Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Augustus]

That not quite the same thing

Why do you think it is not?

 

[Augustus]

Blue Stilton is a God.

If you disbelieve me you're a fraud.

You like earl grey tea. No actual human could like that so you are probably a myth made up by charlatans to control the masses.

 

[Rival]

You like earl grey tea. No actual human could like that so you are probably a myth made up by charlatans to control the masses.

I also eat floral gums.

 

[Audie]

The key here is 'falsely' claims - the charlatan knows his claims are false. Paul doesn't believe his claims are false, as far as we can tell. He wouldn't gain anything from making such false claims and was infact imprisoned for them.

We're disagreeing about whether or not Paul believed his own claims. If he did he's not a fraud, if he didn't believe his own claims he's a fraud. Merely being wrong, however, would not make him fraudulent.

Read definition for charlatan.

Despite your oft repeated assertions, you
do not

know what he believed.
And, being wrong sure makes his god- message
phony.

Like if I super really - really believed Batboy
moved his lab to the asteroid belt.

Heck I found a guy who says the excess water
from Noah's flood was wafted to, yes, Neptune,
where it shines to this day as a warning beacon
against inbound rogue angels.

Charlatan? Mind the definition, now.

 

[Augustus]

Nobody does it all the time and for everything but we can aspire to be as rational as possible.

Folk can aspire all they like, they will still only ever be intermittently rational.

It’s possible to become a bit more rational sure, but we are very limited in that regard due to our cognitive “hardware”.

While we can shake our environment a bit better, we can no more transcend our nature than other animals.

 

[Rival]

Read definition for charlatan.

Despite your oft repeated assertions, you
do not

know what he believed.
And, being wrong sure makes his god- message
phony.

Like if I super really - really believed Batboy
moved his lab to the asteroid belt.

Heck I found a guy who says the excess water
from Noah's flood was wafted to, yes, Neptune,
where it shines to this day as a warning beacon
against inbound rogue angels.

Charlatan? Mind the definition, now.

Do you believe if someone doesn't know he's wrong he's still a charlatan? If so, you're wrong. The whole point of a charlatan is that he knows he's peddling nonsense.

A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill. (Oxford)

A person who pretends to have skills or knowledge that they do not have, especially in medicine (Cambridge)

 

[Audie]

Do you believe if someone doesn't know he's wrong he's still a charlatan? If so, you're wrong. The whole point of a charlatan is that he knows he's peddling nonsense.

A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.

Good freaking grief.
You are reading into the dictionary what
plainly isnt there.
You've been doing that with me,
Paul, and now the dictionary.

Where does it say "if he knows"?
It doesn't.

AND
Its still just as false whether he knows it or not.

 

[Rival]

Good freaking grief.

Its still false whether he knows it or not.

His knowing it's false is what makes him a charlatan.

 

[ratiocinator]

Folk can aspire all they like, they will still only ever be intermittently rational.

Not sure why you seem so pessimistic about this. We are fairly rational about a our immediate environment and the way we interact with it. People don't generally walk off cliffs or put their hands in fires. We need a certain amount of rationality just to survive.

There are a great deal of things we don't naturally do well but which can be taught and learnt. People can, and do, grasp concepts that are very counterintuitive because of the evidence. People can, and do, make rational arguments and use sound reasoning.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You are asking the wrong question. It is not this which demands proof, it is the suggestion that the person was ‘healed’ by an unseen God. If we know someone is sick, and the person then recovers and becomes well, upon which you claim that you prayed and that God healed the person because of that prayer, then the onus of proof is upon you regarding that claim, not upon me to prove that claim false. If something is evident, and I claim that it doesn’t exist, then the onus of proof is upon me. If something is not evident, and I claim that it exists, then likewise, the onus of proof is upon me. If something is evident and I claim that it exists, or if something is not evident and I claim that it does not exist, then there is no onus of proof in either case.

I 100% agree with you. I think you missed my point in the conversation. The point is a claim of impossibility needs good evidence to be believed. To say it is impossible for a god to exist that can heal people, needs good evidence to be believed. I don't think anyone can provide that evidence. That is different than giving evidence someone was healed by a god through prayer, I have never come across good evidence for that either.

 

[Augustus]

Good freaking grief.
You are reading into the dictionary what
plainly isnt there.
You've been doing that with me,
Paul, and now the dictionary.

Where does it say "if he knows"?
It doesn't.

AND
Its still just as false whether he knows it or not.

A charlatan is a conman, not someone who is deluded or simply wrong in good faith.

It is specifically someone who deliberately deceives others for personal benefit.

A charlatan (also called a swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or a similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, power, fame, or other advantages through pretense or deception. One example of a Charlatan is The Pardoner of "The Canterbury Tales" who tricks sinners into buying fake religious relics. Synonyms for charlatan include shyster, quack, or faker. Quack is a reference to quackery or the practice of dubious medicine, including the sale of snake oil, or a person who does not have medical training who purports to provide medical services…

Charlatan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Augustus]

Not sure why you seem so pessimistic about this. We are fairly rational about a our immediate environment and the way we interact with it. People don't generally walk off cliffs or put their hands in fires. We need a certain amount of rationality just to survive.

So do cats and monkeys

There are a great deal of things we don't naturally do well but which can be taught and learnt. People can, and do, grasp concepts that are very counterintuitive because of the evidence. People can, and do, make rational arguments and use sound reasoning.

Yes we can be intermittently rational, just not consistently, particularly issues where emotions are involved.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I just responded to another poster who
similarly assumed they know things about
me that they dont know.

What makes you think I "rule out",
"100 %" or otherwise?

Please give me your source.

You said: Impossible to present the " truth" of islam

Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

I find the same attitude from some Christian’s when presented evidence for the truth of Islam. Some Christians will even deny personal experience from Muslims while expecting you to believe their personal experience or working of prayer. The bottom line is the evidence presented for...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Audie]

A charlatan is a conman, not someone who is deluded or simply wrong in good faith.

It is specifically someone who deliberately deceives others for personal benefit.

A charlatan (also called a swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or a similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, power, fame, or other advantages through pretense or deception. One example of a Charlatan is The Pardoner of "The Canterbury Tales" who tricks sinners into buying fake religious relics. Synonyms for charlatan include shyster, quack, or faker. Quack is a reference to quackery or the practice of dubious medicine, including the sale of snake oil, or a person who does not have medical training who purports to provide medical services…

Charlatan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Cute, selecting the meaning that suits you.


A more thorough reading shows plainly that it
includes but is not limited to those who intentionally deceive.

 

[Audie]

A charlatan is a conman, not someone who is deluded or simply wrong in good faith.

It is specifically someone who deliberately deceives others for personal benefit.

A charlatan (also called a swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or a similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, power, fame, or other advantages through pretense or deception. One example of a Charlatan is The Pardoner of "The Canterbury Tales" who tricks sinners into buying fake religious relics. Synonyms for charlatan include shyster, quack, or faker. Quack is a reference to quackery or the practice of dubious medicine, including the sale of snake oil, or a person who does not have medical training who purports to provide medical services…

Charlatan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Cute, selecting the meaning that suits you.


A more thorough reading shows plainly that it
includes but is not limited to those who intentionally deceive.

 

[metis]

A charlatan knows he's deceiving people with false information. Paul believed he had real information. This means he is not a charlatan, just merely wrong (if you are not a Christian).

Back then, dreams were often felt to be real information, so was Paul's "road to Damascus" based on a dream? I don't know, but my gut says probably yes.

 

[metis]

You like earl grey tea. No actual human could like that...

To make it, I understand that the one who picks the leaves must also have it mixed in with one-month worn sweat socks.

 

[Audie]

You said: Impossible to present the " truth" of islam

Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

I find the same attitude from some Christian’s when presented evidence for the truth of Islam. Some Christians will even deny personal experience from Muslims while expecting you to believe their personal experience or working of prayer. The bottom line is the evidence presented for...

www.religiousforums.com

Ok, that's fair. I was being informal, or less than
precise.

Actually, I think in probabilities, not absolutes.

So if you want to know rather than just playing
" gotcha", I would say the possibility of Islam
being " true" is vanishing small.

Its possible that I could win the megalottery and
be elected president of the USA. Tomorrow.

But it's what could be termed a practical impossibility.

Extremism? I don't think so.

 

[Augustus]

Cute, selecting the meaning that suits you.


A more thorough reading shows plainly that it
includes but is not limited to those who intentionally deceive.

Words can be used in all kinds of ways. For example, one may polemically use it against someone acting in good faith but you disagree with.

Any given word can be used to mean all kinds of things, and just about any word with negative connotations can be used polemically well beyond its standard usage.

The fact remains the standard usage of the term is for deliberate deception, not good faith error.

 

[Audie]

Words can be used in all kinds of ways. For example, one may polemically use it against someone acting in good faith but you disagree with.

Any given word can be used to mean all kinds of things, and just about any word with negative connotations can be used polemically well beyond its standard usage.

The fact remains the standard usage of the term is for deliberate deception, not good faith error.

News of the well known.
But as long as you accept it correct to call
him a charlatan.
And that you choose to believe the
" good faith" bit.

Do you believe Brigham Young and
David Karesh acted in good faith or is it
a special deal for paul.