Quote:
|
Quote by: italiangm Fraud: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.
I'm sorry. The fraud angle isn't making a connection here. I realize "The Truth" for a believer may feel absolute in nature to them, but it is up to the intended recipient to discern the basis for such belief. |
I was specific. I said the legal definition of fraud.
LawInfo.com Quote:
|
Quote by: Fraud Fraud
Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability. |
I specifically refer to (2) and (3). It can be shown that most supernaturalists know when other supernatural religions are false or suspect. The fact that they do not apply those standards to their own supernaturalism doesn't let them off the hook. They **ought** to know that what they are promoting is at least suspect. And if they withhold or conceal that they reject other supernatrual religions for reason A and it can be applied to the religion they advocate then they are guilty under (3). It is information that would have saved the party from being cheated.
Fact is calling most supernaturalists dishonest is being nice. The vast majority would qualify as out and out frauds. Many should be serving jail time. But they have managed to get the entire nation to practice a double standard.
Quote:
|
My response does not address those who instill fear to make a profit. That's a whole different thread. I'm focusing on people who latch onto a belief for reasons other than deception.
|
Sure, but my primary claim was concerning dishonesty. Certainly one can be dishonest with oneself.
Quote:
|
In your issue of law, the burden of proof rests with the injured party. They must convince a judge or jury that another person deceived them to the point where they sustained a specified tangible, or with more difficulty, an intangible loss.
|
I understand that, but I am stating that a case could be made for it. And certainly cases have been made and won for damages far less then have been caused by supernatural religion.
Starboy