On 10/3/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/07, ashok_ wrote: > > >If people are gullible enough to believe something, > >they should be allowed to. > > Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible", > which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religious faith, > there are only different beliefs..
Isn't that what gullibility is all about -- belief in something illogical? > if someone has a belief that hes > horse is the tenth avatar of Vishnu, do I have rationally acceptable > proof to the contrary? Why would you need to provide proof? It would be up to the "believer" to do that. Until that happens, you are perfectly justified in assuming the person is gullible. (Well, technically not gullible in this case -- just cuckoo -- unless it was someone else who convinced him his horse is divine.) > It is only when people begin interfering with > others' lives in the name of those beliefs that mischief brews. This make a leap from gullibility to being a menace to society. I did not see any such correlation implied here. Venky (the Second).
