single idiot that believes in deities. Don't care what else you've achieved, until you bring me PROOF a deity exists I'll continue to consider you an idiot.

      I see your soul needs praying for. Fortunately for you there's no need to download the app before starting.

      ;-)

    4. Waseem Alkurdi

      @Velv

      , until you bring me PROOF a deity exists I'll continue to consider you an idiot.

      So you're antagonizing a whole lot of people simply because you're either too ignorant to have researched the issue at any depth, or because you disagree with them?

      "I hate what you say, but I defend your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire though)

      Funnily enough, religion-haters claim this as their mantra in face of evil religious oppression. Evil Christians/Muslims/whatever censoring nonreligious "freedom" and stuff?

      1. Velv Silver badge
        Flame

        either too ignorant to have researched the issue at any depth, or because you disagree with them?

        Or perhaps there are wider options. Our court system is based on a burden of proof. We don’t convict people because we “believe” them to be guilty, we convict on evidence. And yet there remain religions and vigilantes who “convict” based on their belief of guilt without there being proof.

        Antagonising? Perhaps. Maybe if people thought for themselves they’d come to the same conclusion that deities don’t exist.

        1. Waseem Alkurdi

          And yet there remain religions and vigilantes who “convict” based on their belief of guilt without there being proof.

          Aka red herring. Doesn't make you less guilty of convicting, judging people (as "idiots") based on belief:

          And I don't just mean the Catholic ones, every single idiot that believes in deities. Don't care what else you've achieved, until you bring me PROOF a deity exists I'll continue to consider you an idiot.
          .

          There are secular vigilantes too, and there's the League of Militant Atheists. Religion doesn't really have to do with this. Weird but true.

          Antagonising? Perhaps. Maybe if people thought for themselves they’d come to the same conclusion that deities don’t exist.

          Your statement assumes a priori that deities don't exist, beyond doubt, then argues that people should think my way because I believe, hell, my way IS right and all others are WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!

          Frankly, some disbelievers are really worse in their militant disbelief than any religious zealots.

          The best science can say is that it doesn't know whether God (as in: creator of the universe) exists or not. The rest is based on philosophy and word games.

          1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

            "The best science can say is that it doesn't know whether God (as in: creator of the universe) exists or not."

            I agree with you on this. My problem is that religion asserts that it does know and that its understanding is irrefutable. I believe that we don't know, cannot really know, suspect that there is no god and have no evidence to support the idea. Logic, reason and observation support the idea that there is not. On balance, the evidence is against.

            1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

              "

              "The best science can say is that it doesn't know whether God (as in: creator of the universe) exists or not."

              I agree with you on this. My problem is that religion asserts that it does know and that its understanding is irrefutable."

              A religion is basically a shared set of beliefs that binds together a society, ethnic group or cult, from the Latin res + ligio, things that bind together. No deity (or plural thereof) is actually required.

              As Bertrand Russell famously observed, science cannot say that there is not a teapot orbiting in the same orbit as the Earth but on the opposite side of the Sun (subject to the subsequent invention of orbiting space telescopes; he was right at the time.)

              However, science can affirm that some things are extraordinarily unlikely.

              If a god created the universe and watches over it, then it has knowledge of the type, position and momentum of every single particle.

              This means that the god requires information capacity greater than all the information in the universe, as well as the ability to circumvent light speed, special and general relativity, and the Uncertainty Principle.

              Now, what created this god?

              Saying it has been there for everlasting is a copout, because we could argue on probability grounds that the same could apply to the universe and we would immediately have an enormous reduction in entities.

              So if the universe had a creator, presumably the creator of the universe had a creator and so ad infinitum (avoiding Oxford pronunciation please.)

              This is such a significant point that it is taught in real theology degrees (i.e. not Bible Study). The idea of a creator god leads to an infinite regress of turtles all the way down.

              The scientific viewpoint is that a creator god has about the same status as Russell's Teapot but is even less open to experiment.

              The leaders of god-based religions short circuit the process by asserting that e.g. it's blasphemous to ask the questions. Their entire schtick is based on refusal to think.

              Many years ago I spent some time with the Baptist minister of a Glasgow congregation. He told me quite cheerfully that, in effect, he didn't believe in any kind of God. But his congregation did, and his mission in life was to get them to do social work, benefit their community, and stop bashing Catholics. He therefore had to know the Bible in sufficient depth to counter their cherrypicking; he had, in fact, to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. He had to use their background of belief for constructive ends.

              How many of the well educated clergy of the respectable churches think that I wouldn't venture to speculate; but I think it is a significant number.

              1. Waseem Alkurdi

                @Voyna i Mor

                This means that the god requires information capacity greater than all the information in the universe, as well as the ability to circumvent light speed, special and general relativity, and the Uncertainty Principle.

                All of these being principles and laws that we know to exist inside our universe. Do they exist outside (if there was an outside per se)? We don't know presently.

                Now, what created this god?

                Probably everybody's favorite axiom.

                Suppose we find machinery on the Moon that wasn't left by any country from Earth beyond any shadow of doubt. A logical conclusion would be that they were put in place by extra-terrestrial intelligence, aka aliens.

                Do we have to know who created the aliens to know that they are the best explanation? Who are the aliens, who created them, and what color is their skin are all irrelevant to making the conclusion that it's aliens who did this.

                So if the universe had a creator, presumably the creator of the universe had a creator and so ad infinitum (avoiding Oxford pronunciation please.)

                The infinite regression sword cuts both ways. Heard of the domino analogy?

                A domino topples another, toppling the next one, until the last domino falls.

                But without a first domino falling (the first creator creating), there wouldn't be a domino cascade.

                Therefore, the creation cascade can't go on forever.

                The scientific viewpoint is that a creator god has about the same status as Russell's Teapot but is even less open to experiment.

                Presently, yep. It's not open to direct scientific observation.

                But that's the whole point of creation. To find out whether God exists or not. Pointless or not, like it or not.

                The leaders of god-based religions short circuit the process by asserting that e.g. it's blasphemous to ask the questions. Their entire schtick is based on refusal to think.

                I totally agree. Laws are made to be broken, and there's frankly no such thing as a prohibited thought. Whether we like it or not, we're eventually crossing over the line and thinking about "prohibited stuff".

                and his mission in life was to get them to do social work, benefit their community, and stop bashing Catholics

                That's it? That's his whole point of living?

                If there's no God, then why even bother? Let them fight ... aren't we all dying?

                How many of the well educated clergy of the respectable churches think that I wouldn't venture to speculate; but I think it is a significant number.

                You just did what you said you don't want to do.

            2. Waseem Alkurdi

              @Bernard M. Orwell

              I agree with you on this. My problem is that religion asserts that it does know and that its understanding is irrefutable. I believe that we don't know, cannot really know, suspect that there is no god and have no evidence to support the idea. Logic, reason and observation support the idea that there is not. On balance, the evidence is against.

              Glad to hear that you do!

              I do agree with you as well about the problem that religion asserts that its understanding is irrefutable. I don't feel that to be right, which is why I embarked on my own, personal journey to know why we are here (or who turned that TV called life on).

              However, the fact that we don't really know whether there is or is not a god doesn't mean that there's no way we can know.

              This is what some people really mean when they say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

              We don't know a cure for HIV/AIDS. Does that mean that there cannot be a cure?

              Logic, reason, and observation ... Not one of these can be done without a subject sitting behind the verb.

              Your personal logic, reasoning, and observation supported the idea that there is not. You balanced the facts and answered "nay". But are you 100%, absolutely, totally sure you went through everything, every single piece of evidence?

              Our best tool is science, and science says that it doesn't really know currently if there is a God or not. Not surprising.

              This is the whole point of life. To determine if God exists or not, and act accordingly. It's the biggest gamble there is. We really want to know why we exist. We exist, so we must have been created, by someone or something. Practical science doesn't say anything beyond "we don't know what happened before t=10^-39 (or something like that) of the universe's age. We weren't there, then we just became there. Theoretical physics has all this string theory, multiverse, M-theory mumbo jumbo which does nothing in terms of explanation, apart from pushing back the boundary so we can't say that "yay, the Big Bang was the moment of creation!".

              On balance, the evidence is against.

              That's what you think. But beware, if you lose, you're losing a lot, whether we like it or not.

    5. Spamfast

      Previous references to DNA & Pratchett cover why the proof of god(s) can't work. Look at it like this.

      If one could prove the existence of the supernatural, it would cease to be supernatural and therefore just another phenomenon amenable to investigation by scientific, empirical enquiry.

      It would then be difficult to argue that said phenomenon was not just another natural one like gravity or badgers and no more in need of worship than those.

      If you do want proof, try standing at the top of a hill in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting "All gods are bastards!". (Thanks Terry. I snorted tea through my nostrils when I first read that.)

  10. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Devil

    Wrong App?

    "Pope Francis urged the young Catholics of the world to download the app and enjoy some damn good praying time ahead of World Youth Day"

    Are we sure he wasn't referring to Tinder?

    1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

      Re: Wrong App?

      I'm sure there's a missionary joke here somewhere.

      1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

        Re: Wrong App?

        Well if it is an Apple app, then the position (you hold it in) is important.

        1. bpfh Bronze badge

          Re: Wrong App?

          I thought you were not supposed to pick the Apple...

      2. adnim Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Wrong App?

        "I'm sure there's a missionary joke here somewhere."

        Possibly, there are quite a few positions to take.

    2. Alistair Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: Wrong App?

      I wonder if there's a tracking component to the prayer app that the priesthood has access to.........

      (that thunk you heard was a censer hitting the chapel floor)

  11. DrXym Silver badge

    Your piousness is all gone!

    Wait for 8 hours for it to replenish or use Hail Marys to boost it now -

    A Hail Mary - $1.99

    A confessional of Hail Marys - $4.99

    A church of Hail Marys - $19.99

    A cathedral of Hail Marys - $59.99

    A Vatican of Hail Marys - $99.99 BEST VALUE!!!

    1. Arthur the cat Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: Your piousness is all gone!

      Hail Mary

      would be a great name for an Uber like company with all female drivers.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Your piousness is all gone!

        Of course, as Uber diversifies, the original Taxi Hailing app will become Uber to-go. Or, in France, Uber Allez.

        1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

          Re: Your piousness is all gone!

          Or, in France, Uber Allez.

          The French, especially, might be somewhat sensitive about that....

  12. arctic_haze Silver badge
    Angel

    Pray with me that our hard drives do not lose all data

    You may pray by liking the message. If you want to lose all data, press dislike.

  13. Simon Harris Silver badge

    Prayers by iPhone...

    "What's the point of us sitting up up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives you his bleeding phone number the next morning"

    thank you Douglas Adams.

    1. Marco van Beek

      Re: Prayers by iPhone...

      And how did Terry Pratchett not see this one coming?

      1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

        Re: Prayers by iPhone...And how did Terry Pratchett not see this one coming?

        Because on Discworld nobody believes in gods or has faith in them. That's because they actually exist, as an annoying part of reality. No irrational belief needed.

        Brutha is the exception as he got in touch with his god via a tortoise.

  14. Simon Harris Silver badge
    Pint

    Talking to God on an iPhone?

    After a skinful and a half, I might choose the big white phone instead.

    1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Talking to God on an iPhone?

      Good for calling Huey and Ralph as well as god.

  15. Jamie Jones Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Their icon/logo

    It's the Catholic Church... Don't tell me you can't see what that icon on the articles posted app screen shot is supposed to be!

  16. Frank Bitterlich
    Thumb Up

    "Pray for me that the Greek test will be canceled."

    "... and the English test, too!"

    Me fail English? That's unpossible! -- Ralph Wiggum

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Pray for me that the Greek test will be canceled."

      English! Who needs English, I'll never go to England anyway. - Homer Simpson

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: "Pray for me that the Greek test will be canceled."

      When did they start playing cricket in Greece?

  17. TeeCee Gold badge
    Coat

    Can it install standalone to external storage?

    I'd like to plug and pray...

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you want to make God laugh,

    tell him about your plans. -- Woody Allen

  19. Dan 55 Silver badge

    But will they let you delete your account?

    In the real world, it's practically impossible to leave the Catholic Church. No apostasy for you.

    1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: But will they let you delete your account?

      You're looking at it from the wrong side. The trick is to get *them* to leave *you*.

      I think missing a bunch of "Holy Days of Obligation" is enough to get you excommunicated.

      // Mum stopped going to Mass as soon as she left home for college.

      // She returned only for my wedding, which was at a Catholic church solely for the benefit of my bride's mother.

  20. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
    Happy

    Development question

    What user interface has been written for The Almighty to log into the system to receive all these prayers? And does he use Android or iPhone? And what happens if someone hacks his password?

    I await the story about the hacker struck by lightning with interest.

    We know God used to have a Nokia, since Eve got into trouble for playing Snake.

    1. Frank Bitterlich

      Re: Development question

      I'd be more interested in his IP address and what the whois record looks like...

  21. BebopWeBop Silver badge

    Well short g 'pay for salvation' (indulgences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence), I am sure this will add 'in app purchases' so you can pay to pray

  22. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

    Don't do a Moses...

    ...and smash your tablet if you don't get the response you expected.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Click to Pray"

    click HERE to pay for a DISCOUNTED version!!!!!!!!

  24. TRT Silver badge

    Be sure to read the T&Cs!

    The devil is in the detail.

  25. steelpillow Silver badge
    Big Brother

    play it safe

    can't remember who it was who said that if he believed in God and there was none then he lost nothing, but if there was one and he didn't then he would be condemned to Hell. Therefore he took the coward's way out and believed fervently.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: play it safe

      Blaise Pascal. I think it's generally known as Pascal's wager.

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: play it safe

        Except that Pascal's wager can never be won in a world of multiple dieties with conflicting requirements. So the 'safest' way is to not pay attention to any religions and simply don't act like a dick!

  26. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    5 has prayed

    Is that one of the non-English languages or a nod to "All your base are belong to us". Or maybe just a LOLCats reference?

  27. Richard Pennington 1
    Angel

    Does anyone remember Bruce Almighty?

    Didn't Jim Carrey run into a problem with this app in "Bruce Almighty"?

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Catholic Churchs gets down with the Yoof

    Isn't that the very problem?

    When will this appalling organisation be barred from contact with minors?

  29. The Morgan Doctrine

    Back in 1974, I sold a Data General Nova computer to a Catholic client who programmed his minicomputer to say "Hail Mary's" for him.

  30. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    What a bunch of deluded idiots.

    See title.

  31. Ken 16 Silver badge
    Trollface

    Let's automate this!

    Re-use the API on system monitoring so it can go straight to prayer following an outage, cut out the middlemen.

  32. herman Silver badge

    Halleluja!

    Preacher Jack converted me to the Boogie Woogie:

    https://youtu.be/L9SxvRoS3PE

    https://youtu.be/GLzVYw3eOyc

    Halleluja indeed.

    He makes ZZ Top look like a couple of teenagers.

  33. herman Silver badge

    Godly feedback loop

    An oldie:

    Can god make a stone so heavy, that he cannot lift it?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019