Gemini Thunder wrote:
"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> wrote:
This was, of course, my point about there being no universally valid truth, and what such anti-fraud statutes must mean about religions.
[snip]
I just want to comment on this, as this is one of my pet peeves. There are universally valid truths. You implicitly admit so by stating "...at most, one religion is correct". The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters), so we tend to cop-out and say there are no truths, or something along the lines of:
The syllogism I remember goes something like this: If all things are relative then the statement I just made is relative (sometimes true and sometimes false). When the statement is false, something is not relative, but implicitly absolute.