. . . . . . . . . . . The charlatan or the follower?
On face value, one would say the charlatan.
For example, charlatans such as faith healers have been around since time immemorial. A couple of hundred years ago we had the travelling medicine shows where unscrupulous opportunists would flog their snake oil remedies to the unsuspecting naive, gullible, weak and vulnerable audiences.
Nowadays, of course, the same thing still goes on with alternative healers such as chiropractors and naturopaths who con the unsuspecting naive, gullible, weak and vulnerable "patients" into believing their so-called natural cures.
But surely, if it wasn't for the captive audiences, (i.e., those who are sucked in) we wouldn't have the con-artists to take advantage of them in the first place.
So, shouldn't we attribute some of the blame of con-artistry on the followers who financially support the charlatans, enabling them to carry on their deceptive practices?
And so, we come to religion where we have the same situation. Religious preachers (the charlatans) rely on captive audiences of those who are naive, gullible, weak and vulnerable in order to ply their deceptive, fear mongering, guilt-ridden trade.
So, in the religious context, who is to blame, the religious preachers or religious followers?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments