4 ms·

Magicians are entertainers, and it's fake just like all entertainment is, like the movie characters and plots are fake. If you're adult you're expected to know

Magicians are entertainers, and it's fake just like all entertainment is, like the movie characters and plots are fake. If you're adult you're expected to know that. It makes it very different from astrology, where people actually believe in it. They're selling people advices as actual educated truths extrapolated from stars by means of science. Astrologists are not less of con-artists than say a person practicing medicine without any medical education or license. They might help one, or two, or ten people by using common sense, but sooner or later they'll cause harm to someone because they're just a bunch of charlatans.

criley2 7y ago
>like the movie characters and plots are fake. If you're adult you're expected to know that. It makes it very different from astrology, where people actually believe in it. They're selling people advices as actual educated truths Okay, so what about religion then? Would it not be fraudulent using this criteria you've laid out? Or maybe it's less fraudulent since many religions operate under a tithing "donation" scheme instead?
- laumars 7y ago
  The key here is intent. With religion people aren't intending to deceive -- it's what they believe. With astrology psychics know they don't have magical powers. There's a boat load of generalisations here though so will be plenty of exceptions to what I've said. edit: it's really weird that there's two comments posted around the same time and making the same point. One comment has several replies agreeing with it where as this one has been downvoted and a comment disagreeing with it. I'm not complaining though, it's just amusing me how erratic this site can sometimes be.
  - criley2 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that no psychic believes what they say, or that no priest questions what they say? I would strongly push back on both of those assertions, myself.
    - laumars 7y ago
      > Are you suggesting that no psychic believes what they say, or that no priest questions what they say? My last sentence clearly answers that question: "There's a boat load of generalisations here though so will be plenty of exceptions to what I've said." I suggest you read peoples comments in full if you intent to rebuke them.
- dkersten 7y ago
  Personally, as someone who does not believe in god, the divine or the supernatural, I do believe that religion is fraudulent and that most believers at this point are indoctrinated. I mean, obviously believers think otherwise and I'm not going to argue with them, everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but I think pushing those beliefs on others, especially children, is immoral (but I also understand that if you believe, then you would believe the opposite: that not doing so is immoral). Its a tricky situation, so I don't try to change anyone's minds.
- _carl_jung 7y ago
  The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud. It seems you need these criteria: 1. The fraud knows they are duping the subject. 2. The subject truly believes the fraud is real. In the magician example, 2 does not hold. In the religion example, 1 does not hold. Of course, there are _some_ frauds in religious circles. But I don't think the average church minister is rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the next donation.
  - criley2 7y ago
    >The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud. So as long as the psychic actually believes they are psychic, it's 100% not fraudulent. Got it. It can't be fraud if your intentions are good, apparently.
    - croon 7y ago
      > It can't be fraud if your intentions are good, apparently. I'd love for any lawyer to chime in, but I believe that's the case, yes. I believe it's similarly not murder if you can prove it wasn't your intent, making it manslaughter or other classifications. Huge IANAL disclaimer.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      Let's say people have religious experiences, where they sense or feel something that's as real to them as what you see in front of your face. I have. Are they supposed to ignore that, not dig into it, and pretend it didn't happen? That's as irrational as asking you to believe it without such an experience.
    - _carl_jung 7y ago
      > So as long as the psychic actually believes they are psychic Exactly.
    - v64 7y ago
      I can't speak for other legal systems, but in the United States, fraud is defined as intentional deception. You may view their actions as fraudulent, but without earnest intent to deceive, it doesn't qualify as the crime of fraud.
- justjash 7y ago
  I think you may need to separate religion from churches/pastors/missionaries/etc here.

criley2 7y ago

>like the movie characters and plots are fake. If you're adult you're expected to know that. It makes it very different from astrology, where people actually believe in it. They're selling people advices as actual educated truths Okay, so what about religion then? Would it not be fraudulent using this criteria you've laid out? Or maybe it's less fraudulent since many religions operate under a tithing "donation" scheme instead?

laumars 7y ago
The key here is intent. With religion people aren't intending to deceive -- it's what they believe. With astrology psychics know they don't have magical powers. There's a boat load of generalisations here though so will be plenty of exceptions to what I've said. edit: it's really weird that there's two comments posted around the same time and making the same point. One comment has several replies agreeing with it where as this one has been downvoted and a comment disagreeing with it. I'm not complaining though, it's just amusing me how erratic this site can sometimes be.
- criley2 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that no psychic believes what they say, or that no priest questions what they say? I would strongly push back on both of those assertions, myself.
  - laumars 7y ago
    > Are you suggesting that no psychic believes what they say, or that no priest questions what they say? My last sentence clearly answers that question: "There's a boat load of generalisations here though so will be plenty of exceptions to what I've said." I suggest you read peoples comments in full if you intent to rebuke them.
dkersten 7y ago
Personally, as someone who does not believe in god, the divine or the supernatural, I do believe that religion is fraudulent and that most believers at this point are indoctrinated. I mean, obviously believers think otherwise and I'm not going to argue with them, everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but I think pushing those beliefs on others, especially children, is immoral (but I also understand that if you believe, then you would believe the opposite: that not doing so is immoral). Its a tricky situation, so I don't try to change anyone's minds.
_carl_jung 7y ago
The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud. It seems you need these criteria: 1. The fraud knows they are duping the subject. 2. The subject truly believes the fraud is real. In the magician example, 2 does not hold. In the religion example, 1 does not hold. Of course, there are _some_ frauds in religious circles. But I don't think the average church minister is rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the next donation.
- criley2 7y ago
  >The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud. So as long as the psychic actually believes they are psychic, it's 100% not fraudulent. Got it. It can't be fraud if your intentions are good, apparently.
  - croon 7y ago
    > It can't be fraud if your intentions are good, apparently. I'd love for any lawyer to chime in, but I believe that's the case, yes. I believe it's similarly not murder if you can prove it wasn't your intent, making it manslaughter or other classifications. Huge IANAL disclaimer.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Let's say people have religious experiences, where they sense or feel something that's as real to them as what you see in front of your face. I have. Are they supposed to ignore that, not dig into it, and pretend it didn't happen? That's as irrational as asking you to believe it without such an experience.
  - _carl_jung 7y ago
    > So as long as the psychic actually believes they are psychic Exactly.
  - v64 7y ago
    I can't speak for other legal systems, but in the United States, fraud is defined as intentional deception. You may view their actions as fraudulent, but without earnest intent to deceive, it doesn't qualify as the crime of fraud.
justjash 7y ago
I think you may need to separate religion from churches/pastors/missionaries/etc here.